Den malthusianska klimatbluffen –BRIKS och mänsklighetens dödsfiende

Schillerinstitutets konferens den 13 - 14 juni i Paris var också en kraftfull attack mot de pågående förberedelserna inför den klimatkonferens, COP21, som ska hållas i Paris i slutet av detta år. COP21 är ett envetet försök av Storbritannien, USA och deras franska allierade att genomdriva en omfattande avfolkningsstrategi i världen under parollen "klimatförändring" - en policy som grundar sig på det totalt motsatta till vad BRIKS representerar.

I den sista av Schillerinstitutets konferenspaneler, kunde deltagarna höra föredrag från två experter, som båda bevisade att talet om ett människoskapat klimathot är lögn.

I sitt öppningsanförande första dagen gjorde Helga Zepp-LaRouche en gedigen genomgång av de riktiga intentionerna bakom denna typ av politik. På det senaste G7-mötet i Tyskland, beslutade man att införa ett fossilfritt samhälle till år 2100, rapporterade hon. Detta innebär att man endast ska förhålla sig till vind - och solenergikällor, och att man, eftersom Tyskland redan har övergett kärnkraften, ska tillämpa det program som förespråkas av John Schellnhuber (rådgivare åt tyska regeringen och chef för Potsdaminstitutet för klimatforskning).

Ser man till det direkta sambandet mellan energiflödestätheten av produktionsprocessen och antalet människor som kan leva på den energiflödestätheten, kan man endast dra den slutsatsen att det uppskattade antalet människor som kan överleva i en sådan typ av fossilfritt samhälle, är cirka en miljard! En "begränsning" av världsbefolkningen till en miljard är också var Schellnhuber förespråkar

Helga Zepp-LaRouche pekade också på det olycksbådande mötet mellan president Barack Obama och Sir David Attenborough som hölls i anslutning till G7. David Attenborough är en nyckelrådgivare till det brittiska kungahuset i frågor som rör miljö- och energifrågor. Han är välkänd för att jämföra människan med pesten. Han är även associerad med organisationen Optimum Population Trust, som förespråkar att mänskligheten bör reduceras till hälften, dvs. till ungefär 3,5 miljarder innan detta århundrades slut.

Zepp-LaRouche höll fullständigt med Jean Zieglers liknelse om att nuvarande ordningen är kannibalistisk. Hon sa som exempel på detta, att EU:s förhållningssätt gentemot de afrikanska migranterna är lika med folkmord. Hon refererade till Friedrich Schillers essä "Lykurgos och Solons lagstiftning", där Schiller beskriver denna oligarkiska politik i Spartas modell, där det var tillåtet att eliminera underklassen, de sk. heloterna, om de ansågs bli för många.

Samma världsåskådning uttrycker Bertrand Russell i sin bok Vetenskap och samhälle [Natur och kultur, 1952] där han i sann malthusiansk anda talar om "industrialismens sötebrödsdagar," som inte kommer vara för evigt "om inte befolkningsökningen kan kraftigt minskas (...) Kriget har, som jag för ett ögonblick sedan påpekade, hittlls varit en besvikelse i detta avseende, men kanske det bakteriologiska kriget kommer att visa sig effektivare. Om en ny digerdöd kunde spridas över världen en gång varje generation, skulle de överlevande kunna yngla fritt utan att världen bleve alltför överfull. (...) Tillståndet skulle kunna kännas en smula otrevligt, men än sen? Verkligt högsinta människor är likgiltiga för lycka - i synnerhet andras."

Den global uppvärmingen är inte bekräftad

Denna fråga togs upp i den fjärde paneldiskussionen under Pariskonferensen. Först ut var Benjamin Deniston, en av de vetenskapliga rådgivarna i LaRouches vetenskapsteam. Hans arbete handlar om den galaktiska naturen av jordens vattenflöden och hur detta begrepp kan hjälpa till att hantera torkan i Kalifornien. Efter honom talade två professorer som forskat om klimatförändringarna: François Gervais, professor vid François Rabelais Universitet och en kritisk rapportör till FN:s klimatpanel IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), och professor Carl-Otto Weiss, rådgivare till det Europeiska Institutet för Klimat och Energi och fd. ordförande för Tyska metrologiska institutet.

