Club of Rome Climate Emergency Plan is Flawed

by Carlton Brown | May 27, 2019 | 2 comments

Image first published on Twitter in Q1-2019

Dear Club of Rome members (copying World Media)

The IPCC dismissed catastrophic natural climate change risks

by Carlton Brown | May 22, 2019 | 0 comments

The IPCC dismissed natural climate change risks from its key risk assessment, disclosed its highly inaccurate climate forecasts spanning 30 years, changed the ice age boundaries without peer review scrutiny, and disclosed our limited proven oil and gas reserves (i.e., the real reason for targeting zero emissions by 2050). These IPCC disclosures and natural climate change key-risk dismissals undermine the validity of the IPCC Article 1 and 2 enforced radiative forcing theory (1988), its inaccurate climate forecasts (1986-2018), and its climate change key risk assessment. Government policies and risk-mitigation plans (or lack of) based on the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report and science must be seriously scrutinized in the interests of safety, our economies, and today’s youth who will inherit a resource depleted planet in a cold 21st century world.

The following is a copy of an email I sent to David Etheridge (whose CSIRO Research is associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Meteorological Organization) on 16/04/2019. This was also sent to 897 IPCC Working Group 1-3 scientists (5^th Assessment Report, WG1 Scoping meeting participants for 1.5decC rise) and various IPCC, UNFCC, UNEP, WMO management contacts (see last endnote citation for all recipients). This following email was in response to David Etheridge’s email rebuke to me (see below) for shining a light on the IPCC’s disclosures and key-risk dismissals.

Dear David Etheridge (and IPCC executive and Working Groups 1-3)

In your capacity as contributing author to all five IPCC Assessment Reports (AR), thank you for your email and engagement.

I have thoroughly reviewed all IPCC reports (AR1-5/SREX), including their prefaces stating their limited scope, constraints, and alignment with policymakers, and I stand firm in my criticism of the IPCC. In the interests of 7.5 billion humans and our safety, it is you who should read the documents more carefully to understand the natural climate change key-risks that were dismissed or omitted from the assessment and the manner in which this was done. To help you, I highlight numerous incriminating IPCC disclosures (via citations), which are counterposed to your point of view. (See the attached Word document for navigable citation hyperlinks).

We are categorically told by Working Group 2 (WG2) of the restricted and contrived nature of the key-risk assessment; “Key risks are potentially severe impacts relevant to Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which refers to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,”[1] and that we can reduce the impact of climate change (and therefore the “key-risks”) by reducing our emissions.[2] The “key-risks” promulgated in AR5 documents are those theoretically linked to dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW).[1],[3],[4]

This 1988 UNFCCC Article 2 diktat means important perennial natural climate change risks, which are the most pertinent risks 8,000 years after the Arctic’s Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO), at the peak of this current centennial-scale Arctic warming oscillation (switching to its cooling mode), and during this current grand solar minimum period—were wrongly omitted from the IPCC’s promoted key-risks. These 21st century relevant key-risks include global cooling and its associated extreme weather, climate-forcing volcanism, rapid climate change, and pandemic influenza.

To undermine any scientific contestation of the four Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) global warming scenarios, the IPCC has systematically disoriented governments as to our real glacial cycle stage, 8,000 years after the Arctic’s Holocene Climate Optimum. This disorientation was achieved by erroneously delaying the next ice age by an unprecedented 30,000-50,000 years[5],[6]; by incorrectly stating that the last ice age ended “about 10,000 years ago;”[7] and by focusing governments attention on a post-1880 fragment of a larger centennial-scale warming phase that started in the Arctic in 1700 CE.[8] (see the refutations below)

Underpinning the IPCC’s key-risk assessment are the following cited global warming projections, which include, “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This assessment is based on multiple lines of evidence and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance.”[9]

The global and northern hemisphere temperatures declined by 0.200C and 0.270C respectively since 2016, rendering the 2016-2035 GMST forecast inaccurate already (global mean surface temperature).[10] This recurring GMST forecast inaccuracy exacerbates the IPCC’s multi-decade legacy of generating highly inaccurate GMST forecasts.[11] This under-forecasting (1986-1998; 84%) and then over-forecasting (1998-2012; 97%), while failing to predict the 15-year climate hiatus (1998-2012) and the fall in GMST since 2016, confirms something else is controlling the GMST (and therefore the climate risks) i.e., perennial natural climate change (excluded by Article 2). Moreover, the 15-year climate hiatus occurred during a period when CO2’s atmospheric concentrations increased by 7.4 percent, and the 2016-2018 GMST decline occurred when CO2 concentrations increased by 1.2%.[12] This indicates that CO2 does not control (but rather lags) the GMST rise and fall—just as the ignored science tells us.[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] This failure to accurately predict the GMST refutes the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory, GMST forecasts and the validity of its key-risk assessment.

Ice Sheet changes occurring in Greenland are consistent with the Arctic climate switching to its cooling mode, at the end of this most-extreme outlier warming oscillation (1700-1940+), 8,000 years after the Arctic’s Holocene Climate Optimum [8]. During the 2018 season, the Ice Sheet benefited from a colder than average summer (and coldest July), high levels of summer snowfall, and a record-high albedo compared with the previous decade. The net surface mass balance was 40 percent above the 1981-2010 average, ranking sixth overall. The average degree of Ice Sheet melting was also the lowest since 2008, with the melting season and ablation onset arriving later than normal.[18] The rate of glacier area loss for Greenland’s largest sea terminating glaciers has slowed dramatically since 2012 [18], while its largest glacier grows due to colder oceans unseen since the mid-1980s.[19] In 2018, the northern hemisphere end of summer snow cover extent was 14.4 percent larger than the 1981-2010 average, continuing a 7-year above average trend.[20]

There are scientific reasons for this post-2016 GMST cooling and the Arctic Ice Sheet changes, that become obvious when the Arctic climate since the Holocene Climate Optimum—not the thermometer derived GMST since 1880—is used as the climate reference point.

The UNFCCC Article 2 contrived and restricted key-risk assessment and the IPCC’s three-decade legacy of generating highly inaccurate GMST forecasts—means the IPCC’s key-risk assessment lacks validity and is perilously flawed.

Catastrophic natural and rapid climate change risks were dismissed or omitted in the IPCC’s key-risk assessment

Just because these AR5/SREX reports mention a specific climate risk, or exemplars of rapid climate change, with plenty of argument-supporting citations, it does not mean a relevant, comprehensive, and unbiased risk assessment was conducted. Key word searches of AR5 documents for the Younger Dryas, the Little Ice Age (LIA), volcanism, and abrupt or rapid climate change, make it very clear the bias and argument-buttressing associated with their mention, dismissal, or omission from the key-risks. Poignantly, these reports tell us why we can’t extrapolate lessons from the LIA or post-Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) rapid climate change events in to today’s world.[21] While the IPCC may have met its obligation under the UNFCCC Article 2 diktat, the general public, governments, and the business world are unaware of this restricted key-risk contrivance that dismisses or omits the most relevant natural climate change risks we will face during the early-mid 21st century.

Working Group 1 only reviewed theoretical abrupt or rapid climate change risks relevant to anthropogenic global warming, and according to a restricted definition. The IPCC dismissed the prospect of near term abrupt climate change by telling us, “The likelihood of such changes is generally lower for the near term than for the long term.” [22] This near-term dismissal was then used to focus our attention on hypothetical long-term abrupt climate change risks, which were then dismissed and/or were irrelevant. A small number of causations of potentially catastrophic-abrupt climate change linked to global warming were reviewed (i.e., AMOC collapse, Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events, and abrupt methane release from clathrates), but their prospect was largely dismissed (see next). No abrupt climate change risks appear in the IPCC’s promoted key-risks.[1,3,4]

WG1 reviewed and then dismissed the theoretical prospect of abrupt clathrate methane release during the 21st century from land and oceanic sources due to anthropogenic global warming.[23],[24] Catastrophic methane release last occurred during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 55 million years ago,[25] when global temperatures were twice as high as today’s ice age epoch climate and when no polar ice caps existed (i.e., this is irrelevant to the post-HCO period).

WG1 (and WG2) tell us, “The most prominent abrupt climate change periods in the recent geological record, developing within 10 to 100 years, are associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events (WGI AR5 Section 5.7), which occurred repetitively during the last 120 kyr.”[26],[27] These events occur after the Arctic ice cap has already formed in the depths of an ice age (i.e., this is irrelevant to the post-HCO period).

In reality, the most prominent abrupt or rapid climate change events or periods in the recent geological record (i.e., since just before and after the HCO), developing within 10 to 100 years, were the Younger Dryas, the 8.2, 5.9, and 4.2 kiloyear rapid climate change events (among others), the Little Ice Age, and the multitude of climate-forcing (<-5W/m2) or large magnitude volcanic (VEI 6-7) eruptions (developing within one year).

A keyword search of AR5’s five documents reveals 61 instances mentioning abrupt climate change (ACC) and 44 instances mentioning rapid climate change (RCC). The vast majority of ACC/RCC mentions relate to end of chapter citations, with a minority of mentions linked to theoretical discussions linked to global warming. One ACC mention was associated with the 8.2Kyr rapid climate change event, linked to AMOC recovery times.[28] The only mention of ACC/RCC risks linked to risk-mitigation related to theoretical risks associated with geoengineering AGW.[29] None of these ACC/RCC mentions, quantified or reviewed the human mortality and destructive impact (i.e., on societies and civilizations), or analyzed actual data (i.e., catastrophes, climate, solar activity, volcanism, and their correlations) associated with the well-known 8.2Kyr, 5.9Kyr, and 4.2Kyr rapid climate events, the current era’s climate forcing volcanic eruptions, the Little Ice Age, or the Younger Dryas.

Well-known ACC/RCC events that took place just before and after Greenland’s HCO are highly relevant to our 21st century climate context. These RCC events were characterized by abrupt (i.e., annual to decadal) and sustained (i.e., over centuries) cooling periods in the Poles, which reverberated globally. Arctic temperatures declined between 30C and 60C and were associated with significant ice sheet expansions and a more general global cooling. Droughts and desertification also intensified across Northern Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, and the tropics. Some of these RCC events and their catastrophic impact on ancient societies are cited, including the 8.2 kiloyear,[30],[31],[32],[33] the 5.9Kyr,[34] and the 4.2Kyr events [35],[36],[37][38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53] (multiple citations review the varying geographical and society impacts).

One of the most catastrophic rapid climate change events of the Holocene interglacial period was the Younger Dryas (12,900-11,700 YBP). Within the space of a few decades, the temperature in the Arctic dropped by about 9°C,[54] and the Arctic ice sheets advanced. The YD was associated with the most pronounced fauna extinctions of the Holocene interglacial, including dozens of mammalian and avian species.[55],[56] The human species was also majorly curtailed in affected regions, with humans being forced to migrate to survive.[57] How will the world cope with the need to move tens of millions of people if such an event took place during this grand solar minimum?

AR5s suite of five documents mentioned the Younger Dryas (YD) ten times. Three YD mentions focus our attention on the rate of regional warming in the recovery phase of the YD (allegedly comparable to all four RCP scenarios), rather than the rapid cooling that was associated with numerous mammalian species extinctions (which WG2 assures us was not global in extent[58]). One other significant mention of the YD was to dismiss the prospect of a 21st century Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) weakening due to global warming.[59]

A review of AR5 documents highlights 218 instances mentioning AMOC. The vast majority of AMOC mentions focus on global warming and theoretical model simulations supporting the IPCC’s conclusion, “It is very unlikely that the AMOC will undergo an abrupt transition or collapse in the 21st century for the scenarios considered (high confidence).”[60] WG1 also dismissed the prospect of a northern hemisphere cooling resulting from a strong AMOC reduction, under all four RCP warming scenarios. This AMOC-linked cooling dismissal was counter to the FIO-ESM modeled outputs (60) and knowing that the IPCC had omitted significant radiative forcing cooling factors (i.e., secular changes in solar activity and volcanism) from its GMST forecasts [9],[61],[62]).

The impact of secular changes in solar activity (i.e., irradiance and magnetized solar wind) and volcanism on abrupt AMOC changes (and other atmospheric and ocean circulation systems) was also omitted from the IPCC’s promoted key-risks. This omission is despite the IPCC telling us that stratospheric processes, North Atlantic Oscillation, sea surface temperatures, sea ice, and external forcing (i.e., solar activity, volcanism) can lead to atmospheric blocking linked to AMOC changes.[63] (See also other literature[64],[65],([66])). This AMOC collapse dismissal was also made fully knowing the limitations of IPCC promoted CMIP5 models to simulate post-volcanic radiative and dynamic responses.[67]

Importantly, prior to AR5’s release in 2013,[68], [69],[70] and subsequently,[71],[72] the science has emerged to define a putative multi-decadal- to centennial-scale Arctic ice accumulation mechanism, linked to climate forcing volcanism, secular changes in solar activity (i.e., grand solar minima), sea ice exports, and changes in Arctic-Atlantic ocean and sea circulations. Revolution’s Chapters 4-7 provides many literature citations and new data detailing how the sun helps drive-control earth’s climate system (via irradiance and magnetized solar wind mechanisms). This data shows how solar magnetism (determined from terrestrial Beryllium-10 and C14 proxies) is significantly correlated (P-values <0.05) with the northern hemisphere climate and climate-forcing volcanism, over multi-centennial and multi-millennial time scales respectively. This cited literature and data does not support the omission of secular changes in solar activity (i.e., this grand solar minimum) and climate-forcing volcanism from the IPCC’s climate forecasts, key-risk assessments, and risk-mitigation advice.

A keyword search of AR5’s suite of five documents reveals 61 instances mentioning the “Little Ice Age (LIA),” with 25 mentions associated with end of chapter citations, and 11 with legends/tables/glossary and indexes. Most pertinent of all of the remaining LIA mentions is that we are told that we can’t extrapolate lessons from this six century catastrophic period in to today’s world,[73] for what amounts to argument-buttressing confirmation bias.

