Koen Vogel PhD: Causes of Climate Change
Loyal readers of the PSI news page will have noticed a predominance of articles opposing the mainstream view that increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing the Earth to warm. Such articles suffer some major disadvantages: they are usually very technical and highly specialist, and one needs to be a polymath too understand them all.
Such opposing views are almost never published by mainstream journals, for a large number of reasons mostly unrelated to an articles’ technical merit. And such a piecemeal specialist approach has not made a dent in our politician’s will to spend large amounts on combating CO2: politicians often do not understand the science behind such arguments and therefore will default to a „The Science is Settled“ approach of trusting the IPCC reports.
The cornerstone of these reports is Volume 10: Detection and Attribution of climate change. In this report the IPCC use a self-invented method called Optimal Fingerprint Analysis to manipulate their climate model output to „match“ the GMST time series data.
The match is ludicrously poor:
- models cannot match the time-series trends: the 1909-1943 increase of 0.5 C in GMST, the post-WW2 decrease of 0.2 C, etc
- models do not match the geographical trends: the Arctic and North Atlantic are warming faster than other oceans, while GHG effects should be greater where radiated heat is highest, i.e. near the equator.
It’s clear the only way to stop the lumbering CO2 leviathan is to organise an independent (of the IPCC) scientific review of Volume 10, and that the only way to achieve such a review is to pressure politicians into demanding one.
The video above is a personal start: it scientifically reviews the Optimal Fingerprint Analysis methodology, demonstrates the methodology is junk science, and points out that Radiative Forcing due to GHG does not match data from NOAA, NASA and the Danish Meteorological Institute.
The video below demonstrates an alternative forcing that does match the temporal and geographical „fingerprints“ of the past 120 years.
These videos have been sent to sympathetic politicians in The Netherlands, with a request to organise an independent review of IPCC volume 10. The time is right to pressure our politicians: with the spiralling Covid bills coming due in 2021 and 2022 they should welcome a way to reduce unnecessary spending.
About the author: Koen Vogel PhD received his PhD in Geology from The Pennsylvania State University, worked in the Petroleum Industry for 25 years in a variety of technical and managerial roles, and since his retirement has been engaged in pursuing his intellectual interests. Such interests include reviewing the IPCC reports, authoring a book on Geostatistics (currently in review), and editing technical proposals for start-ups. His latest paper, ‘The Role of Geomagnetic Induction Heating in Climate Change’ is available for open peer review on Principia Scientific International (please submit comments below on Koen Vogel’s new paper).
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
It is true that many papers are difficult to understand and the same can be said of this video and the second one in the series. The issue is that today schools and universities do not teach students how to think for themselves. We should always be asking for the empirical evidence to support any claim. All ages listen to ice melting, oceans warming, increasing storms and fires, but none of this is evidence that CO2 is causing changes to the climate. They are just observations and people no longer understand the difference between an observation and evidence of a causal link. We are now in the age of Greta Thunberg thinking – if you believe something it must be true.
The BBC transmission of the Royal Institution Christmas lectures showed how propaganda is churred out by the media and “scientists” on a regular basis. It repeated modern version of the John Tyndall experiment using a glass tube with a candle outside the tube at one end and an infrared thermometer pointed at the candle from the other. The temperature of the candle flame was measured with air in the tube and then with methane in the tube and the temperature fell. This reveals the utter stupidity of anybody watching who believed this. I doubt there are any complaints being made to the BBC. It is simply impossible for a gas in a tube to change the temperature at which a candle outside the tube is burning. If the candle had come into contact with the methane there would have been a different outcome and one worth watching. They then went on to ocean acidification. Reducing pH is not acidification. This is how more lies are spread and believed.
Nothing will be achieved through politicians since they support it and have spent billions fighting climate change. They will never admit that they are wrong. Look at the example of Peter Ridd, an expert on the barrier reef who was sacked from his university job for speaking the truth. Douglas Murray produced the expression “educated imbecility” and that is truely the age we live in.
Reply
Jonas
| #
Agree that some arguments can be difficult to understand.
There is however an argument that I have not seen used so far, which I think could be accepted as a criterion for the GHE theory, and also accepted by “non-scientific” people.
All climate models have one thing in common. They predict that the outgoing emission at the absorption/emission bands of carbon dioxide should decrease.
They predict a rather big decrease (Watts) in a few wavelengths (2.5, 4.3 and 15 microns).
This decrease will change the radiation balance (according to the models) why earth´s temperature will increase. The decrease at 2.5,4.3 and 15 micron will be balanced in such a way that the integral of the energy spectrum will be the same.
The statement is thus that the GHE predicts a significant decrease of the emission at those wavelengths.
This must be possible to measure with satellites. We are talking about the radiation leaving earth into space, and a big change in a narrow frequency interval.