Båda stödde samma slutsats att det för närvarande inte pågår någon global uppvärmning, utan snarare är tvärtom - att det sker en långsam nedkylning och dessa temperaturförändringa inte är orsakade av människan, som IPCC vill hävda, utan beror på sol- och markbundna cykler. Här rapporteras endast översiktligt om dessa tal och läsaren bör därför se talen i sin helhet på länkarna nedan till Schillerinstitutets hemsida och läsa taltexterna nedan.

I början av sin presentation ställde professor Gervais frågan:
- Bekräftar det verkliga klimatet de virtuella klimatmodellerna? Frågan är avgörande, med tanke på att Världsbanken har beräknat att det kommer kosta 89.000 miljarder dollar, räknat från idag fram tills 2030, för att begränsa uppvärmningen av planeten till följd av utsläppen av växthusgaser till 2 grader Celsius.

- Men en sådan typ av korrelation är inte självklar, menade professor Gervais, eftersom temperaturökningen mellan 1910 och 1945 var 0,6 grader C när koldioxidutsläppen fortfarande var väldigt låga, och ser man sedan till åren mellan 1970 och 1998, när utsläppen var sex gånger större, så landar vi på samma temperaturökning.

- Hur mycket har koldioxiden i atmosfären ökat det senaste århundradet? Den totala koncentrationen ökade från 0,03 till 0,04 procent, vilket då leder till frågan om denna ökning har haft någon som helst inverkan på jordens temperatur? Faktum är att temperaturen i atmosfären har ökat så marginellt att den är svårt att mäta. Mellan åren 1993 och 2015 uppmättes en ökning av koldioxid från 355 ppm till 400 ppm, vilket var hälften av den totala ökningen från att den industriella eran började. Och vilken betydelse hade det på temperaturen? Noll! Vilket för oss till slutsatsen att teorin om växthusgasernas atmosfäriska påverkan inte går att underbygga med vetenskapliga mätningar.

- Har det då skett en temperaturökning? Ja, sa professor Gervais, men den kommer delvis från ett cykliskt fenomen. Vi har passerat toppen på en 60-årig cykel och nu sjunker temperaturen gradvis. [Denna cykel kopplades av professor Weiss i talet efter samman med havens utveckling.]

Vidare frågade sig professor Gervais varför den mediala rapporteringen uteblev när det konstaterats den 21 september 2014 att vattnet runt Antarktis som täckts med is, hade slagit nytt rekord jämfört med 2013 års rekordstorlek, och numera täckte en yta lika stor som Frankrike. Medan den arktiska isen hade smält fram tills 2012, har den totala ytan av is på vår planet ökat och blivit större än normalt, sett till de senaste två och ett halvt åren. Vilket motsäger IPCC:s modeller, som visar på det motsatta.

CO2 styr inte jordens temperatur

Detta var professor Weiss slutsats efter att ha gjort noggranna analyser från de uppgifter som finns om temperaturmätningar. Slutsatsen var att temperaturförändringarna som skett under de senaste århundradena, helt beror på naturliga cykler. De längsta uppmätta temperaturmätningserierna som finns tillgängliga, kommer från Europa. När man tagit upp iskärnor från Antarktis, visar dessa ett samband med de mätningar som gjorts i Europa, vilket pekar på att genomsnittet för dessa mätningar, med ett minimum år 1870, är ett globalt fenomen. Med användningen av en matematisk analys på temperaturserierna har professor Weiss grupp upptäckt de cykler som finns bakom temperaturutvecklingen. Mätningarna testades också på andra temperaturdata, som gick 2.500 år tillbaka i tiden.