The next most pertinent LIA mentions relate to what is known about the LIA’s regional varying climate change (i.e., cold, snow, mega-droughts and high rainfall periods), and the melting of the glaciers after the LIA (i.e., whose melt-initiation preceded significant human activity).[74] In this prior citation WG1 tell us that external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing “contributed substantially” to the LIA’s climate change. Despite knowing of this “substantial contribution” (i.e., via the LIA’s four grand solar minimum periods, and 11 VEI 6-7 large magnitude volcanic eruptions and a raft of VEI 4-5 eruptions[75]), the IPCC conveniently omitted secular changes to solar activity and volcanic forcing from its climate forecasts (i.e., thereby eliminating potent cooling factors), key-risk assessments, and risk-mitigation advice to governments.

Crucially, there is no mention, emphasis, or quantification in the AR5 documents of the widespread human catastrophes associated with the LIA’s successive and prolonged periods of cold and climate extremes, despite the literature detailing this.[76],[77],[78],[79],[80] For example, in China the number of war outbreaks and population collapses is significantly correlated with northern hemisphere temperature variations. All the periods of turmoil in China occurred in the cold phases of the LIA.[81] On two such occasions (81) during the LIA China lost 40-50% of its population, while the Black Plague culled one-third of Europe’s population. This and many other instances of natural human culling occurred during the LIA’s grand solar minimum periods.

My review of the literature indicates the strongest cooling impact during the Little Ice Age occurred in the North Atlantic and the northern latitudes of Europe, Asia, and North America. By contrast, there was either more droughts or more rainfall at the lower latitudes, which was atmospheric circulation and monsoon system dependent. In each region differing climate extremes were known to have occurred, and were associated with secular changes in solar activity i.e., the LIA’s four grand solar minima periods. The various citations for Europe,[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87] North America,[88],[89] China,[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95] India,[96],[97],[98],[99] Africa,[100],[101],[102],[103]South America,[104],[105],[106],[107] Caribbean and the Yucatan Peninsula, provide you the LIA climate change facts.[108],[109],[110],[111]

There is also no mention in AR5 documents of the climate predictions published by scientists expert in solar activity driven climate change, linked to this grand solar minimum period. These experts warn us in a consensus-like manner of a return to Little Ice Age-like conditions during this grand solar minimum (2020-2060 CE).[112],[113],[114],[115],[116],[117],([118],[119]) Instead the IPCC dismissed the prospect and impact of this grand solar minimum, while only mentioning the term once in all AR5 documents (i.e., one end of chapter citation). Despite only one mention of grand solar minimum and the following quote, “the most recent solar minimum was the lowest and longest since 1920,” WG1 had an unwarranted “low confidence” in expert projections of a much quieter sun in the decades ahead.[120] This does not constitute a credible scientific risk assessment for grand solar minimum periods.

For your information, there exists a significant (P-value <0.05) and superior correlation (compared with CO2), between the northern hemisphere temperature and the 18-year moving average (mav) Beryllium-10 concentration anomaly (i.e., proxy for solar magnetism) since 1400 CE.[121] The temperature and mav-Beryllium-10 concentration anomalies inversely vary together on multi-annual, multi-decadal, and multi-centennial time scales, unlike the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The correlation coefficients also strengthen during grand solar minimum and maximum periods (see Revolution’s Figures 4.3, 4.4 and 6.2). This data indicates that the climate lags solar activity by at least one 11-year solar cycle, and cold climates always follow the sun’s decline in magnetic activity during a grand solar minimum period. This data aligns with the solar activity-climate experts’ predictions for this grand solar minimum.

The implications of the above six paragraphs is obvious; this current grand solar minimum has not been reflected in IPCC climate forecasts, key-risks, and risk-mitigation advice; and the IPCC’s risk-mitigation advice must be unshackled from its Article 2 constraint and be regionally bespoked (based on the LIA’s precedents).

While it is clear the IPCC recognizes that volcanic activity can have a dramatic impact on the global climate (i.e., cooling), crucially the IPCC’s climate forecasts,[122] promoted key-risks (1,3,4), and risk-mitigation advice unrealistically does not include the occurrence of climate-forcing volcanic eruptions. Upon reviewing WG3’s Mitigation of Climate Change report and the Final Synthesis report linked to volcanism (keyword stem; “volcani-”), the only risk-mitigation discussion associated with volcanism was linked to artificial stratospheric aerosol injections to counter AGW.[123] There is no mention of our need to mitigate the risks of large magnitude volcanism on world energy supplies and solar PV/CSP systems, or on climate-adapting our global agriculture, bolstering food stockpiles and emergency food production capability, improving global food supply resilience, or ensuring sustainable water supply in drought prone regions (see Revolution’s Chapters 8-12).

Just to remind you. Climate-forcing volcanism was periodically catastrophic after the HCO, and during the LIA.[124],[125],[126],[127] The Rinjani eruption (1257 CE, VEI 7) was one of the largest volcanic eruptions of the current era, and was thought to have triggered the LIA.[128] This eruption was associated with climate disruptions in Europe and Eurasia in the ensuing years, causing cold winters and summers, and severe flooding. This led to grain shortages, food price inflation, and famines associated with high mortality over the ensuing years and decades.[129],[130],([131]) Similarly, Tambora (1815 CE, VEI 7, during the Dalton minimum) caused disastrous crop failures across the northern hemisphere the following year. The year 1816 was dubbed the “year without a summer.” This also led to widespread famine, social unrest, and caused a major human death toll in Europe, Asia, and North America.[132],[133],([134]) Since AR5’s publication, scientists indicate that a repeat of a Laki-like volcanic eruption (Iceland, 1783) would wipe out one year’s worth of food for one-third of the world’s population.[135] How will governments and 7.5 billion people cope with a Laki-, or Rinjani- or Tambora-like eruption without a mitigation plan?

Grand solar minima and maxima represent high-risk periods for climate-forcing volcanism. Grand solar extremes are putatively acting as a decadal- to centennial-scale climate oscillator through their impact on climate-forcing volcanism, and the previously mentioned Arctic ice accumulation mechanism (see Revolution’s Chapter 5). Revolution’s Figure 5.1 highlights that 77 percent of the 73 volcanic eruptions of more than a -5W/m2 climate forcing impact, over the last 11,000 years, occurred at or within a decade of a grand solar minimum or maximum (and 87% within two decades).[136]A similar result was obtained by plotting the 67 total VEI 6-7 eruptions from the Volcano Global Risk Identification and Analysis Project (VOGRIPA) database against 11,000 years of C14-reconstructed sunspot numbers (82 percent at or within a decade).[137]

Revolution’s Figure 5.2.A shows that 5 of the 11 large magnitude volcanic eruptions (VEI 6-7) during the LIA and since Rinjani’s grand solar maximum associated eruption (1257 CE), took place at or near the trough of grand solar minima periods. A further 3 of 11 large magnitude volcanic eruptions occurred half way into a grand solar minimum, while the remaining 3 of 11 eruptions occurred at grand solar maximum sunspot number peaks. Similarly, Revolution’s Figure 5.2.B highlights that the 8.2-kiloyear RCC event took place at or near the trough of a deep grand solar minimum period, which was associated with a cluster of climate-forcing volcanic eruptions (of more than a -5W/m2 forcing).[138]

The pandemic influenza risk is also high during a grand solar minimum. We should be on red-alert right now, but our perception of risk is partially undermined by AGW. Pandemic influenza outbreaks demonstrate a high frequency of association with: (A) peaks and troughs (±1 year) of the 11-year solar cycle embedded in numerous solar activity related parameters,[139],[140],[141],[142] (B) specific thresholds of solar activity- and climate-related parameters,140,141,[143],[144],[145],[146] while (C) numerous correlations (r>±0.9, P-value <0.05) between the number of pandemics[147] per century and/or the average pandemic interval per century through the LIA, and the prior cited solar activity and climate change parameters and climate indices are also in evidence.[148],[149] Climate and solar activity extremes clearly influence the host-viral biology milieu (i.e., viral mutation, host susceptibility). Highly pathogenic avian H5N1 and H7N9 influenza strains continue their mutation and zoonosis onslaught,[150] and as the climate cools we can expect a heightened risk. We should also be very concerned that we do not have a credible and equitable pandemic influenza immunization and vaccine supply plan to mitigate this risk, when this need not be the case (see Revolution’s Chapter 14). WHO and various national CDCs were provided this data, but no replies have been forthcoming in over 14-months.

Dismissing the next Ice Age by 30,000-50,000 years was a Grave Error

AR4’s WG1 erroneously delayed the next ice age by an unprecedented 30,000 years, while advising governments that this represented a “robust finding.”[151] AR5’s WG1 further extended the ice age to a contingent 50,000 years, telling governments it is “virtually certain” that glaciation will not occur within the next 1,000 years.[152]

None of these ice age delay hypothesis (opinions) were subject to peer review scrutiny. The 50,000-year contingent delay also assumes the 1988 Article 1 and 2-installed radiative forcing theory is correct, even though it is unable to accurately predict GMST over the last 30 years. WG1 failed to provide any statistical validation for extending the already longest inter-climate optimum interval in 2 million years by another 30,000 years. A 30,000-year delay would create an extreme outlier (P-value <0.05) and would convert two million years (33 glacial cycles) of global inter-climate optimum interval data from a normal to a non-normal distribution,[153] thus falsifying this putative ice age delay. A number of other statistical falsifications of this 30,000-year delay are detailed in the following citations (see Revolution’s Chapter 2).[154],[155]

Orbitally induced changes in solar irradiance (i.e., precession of the summer solstice modified irradiance) tell us that earth has already entered a new ice age 8,000 to 12,000 years ago. This millennial-scale decline in solar irradiance paralleled the decline in northern hemisphere summer temperature over the same period.[156],[157] Precession modified solar irradiance has declined 40-50 Watts/m2 (at 650N latitudes),[158],[159],[160] since the Holocene Climate Optimum (i.e., 15 times today’s putative human radiative forcing impact).

This above-cited precession modified solar irradiance and corresponding summer temperature data contradicts the IPCC’s theoretical 30,000-year ice age delay.138 WG1’s opinion that, “The Milankovitch, or ‘orbital’ theory of the ice ages is now well developed,”[161] is scientifically contentious.[162],[163],[164],[165],[166],[167] You only have to analyze the mean inter-climate optimum interval and its large standard deviation to see there is no Milankovitch “100,000 year eccentricity clockwork-pacemaker” controlling the start (or end) of ice ages in the last 800Kyr (Antarctica) to one million years (global).[168] This dangerous ice age delay hypothesis is refuted.

This current ice age inception’s long-term decline in northern hemisphere temperatures and precession modified solar irradiance (650N) then fully explains the significant glacier ice buildup that took place after the HCO, which hallmarked our early ice age inception (oddly referred to as neoglaciation). Less glacier ice was present at both poles at the HCO than today.[169],[170],[171],[172] From about five millennia ago significant ice mass began accumulating at both poles, particularly during the second millennium CE.[173],[174],[175],[176] Glacier size peaked by the end of the Little Ice Age.[177],[178] Since the mid-19th century this ice largely melted.[179],[180],[181] WG1 remind us that this melt-initiation started in the 19th century “before significant anthropogenic RF had started, and was probably the result of warming associated with the termination of the Little Ice Age.”[182] That is to say, natural climate change was controlling the rising temperature before the putative-AGW hijacked the story from 1880 CE. Even with this post-19th century ice melt the inner Antarctic ice domes are still about 100 meters higher today than at the HCO.[183]

When the Antarctic, Arctic and global paleoclimate data are analyzed according to common points of glacial cycle reference (i.e., climate optima and glacial maxima) it is clear that earth entered the ice age, 8,000 years ago in the Arctic and 10,500 years ago in Antarctica (i.e., after the peak glacial cycle temperatures). This conclusion is evident when the polar and global temperature declines after the climate optima, the inter-climate optima intervals, and the Antarctic-to-global climate optima phasing gaps, are analyzed (see Revolution’s Chapter 3).[184],[185],[186],[187],[188],[189]

The IPCC further disoriented our correct glacial cycle bearing by wrongly telling governments “Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, global surface temperatures have probably fluctuated by little more than 10C.”[190] By “about 10,000 years ago” the sea level had already risen 80% and the temperature 91%, of their total Holocene interglacial rise.[191] The IPCC’s timing for the end of the last ice age is refuted. This global climate data (191) also tells us that the northern hemisphere (North America, Eurasia) ice mass accounted for 87% of the Holocene interglacial total sea level rise. In other words, the northern hemisphere (i.e., the Arctic) is the most important contributor to global climate change over glacial cycle time scales. This latter point tells us the IPCC should be forecasting the Artic climate – not GMST.

By delaying the next ice age 30,000-50,000 years and telling governments that the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, the IPCC must have ignored the following cited climate data pertaining to the last glacial maximum and HCO timings. The last glacial maximum (i.e., lowest ice core temperature) was reached 24,098 years ago in Greenland,[192] 19,300 years ago in Antarctica (Dome Fuji),[193] with the Antarctic Dome-C[194] and Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP)[195] climate data supporting these polar glacial maximum timings. The Holocene Climate Optimum (i.e., peak ice core temperature) was then reached in Antarctica between 10,570 years (Dome-C,) and 10,100 years ago (Dome Fuji), and in the Arctic between 7,800 (see199) to 7,890,[196] and 9,384[197] years ago.

It is important to clarify our understanding of glacial cycle nomenclature linked to the dynamic interplay between the temperature, ice volume, and sea level changes over glacial cycle time scales.191 According to this prior cited data Ice ages end after the glacial maximum (i.e., a glacial cycle’s lowest temperature and sea level, and peak ice volume). Thereafter, the interglacial temperature rises in an oscillatory manner, the ice then melts, and the sea level increases. Ice age’s commence after the climate optimum (i.e., a glacial cycle’s peak temperature and sea level, and lowest ice volume). Thereafter, the ice age inception temperature declines and the ice volume slowly increases, both in an oscillatory manner, while the sea level decreases. Earth already entered a new ice age 8,000 years ago in the Arctic and 10,500 years ago in the Antarctic.

