Climate Change Reconsidered: A New Look at What the Global Temperature Record Actually Shows Paperback – December 5, 2015

Very easy to read even if you aren’t a math wiz.

An excellent and important read. A must read for all who are interested in true climate science that has remarkable conclusions. Provides a real foundation to begin the understanding of our planets historical and future long term climate. Most interesting is the analysis and deconstruction of the phenomenon of sinusoidal patterns in our earth’s surface temperature and a concluding predictive model that works. The author’s analysis identifying and modeling of these multiple sinusoidal patterns is enlightening and should catalyze much further research to understand the basic science creating these exposed patterns. Our entire macro environment operates within sinusoidal patterns created by our sun’s spin, solar system’s planets rotation, earth’s rotation and spin, moon’s rotation, etc. that should and does somehow impact the surface temperature of the earth in another rotating or sinusoidal pattern and the author has been able to expose this extremely important insight through his work.

Very Well put together. Easy to follow. My background has been in Critical Systems Analysis (retired) for a local government. After review of the discussion presented, and the data sets employed, by graphs and narrative, the authors conclusions are sound and solid. A further alternative to man made CO2 causing climate change can be found in John Casey's "Dark Winter". Both of these writings are very informative.This document should be in Library's, under reference material.

Whether or not the current phenomenon of Global Warming is significantly caused by manmade activity and, thus, significantly alterable by the same, is an important and unresolved scientific question. As the author notes: “Scientific truth cannot be determined by a vote.” It should be addressed by science, not by politics. This small book is one example of what should be a healthy and constructive debate. The data and analysis which the author presents are remarkable and thought-provoking at the very least.To those who say, “Let’s limit carbon emissions, just in case, anyway,” please keep in mind the costs of doing so. Not just in dollars, but, in particular, in the quality of life for millions of people in the Developing World. Poverty and hopelessness in the Developing World—with all the consequent ill effects worldwide—is a major “cost” of letting political correctness dictate Science.

Fitting sine waves to temperature data of the last 150 years is an interesting idea. But I can't help but wonder if it is any more valid than fitting the same data to a hockey stick even when the residue error was small. At the same time, I wonder if the author had considered projecting his model backward in time to check its validity. True we do not have temperature data of the same quality for the last 1000 years but I am still curious if the model suggests the presence of a little ice age.

This book presents a thorough analysis of cyclic models to better understand the impact CO2 has on climate. This study shows that CO2 from human activity likely has a small impact on warming, but clearly natural cycles are the main cause of warming since about 1850. Hopefully the author's calculations will encourage further research to corroborate his analysis. It's time to have a serious debate about these issues without the hysteria of the past few decades.

Written in a way that anyone can understand. Cleared up a few misconceptions I had.I had some doubts about the Gore movie claims…I see he was wrong then and is wrong now.

Excellent book. Lots of charts and graphs. If you can follow them and interpret them, it explains that climate change is always here and has little to do with humans. It is that big orange fire ball in the sky.

Interesting info presented. A bit too scientific and mathematical for me but, nevertheless, it gave me the sense that these guys aren't just blowing smoke. It's sad that, in this case, we are only being bombarded by the consensus side of the question. Proper science does have a healthy dialog.

The 'Global Warming Religion' scam exposed. No one believed Darwin at the time either.