Alla mätningar som gjorts visar, att all temperaturförändring sedan 1800-talet är helt beroende på cykler. De av människan orsakade (antropogena) influenserna, så som koldioxidutsläppen, är helt frånvarande, då dessa ökar i tid och därför inte är cykliska. Två cykler är involverade: Den dominerade cirka 200-åriga cykel som de fann, verkar vara en känd cykel som har sitt ursprung i solaktivitet och kallas De Vreis/ Suess-cykeln, och till den fann professor Weiss grupp en cykel på cirka 65 år, som verkar vara en välkänd jordbunden oceanisk cykel kallad AMO/ PDO.
- Sammanfattningsvis förstår vi nu ganska väl klimatförändringarna under de senaste århundradena. De styrs av endast två cykler: De Vies/Suess och AMO/PDO. Och inget spår av koldioxid. ... [De virtuella klimat-]modellerna visar på en kraftig temperaturökning, samtidigt som den uppmätta temperaturen hamnar långt under förutsägelserna redan nu. I stället för en katarstrofal uppvärmning pekar De Vries-cykeln och AMO/PDO på en ordentlig nedkylning i [den närmaste] framtiden, sa professor Weiss.

Länkar:
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Keynote address
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrASlXo_hKw

Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss - The climate change is due to natural cycles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAELGs1kKsQ#t=11

Prof. François Gervais - Does the real climate confirm the models of virtual climate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNCPTb15Xs

Benjamin Deniston - Water, an unlimited resource provided we understand where it comes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiPj2CHccU

Se hela Schillerinstitutets Pariskonferens 13-14.6 2015 på videorna allteftersom de blir färdiga (på engelska, franska, tyska): http://newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com/schiller-institute-conference-%E2%80%A2-paris-%E2%80%A2-june-13th-14th-2015/

Friedrich Schillers essä "Lykurgos och Solons lagstiftning" finns i boken "Ett urval filosofiska skrifter av Friedrich Schiller", sammanställd och utgiven av Schillerinstitutet 1990. Boken på 126 sidor kostar 99 kr inklusive porto och kan beställas genom att sätta in summan på Schillerinstitutets PG 580049-5.

Här följer talen på engelska av professorerna Francois Gervais och Carl-Otto Weiss i manuskriptform resp. noteringar. Hänvisningarna gäller bilder som man kan se på video på länkarna ovan eller i kommande publicering på http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

Prof. François Gervais - Does the real climate confirm the models of virtual climate?

Prof. François Gervais is Professor Emeritus of the François Rabelais University, Tours, and Critical Rapporteur to the IPCC-ARS5 (International Panel on Climate Change), Tours.
Manuscript translated into English for his presentation at the Schiller Institute conference "REBUILDING THE WORLD IN THE BRICS ERA", Paris, June 14, 2015
(for the slides see the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNCPTb15Xs or see upcoming publication at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/)

Let me start by thanking the Schiller Institute for giving me the opportunity to present my research at the François Rabelais University of Tours, works published in English in the International Journal of Modern Physics and in French by the editor Albin Michel.

The essence of my investigation can be reduced to a single question: "does the real climate validates the virtual climate models?" We will develop here in particular the fact that climate scaremongering is not based on scientific measures but exclusively on the projections of climate models that extrapolate data till the end of the century. Hence, the importance of the question: "Are they validated by scientific measurements?"

SLIDE 2
The World Bank - as everyone knows, an expert institution in matters of climate change- recently evaluated the costs of the overall fight against carbon dioxide, i.e. CO2 emitted by the combustion of such fossil fuels as coal, oil, natural gas or scale gas. The cost of that fight is evaluated at 89000 billion dollars, in other terms, 16 billion dollars per day between now and 2030. This gigantic effort is supposed to limit the warming of our planet due to greenhouse gas emissions and keep it below the 2 degree Celsius mark. In front of such a challenge, the first thing to check is to inquire if in the recent past, CO2 emissions really provoked a rise of temperature. The correlation is far from evident since temperatures fell while emissions started increasing. Temperatures, from their side increased by 0.6 degree Celsius between 1910 and 1945, while in those days emissions where still weak. This was a temperature rise as high as that experienced between 1970 and 1998 at a time these emission were six times larger. The correlation is therefore not really self evident.