The Greenland ice core tells us the new ice age started 8,000 years ago. This ice core data demonstrates that the Arctic’s temperature declined by nearly 50C between the Holocene Climate Optimum (5980 BCE) and 1700 CE.[198] This decline in temperature occurred in a devolving oscillatory manner, on multi-decadal- to centennial time scales. This 50C temperature difference represents about one-fifth of the Arctic’s interglacial temperature rise difference.[199] From 1700-1940 CE the Arctic climate then entered a centennial-scale warming phase, the most extreme outlier of 39 Arctic warming phases over the last 8,000 years (exceeding +0.990C from its deepest trough to its tallest peak) (see Revolution’s Figures 4.1 and 4.2)(8). Even at this current global warming peak, the Arctic is still 2-40C lower in temperature than at the Holocene Climate Optimum.[200],[201],[202] By not reflecting polar climate change before 1880 CE and back to the HCO we lack a bearing on the real stage of the glacial cycle we exist in, which enables the IPCC’s AGW fear mongering.

Greenland’s ice core also hides clues as to our 21st century abrupt climate switching fait. All previous 39 Arctic-warming phases in the last 8,000 years, exceeding +0.990C from their deepest trough to their tallest peak, switched to a cooling phase after an average of 80 years. This extreme outlier Arctic warming phase (1700-1940, even without an extension to 2016*) is long overdue a switch of phase to its cooling mode. This 1700-1940(2016*) warming phase will in all probability (P-value <0.05) abruptly decline in temperature in the coming decades (see citation8 and[203]). To give you perspective, the second most extreme Arctic warming phase (of the 39 oscillations) occurred just prior to the 4.2 kiloyear rapid climate change event that was associated with the collapse of ancient Egypt’s Old Kingdom,[204],[205] Mesopotamia’s Akkadian Empire,[206] and the Indus Valley Culture.[207]

In case you overlooked this fact, no detailed correlation analysis was ever provided by WG1 (AR1-5) between GMST and CO2, covering decadal-, centennial-, millennial-, and glacial cycle-time scales, to justify the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory. Instead, UNFCCC Articles 1 and 2 were used to install the radiative forcing theory in 1988,[208],[209], [210] and IPCC confirmation-bias enabling processes and procedures,[211] and media manipulation have maintained it ever since (not Kuhn and Popper-like science). This non-scientific foundation to the IPCC’s radiative-forcing theory then explains the GMST forecasting inaccuracy, the IPCC’s biased and contrived arguments (i.e., hallmarked by the overuse of terms like “with a high or low certainty or confidence,” without P-values <0.05), and why the world should be seriously concerned about this Article 2 dictated key-risk assessment.

Given the IPCC’s contrived dismissal-omission of catastrophic natural climate change risks relevant to the early-mid 21st century and our imminent ice age re-entry; our governments’ failure to mitigate the most relevant climate change key-risks thanks to the IPCC’s refutable sham-science and falsifiable assumptions; our limited proven oil and gas reserves (AR4-5 WG3[212],[213]),[214] the highly guesstimated-overstated nature of our unproven oil and gas reserves,[215],[216] and with peak oil and gas discovery being history (all undermining our perception of energy scarcity);[217],[218],[219],[220],[221] I am fully justified in criticizing the IPCC’s key-risk assessment on behalf of 7.5 billion humans.

I also strongly criticize the IPCC before the United Nations and its blindly following government members (i.e., like New Zealand, the UK, etc.) lose credibility in the public eye. There are life- and economy-sparing opportunities for the UN/IPCC/Governments to boldly seize the initiative in this imminent climate switch, so as to mitigate the real climate risks, and to reprioritize and accelerate the global energy system switch and our move to living sustainably—before it is genuinely too late.

The second half of Revolution reviews how we can mitigate the key-risks on our horizon (for energy, water, and food; for governments, municipalities, and at home).

Kind regards

Carlton Brown BVSc. MBA

Advocate for Prepandemic Influenza Immunization, Natural Climate Change Risk-Mitigation, and Decentralized Sustainable Development.

FreeBook: Amazon (https://amzn.to/2PyQsxV), Google Play (http://bit.ly/2JFHz08), Kobo (http://bit.ly/2F3DdRQ), and Researchgate PDF (http://bit.ly/2UnTBju)

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlton-brown-13b66232/

Website: http://grandsolarminimum.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Iceagereentry

Copyright © 2014 Carlton B. Brown of http://grandsolarminimum.com. All Rights Reserved. You are free to forward this information on to third parties. Any use of this information must cite my authorship.

The Above Email was sent in response to (see email recipients[222]):

On Mar 27, 2019, at 1:42 PM, David.Etheridge@csiro.au wrote:

Dear Carlton

If you are serious about your claims in the email that you recently sent me then I suggest you better read the documents you are criticising. You will find multiple mention and assessment of the climatic events and causes that you say are omitted, such as solar variations, volcanic events, the Little Ice Age and earlier cooling events. You will also see that the vast body of peer reviewed and published science in these areas that the IPCC gathers for its assessment reports has quantified the changes, identified likely causes and judged the relative risks.

Kind regards

David Etheridge, CSIRO, Australia

Endnote Citations and incriminating IPCC Quoted Disclosures

[1]       WG2 tell us the climate risks are only those relevant to UNFCCC Article 2: IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [(1) See page 59, Section B-1. Key Risks across Sectors and Regions. “Key risks are potentially severe impacts relevant to Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which refers to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (2) See pages 59-65 for the IPCC’s projected key risks linked to global warming.].

[2]       WG2 claim climate risks can be reduced by cutting emissions: IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [See page 13 for the risks linked to global warming i.e., sea level rise and flooding, extreme weather events, food and water insecurity, and loss of biodiversity. See page 14. “The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change. Risks are reduced substantially under the assessed scenario with the lowest temperature projections (RCP2.6 – low emissions) compared to the highest temperature projections (RCP8.5 – high emissions), particularly in the second half of the 21st century (very high confidence).”].

[3]          Key climate risks assessed by the IPCC. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pages [See Pages 13-19, from section SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate, including page 14’s Figure SPM.8 Representative key risks for each region, to understand the global warming bias, and that no rapid climate change risks are detailed.].

[4]       Key risks are potentially severe impacts relevant to Article 2. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [From page 11. B: FUTURE RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADAPTATION. B-1. Key Risks across Sectors and Regions. “Key risks are potentially severe impacts relevant to Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which refers to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”].

[5]       WG1 (AR4) deferred the ice age 30,000 years without subjecting that erroneous assumption to peer review. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pages [See page 56, Box TS.6. “The Milankovitch, or ‘orbital’ theory of the ice ages is now well developed. Ice ages are generally triggered by minima in high-latitude NH summer insolation, enabling winter snowfall to persist through the year and therefore accumulate to build NH glacial ice sheets.” Followed by, “Available evidence indicates that the current warming will not be mitigated by a natural cooling trend towards glacial conditions. Understanding of the Earth’s response to orbital forcing indicates that the Earth would not naturally enter another ice age for at least 30,000 years. {6.4, FAQ 6.1}.” See page 85 section TS.6.2.4 Paleoclimate under “Robust Findings” “It is very unlikely that the Earth would naturally enter another ice age for at least 30,000 years. {6.4}”).].

[6]       WG1 (AR5) dismissed the ice age by 50,000 years without subjecting that erroneous assumption to peer review. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See Page 70, “It is virtually certain that orbital forcing will be unable to trigger widespread glaciation during the next 1000 years. Paleoclimate records indicate that, for orbital configurations close to the present one, glacial inceptions only occurred for atmospheric CO2 concentrations significantly lower than pre-industrial levels. Climate models simulate no glacial inception during the next 50,000 years if CO2 concentrations remain above 300 ppm. {5.8.3, Box 6.2}.” Given the IPCC’s 3-decade legacy of generating highly inaccurate climate forecasts this assumption should be treated with serious caution.].

[7]       The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago (incorrect assumption). IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See page 124, Table 1.1. “Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, global surface temperatures have probably fluctuated by little more than 10C.”].

[8]       The Greenland ice core data highlights 8 millennia of devolving centennial-scale climate oscillations since the Holocene Climate Optimum. Data: (1) B.M. Vinther et al., 2009, “Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.” Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 385-388, 17 September 2009. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Greenland Ice Sheet Holocene d18O, Temperature, and Surface Elevation. doi:10.1038/nature08355. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11148. Downloaded 05/05/2018. (2) HadCRUT4 near surface temperature data set for the Northern Hemisphere. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html. Downloaded 25 July 2018. Analysis: Between the Holocene Climate Optimum 5980 BCE (+3.550C anomaly) and the deepest temperature trough in 1700 CE (-1.310C anomaly) the temperature declined 4.860C. Between 1700 and 1940 the temperature then rose 2.870C. This decline to 1700 CE and then increase in temperature (1700-1940) occurred in a devolving oscillatory manner, comprising 39 trough-to-peak warming and then cooling phases. All 39 climate trough-to-peak temperature rises exceeding +0.990C, between 5980 BCE (Greenland/Arctic glacial cycle peak temperature) and 1940 CE were extracted from the temperature data, derived from the Greenland ice core, for group analysis (range, +0.990C to +2.870C, average 77.4 years trough-to-peak, n=39). These trough-to-peak temperature increases started from the deepest temperature trough to the following tallest peak. A goodness-of-fit test of all 39 trough-to-peak temperature rises showed that the data did not follow a normal distribution. This indicates the possibility that more than one global warming process may be involved with the bigger climate oscillation outliers (i.e., for example an extreme grand solar maximum phase, or a large climate forcing volcanic eruption). Results: Prior to stratifying the data an Iglewicz and Hoaglin’s robust test (two-sided test) for multiple outliers was performed using a modified Z score of ≥1.5 and ≥5 as the outlier criteria. The modified Z score of ≥1.5 highlighted significant outliers above +1.770C. A higher modified Z score of ≥5 yielded the most extreme outlier trough-to-peak warming phase between 1700 and 1940 (+2.870C). Given the outliers that were revealed, the data was then stratified into two groups (Group 1 ≥ 1.770C and Group 2 0.990C – 1.770C). This stratification yielded 2 normally distributed groups (Group-1, N=5, Group-2 N=34), that were, statistically, significantly different from one another (unpaired Welch T-Test, 2-tailed P-value = 0.007). Group 1’s smallest temperature rise was 0.210C greater than Group 2’s largest temperature rise, highlighting the temperature gap between the two groups. On the basis of the above, the peak-to-trough temperature rise from 1700 to 1940 (+2.870C) was confirmed as the most significant outlier. This process was repeated for the grafted peak from 1840-2016 (+2.810C) as detailed in Revolution’s Figures 4.1-4.2. The modified Group-1 that swapped the +2.870C with the +2.810C, was also significantly different from Group-2 (unpaired Welch T-Test, two-sided P-value = 0.0061). Conclusion: Group-1 (N=5) composed of trough-to-peak outliers ≥ 1.770C were significantly larger global warming phases than Group-2 (N=34), and the +2.870C or +2.810C (i.e., Devil’s advocate peak from 1840 plus a 20-year moving average graft to 2016’s peak defined by the HadCRUT4 GMST/Northern hemisphere data) were the largest outliers.

[9]          IPCC climate forecasts unrealistically assume no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in solar irradiance. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages [See page 20. Section E.1 Atmosphere Temperature. “It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur.” “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This assessment is based on multiple lines of evidence and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance.”].

[10]      HadCRUT4 temperature data. Global mean surface temperature data, commonly referred to as HadCRUT4. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html. [Exposé: Look at the bottom of the first column for the current year-to-date temperature. Subtract the 2018 from the 2016 data point to see the magnitude of the fall. Global Data: https://bit.ly/2nCgctz. Northern Hemisphere Data: https://bit.ly/2MRt75G, Southern Hemisphere Data: https://bit.ly/2nBfYTA. Tropics Data: https://bit.ly/2nFXJMM.

[11]      The IPCC’s highly inaccurate climate forecasts and weak explanations ignore natural climate change. IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages [See pages 61-63, Box TS.3, Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years. (1) “However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade).” “During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box TS.3, Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends (Box TS.3, Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble mean trend 0.26°C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble mean trend 0.16°C per decade)”. (2) Scientifically weak explanation: “This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}.” (3) Rather than refute its own radiative forcing theory and climate models: “The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations.” Which is followed by, “As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10%. This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period. {10.3.1, 11.3.6}.” (4) Despite this abject failure to accurately forecast the global mean surface temperature, “There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.” (i.e., climate hiatus.). (5) Note: This high inaccuracy of global temperature forecasts can simply be explained by the fact that the IPCC dismisses or omits the role of the natural climate system in its weak explanation, its radiative forcing theory, and forecasting models. See page 14. “Figure SPM.5, Radiative forcing estimates in 2011 relative to 1750 and aggregated uncertainties for the main drivers of climate change”. According to these radiative forcing estimates, nearly all (98%) radiative forcing factors driving climate change are attributable to anthropogenic causes. This prior quotation contradicts the following statement, “Although the forcing uncertainties are substantial, there are no apparent incorrect or missing global mean forcings in the CMIP5 models over the last 15 years that could explain the model–observations difference during the warming hiatus. {9.4.6}.” Yes there are missing forcings, its called natural climate change, which the IPCC has dismissed or omitted. The natural climate system (NCC) controls seasonal-, annual-, decadal- and centennial-scale, and glacial cycle temperature oscillations, just as it has done for billions of years. The NCC system includes solar activity (short term and secular changes to solar irradiance and magnetism), orbital modulation of solar outputs reaching earth, geomagnetism, volcanic aerosols, solar-orbital-rotational modulation of atmospheric and ocean circulations, cosmic rays and low clouds, other cloud feedbacks (different latitudes and altitudes), and water vapor (natural and now anthropogenic sources), etc.,].