If the emission at those wavelengths do decrease -> GHE is correct about the effect. Still a question about magnitude.
If emission at those wavelengths do not decrease -> GHE is incorrect
Since I have not seen this argument, it could be so that there is something wrong with my reasoning. If so, please explain what is wrong.
Reply
ANTHONY LOPEZ
| #
LA IRRADIACION Y LA RADIACION DESDE EL SOL Y DESDE EL EXTERIOR AL SISTEMA SOLAR PRINCIPALMENTE DE RAYOS-COSMICOS-GANMA/ULTRAVIOLETA/ETC. CONFIGURAN EL “CLIMA ESPACIAL” QUE TAN IGNORADO ES POR MUCHOS QUE SE LLAMAN CIENTIFICOS, PERO SUS EFECTOS SIGUEN EXISTIENDO Y AFECTAN A LA METEOROLOGIA DIARIA A CORTO PLAZO Y A MEDIO Y LARGO PLAZO A TODA LA CLIMATOLOGIA DE NUESTRO QUERIDO PLANETA TIERRA, PERO SUS EFECTOS SON IGNORADOS Y SESGADOS, PRINCIPALMENTE POR ESA TENDENCIA TAN MARCADA DEL “GLOBALISMO POLITICAMENTE CORRECTO”. LA CIENCIA VERDADERA NO ADMITE MAS MANIPULACIONES DIRIGIDAS.
Un Cordial Saludo a Todos.-
Reply
ANTHONY LOPEZ
| #
LA IRRADIACION Y LA RADIACION DESDE EL SOL Y DESDE EL EXTERIOR AL SISTEMA SOLAR PRINCIPALMENTE DE RAYOS-COSMICOS-GANMA/ULTRAVIOLETA/ETC. CONFIGURAN EL “CLIMA ESPACIAL” QUE TAN IGNORADO ES POR MUCHOS QUE SE LLAMAN CIENTIFICOS, PERO SUS EFECTOS SIGUEN EXISTIENDO Y AFECTAN A LA METEOROLOGIA DIARIA A CORTO PLAZO Y A MEDIO Y LARGO PLAZO A TODA LA CLIMATOLOGIA DE NUESTRO QUERIDO PLANETA TIERRA, PERO SUS EFECTOS SON IGNORADOS Y SESGADOS, PRINCIPALMENTE POR ESA TENDENCIA TAN MARCADA DEL “GLOBALISMO POLITICAMENTE CORRECTO”. LA CIENCIA VERDADERA NO ADMITE MAS MANIPULACIONES DIRIGIDAS.
Un Cordial Saludo a Todos.-
Reply
brian
| #
Everything going on can be seen as the invested identity in an object Model that proceeds from self-image – which is a complex of concepts and definitions that has developed a polarised and polarising sense of a closed system or ‘locked down reality’ under masking narrative dictate.
In specific to the above the electrical nature of a Universe that is impossible to separate or distance from EXCEPT in virtual modelling we call our mind – which then ‘inhabits’ the world of its concepts and percepts as if ‘reality’ overlaid upon a Universe I will call Communication – though its nature is a communion of relations.
the so called Solar wind is effectively an organic circuit of charge that surrounds a differentially charged Earth which is enveloped by a double layered plasma sheath characteristic of all such boundary conditions at all scales but varying in expression according to intensity and the nature of its medium.
The Atmosphere is a leaky ‘capacitance’ for changing states of charge and this underlying electrical nature effectively drives weather, not a residual heat and a Solar irradiance and reflection.
the principle of homeostasis is not only observed in living organisms but in living systems and in the self organising patterning of plasma at all levels of the Cosmos..
These charge separations form patterns and structure within ‘chaos’ as well as discharges that of course have chaotic or to our mind catastrophic consequence – which yet set down structures that serve as a the basis through which Life evolves – and to my mind there is ‘Life’ as we think we know it – and a greater Context of which we are blind because we are a self-conscious block to our own awareness.
Some aspects of what I sketch can be seen at Thunderbolts.info – the Picture of the Day series are often short specific moments.
The other facet to an emerging new scientific perspective is that of vibrational frequency and resonance as the underlying Matrix for what we experience as our psychic awareness of physical existence. The closed system is never truly closed and the Open Creation is never defined or limited or contained in the patterns and structures of its fractal expressions. Both operate together – the balanced and the imbalanced – as complementary facets of a Whole.
The stars are beaded and spinning as nodes of ‘magnetic filaments’ that interconnect all things. Our Sun moves along a spiralling path that effects stepping up and down of charge relative to its ‘envelope’ as well as to differentials in the ‘Space’ or rather Plasma state of its current ‘territory’ or passage.
i don’t write to argue or convince but to invite and elicit Wonder.
Science without Wonder has lost its way to become caged in a corporo-gov model of marketised and weaponised prostitution and ‘lording over’.