SLIDE 3
Which are the greenhouse gases in the air? The answer is simple: those whose molecules are composed by two different atoms. The main one is water vapor. Percentage wise, far behind water vapor stands CO2. Its concentration in the air, over an entire century, went from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent. What can be the impact of this increase on the Earth's temperature?

SLIDE 4
More precisely, what has been its impact on temperature as measured by satellites positioned at 17 km altitude? Why this altitude? Because it is in the higher part of the atmosphere, i.e. in the lower stratosphere, the region where atmospheric pressure is the weakest, that the greenhouse theory anticipates detecting the clearest signature. By contrast, on the Earth's surface level, the pressure is more elevated and the effect is already close to saturated. De facto, temperature isn't rising significantly or measurably inside the limits of experimental incertitude since nearly 20 years. Between 1993 and 2015, the level of CO2 in the air went from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 400 ppm, i.e. half of the total increase since the beginning of the industrial age. What was its impact on temperature? ZERO! No measurable evolution has been observed. Conclusion: the atmospheric greenhouse effect theory is not substantiated with scientific measurements. And it is on this non validated theory that the climate models anticipating a global warming are based. As Physics Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman said, if a theory is not verified by experience, the theory is wrong.

SLIDE 5
Was global warming observed on the surface of the Earth? Yes. But it originated in part from a cyclical phenomenon. We passed the highest point of a sixty years cycle and now temperature gradually decreases. This is visible if one zooms in on the last measurements of the British Hadley Center and correlates them with measurements obtained by various satellites. No climate model adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the inter-governmental group of experts on climate evolution, has anticipated this negative evolution. Admittedly, since the tendency observed remains below the range of fluctuations, the issue needs a follow-up.

SLIDE 6
The media - always prompt to announce records - did they announce the last record of the size of the sea ice of Antarctica, pulverized on September 21, 2014 ? It surpassed the last record size of 2013 by a surface area of sea ice equal that of France. Why this silence? The arctic sea ice melted till 2012. Normal, since we went beyond the high point of a cycle during the first decennium of the century. But look how fast the volume of ice, at its minimum, grew again over the last years while the alarmists predicted it would disappear last summer...
In reality, the total surface of sea ice has become again larger than average since two and a half years, contradicting in this way the climate models adopted by the IPCC. In effect, where is the impact of CO2 emissions, since the surface area of the sea ice has gained again a surplus?

SLIDE 7
This cycle of about sixty years demonstrates itself not only in matters of temperatures and the variations of surface area of sea ice as we just saw, but also in the rise of ocean levels. The data here are those of Figure 3.14 of the AR5 report of the IPCC, here compared to the sixty years cycle. In the two reports I send to the IPCC beginning and later in 2012, I indicated them the references of this cycle by international scientific journals peer reviewed. It is therefore with full knowledge that the IPCC has made the choice to ignore the natural variability in its report. In science, this is called "cherry picking", i.e. selective choice, not science.

SLIDE 8
Once you ignore this cycle, the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models adopted by the IPCCC are incapable to identify the climate of the past, in particular the 0.6 degree Celsius rise in temperature between 1910 and 1945. It's blatant. They diverge equally from the measurements made since the beginning of the century as we shall now examine in detail.

SLIDE 9
First remark: Look at this forest of "spaghettis", all these models that disagree among each others, including those adopting the same scenario of emissions.
Second remark: Since the temperature didn't rise since the end of the last century, their projections are systematically above the measurements. And finally, no model ever anticipated the small decline of temperature measured by the most precise instruments humanity has today, satellites, since 2002. If this decline persists and eventually amplifies, let's bet that the climate modelizers will be in deep trouble, and even more the politicians which have gauged their careers of the IPCC's predictions.