[12]      Changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration between 1998 and 2012, and 2016 and 2018. C. D. Keeling, S. C. Piper, R. B. Bacastow, M. Wahlen, T. P. Whorf, M. Heimann, and H. A. Meijer, Exchanges of atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000. I. Global aspects, SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, 88 pages, 2001. Data; scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/data/atmospheric/merged_ice_core_mlo_spo/merged_ice_core_yearly.csv. [Data: The atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppm) in 1998 was 363.64 ppm and in 2012 was 390.71 ppm. The 1998 to 2012 difference was 27.07 ppm or +7.4%. The Atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppm) in 2016 was 400.78 ppm and in 2018 was 405.6. The 2016 to 2018 difference was 4.82 ppm or +1.2%.].

[13]         Ole Humlum et al., “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.” Global and Planetary Change. Volume 100, January 2013, 51-69.

[14]         Manfred Mudelsee, “The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka.” Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 583-58.

[15]         Eric Monnin et al., “Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination.” By Science 05 Jan 2001: 112-114.

[16]         N. Caillon et al., 2003, “Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III.” Science 299: 1728-1731.

[17]         H. Fischer et al., 1999, “Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations.” Science, 283, 1712-1714.

[18]      Polar Portal Season Report 2018. http://bit.ly/2UCuz0q.

[19]      A. Khazendar et al., Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools, Nature Geoscience, Volume 12, pages277–283 (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41561-019-0329-3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

[20]      National Centers for Environmental Information (USA). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201810.

[21]      WG2 dismissed lessons from historical climate catastrophes as irrelevant today. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [See page 771-772. “There is a specific research field that explores the relationship between large-scale disruptions in climate and the collapse of past empires.” “DeMenocal (2001) summarizes evidence that suggests that major changes in weather patterns coincided with the collapse of several previously powerful civilizations, including the Anasazi, the Akkadian (i.e., associated with the 4.2Kyr rapid climate change event), Classic Maya, Mochica, and Tiwanaku empires. Other historical reference points of the interaction of climate with society emerge from analysis of the Little Ice Age. Some studies show that the Little Ice Age in the mid-17th century was associated with more cases of political upheaval and warfare than in any other period (Parker, 2008; Zhang et al., 2011), including in Europe (Tol and Wagner, 2010), China (Brook, 2010), and the Ottoman empire (White, S., 2011).” This is then followed by WG1’s dismissal of the relevance of these historical catastrophes in today’s world; “The precise causal pathways that link these changes in climate to changes in civilizations are not well understood due to data limitations (Note: the same can be said for forecasting the GMST). Therefore, it should be noted that these findings from historical antecedents are not directly transferable to the contemporary globalized world.” See page 1001, section 18.4.5. “Some studies have suggested that levels of warfare in Europe and Asia were relatively high during the Little Ice Age (Parker, 2008; Brook, 2010; Tol and Wagner, 2010; White, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011), but for the same reasons the detection of the effect of climate change and an assessment of its importance can be made only with low confidence.” (Note: this exemplifies confirmation bias].

[22]      WG1 dismissed the prospect of abrupt climate change: IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See Page 70, “TFE.5. Irreversibility and Abrupt Change. “There is information on potential consequences of some abrupt changes, but in general there is low confidence and little consensus on the likelihood of such events over the 21st century. Examples of components susceptible to such abrupt change are the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), clathrate methane release, tropical and boreal forest dieback, disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, long-term drought and monsoonal circulation.” See page 84 “TS.5.4.7 Possibility of Near-term Abrupt Changes in Climate: There are various mechanisms that could lead to changes in global or regional climate that are abrupt by comparison with rates experienced in recent decades. The likelihood of such changes is generally lower for the near term than for the long term. For this reason the relevant mechanisms are primarily assessed in the TS.5 sections on long-term changes and in TFE.5. {11.3.4}” See page 1114, “Section 12.5.5 Potentially Abrupt or Irreversible Changes: This report adopts the definition of abrupt climate change used in Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program CCSP (CCSP, 2008b).” See page 1115, “Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition.” Note: Under this restrictive definition WG1 only details abrupt climate change risks relevant to global warming. WG1 constrained or limited the definition of abrupt climate change, rather than comprehensively analyze (i.e., data) and review the abrupt climate change catastrophes that took place just before and after the Holocene Climate Optimum i.e., the Younger Dryas, the 8.2Kyr, 5.9Kyr, 4.2Kyr rapid climate change events (and others), the Little Ice Age, and climate forcing volcanism.].

[23]      Abrupt methane release last happened 55 million years ago. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [Page 70-71, TFE.5, Irreversibility and Abrupt Change. In a theoretical discussion focused only on methane release (from wetlands, permafrost, and ocean hydrates), we are told; “It is very unlikely that CH4 from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release during the 21st century (high confidence).” (CH4 = methane)].

[24]      IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [See page 1079. “WGI AR5 finds “low confidence in modelling abilities to simulate transient changes in hydrate inventories, but large CH4 release to the atmosphere during this century is unlikely” (WGI AR5 Section 6.4.7.3).”].

[25]      Hans Renssen et al., The climatic response to a massive methane release from gas hydrates: Numerical experiments with a coupled climate model. Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands https://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/methane-pulse.html.

[26]      Irrelevant Dansgaard-Oeschger rapid warming episodes and Heinrich events reviewed then dismissed: IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [See page 421. “The most prominent abrupt climate change periods in the recent geological record, developing within 10 to 100 years, are associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) and Heinrich events (WGI AR5 Section 5.7), which occurred repetitively during the last 120 kyr.”].

[27]      Irrelevant Dansgaard-Oeschger rapid warming episodes and Heinrich events reviewed: IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [Exposé; See page 432, “Section 5.7: Evidence and Processes of Abrupt Climate Change. This assessment of abrupt climate change on time scales of 10 to 100 years focuses on Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events and iceberg/melt-water discharges during Heinrich events.”].

[28]         The Rapid or Abrupt Climate Change Events in the last 8,200 years: IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages [See page 433, “The abrupt climate-change event at 8.2 ka permits the study of the recovery time of the AMOC to freshwater perturbation under near-modern boundary conditions (Rohling and Pälike, 2005).”].

[29]      The risk of rapid climate change associated with solar radiation management. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages. [See page 454. “Termination of SRM after its implementation involves the risk of rapid climate change and more severe effects on ecosystems (Russell et al., 2012).” SRM = solar radiation management].

[30]      R. B. Alley et al., “Holocene climatic instability: A prominent, widespread event 8200 year ago.” Geology ; 25 (6): 483–486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0483:HCIAPW>2.3.CO;2.

[31]      Kaarina Sarmaja-Korjonen and H. Seppa, 2007, “Abrupt and consistent responses of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems to the 8200 cal. year cold event: a lacustrine record from Lake Arapisto, Finland”. The Holocene 17 (4): 457–467. doi:10.1177/0959683607077020.

[32]      D.C. Barber et al., 1999, “Forcing of the cold event of 8,200 years ago by catastrophic drainage of Laurentide lakes.” Nature Volume 400, 344–348 (22 July 1999). doi:10.1038/22504.

[33]      Christopher R W Ellison et al., 2006, “Surface and Deep Ocean Interactions During the Cold Climate Event 8200 Years Ago.” Science. 2006 Jun 30;312(5782):1929-32. DOI10.1126/science.1127213.

[34]      A. Parker et al., 2006, “A Record of Holocene Climate Change from Lake Geochemical Analyses in Southeastern Arabia.” Quaternary Research, 66(3), 465-476. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2006.07.001.

[35]      Peter B. deMenocal, “Cultural Responses to Climate Change During the Late Holocene.” Science. 2001: Volume 292, Issue 5517, 667-673. DOI: 10.1126/science.1059287.

[36]      Robert K. Booth et al., “A severe centennial-scale drought in midcontinental North America 4200 years ago and apparent global linkages.” The Holocene. Volume15, Issue 3, 321 – 328. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1191/0959683605hl825ft.

[37]      J. Wang et al., “The abrupt climate change near 4,400 year BP on the cultural transition in Yuchisi, China and its global linkage.” Scientific Reports 2016 Jun 10;6:27723. doi: 10.1038/srep27723.

[38]      B.J.J. Menounos et al., 2008, “Western Canadian glaciers advance in concert with climate change circa 4.2 ka.” Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L07501, doi:10.1029/2008GL033172.

[39]      Russell Drysdale et al., “Late Holocene drought responsible for the collapse of Old World civilizations is recorded in an Italian cave flowstone.” Geology; 34 (2): 101–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G22103.1.

[40]      Lonnie G. Thompson et al., “Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa.” Science18 Oct 2002: 589-593.

[41]      M. Davis and L. Thompson, 2006, “An Andean ice-core record of a Middle Holocene mega-drought in North Africa and Asia.” Annals of Glaciology, 43, 34-41. doi:10.3189/172756406781812456.

[42]      Françoise Gasse and Elise Van Campo, 1994, “Abrupt post-glacial climate events in West Asia and North Africa monsoon domains”. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 126 (4): 435–456. Bibcode:1994E&PSL.126..435G. doi:10.1016/0012-821X(94)90123-6.

[43]      J. Ruan et al., 2016, “Evidence of a prolonged drought ca. 4200 year BP correlated with prehistoric settlement abandonment from the Gueldaman GLD1 Cave, Northern Algeria.” Climate of the Past, 12(1), 1-4. DOI: 10.5194/cp-12-1-2016.

[44]      D. Kaniewski et al., “Middle East coastal ecosystem response to middle-to-late Holocene abrupt climate changes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2008, 105 (37) 13941-13946; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803533105.

[45]      Fenggui Liu, Zhaodong Feng, “A dramatic climatic transition at ~4000 cal. year BP and its cultural responses in Chinese cultural domains.” The Holocene. Volume 22, Issue 10, 1181 – 1197. First Published April 12, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683612441839.

[46]      Jianjun Wang, “The abrupt climate change near 4,400 year BP on the cultural transition in Yuchisi, China and its global linkage.” Scientific Reports | 6:27723 | DOI: 10.1038/srep27723. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27723.pdf.

[47]      Fenggui Liu and Zhaodong Feng, “A dramatic climatic transition at ~4000 cal. year BP and its cultural responses in Chinese cultural domains.” The Holocene 22(10) 1181–1197 © The Author(s) 2012. DOI: 10.1177/0959683612441839. hol.sagepub.com.

[48]      M. Staubwasser, H. Weiss, 2006, “Holocene Climate and Cultural Evolution in Late Prehistoric–Early Historic West Asia.” Quaternary Research, 66(3), 372-387. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2006.09.001.

[49]      P. Mayewski et al., 2004, “Holocene climate variability.” Quaternary Research, 62(3), 243-255. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2004.07.001.

[50]      Stanley J. Krom et al., (2003), Short contribution: “Nile flow failure at the end of the Old Kingdom, Egypt: Strontium isotopic and petrologic evidence.” Geoarchaeology, 18: 395-402. doi:10.1002/gea.10065.

[51]      Ann Gibbons, “How the Akkadian Empire Was Hung Out to Dry.” Science August 20, 1993: Volume 261, Issue 5124, 985. DOI: 10.1126/science.261.5124.985.

[52]      J. Stanley et al., 2003, “Nile flow failure at the end of the Old Kingdom, Egypt: Strontium isotopic and petrologic evidence.” Geoarchaeology, 18: 395-402. doi:10.1002/gea.10065.

[53]      Ann Gibbons, “How the Akkadian Empire Was Hung Out to Dry”. Science 20 Aug 1993: Volume 261, Issue 5124, DOI: 10.1126/science.261.5124.985.

[54]      A.E. Carlson, 2013, “The Younger Dryas Climate Event.” In: Elias S.A. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, Volume 3, 126-134. Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://people.oregonstate.edu/~carlsand/carlson_encyclopedia_Quat_2013_YD.pdf.

[55]      Anthony D. Barnosky et al., “Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere.” Nature Volume 486, 52–58 (07 June 2012). doi:10.1038/nature11018.                                  .

[56]      R. B. Firestone et al., “Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling.” PNAS October 9, 2007. 104 (41) 16016-16021; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706977104.

[57]      D.G Anderson et al., Multiple lines of evidence for possible Human population decline/settlement reorganization during the early Younger Dryas. Quaternary International (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.04.020.

[58]      The IPCC’s review of the Younger Dryas rapid climate change event focuses on its recovery-warming phase. Part A: IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp. [See page 280. “Rapid, regional warming before and after the Younger Dryas cooling event (11.7 to 12.9 ka) provides a relatively recent analogy for climate change at a rate approaching, for many regions, that projected for the 21st century for all Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs; Alley et al., 2003; Steffensen et al., 2008). Ecosystems and species responded rapidly during the Younger Dryas by shifting distributions and abundances, and there were some notable large animal extinctions, probably exacerbated by human activities (Gill et al., 2009; Dawson et al., 2011). In some regions, species became locally or regionally extinct (extirpated), but there is no evidence for climate-driven global-scale extinctions during this period (Botkin et al., 2007; Willis, K.J. et al., 2010). However, the Younger Dryas climate changes differ from those projected for the future because they were regional rather than global; may have only regionally exceeded rates of warming projected for the future; and started from a baseline substantially colder than present (Alley et al., 2003).”].

[59]      IPCC dismissal of a rapid AMOC weakening. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [Page 1119. “Abrupt Saharan vegetation changes of the Younger Dryas are linked with a rapid AMOC weakening which is considered very unlikely during the 21st century and unlikely beyond that as a consequence of global warming.”]