Love of truth finds a way to the truth of love – which is the capacity to be with what is to the point of recognising truth. The ‘mind’ of a short circuit, short changes Participance in Life for a ‘private’ boundaried planet lockdown. My sense is that this condition is in some sense lifting off to restore Communication, hence the double down to systemic conflict management – as its boundary condition.
Our thinking is ‘archetyped’ on patterns of species trauma that gave rise to the ‘split mind’ and the development of seemingly independent consciousness set in opposition to our own Good – and thus also set against each other, as the attempt to protect and survive the Model that seems to give us life as we know it – or rather – as we Think we know it. Life that Is – simply Is – and it is our mind that has dissociated from our true being and not the other way around – though we experience as if at the hand or fate of others and conditions from the limiting perspective of a self-alienation that then knows not what it does.
The intent to leverage fear and guilt simply uses this ‘experience’ by narratives that redistribute significance, priority and funding to the chosen outcome – that is when there is an awareness of choosing rather than being fear driven by dictate of necessity. Choice is the residual spark of the Creative – which is more akin to Synchronicity than cause as leveraging effects so as to lord over a realm of effects and thus become conditioned and limited by our own measure.
Just look at the framing of fear and guilt to recognise science is forfeit to a tooled technologism rooted in ancient patterns of a fragmented narrative constellation that re-enacts trauma because it has not been reintegrated to the Presence of a full and true Communication – which to use an electrical flow term is always Current, and not when we’ve atoned for guilt with carbon sacrifice, or reduced consciousness to limit awareness of our dispossession and declared it ‘happiness’.
Reply
Graeme McMillan
| #
Too often I see linear regressions of temperature versus time with R2 values which are meaningless.
It’s nice to see an analysis of CO2 levels as an independent variable measured against temperature. As Koen says, there is no correlation. There is correlation between solar flares and induction heating. Is there multi linear correlation between solar flares, pole movement speeds, geothermal activity, declination. solar orbit (Milankovitch Cycles) and other factors.
The techniques exist now in software, to analyse these better than ever before.
I think Koen is onto something big here.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Graeme. I’m trying to get an article published (the usual uphill battle) that demonstrates that diurnal, secular, and centennial solar cycles can be correlated to variability in the Earth’s magnetic field. For example, if you’ve seen the video, you’ll see that the 11-year solar cycles can be correlated to geomagnetic jerks. The proposed paper demonstrates geomagnetic dipole maxima correlate well with sunspot minima (Oort, Wolf, Spörer and Maunder) for the last 1000 years, indicating a relationship between centennial solar cycles and the Earth’s geomagnetic cycles. Going back further requires relying on sketchier data, and likely requires (highly complex) computer simulations, butthese I think will demonstrate that Milankovitch cycles – which impact the direction in which the solar wind hits the Earth – should produce noticeable effects.
Reply
Anders Rasmusson
| #
Jonas, satellite measurements 1970 to 1997, confirming radiation theory as by Harries et al 2001 :
“…. the CH4 band, due mainly to increases in tropospheric CH4 concentrations in the period between the observations, which causes emission from higher, colder layers of the troposphere.”
Not that apparent for CO2, anyhow :
“…. observed on the edge of the CO2 v2 band, between 710 and 740 cm-1, in accord with the known increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 1970 and 1997….”, link
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12065270_Increases_in_greenhouse_forcing_inferred_from_the_outgoing_longwave_radiation_spectra_of_the_Earth_in_1970_and_1997
A theoretical study by Dufresne et al 2020 :
“For an increase in CO2 concentration above its prein- dustrial value, the increase of the greenhouse effect is primarily due (by about 90%) to the change in emission height.”, link
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Louis_Dufresne/publication/339982936_Greenhouse_Effect_The_Relative_Contributions_of_Emission_Height_and_Total_Absorption
Clouds will interfere as well !
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Anders,
What? “Clouds will interfere as well !” The earth’s natural atmosphere has clouds? Do not often read that these obvious clouds have any influence upon anything.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Anders, thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly, you are citing new reports that correlate relative theoretical and measured increases in RFGHG due to CH4 and CO2 concentration increases, and variability in emission height. This doesn’t directly contradict any part of my analysis, which indicates the overall contribution of RFGHG to GMST variability is small, as the IPCC modeled RFGHG in their climate models does not produce the observed GMST variability. Any correlation between GMST and RFGHG simply isn’t there. And any indications that the IPCC climate models got their physics wrong, e.g. due to inaccuracies in the theoretical physics (e.g. emission height) simply invalidate their climate models, as well as the attribution studies that are based on these climate models. Any relative increase in radiative forcing or emission height cannot explain why the Arctic Ocean is heating during the winters, when RFGHG=0: no relative increase can amplify a process that is not in operation.
Reply