SLIDE 10
The models consider various scenarios of CO2 emissions. But what do measurements teach us about that? They show that the yearly increase of CO2 in the air varies from one year to the other. It can be only 0.1 % or reach 0.75 %. The yearly increase is low when the Earth is momentarily colder. The increase is much bigger when the Earth is under the influence of a warm temperature fluctuation. The blue curve represent the fluctuations of temperature. The increase of CO2, the green curve, follows it as its shadow arriving 9 to 11 months later. Without exploring all possible interpretations which the IPCC likes to ignore even when the critical proofreader invites to discuss the matter, we must ask what is the yearly average increase of CO2 in the air ? About 0.5 % per year since 20 years. At that pace, the rate will be far from having doubled at the end of the century.

SLIDE 11
The climate sensibility, in English the "transient climate response", is defined as the rise of temperature in case of the doubling of the rate of CO2 in the air. The IPCC reports it will be comprised between 1 and 2.5 degree C. But Figure 11.25 (b) of the report considers the lowest temperature as the most probable. This "judgment" isn't taken up in the "summary for the attention of decision makers". Three articles more recent than the AR5 report indicate a climate sensibility comprised between 0.6° C and 1.4° C., comforting the low value of the IPCC. At the current rate of 0.5° yearly increase of CO2 over the last 20 years, a simple calculation indicates a temperature rise between 0.3° and 0.6° C. Should we all scream that this is a catastrophe? Between Friday June 5 and Saturday June 6, temperatures in France dropped by 15° in 24 hours. The wind of the south turned north. Women in nice light clothes returned to their pullovers overnight. But will we really feel a virtual increase of 0.3 to 0.6° C. over a century?

SLIDE 12
The real global warming came to an end. CO2 emissions, which continue with the same speed, cannot therefore being accused any longer. Lo and behold, as a scapegoat, CO2 is accused to be responsible of about anything: storms, hurricanes, drought, inundations, waves of cold in the Unites States and Canada, and in the same reign of momentary enthousiasm, tsunamis and earthquakes are all blamed in CO2...
Hence, the measurements show that the cumulated cyclonic energy has a tendancy to decrease as one can see on the blue curve. Torricelli invented the barometer three centuries ago. He readily saw that lower air pressure announced rain and even lower pressure announced wind and even a storm. With medium pressure, the weather remains uncertain and variable. On the opposite side, high pressure inaugurates nice stable weather. Did we forget all of that? A minister which I confronted during a debate on French radio RTL, did forget. I told him that on a simple thermometer there figure no indications saying "storm", "rain", "wind". These indications do exist on the barometer (which indicates pressure, not temperature).

SLIDE 13
And finally, for those who pretend to be "greens" because they have a tendency to forget it, CO2 is, by photosynthesis and via the production of glucose C6H12O6, a sugar, a foodstuff indispensable and irreplaceable for vegetation, especially nutritive plants, harvests, which regenerate the oxygen in the air. The CO2 in the air increased over a century from 0.03 % to 0.04 %. Is that too much? Or too little? In spring and in summer, in the northern hemisphere, one observes each year a drop of CO2 in the air, consumed by an outburst of growth of seasonal vegetation. The amplitude of that drop has increased between 1969 and 2013 as measured in this graphic at La Jolla in California. This amplitude has especially increased faster that the rate of CO2 itself, a proof that vegetation seems always in need of its preferred foodstuff. This effect is "collateral" and eminently beneficial for mankind. The benefice of the higher yields of harvests has been calculated at 3000 billion euros since 1961. So why should we fight it while the miniscule effect on temperature doesn't seem to object this increase of yields of harvests.