[60]      Global warming induced Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapse: IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [Exposé; See page 24, Section E4 Ocean. “It is very unlikely that the AMOC will undergo an abrupt transition or collapse in the 21st century for the scenarios considered.” (With reference to the IPCC’s 4 promoted Representative Concentration Pathway global warming scenarios.)   See Page 70, “TFE.5. Irreversibility and Abrupt Change. “Abrupt Climate Change Linked with AMOC New transient climate model simulations (i.e., theoretical models are prone to assumption errors) have confirmed with high confidence that strong changes in the strength of the AMOC produce abrupt climate changes at global scale with magnitude and pattern resembling past glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events and Heinrich stadials.” “It also remains very unlikely that the AMOC will undergo an abrupt transition or collapse in the 21st century for the scenarios considered (high confidence) (TFE.5, Figure 1).” See page 1115,“The FIO-ESM model shows cooling over much of the NH that may be related to a strong reduction of the AMOC in all RCP scenarios (even RCP2.6), but the limited output available from the model precludes an assessment of the response and realism of this response. Hence it is not included the overall assessment of the likelihood of abrupt changes.” Needless to say, this FIO-ESM model dismissal represents confirmation bias, because the model output is at odds with the IPCC’s global warming scenarios and the political narrative.].

[61]         WG1 dismissed secular changes in solar activity from its climate forecasts. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages [Exposé: See page 1009 sub-section 11.3.6.3 point 4 for solar irradiance and volcanism, “As discussed in Section 11.3.6.2, the RCP scenarios assume no underlying trend in total solar irradiance.” “there is low confidence in projected changes in solar irradiance (Chapter 8). Consequently the possible effects of future changes in natural forcings are excluded from the assessment here.” See page 1007 for how the IPCC dismissed the impact of solar forcing during this grand solar minimum, “As discussed in Chapter 8 (Section 8.4.1.3), the Sun has been in a ‘grand solar maximum’ of magnetic activity on the multi-decadal time scale. However, the most recent solar minimum was the lowest and longest since 1920, and some studies (e.g., Lockwood, 2010) suggest there could be a continued decline towards a much quieter period in the coming decades, but there is low confidence in these projections (Section 8.4.1.3).”].

[62]         WG1 dismissed the climate forcing impact of volcanic eruptions from its climate forecasts. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages [See pages 1008-1009, “FAQ 11.2, How Do Volcanic Eruptions Affect Climate and Our Ability to Predict Climate?” While detailing over 1.5 pages about the planetary cooling impact of large magnitude volcanic eruptions we are informed, “The future projections in this report do not include future volcanic eruptions.” See page 1009 sub-section 11.3.6.3 point 4 for solar irradiance and volcanism, “As discussed in Section 11.3.6.2, the RCP scenarios assume no underlying trend in total solar irradiance and no future volcanic eruptions. Future volcanic eruptions cannot be predicted and there is low confidence in projected changes in solar irradiance (Chapter 8). Consequently the possible effects of future changes in natural forcings are excluded from the assessment here.”].

[63]      Atmospheric blocking and AMOC. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See page 1247, Box 14.2 Blocking (Atmospheric blocking). “At interannual time scales, there are statistically significant relationships between blocking activity and several dominant modes of atmospheric variability, such as the NAO (Section 14.5.1) and wintertime blocking in the Euro-Atlantic sector (Croci-Maspoli et al., 2007a; Luo et al., 2010), the winter PNA (Section 14.7.1) and blocking frequency in the North Pacific (Croci-Maspoli et al., 2007a), or the SAM (Section 14.5.2) and winter blocking activity near the New Zealand sector (Berrisford et al., 2007). Multi-decadal variability in winter blocking over the North Atlantic and the North Pacific seem to be related, respectively, with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC; Häkkinen et al., 2011; Section 14.7.6) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Chen and Yoon, 2002; Section14.7.3), although this remains an open question. Other important scientific issues related to the blocking phenomenon include the mechanisms of blocking onset and maintenance, two way interactions between blocking and stratospheric processes (e.g., Martius et al., 2009; Woollings et al., 2010), influence on blocking of slowly varying components of the climate system (sea surface temperature (SST), sea ice, etc., Liu et al., 2012b), and external forcings. The most consistent long-term observed trends in blocking for the second half of the 20th century are the reduced winter activity over the North Atlantic (e.g., Croci-Maspoli et al., 2007b), which is consistent with the observed increasing North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) trend from the 1960s to the mid-1990s (Section 2.7.8), as well as an eastward shift of intense winter blocking over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Davini et al., 2012). The apparent decreasing trend in SH blocking activity (e.g., Dong et al., 2008) seems to be in agreement with the upward trend in the SAM.”].

[64]      Lean, J. L. & Rind, D. How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L15708 (2009).

[65]      M.F. Knudsen et al., 2014. Evidence for external forcing of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since termination of the Little Ice Age. Nature Communications, Volume 5, Article number 3323.

[66]      D. Swingedouw et al., Bidecadal North Atlantic ocean circulation variability controlled by timing of volcanic eruptions. Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 6545 (2015).

[67]      Key limitations of CMIP5 models were known to the IPCC. S. Driscoll et al., ( 2012). Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions, J. Geophysical Research, 117, D17105, doi:10.1029/2012JD017607. [“All available models submitted to the CMIP5 archive as of April 2012 that had a reasonably realistic representation of volcanic eruptions and number of samples have been analyzed for their ability to simulate post-volcanic radiative and dynamic responses. With substantially different dynamics between the models it was hoped to find at least one model simulation that was dynamically consistent with observations, showing improvement since S06. Disappointingly, we found that again, as with S06, despite relatively consistent post volcanic radiative changes, none of the models manage to simulate a sufficiently strong dynamical response.” Note: This was cited by Working Group 1 on page 833, meaning the limitations of CMIP5 models were known to the IPCC.].

[68]      F. Lehner et al., 2013, “Amplified inception of European Little Ice Age by sea ice–ocean–atmosphere feedbacks.” J. Climate, 26, 7586–7602. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00690.1.

[69]      Odd Helge Otterå et al., “External forcing as a metronome for Atlantic multidecadal variability.” Nature Geoscience Volume 3, 688–694 (2010).

[70]      Y. Zhong et al., “Centennial-scale climate change from decadally-paced explosive volcanism: a coupled sea ice-ocean mechanism.” Climate Dynamics (2011) 37: 2373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0967-z.

[71]      J. Slawinska and A. Robock, 2018, “Impact of Volcanic Eruptions on Decadal to Centennial Fluctuations of Arctic Sea Ice Extent during the Last Millennium and on Initiation of the Little Ice Age.” J. Climate, 31, 2145–2167, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0498.1.

[72]      C. Newhall et al., 2018, “Anticipating future Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) 7 eruptions and their chilling impacts.” Geosphere, v. 14, no. 2, p. 1–32, doi:10.1130/GES01513.1.

[73]      WG1 dismissed lessons from historical climate catastrophes as irrelevant today. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pages [See page 771-772. “There is a specific research field that explores the relationship between large-scale disruptions in climate and the collapse of past empires.” “DeMenocal (2001) summarizes evidence that suggests that major changes in weather patterns coincided with the collapse of several previously powerful civilizations, including the Anasazi, the Akkadian, Classic Maya, Mochica, and Tiwanaku empires. Other historical reference points of the interaction of climate with society emerge from analysis of the Little Ice Age. Some studies show that the Little Ice Age in the mid-17th century was associated with more cases of political upheaval and warfare than in any other period (Parker, 2008; Zhang et al., 2011), including in Europe (Tol and Wagner, 2010), China (Brook, 2010), and the Ottoman empire (White, S., 2011).” This is then followed by WG1 dismissal of the relevance of these historical catastrophes in today’s world; “The precise causal pathways that link these changes in climate to changes in civilizations are not well understood due to data limitations. Therefore, it should be noted that these findings from historical antecedents are not directly transferable to the contemporary globalized world.” See page 1001, section 18.4.5. “Some studies have suggested that levels of warfare in Europe and Asia were relatively high during the Little Ice Age (Parker, 2008; Brook, 2010; Tol and Wagner, 2010; White, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011), but for the same reasons the detection of the effect of climate change and an assessment of its importance can be made only with low confidence.”].

[74]      The IPCC acknowledge that solar and volcanic activity contributed substantially to the LIA’s climate change. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See Pages 37, “Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing, but also internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing of surface temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (1450–1850). {5.3.5, 5.5.1}.” “There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250). {5.5.4, 5.5.5}.” See page 77 “Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing but also internal variability contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing of surface temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (about 1450 to 1850). However, there is only very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions. It is very unlikely that NH temperature variations from 1400 to 1850 can be explained by internal variability alone. There is medium confidence that external forcing contributed to Northern Hemispheric temperature variability from 850 to 1400 and that external forcing contributed to European temperature variations over the last centuries. {5.3.5, 5.5.1, 10.7.2, 10.7.5; Table 10.1}.” Page 112 Floods and Droughts: “On millennial time scales, there is high confidence that proxy information provides evidence of droughts of greater magnitude and longer duration than observed during the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450 to 1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950 to 1250). {2.6.2, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, 10.6.1}.” See Page 408 “The median of the NH temperature reconstructions (Figure 5.7) indicates mostly warm conditions from about 950 to about 1250 and colder conditions from about 1450 to about 1850; these time intervals are chosen here to represent the MCA and the LIA, respectively.” See page 885, “There is medium confidence that both external solar and volcanic forcing, and internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes between the MCA and the LIA, but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions (Sections 5.3.5.3 and 5.5.1). The combined influence of volcanism, solar forcing and a small drop in greenhouse gases (GHGs) likely contributed to Northern Hemisphere cooling during the LIA (Section 10.7.2). Solar radiative forcing (RF) from the Maunder Minimum (1745) to the satellite era (average of 1976–2006) has been estimated to be +0.08 to +0.18 W m–2 (low confidence, Section 8.4.1.2). This may have contributed to early 20th century warming (low confidence, Section 10.3.1).” See Page 918, “Detection and attribution studies support results from modelling studies that infer a strong role of external forcing in the cooling of NH temperatures during the Little Ice Age (LIA; see Chapter 5 and Glossary).” See page 1151, “The combined records indicate that a net decline of global glacier volume began in the 19th century, before significant anthropogenic RF had started, and was probably the result of warming associated with the termination of the Little Ice Age (Crowley, 2000; Gregory et al., 2006, 2013b).”]

[75]      Large magnitude volcanic eruption data. Data: (1) Helen Sian Crosweller et al., “Global database on large magnitude explosive volcanic eruptions (LaMEVE).” Journal of Applied Volcanology Society and Volcanoes 20121:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5040-1-4. Volcano Global Risk Identification and Analysis Project database (VOGRIPA), British Geological Survey. Data Access: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/vogripa/. Data downloaded 07/05/2018. (2) S.K. Solanki et al., 2004, “An unusually active Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.” Nature, Volume 431, No. 7012, 1084-1087, 28 October 2004. Data: S.K. Solanki et al., 2005, “11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction.” IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series #2005-015. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/5780. Downloaded 05/06/2018.

[76]      David D. Zhang et al., “Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences December, 2007, 104 (49) 19214-19219; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0703073104.

[77]      Dian Zhang et al., “Climate change, social unrest and dynastic transition in ancient China.” China Science Bulletin January, 2005, Volume 50, Issue 2, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897517

[78]      D. Collet and M. Schuh (eds.), “Famines During the ‘Little Ice Age’” (1300–1800), DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54337-6_2. [See page 21].

[79]      Anthony J. McMichael, “Insights from past millennia into climatic impacts on human health and survival.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences March, 2012, 109 (13) 4730-4737; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1120177109. [See page 4734, column 2, paragraph 2].

[80]      Geoffrey Parker, “Crisis and Catastrophe: The Global Crisis of the Seventeenth Century Reconsidered.” The American Historical Review, Volume 113, No. 4 (October, 2008), 1053-1079. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30223245.

[81]      David D. Zhang et al., “Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences December, 2007, 104 (49) 19214-19219; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0703073104.

[82]      Leszek Starkel, “Extreme rainfalls and river floods in Europe during the last millennium.” Geographia Polonica (2001) Volume 74, issue 2, 69-79.

[83]      B. Stefanie et al., “Holocene flood frequency across the Central Alps – solar forcing and evidence for variations in North Atlantic atmospheric circulation.” Quaternary Science Reviews 80 (2013) 112e128.

[84]      Laurent Fouinat et al., “Paleoflood activity and climate change over the last 2000 years recorded by high altitude alpine lake sediments in Western French Alps.” Geophysical Research Abstracts. Volume 17, EGU2015-11555, 2015 EGU General Assembly 2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

[85]      B. Wilhelm et al., 2012, “1400 years of extreme precipitation patterns over the Mediterranean French Alps and possible forcing mechanisms.” Quaternary Research, 78(1), 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2012.03.003.

[86]      B. Stefanie et al., “A 2000 year long seasonal record of floods in the southern European Alps.” Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, 4025–4029, doi:10.1002/grl.50741, 2013.

[87]      O.N. Solomina et al., 2016, “Glacier fluctuations during the past 2000 years.” Quaternary Science Reviews, 149, 61-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.04.008. [See Figure 5, page 276. This figure collates a stacked time series of the number of glacier advances and recessions in each region into a global total.].

[88]      Zicheng Yu and Emi Ito, “Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains.” Geology ; 27 (3): 263–266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0263:PSFOCS>2.3.CO;2.

[89]      J.E. Nichols and Y. Huang, 2012, “Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing.” Geophysical. Research. Letters., Volume 39, L04707, doi:10.1029/2011GL050720, 2012.

[90]      H. Xu et al., 2015, “Late Holocene Indian Summer Monsoon Variations Recorded at Lake Erhai, Southwestern China.” Quaternary Research, 83(2), 307-314. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2014.12.004.

[91]      Shangbin Xiao et al., “Coherence between solar activity and the East Asian winter monsoon variability in the past 8000 years from Yangtze River-derived mud in the East China Sea.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 237 (2006) 293– 304. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.12.003.

[92]      Liangcheng Tan et al., “Precipitation variations of Longxi, northeast margin of Tibetan Plateau since AD 960 and their relationship with solar activity.” Climate of the Past, 4, 19–28, 2008, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-4-19-2008, 2008.