This short book provides an interesting and useful consideration of the various climate cycles, from the decadal to the millennial time scale.I initially bought the Kindle version, but later also bought the printed book, with the expectation the graph would be clearer, which they were, but also reduced to shades of grey. If you have a Kindle reader I would suggest that is the better and significantly cheaper option.It is the first analysis I have seen that attempts to differentiate between the natural climate cycles and manmade global warming, such as due to manmade CO2.The author does not concern himself with what causes the natural cycles, but simply assumes they exist and then uses least squares curve fitting to determine the period, magnitude and phase of the various natural cycles, with a small constant offset to ensure consistency. It then analyses the residuals for any “recent” linear global warming effect, which may be attributed to manmade CO2 emissions. The remaining residuals are then attributed to random weather variations.The climate temperature offset, relative to an arbitrary reference, for available climate temperature data, from 1500 onward, is decomposed to four sine wave cycles, with linear CO2 warming from some start date.The analysis was achieved a curve at a time, starting with the longest sine period, and then fitting the next curve to the resulting residuals. This method is ok if the fitted functions are near orthogonal to each other. I have found that after approximately normalising the diagonal terms of the full least squares solution matrix, the maximum off-diagonal term was less than 3%. Thus the fitted functions were close to orthogonal. So given the other uncertainties the curve fitting method used was reasonable.The author makes the presumption that the climate variations are mostly due to fixed and on-going cycles, of fixed periods and amplitudes, plus a linear term for CO2 warming. He disputes that climate behaviour is chaotic.My understanding is that any nonlinear dynamic system with more than three variables, with self-induced oscillations is very likely to be chaotic in its behaviour. It is unlikely to have cycles of consistently fixed periods and amplitudes, unless there is some exterior forcings with the relevant periods.One only has to consider the simple Lorenz system, to see that even a simple, but nonlinear, dynamic system, with just three variables, can exhibit chaotic cyclic behaviour, where the resulting cycles do not have fixed periods and amplitudes in the way assumed in this book. Hence the very complex and non-linear climate system, with a multitude of variables and non-linear relationships, is almost certain to exhibit chaotic behaviour.Even a lightly damped linear second order system driven by white noise is unlikely to exhibit the stability of cycle period and amplitude assumed in this book.So the analysis may be considered a bit simplistic, even a bit naïve, but that said this is a worthy effort to extract what insight can be gained from the climate data available, without preconceived ideas about what determines the climate behaviour.The earlier data used was from Craig Loehle, and the more recent data was HadCRUT4.The period and magnitude for each cycle is given. The zero crossing time, or phase, for each cycle is not given, so was deduced from the various graphs. The resulting values are listed below, and these were used to reconstruct the “Combined cyclic model” developed by the author.Constant offset = 0.09CSine 1: Period = 1350 years, Amplitude = 0.725 C, Upward zero 2000Sine 2: Period = 247 years, Amplitude = 0.106 C, Upward zero 1966Sine 3: Period = 66 years, Amplitude = 0.130 C, Upward zero 1990Sine 4: Period = 9 years, Amplitude = 0.042 C, Upward zero 1940Linear Trend, after 1950 = 0.23 C/ century , Zero start 1950Residuals weather: 0.1C (1standard deviation)The fourth Sine4 term has a period of 9 years with an amplitude of 0.04C, perhaps representing one of the shorter decadal ocean oscillations. However the method of analysis, assuming a constant frequency, resulted in a very small amplitude for this, compared with what might have been expected. Relative to the final residuals, with a standard deviation of 0.1C, this last sine term was essentially buried in the random weather fluctuations, so not much significance is given to this.The most interesting part of this was the attempt to separate out any global warming effect, perhaps due to manmade CO2, from the natural climate cycles and random weather variability.After least square fitting of the natural cyclic variations, there was an anomalous residual, from about 1950 to the end of the data, about 2013 (63 years), which was attributed to CO2 warming. When extracted, this had a rate of about 0.23C per century, an order of magnitude smaller than the IPCC has been claiming with ever increasing “certainty”.Relative to the random residuals, of 0.1C rms, the global warming over this 63 year would be 0.145C, thus the confidence for the warming rate would not be high. So it would be reasonable to presume the rate could lay between zero and 0.46C per century, but still well below what the IPCC have been claiming.This is despite “heat island” effects and the fiddling about with the HadCRUT climate data to make global warming seem worse than it actually is, as shown by comparison with the satellite measurements.Within limitations, this allows one to consider the possible future climate trends, by extrapolating the fitted function into the future, at least to the end of the century, or more speculatively beyond that.The analysis shows that after a climate temperature increase of about 0.6C, since about 1970, we have now reached a plateau, peaking in 2014 to 2015. Over the next 20 years it would seem we can expect a small amount of climate cooling, by about 0.1C, in complete contradiction to the IPCC prediction of on-going climate warming. Beyond that, up to 2070, there could then be some further warming, by about 0.4C, to around 0.3C above where we are now, then falling back by about 0.2C by the end of the century, to be just about 0.1C above the present climate temperature.This “Cyclic Model” indicates that by the end of the century the climate temperature increase is likely to be no more than about 1C above that during the 19th century, even with manmade CO2 global warming, well below the IPCC claims made with such certainty.What is most interesting is the longest and largest cycle, with a period of 1350 years. Projected back in time, this is reasonably consistent with the timing of the Medieval Warm period, around 1000 years ago. It indicated we are about halfway between the mini ice age and the next substantial warm period, in about 340 years, when it will be about 0.3C warmer than now without CO2 warming, or 0.7C to 0.8C warmer with CO2 warming, still well below the IPCC predictions.Extrapolated further into the future, it indicates that even with the anticipated on-going exponential increase in manmade CO2 emissions, it could take another 400 years before we reach the supposedly 2C increase, which the IPCC claim will have a catastrophic tipping effect on the climate. Well before then we will almost certainly have found an effective sustainable alternative form of low CO2 source of energy. We will have long since forgotten the present manmade global warming scare, on which so much time, effort and valuable resources have been needlessly squandered, to the great detriment of our people and economy, which is what has really put the future of our children and grandchildren at risk.