SLIDE 14
To conclude let me say this: more than 1350 articles in international scientific journals peer reviewed exclude any risk of a warming above 2° C and/or underline the natural variability of the climate. The number of these articles has doubled since 2007 and the number of 1350 is to be compared with the 1637 articles which have been listed by the data base of the Web of Science by crossing the key words [anthropogenic] AND [greenhouse OR CO2] AND [warming].
Other articles generally considered going in the direction of the conclusions of the ICCP do nothing more than reporting the observations the scientists are using as I have done to demonstrate there is no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2, or to simulate the impact on such and such ecosystem if the temperature rises by 2°, 3°, 4°, etc. IF THE temperature rises... Let's be reassured, it is not rising any longer. Scare mongering and catastrophism is uniquely based on projections of climate models? By definition, every model, being a model, is more or less wrong. In the case of climate models, the climate sensibility TCR is reportedly between 0.6 and 2.5° C. It means they are disagreeing among each other and recognize an uncertainty rate of 2.5/0.6 = 417 %. The most alarmist of them aren't validated by scientific measurements. Should we trust them, while the evolution of the real climate, doesn't really appear worrying?

Thank You.

Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss - The climate change is due to natural cycles

Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss is Advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy and Former President of the National Metrology Institute of Germany, Braunschweig.
Notes by the professor for his presentation at the Schiller Institute conference "REBUILDING THE WORLD IN THE BRICS ERA", Paris, June 14, 2015
(for the slides see the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAELGs1kKsQ#t=11 or see upcoming publication at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/)

We have analysed the longest available temperature measurement records for climate cycles. (1)

We find that the climate changes of the recent centuries are all due to natural cycles.

The persons who did the work are here.

We have published our results so far in a prominent international climate research journal (2, 3, 4). Thus our results are found correct by competent international referees. The results have so far never been questioned.

What have we done?

We have taken the historically longest temperature measurement records available. Evidently those are from central Europe. (5)

All records look rather similar, with a minimum around 1870, so that we can average them to a "central European temperature". (6)

The Antarctic temperatures derived recently from ice cores ( blue curve ) show that the measured temperatures are apparently a global phenomenon.

We have then Fourier-analysed the temperature measurements ( i.e. analysed for cyclic behaviour ). The result is given in (7). Each peak indicates a cycle. The cycle periods are given.

For those not familiar with Fourier analysis: each peak indicates a cycle. In time representation this looks like (8). Several cycles are simultaneously active. The sum of all cycles is then the temperature evolution.

What surprised us is that apparently there is ONLY cyclic behaviour. This would mean that any antroprogenic influence ( such as from CO2 emission) is absent, since e.g. CO2 emission is increasing in time and thus is non-cyclic! (9)

Now the stringent test if there are really no non-periodic components: We add the sine functions corresponding to the 6 strongest cycles in the spectrum. The result is the red curve. It has almost perfect agreement with the measured temperatures ( black curve ). Thus the climate changes since ~1800 are entirely due to cycles. No trace of CO2 ( which is non-cyclic ).

The question then arises about the origin of the cycles. First the dominant ~200 year cycle. A recent publication on solar activity reports (10). The spectrum of the solar activity shows (as our result on earth temperature does) a strong peak at ~200 year period ( known in the solar literature as the De Vries/Suess cycle ). The authors of this paper find a high qualitative correlation of the solar activity with earth temperature for the recent centuries. (11) Thus they can predict a drop of temperature to the value of the "little ice age" of 1870 for 2070.

It appears then that the dominant ~200 + year cycle found in our Fourier analysis is driven by the De Vries/Suess cycle of solar activity.

Although the solar activity agrees with the ~200 year cycle of our analysis, our temperature measurement data are limited to the 250 years of historic recording. With such limited length one can of course not determine unambiguously a cyclic behaviour with 200 year period.

We have therefore ascertained that the earth temperature is periodic with ~200 years by analysing the most extensive temperature "proxy" data sets ( Buentgen, Christiansen/Ljundquist ). These cover 2500 years.
(12) shows the locations of the proxies. (13) shows the result. It compares the temperatures from the proxies with a cyclic ( sine- ) function. The match is quite good: we see, with few exceptions, at every max or min of the sine function a max or min of the temperature. Exceptions are to be expected, due e.g. to volcanic activity etc.