[93]      Wenfeng Deng et al., “A comparison of the climates of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and Current Warm Period reconstructed using coral records from the northern South China Sea.”   December 2016. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 122(1). DOI.10.1002/2016JC012458.

[94]      J.J. Yin et al., “Variation in the Asian monsoon intensity and dry–wet conditions since the Little Ice Age in central China revealed by an aragonite stalagmite.” Climate of the Past, 10, 1803-1816, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-1803-2014, 2014.

[95]      Wang Shaowu et al., “Climate in China During the Little Ice Age.” Department of Geophysics, Peking University, Beijing 100871. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DSJJ199801007.htm.

[96]      C. Uberoi, “Little Ice Age in Mughal India: Solar Minima Linked to Droughts?” Volume 93 Number 44 30 October 2012 EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. 437–452.

[97]      Rajesh Agnihotri et al., “Evidence for solar forcing on the Indian monsoon during the last millennium.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 198 (2002) 521-527.

[98]      Vishwas Kale and Victor R. Baker, “An Extraordinary Period of Low-magnitude Floods Coinciding with the Little Ice Age: Palaeoflood Evidence from Central and Western India.” Journal of the Geological Society of India 68(3):477-483.

[99]      Feng Shi et al., “A tree-ring reconstruction of the South Asian summer monsoon index over the past millennium.” Scientific Reports Volume 4, Article number: 6739 (2014). DOI: 10.1038/srep06739.

[100]     J.M. Russell, T.C. Johnson, “Little Ice Age drought in equatorial Africa: Intertropical Convergence Zone migrations and El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability.” Geology (2007) 35 (1): 21-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1130/G23125A.1.

[101]     Dirk Verschuren et al., Cumming. “Rainfall and drought in equatorial east Africa during the past 1,100 years.” Nature Volume 403, 410–414 (27 January 2000). doi:10.1038/35000179.

[102]     James M. Russell et al., “Spatial complexity of ‘Little Ice Age’ climate in East Africa: sedimentary records from two crater lake basins in western Uganda.” The Holocene. Volume 17, Issue 2, 183 – 193. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683607075832.

[103]     P D Tyson et al., “The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa.” March 2000South African Journal of Science 96(3):121-126.

[104]     Justin Reuter et al., “A new perspective on the hydroclimate variability in northern South America during the Little Ice Age.” December 2009 Geophysical Research Letters 36(21). DOI10.1029/2009GL041051.

[105]     Alexandra Haase‐Schramm et al., “Sr/Ca ratios and oxygen isotopes from sclerosponges: Temperature history of the Caribbean mixed layer and thermocline during the Little Ice Age.” Paleoceanography, 18(3), 1073, doi:10.1029/2002PA000830, 2003.

[106]     Juan Pablo Milana and Daniela Kröhling, “Climate changes and solar cycles recorded at the Holocene Paraná Delta, and their impact on human population.” August 2015Scientific Reports 5(12851):1-8. DOI10.1038/srep12851.

[107]     Pablo Mauas et al., “Long-term solar activity influences on South American rivers.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. arXiv:1003.0414 [astro-ph.SR]. 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.02.019.

[108]     Michael J Burn et al., “A sediment-based reconstruction of Caribbean effective precipitation during the Little Ice Age from Freshwater Pond, Barbuda.” The Holocene. Volume: 26 issue: 8, 1237-1247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683616638418.

[109]     Amos Winter et al., “Caribbean sea surface temperatures: Two-to-three degrees cooler than present during the Little Ice Age.” October 2000 Geophysical Research Letters 27(20):3365-3368. DOI10.1029/2000GL011426.

[110]     C. Lane et al., 2011, “Oxygen isotope evidence of Little Ice Age aridity on the Caribbean slope of the Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic.” Quaternary Research, 75(3), 461-470. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2011.01.002.

[111]     D.A. Hodell et al., 2005, “Climate change on the Yucatan Peninsula during the little ice age.” Quaternary Research, 63 (2). 109-121. ISSN 0033-5894. DOI.10.1016/j.yqres.2004.11.004.

[112]     N. Scafetta, “Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.016.

[113]       Theodor Landscheidt, “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? Energy & Environment. 2003.” Volume 14, Issue 2, 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646.

[114]       R.J. Salvador, “A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 years,” Pattern Recognition Physics, 1, 117-122, doi:10.5194/prp-1-117-2013, 2013.

[115]     Boncho P. Bonev et al., “Long-Term Solar Variability and the Solar Cycle in the 21st Century.” The Astrophysical Journal, 605:L81–L84, April 10, 2004.

[116]     Nils-Axel Mörner, “Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future. The North Atlantic–European case.” Global and Planetary Change 72 (2010) 282–293. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.01.004.

[117]     A. Mazzarella, “The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 88, 193–199 (2007). DOI 10.1007/s00704-005-0219-z.

[118]     Jan-Erik Solheim, https://www.mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Jan-Erik-Solheim-def.pdf. Referred from http://www.climatedialogue.org/what-will-happen-during-a-new-maunder-minimum/. Citing blog for 4-5 solar-climate experts.

[119]       Habibullo Abdussamatov, “Current Long-Term Negative Average Annual Energy Balance of the Earth Leads to the New Little Ice age.” Thermal Science. 2015 Supplement, Volume 19, S279-S288.

[120]     The IPCC dismiss the prospect and impact of the grand solar minimum the sun has entered. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See page 1022 Chapter citation mention of “grand solar minimum.” See page 1007. “As discussed in Chapter 8 (Section 8.4.1.3), the Sun has been in a ‘grand solar maximum’ of magnetic activity on the multi-decadal time scale. However, the most recent solar minimum was the lowest and longest since 1920, and some studies (e.g., Lockwood, 2010) suggest there could be a continued decline towards a much quieter period in the coming decades, but there is low confidence in these projections (Section 8.4.1.3). Nevertheless, if there is such a reduction in solar activity, there is high confidence that the variations in TSI RF will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHGs (Section 8.4.1.3).”

[121]     Northern Hemisphere temperature and solar activity are significantly correlated since 1400 CE. Data: (1) A.M. Berggren et al., 2009, “A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland.” Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L11801, doi:10.1029/2009GL038004. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. North GRIP – 600 Year Annual 10Be Data. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/8618. Downloaded 05/05/2018. (2) T. Kobashi et al., 2013, “Causes of Greenland temperature variability over the past 4000 year: implications for Northern Hemispheric temperature changes.” Climate of the Past, 9(5), 2299-2317. doi: 10.5194/cp-9-2299-2013. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Northern Hemisphere 4000 Year Temperature Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/15535. Downloaded 05/05/2018. Analysis: See Revolution’s Figure 4.4.A.) Spearman rank correlation r= -0.76, two-tailed P-value = <0.00001, N=484 annual pairings. Both the Northern Hemisphere temperature and the 18-year moving average Beryllium-10 concentration anomaly anomalies were not normally distributed, though they did not contain outliers. A scatter plot of the data indicated a linear relationship. A Spearman rank correlation was utilized given the non-normal distributions. The correlation was optimized using an 18-year moving average Beryllium-10 concentration anomaly. This 18-year moving average was selected using the scatterplot trend line in Microsoft Excel to maximize the R-squared (versus an 11-year, 5-year, and no moving average). Revolution’s Figure 4.4.B) A Spearman rank correlation r= -0.876, two-tailed P-value = <0.00001, N=205 annual pairings. A Pearson correlation r= -0.91, two-tailed P-value = <0.00001, N=205. The grand solar minima temperature decline phases and their corresponding 18-year trailing average Beryllium-10 data were extracted from the full data set and compiled into a single time series (as linked sequential periods). Each grand solar minimum period was analyzed as a stand-alone grand solar minimum data set (Data not shown) and as fusion of four grand solar minima. The results and conclusion are the same. The temperature data is normally distributed. The 18-year moving average Beryllium-10 concentration anomaly is not normally distributed, indicated by a d’Agostino-Pearson test that yielded a p=0.019, indicating a non-normal distribution. However, the scatter plot demonstrates a linear relationship, and there were no outliers. The correlation was optimized using a 18-year moving average Beryllium-10 concentration anomaly, selected using the scatterplot trend line in Microsoft Excel to maximize the R-squared (versus an 11-year, 5-year, and no moving average). Note: A Pearson correlation was also calculated for both data sets supporting Figures 4.4.A and B, yielding a similar level of correlation, statistical significance, and the same conclusion (Data not shown).

[122]       WG1 dismissed the climate forcing impact of volcanic eruptions from its climate forecasts. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages [See pages 1008-1009, “FAQ 11.2. How Do Volcanic Eruptions Affect Climate and Our Ability to Predict Climate?” While detailing over 1.5 pages about the planetary cooling impact of large magnitude volcanic eruptions we are informed, “The future projections in this report do not include future volcanic eruptions.” See page 1009 sub-section 11.3.6.3 point 4 for solar irradiance and volcanism, “As discussed in Section 11.3.6.2, the RCP scenarios assume no underlying trend in total solar irradiance and no future volcanic eruptions. Future volcanic eruptions cannot be predicted and there is low confidence in projected changes in solar irradiance (Chapter 8). Consequently the possible effects of future changes in natural forcings are excluded from the assessment here.”].

[123]     Geoengineering climate cooling with stratospheric aerosol injection. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [See Page 486, Section 6.9.2 Solar radiation management. 6.9.2.1 Proposed solar radiation management methods and characteristics. “Stratospheric aerosol injection would attempt to imitate the global cooling that large volcanic eruptions produce (Budyko and Miller, 1974; Crutzen, 2006; Rasch et al., 2008). This might be achieved by lofting sulphate aerosols (or other aerosol species) or their precursors to the stratosphere to create a high-altitude reflective layer that would need to be continually replenished. Section 7.7.2.1 of WG I assessed that there is medium confidence that up to 4 W/m2 of forcing could be achieved with this approach.”].

[124]     J. Slawinska and A. Robock, 2018, “Impact of Volcanic Eruptions on Decadal to Centennial Fluctuations of Arctic Sea Ice Extent during the Last Millennium and on Initiation of the Little Ice Age.” J. Climate, 31, 2145–2167, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0498.1.

[125]     Clive Oppenheimer, “Climatic, environmental and human consequences of the largest known historic eruption: Tambora volcano (Indonesia) 1815.” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment (2003). Volume 27, Issue 2, 230 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp379ra.

[126]     Anthony J. McMichael, “Insights from past millennia into climatic impacts on human health and survival.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences March 2012, 109 (13) 4730-4737; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1120177109. [See page 4735, column 2, paragraph 2].

[127]     C. Oppenheimer, (2003). “Ice core and paleoclimate evidence for the timing and nature of the great mid‐13th century volcanic eruption.” International Journal of Climatology, 23: 417-426. doi:10.1002/joc.891.

[128]     C. Newhall et al., 2018, “Anticipating future Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) 7 eruptions and their chilling impacts.” Geosphere, v. 14, no. 2, p. 1–32, doi:10.1130/GES01513.1.

[129]     R.B. Stothers, “Climatic and Demographic Consequences of the Massive Volcanic Eruption of 1258.” Climatic Change (2000) 45: 361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005523330643.

[130]     C. Oppenheimer, 2003, “Ice core and paleoclimate evidence for the timing and nature of the great mid‐13th century volcanic eruption.” International Journal of Climatology, 23: 417-426. doi:10.1002/joc.891.

[131]     Michael J. Puma et al., “Exploring the potential impacts of historic volcanic eruptions on the contemporary global food system.” PAGES Magazine. Science Highlights. Volcanoes and Climate. Volume 23, No 2, December 2015.

[132]     Anthony J. McMichael, “Insights from past millennia into climatic impacts on human health and survival.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2012, 109 (13) 4730-4737; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1120177109. [See page 4735, column 2, paragraph 2].

[133]     Clive Oppenheimer, Climatic, environmental and human consequences of the largest known historic eruption: Tambora volcano (Indonesia) 1815. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment (2003). Volume 27, Issue 2, 230 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp379ra.

[134]     C.C. Raible et al., 2016, “Tambora 1815 as a test case for high impact volcanic eruptions: Earth system effects.” WIREs Climate Change, 7: 569-589. doi:10.1002/wcc.407.

[135]     Michael J. Puma et al., “Exploring the potential impacts of historic volcanic eruptions on the contemporary global food system.” Pages Magazine. Science Highlights. Volcanoes and Climate. Volume 23, No 2, December 2015.

[136]     The post-HCO climate-forcing volcanic eruptions were associated with grand solar minima and maxima. Data: (1) Takuro Kobashi et al., 2017, “Volcanic influence on centennial to millennial Holocene Greenland temperature change.” Scientific Reports, 7, 1441. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01451-7. Data provided by the National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/22057. Data accessed 21/08/2018. (2) Solanki, S.K., et al. 2004. “An unusually active Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.” Nature, Volume 431, No. 7012, 1084-1087, 28 October 2004. Data: Solanki, S.K., et al. 2005. “11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction.” IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series #2005-015. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/5780. Downloaded 05/06/2018. Analysis: Revolution’s Figure 5.1.A: Using the above-cited climate-forcing volcanic eruption data a quantitative filter was utilized to identify the largest climate forcing eruptions, and to group all eruption events into climate-forcing categories for sub-analysis. Each volcanic eruption started with the first data point in a group series, and this group series magnitude was represented by the maximum volcanic forcing magnitude data point (i.e., the most negative Watts/meter-squared value) of that group series (i.e., a 1-year value from within a range of 1-10 years). This was completed for the entire time series spanning 11,054 years. In this manner 403 volcanic events were identified over the 11,054 year period. The eruption events were preliminarily assigned to groups based on their maximum solar forcing impact, as follows: Group-1, ≤-10 W/m2 (N=23). Group-2, -5.0 to <-9.99 W/m2 (N=50). Group-3, -2.0 to <-4.99 W/m2 (N=89). Group-4, 0 to <-1.99 W/m2 (N=241). Volcanic events were then grouped and compiled into 500, 400, and 300 year bin totals spanning the last 5,000, 8,000, and 11,000 years. The average sunspot numbers were calculated for each bin period. A goodness of fit and outlier tests were then conducted for all groupings. Pearson and Spearman rank correlations and their significance levels were calculated for each 5,000, 8,000, and 11,000 year periods to help understand if any relationships existed. Results: The 500-year bin totals (Group 1 and 2 combined) generated the highest and most significant correlations, and the 8,000 period maximized the correlation coefficients. The correlation values were reduced for the 11,000-year period versus the 8,000-year period, and were marginally smaller for 400-year bins, and much smaller for 300-year bins (Data not shown) compared with the 500-year bins. On this basis, the 8,000-year duration and 500-year bin totals (Group 1 and 2 eruption events combined) represented the optimum grouping which maximized the correlation and duration of the relationship i.e., since the Holocene Climate Optimum. The outcome of this analysis was to compile Groups 1 and 2 into a single group and set the climate-forcing eruption threshold at ≤ -5.0 Watts/meter-squared i.e., 73 climate-forcing volcanic eruptions. All 73 large climate-forcing volcanic eruptions were plotted against the above-cited Solanki et al. sunspot numbers to derive Figure 5.1.A’s graphic. Revolution’s Figure 5.1.B: The 73 climate-forcing eruptions selected above were tabulated alongside the above-cited Solanki et al. sunspot numbers in the year of the eruption’s occurrence. The number of periods (at a 10-year resolution) was counted to the previous or next big (grand solar) and small (sub-) peak or trough for all eruption events. An eruption was then assigned to a big or little peak or trough based on its closest proximity to one of those events.