Thus we can be sure that the earth temperature is dominantly forced by the cyclic solar activity. This permits a prediction of the future climate. (14) shows the sine wave derived from the past 2500 year temperatures, superimposed the ice core data from Antarctica mentioned in (6). The agreement for the 19th and 20th century is quite good. The continuation of the sine function yields the same drop to the "little ice age" minimum for the year ~2070, as inferred from the solar activity alone.

Looking back to the measured central European temperatures (15) one notes a periodicity of ~65 years superimposed on the strong ~200 year cycle. This is a well-known oceanic cycle ( so called AMO/PDO ) which is terrestrial and not solar.

In sum we understand now quite well the climate change of the recent centuries. It is determined only by two cycles: De Vries/Suess and AMO/PDO. And no trace of CO2.

One knows that in contrast to all alarming predictions of global warming the earth temperature has been weakly decreasing for the last 20 years ( even though during this time about 1/3 of all human CO2 emissions occurred ). The official climate research has proposed about 50 different ( mostly contradicting ) explanations, why the global temperature is not increasing in spite of the strong CO2 increase. The real reason is trivial: (15) the recent decline of temperature is simply due to the now declining AMO/PDO. Equally the stronger temperature increase from ca. 1970 to 1995, which is always claimed to prove the warming by CO2, is simply due to the superposition of the increase of the De Vries cycle with the increase of the AMO/PDO.

Recently work has been published which comes, by totally different methods, to exactly the result we find. (16) The world temperature is just the superposition of the ~200 year De Vries cycle with the 65 year AMO/PDO.

Let me mention that in fact the CO2 content and the world temperature have never correlated well. Most of the time the temperature has been dropping in spite of constant or increasing CO2 content ( 1800 to 1870, 1940 to 1970 and 1995 to present ).

(17) illustrates the situation. The model predictions show a strong temperature increase while the measured temperature falls much below predictions already now. Instead of catastrophic warming the De Vries cycle and the AMO/PDO lead to substantial cooling in future.

(18) shows the differerence between model predictions and present reality.

I mention that a large number of papers exist in the solar physics literature which find, more locally in general, exactly our result. Thus in our work we have really only reinvented the wheel.

Having explained the climate of the last 200 years, let me now illustrate on a few examples why CO2 can, for very simple physics reasons, not play any significant role for the earth climate.

(19) a recent paper proves by the statistical properties of temperature and CO2 history that there can not be any causal relation between CO2 and temperature.

(20) Contrary to all claims, the atmosphere is by no means the final disposal site of CO2.

(21) This measurement of the absorption of CO2 by biosphere and oceans shows how quickly CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.

(22) For the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere it follows that half of the warming, expected for the IPCC worst case of CO2 emission until 2100, lies already behind us. How much lies behind us? 0.7 °C if the minimum of 1870 is taken as the pre-industrial reference, OR less than 0.1 °C if 1780 is taken as the reference ( the CO2 content of the atmosphere was the same for two reference years. No industrial CO2 emission yet).

Thus, with the CO2 to be emitted until 2100 not much warming can occur.

What about sea level rise? (23) shows the sea level since the last ice age. ( Noah's flood ). (24) shows present satellite measurements of 2.9 mm per year ( 29 cm per century ). I note that gauge level measurements on the coasts show only 1.2 mm per year ( 12 cm per century ), to be contrasted with "official" claims of 7m rise until 2100.

Apparently continents or coastal areas are lifting. This agrees with the observation that pacific islands increase in area recently instead of being submerged as the media still claim.

"Extreme weather" has not increased (25) contrary to all media alarm (for simple physics reasons: weather becomes less violent with global temperature increase ).

Finally: CO2 is food for plants and thus for all life on this planet. (26) shows the increase of crop yield with rising CO2 content of the atmosphere, measured in open field experiments. (27) shows the recent forest growth due to increased CO2 supply.

CO2 increase has also led to substantial greening of deserts.

CONCULSION (28)

---