[137]     Grand solar minimum and maximum putatively act as a climate oscillator (via climate-forcing volcanism). Data: (1) Helen Sian Crosweller et al., “Global database on large magnitude explosive volcanic eruptions (LaMEVE).” Journal of Applied Volcanology Society and Volcanoes 20121:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5040-1-4. Volcano Global Risk Identification and Analysis Project database (VOGRIPA), British Geological Survey. Data Access: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/vogripa/. Data downloaded 07/05/2018. (2) S.K. Solanki et al., 2004, “An unusually active Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.” Nature, Volume 431, No. 7012, 1084-1087, 28 October 2004. Data: S.K. Solanki et al., 2005, “11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction.” IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series #2005-015. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/5780. Downloaded 05/06/2018. Analysis: A total of 67 VEI 6 and 7 eruptions were extracted from the LaMEVE database. These were plotted alongside the above-cited Solanki et al. sunspot numbers. The number of 10-year periods was counted from each eruption to the previous or next sunspot number peak or trough. The data is tabulated above, at the start of the endnotes and referencing this endnote. Results: 82 percent of VEI 6-7 eruptions occurred at or within one decade of a sunspot number peak or trough. This peak and trough occurrence coincides with either a grand solar maximum or minimum, or a smaller sub-peak or sub-trough of sunspot numbers.

[138]     Large magnitude volcanism’s association with the LIA’s grand solar minimum and maximum, and the 8.2Kyr rapid climate change event. Data: (1) Helen Sian Crosweller et al., “Global database on large magnitude explosive volcanic eruptions (LaMEVE).” Journal of Applied Volcanology Society and Volcanoes 20121:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5040-1-4. Volcano Global Risk Identification and Analysis Project database (VOGRIPA), British Geological Survey. Data Access: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/vogripa/. Data downloaded 07/05/2018. (2) S.K. Solanki et al., 2004, “An unusually active Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.” Nature, Volume 431, No. 7012, 1084-1087, 28 October 2004. Data: Solanki, S.K., et al. 2005. 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series #2005-015. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/5780. Downloaded 05/06/2018. (3) Takuro Kobashi et al., 2017, “Volcanic influence on centennial to millennial Holocene Greenland temperature change.” Scientific Reports, 7, 1441. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01451-7. Data provided by the National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/22057. Data accessed 21/08/2018. Analysis: (1) Revolution’s Figure 5.2.A: The 11 total VEI 6 and 7 eruptions between 1235 and 1885 were extracted from the LaMEVE database and graphically plotted as discrete events on the above-cited Solanki et al. reconstructed sunspot number data within this same period. In this manner, the occurrence of VEI 6-7 eruptions can be viewed relative to the grand solar maximum or minimum, or going into or coming out of a grand solar minimum trough. (2) Revolution’s Figure 5.2.B: Two periods running from grand solar maxima-to-minima-to-maxima were extracted from the above-cited Solanki et al. sunspot number data (including the 8.2Kyr rapid climate change event). The corresponding climate forcing volcanic eruptions from the Takuro Kobashi, et al. volcanic eruption data (the same as utilized for Revolution’s Figure 5.1.A) were plotted in the periods that they occurred. This highlights the association of large climate-forcing volcanic eruptions with either a grand solar maximum or minimum, or a smaller sub-peak or sub-trough of sunspot numbers going into or coming out of a grand solar minimum.

[139]     Sunspot numbers. Sunspot data from the World Data Center SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. http://sidc.be/silso/datafiles#total.

[140]     Total solar irradiance. Reconstruction was based on NRLTSI2 (Coddington et al., BAMS, 2015 doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1). http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.txt.

[141]     Cosmic ray intensity. Usoskin, I.G., et al. 2008. Cosmic Ray Intensity Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series # 2008-013. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. Original References: 1) I.G. Usoskin et al., 2002, A physical reconstruction of cosmic ray intensity since 1610. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(A11), 1374. Downloaded May 2018. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/usoskin-cosmic-ray.txt.

[142]     Solar modulation function (MeV). R. Muscheler et al., 2008. Radionuclide-based Solar Activity Reconstructions for the Last Millennia. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series # 2008-024. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/muscheler2007solar-mod.txt.

[143]     Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly. T. Kobashi et al., 2013. Causes of Greenland temperature variability over the past 4000 year: implications for northern hemispheric temperature changes. Climate of the Past, 9(5), 2299-2317. doi: 10.5194/cp-9-2299-2013. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Northern Hemisphere 4000 Year Temperature Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/15535.

[144]     Greenland 11,500 Year Air Temperature Reconstruction: T. Kobashi et al., 2017. Volcanic influence on centennial to millennial Holocene Greenland temperature change. Scientific Reports, 7, 1441. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01451-7. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/22057.

[145]     Arctic Sea-ice Cover proxy. Jochen Halfar et al., 2013, Arctic sea-ice decline archived by multicentury annual-resolution record from crustose coralline algal proxy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313775110. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Arctic Northwest Atlantic 646 Year Coralline Algae Sea Ice Record. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/15454.

[146]     Ice accumulation rate. Beryllium-10 concentration anomaly data is based on; A.M. Berggren et al., 2009, A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L11801, doi:10.1029/2009GL038004. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. North GRIP – 600 Year Annual 10Be Data. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/8618.

[147]     Publications used to derived a consensus of pandemic influenza outbreak dates from 1500 CE. (1) David M. Morens* and Jeffery K. Taubenberger. Pandemic influenza: certain uncertainties. Rev. Med. Virol. 2011; 21: 262–284. DOI: 10.1002/rmv.689. (2) Svenn-Erik Mamelund. Influenza, Historical. December 2008. International Encyclopedia of Public Health, First Edition (2008), vol. 3, pp. 597-609. DOI: 10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00372-5. (3) J.K. Taubenberger(1),* and D.M. Morens(2). Pandemic influenza – including a risk assessment of H5N1. Rev Sci Tech. 2009 April ; 28(1): 187–202. (4) David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger. Historical thoughts on influenza viral ecosystems, or behold a pale horse, dead dogs, failing fowl, and sick swine. (5) Bruno Lina. Chapter 12: History of Influenza Pandemics. In: Raoult D., Drancourt M. (eds) Paleomicrobiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008. (6) C.W. Potter. A history of influenza. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2001, 91, 572-579. (7) Eugenia Tognotti. Emerging Problems in Infectious Diseases Influenza pandemics: a historical retrospect. J Infect Dev Ctries 2009; 3(5):331-334.

[148]     Pacific Decadal Oscillation Reconstruction. C. Shen et al., 2006. A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006. doi:10.1029/2005GL024804. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/pacific/pdo-shen2006.txt.

[149]     Warm Season Arctic Oscillation Reconstructions (AO-SAT and AO-SLP). R.D. D’Arrigo et al., 2003, Warm Season Arctic Oscillation Reconstructions. International Tree-Ring Data Bank. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2003-045. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/ao_darrigo2003.txt.

[150]     WHO. Antigenic and genetic characteristics of zoonotic influenza viruses and development of candidate vaccine viruses for pandemic preparedness. https://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/virus/201902_zoonotic_vaccinevirusupdate.pdf?ua=1.

[151]     WG1 (AR4) deferred the ice age 30,000 years without subjecting that erroneous assumption to peer review. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pages [See page 56, Box TS.6. “The Milankovitch, or ‘orbital’ theory of the ice ages is now well developed. Ice ages are generally triggered by minima in high-latitude NH summer insolation, enabling winter snowfall to persist through the year and therefore accumulate to build NH glacial ice sheets.” Followed by, “Available evidence indicates that the current warming will not be mitigated by a natural cooling trend towards glacial conditions. Understanding of the Earth’s response to orbital forcing indicates that the Earth would not naturally enter another ice age for at least 30,000 years. {6.4, FAQ 6.1}.” See page 85 section TS.6.2.4 Paleoclimate under “Robust Findings” “It is very unlikely that the Earth would naturally enter another ice age for at least 30,000 years. {6.4}”).].

[152]     WG1 (AR5) dismissed the ice age by 50,000 years without subjecting that erroneous assumption to peer review. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See Page 70, “It is virtually certain that orbital forcing will be unable to trigger widespread glaciation during the next 1000 years. Paleoclimate records indicate that, for orbital configurations close to the present one, glacial inceptions only occurred for atmospheric CO2 concentrations significantly lower than pre-industrial levels. Climate models simulate no glacial inception during the next 50,000 years if CO2 concentrations remain above 300 ppm. {5.8.3, Box 6.2}.”].

[153]     Falsifying the IPCC’s 30,000 ice age delay (1). Inter-climate optimum intervals. Data: Bintanja, R. and R.S.W. van de Wal, “North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000-year glacial cycles.” Nature, Volume 454, 869-872, 14 August 2008. doi:10.1038/nature07158. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Global 3Ma Temperature, Sea Level, and Ice Volume Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11933. Downloaded 10/27/2015. Analysis: The following table data summary was created detailing 2,026,800 years of global climate optima timings and intervals (from peak-to-peak; Kiloyears). Without any change to the 2.1Kyr climate optimum 2,100 years ago i.e., without a 30,000-year extension to the Holocene interglacial period, the current largest climate optimum interval of 122.7 kiloyears (i.e., 2.1-124.8Kyr peak) is not a statistically significant outlier (P>0.05) compared with the group (N=33). However, when this interglacial period is extended 30,000 years the revised climate optima interval (154.8 kiloyears) becomes a statistically significant outlier (P<0.05). For the revised dataset (with the 30,000-year extension): the Mean = 62.3, standard deviation = 30.2, N = 33. Outlier detected? Yes. Significance level: 0.05 (two-sided). Critical value of Z: 2.95. A goodness of fit was pre-assessed for the original unmodified data (i.e., no 30Kyr delay) using the d’Agostino-Pearson test: P = 0.095. On this basis the Grubb’s outlier test was selected because the original data was normally distributed. When the 122.7Kyr climate optimum interval was substituted with the 154.8Kyr data point the d’Agostino-Pearson test: P = 0.011. This 30,000-year modification changed the data-population distribution to a non-normal distribution. This change in data distribution adds further support that the 30,000-year delay can not be statistically justified.

[154]     Falsifying the IPCC’s 30,000 ice age delay (2). Antarctic-Global Climate Optima phasing gaps. Data: (1) Jouzel, J., V. et al. 2007. “Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years.” Science, Volume 317, No. 5839, 793-797, 10 August 2007. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. EPICA Dome C – 800KYr Deuterium Data and Temperature Estimates. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6080. Download data: Downloaded 08/02/2016. (2) R. Bintanja and R.S.W. van de Wal, North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000-year glacial cycles. Nature, Volume 454, 869-872, 14 August 2008. doi:10.1038/nature07158. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Global 3Ma Temperature, Sea Level, and Ice Volume Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11933. Downloaded 10/27/2015. Analysis: The data is tabulated below and details 787,300 years of Antarctic-to-global climate optima phasing gaps (Kiloyears). A Grubb’s test was performed on the Antarctic-to-global climate optima phasing gaps to determine if the IPCC’s proposed 30,000 year ice age delay created a statistically significant outlier from the other 8 glacial cycle comparator phasing gaps (Antarctica versus global; glacial cycles 1-9). By delaying the Holocene Climate Optima 30,000 years, the phasing gap changes from the current 8,400 years to a statistically significant outlier at 40,500 years (P<0.05)(40,500 years =30,000+2,100+8,400 years). The 30,000-year phasing gap increase was only applied to the global climate data’s climate optimum because Antarctica’s climate optimum was set in the ice record 10,500 years ago and new ice has accumulated since, indicating its ice age has already started (i.e., the inner dome is 100 meters higher today than it was at the Holocene Climate Optimum). A goodness of fit test was performed with the original data using the d’Agostino-Pearson test: P = 0.678, indicating the original group was not different from a Gaussian or normal distribution. On this basis the Grubbs test was selected to test for an outlier. By delaying the Holocene 30,000 years the phasing gap was increased to 40,500 years and the d’Agostino-Pearson test: P< 0.001. This 30,000-year interglacial extension also changed the data-population distribution from a normal to a non-normal distribution. This change in data distribution adds further support that the 30,000-year delay can not be statistically justified.

[155]     Falsifying the IPCC’s 30,000 ice age delay (3). Interglacial Interval Extension: Data: Bintanja, R. and R.S.W. van de Wal, “North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000-year glacial cycles.” Nature, Volume 454, 869-872, 14 August 2008. doi:10.1038/nature07158. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Global 3Ma Temperature, Sea Level, and Ice Volume Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11933. Downloaded 10/27/2015. Analysis: The first 965,300 years of global interglacial periods (Kiloyears) were extracted from the global data. A Grubb’s test was performed to determine if the IPCC’s proposed 30,000-year extension to the Holocene interglacial period created a statistically significant outlier in this group of ten glacial cycle comparators. To test the statistical validity, the current interglacial duration of 17,500 years (19,600 to 2,100 YBP) was extended by 30,000, plus 2,100 years from its existing climate optimum peak to bring it up to today, yielding a revised 49,600 year interglacial period. By extending this current interglacial by 30,000 years the group interglacial duration mean was 21.1Kyr, standard deviation 11.2Kyr, N=11, and an outlier was detected (two-sided P<0.05). The critical value of Z = 2.35. A goodness of fit test was performed with the original data using the d’Agostino-Pearson test: P = 0.386, indicating the original group was not different from a Gaussian or normal distribution. On this basis the Grubbs test was selected to test for an outlier. By delaying the Holocene 30,000 years the interglacial period was extended to 49,600 years and the d’Agostino-Pearson test: P = 0.011. This 30,000 year interglacial extension changed the data-population distribution to a non-normal or non-Gaussian distribution. This change in data distribution adds further support that the 30,000-year delay can not be statistically justified. The complexities linked to the 492.2Kyr peak mean this was removed from the analysis (i.e., this interglacial contains a prior “amputated” peak inserted into the interglacial period that confuses matters, which is similar to the Dome-C data. This interglacial period was therefore removed from the analysis).

[156]     G.H. Miller et al., 2012, “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks.” Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L02708, doi:10.1029/2011GL050168. [Comment: We are told in the opening sentence that the Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures track a precession-driven decline in summer insolation for 8,000 years, and that the summer temperature changes are the greatest in the Arctic. This article cites CAPE Project Members, 2001; Kaufman et al., 2004; Vinther et al., 2009.].

[157]     Y. Zhong et al., “Centennial-scale climate change from decadally-paced explosive volcanism: a coupled sea ice-ocean mechanism.” Climate Dynamics (2011) 37: 2373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0967-z. [Comment: The abstract tells us that the Northern Hemisphere Holocene summer cooling was driven predominantly by the decline in precession- modulated summer insolation. Page 2, top left, tells us this summer decline in insolation from 8,000 years ago in the Northern Hemisphere led to glacier ice expansion, especially from 5,000 years ago.].

[158]       H. Wanner et al., “Structure and origin of Holocene cold events.” Quaternary Science Reviews (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.07.010. [Comment: See Figure 5a, page 9, depicting the steady decline in Northern Hemisphere summer solar insolation at north 15 and 65 degree latitudes, and indicating that insolation has declined by about 40 W/m2. This is based on the landmark research by Berger, 1978 (André Berger, Long-Term Variations of Daily Insolation and Quaternary Climatic Changes. 1978. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 35(12):2362-2367. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035<2362:LTVODI>2.0.CO;2).].

[159]     D.S. Kaufman et al., “Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0–180°W).” Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 23, Issues 5–6, 2004, 529-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.09.007. [Comment: See the abstract. We are told that the precession-driven summer insolation anomaly peaked 12,000-10,000 years ago. See also Figure 9a which depicts the 65°N insolation anomaly at different times of the year, indicating an approximate 50 Wm-2 decline in summer solstice insolation from its peak 12,000-10,000 years ago.].

[160]     I. Borzenkova et al., 2015. Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years). In: The BACC II Author Team (eds) Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. Regional Climate Studies. Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16006-1.pdf

[161]     WG1 (AR4) tells us the Milankovitch theory of ice ages in now well developed (incorrect). IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pages [See page 56, “The Milankovitch, or ‘orbital’ theory of the ice ages is now well developed.”].

[162]     D. H. Tarling, “Milankvitch Cycles in Climate Change.” Geology and Geophysics. Proc. 6th International Symposium on Geophysics, Tanta, Egypt (2010), 1- 8.

[163]     Mark A. Maslin and Andy J. Ridgwell, “Mid-Pleistocene revolution and the ‘eccentricity myth’.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 247, 19-34, 1 January 2005, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2005.247.01.02. Available online at http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/247/1/19.

[164]     Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, “Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Volume 94, 8329–8334, August 1997 Colloquium Paper. Available online at http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/94/16/8329.full.pdf

[165]     J. A. Rial, 2004, “Earth’s orbital eccentricity and the rhythm of the Pleistocene ice ages: The concealed pacemaker.” Global and Planetary Change, 41(2), 81-93. DOI:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2003.10.003.

[166]     J. Kirkby et al., “The glacial cycles and cosmic rays.” CERN-PH-EP/2004-027. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407005.

[167]     Gerald E. Marsh, “Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide.” DOI: 10.1155/2014/345482. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0597.

[168]     Tabulated data of the Antarctic, Arctic, and global inter-climate optimum intervals and the phasing gaps between the corresponding global and Antarctic climate optima.

[169]     Nicolaj K. Larsen et al., “The response of the southern Greenland ice sheet to the Holocene thermal maximum.” Geology ; 43 (4): 291–294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G36476.1.

[170]     J.P. Briner et al., “Holocene climate change in Arctic Canada and Greenland.” Quaternary Science Reviews (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.02.010.

[171]     Leonid Polyak et al., “History of sea ice in the Arctic.” Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1757–1778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010.

[172]     Ó. Ingólfsson et al., 1998, “Antarctic glacial history since the Last Glacial Maximum: An overview of the record on land. “Antarctic Science, 10(3), 326-344. doi:10.1017/S095410209800039X.

[173]     Leonid Polyak et al. “History of sea ice in the Arctic.” Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1757–1778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010

[174]     N.L. Balascio et al. “Glacier response to North Atlantic climate variability during the Holocene.” Climate of the Past, 11, 1587-1598, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-11-1587-2015, 2015.

[175]     The RAISED Consortium1, Michael J. Bentley et al., “A community-based geological reconstruction of Antarctic Ice Sheet deglaciation since the Last Glacial Maximum.” Quaternary Science Reviews. Volume 100, 15 September 2014, 1-9.

[176]     M. Frezzotti1 et al. “A synthesis of the Antarctic surface mass balance during the last 800 years.” The Cryosphere, 7, 303–319, 2013. www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/doi:10.5194/tc-7-303-2013 © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

[177]     O.N. Solomina et al., 2016, “Glacier fluctuations during the past 2000 years.” Quaternary Science Reviews, 149, 61-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.04.008. [See Figure 5, page 276. This figure collates a stacked time series of the number of glacier advances and recessions in each region into a global total.].

[178]     Michael E Mann. “Little Ice Age.” Volume 1, The Earth system: physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change, 504–509. In Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (ISBN 0-471-97796-9).

[179]     Leonid Polyak et al., “History of sea ice in the Arctic.” Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1757–1778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010

[180]     Christophe Kinnard et al., “A changing Arctic seasonal ice zone: Observations from 1870–2003 and possible oceanographic consequences.” Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, L02507, doi:10.1029/2007GL032507, 2008.

[181]     O.N. Solomina et al., (2016). “Glacier fluctuations during the past 2000 years.” Quaternary Science Reviews, 149, 61-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.04.008. [See Figure 5, page 276. This figure collates a stacked time series of the number of glacier advances and recessions in each region into a global total.].

[182]     The massive glacier ice melt after the Little Ice Age helps disorient our glacial cycle bearing. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See page 1151, “The combined records indicate that a net decline of global glacier volume began in the 19th century, before significant anthropogenic RF had started, and was probably the result of warming associated with the termination of the Little Ice Age (Crowley, 2000; Gregory et al., 2006, 2013b).”]

[183]     The RAISED Consortium1, Michael J. Bentley et al. “A community-based geological reconstruction of Antarctic Ice Sheet deglaciation since the Last Glacial Maximum.” Quaternary Science Reviews. Volume 100, 15 September 2014, 1-9.

[184]     Bintanja, R. and R.S.W. van de Wal, “North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000-year glacial cycles.” Nature, Volume 454, 869-872, 14 August 2008. doi:10.1038/nature07158. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Global 3Ma Temperature, Sea Level, and Ice Volume Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11933. Downloaded 10/27/2015.

[185]     J.V. Jouzel et al., 2007, “Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years.” Science, Volume 317, No. 5839, 793-797, 10 August 2007. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. EPICA Dome C – 800KYr Deuterium Data and Temperature Estimates. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6080. Download data: Downloaded 08/02/2016.

[186]     R.V. Uemura et al., 2012, “Ranges of moisture-source temperature estimated from Antarctic ice cores stable isotope records over glacial-interglacial cycles.” Climate of the Past, 8, 1109-1125. doi: 10.5194/cp-8-1109-2012. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Dome Fuji 360KYr Stable Isotope Data and Temperature Reconstruction. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/13121. Downloaded 05/05/2018.

[187]     Sigfus J. Johnsen et al., 1997, “The d18O record along the Greenland Ice Core Project deep ice core and the problem of possible Eemian climatic instability.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 102(C12), 26397-26410. doi: 10.1029/97JC00167. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. GRIP Ice Core 248KYr Oxygen Isotope Data. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/17839.

[188]     B.M. Vinther et al., 2009, “Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.” Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 385-388, 17 September 2009. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Greenland Ice Sheet Holocene d18O, Temperature, and Surface Elevation. doi:10.1038/nature08355. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11148. Downloaded 05/05/2018.

[189]     R.B. Alley, 2004, “GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.” National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/2475. Downloaded 05/05/2018.

[190]     IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. [See page 124, Table 1.1. “Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, global surface temperatures have probably fluctuated by little more than 10C.”].

[191]     The last ice age did not end “about 10,000 years ago”. Data: R. Bintanja and R.S.W. van de Wal, “North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000-year glacial cycles.” Nature, Volume 454, 869-872, 14 August 2008. doi:10.1038/nature07158. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Global 3Ma Temperature, Sea Level, and Ice Volume Reconstructions. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11933. Downloaded 10/27/2015. Analysis: Using the above-cited file, the temperature and sea level data were extracted from the Last glacial maximum (i.e., minimum glacial cycle temperature 19,600 years ago and ≈maximum ice mass and ≈minimum sea level) to the Holocene Climate Optimum (i.e., maximum glacial cycle temperature 2,100 years ago and ≈minimum ice mass and ≈maximum sea level), and the corresponding data for 10,000 years ago. Results: (A) By 10,000 years ago the sea level had already risen about 80% and the temperature 91% of their total Holocene interglacial rise (from glacial maximum to climate optimum). This confirms the last ice age did not end “about 10,000 years ago.” (B) This global climate data also highlights that the northern hemisphere glaciers (i.e., Eurasian and North American ice volume) contributed 87% of the total Holocene interglacial sea level rise].

[192]       R.B. Alley, 2004, “GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.” National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/2475. Downloaded 05/05/2018.

[193]     R.V. Uemura et al., 2012, “Ranges of moisture-source temperature estimated from Antarctic ice cores stable isotope records over glacial-interglacial cycles.” Climate of the Past, 8, 1109-1125. doi: 10.5194/cp-8-1109-2012. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Dome Fuji 360KYr Stable Isotope Data and Temperature Reconstruction. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/13121. Downloaded 05/05/2018.

[194]     J. V. Jouzel et al., 2007, “Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years.” Science, Volume 317, No. 5839, 793-797, 10 August 2007. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. EPICA Dome C – 800KYr Deuterium Data and Temperature Estimates. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6080. Download data: Downloaded 08/02/2016.

[195]     Sigfus J. Johnsen et al., 1997, “The d18O record along the Greenland Ice Core Project deep ice core and the problem of possible Eemian climatic instability.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 102(C12), 26397-26410. doi: 10.1029/97JC00167. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. GRIP Ice Core 248KYr Oxygen Isotope Data. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/17839.

[196]       B.M. Vinther et al., 2009, “Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.” Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 385-388, 17 September 2009. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Greenland Ice Sheet Holocene d18O, Temperature, and Surface Elevation. doi:10.1038/nature08355. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11148. Downloaded 05/05/2018.

[197]     Sigfus J. Johnsen et al., 1997, “The d18O record along the Greenland Ice Core Project deep ice core and the problem of possible Eemian climatic instability.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 102(C12), 26397-26410. doi: 10.1029/97JC00167. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. GRIP Ice Core 248KYr Oxygen Isotope Data. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/17839.

[198]       B.M. Vinther et al., 2009, “Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.” Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 385-388, 17 September 2009. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Greenland Ice Sheet Holocene d18O, Temperature, and Surface Elevation. doi:10.1038/nature08355. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11148. Downloaded 05/05/2018. Analysis: Between the Holocene Climate Optimum 5980 BCE (+3.550C anomaly) and the deepest temperature trough in 1700 CE (-1.310C anomaly) the temperature declined 4.860C. Between 1700 and 1940 the temperature then rose 2.870C.].

[199]     R.B. Alley, 2004, “GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.” National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/2475. Downloaded 5/5/2018. [Last Glacial Maximum’s deepest temperature trough was 24,098 years ago (-530C) and the Holocene Climate Optimum was 7,800 years ago (-28.860C). The difference between these time points is 16,297 years and 24.560C.]

[200]     Nicolaj K. Larsen et al., “The response of the southern Greenland ice sheet to the Holocene thermal maximum.” Geology ; 43 (4): 291–294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G36476.1.

[201]     D.S. Kaufman et al., “Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0–1800W).” Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 529–560.

[202]     J.P. Briner et al., “Holocene climate change in Arctic Canada and Greenland.” Quaternary Science Reviews (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.02.010.

[203]     Extreme outlier Arctic warming oscillations fall abruptly upon switching phase to their cooling mode. Data: (1) B.M. Vinther et al., 2009, “Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet.” Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 385-388, 17 September 2009. National Centers for Environmental Information, NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Greenland Ice Sheet Holocene d18O, Temperature, and Surface Elevation. doi:10.1038/nature08355. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/11148. Downloaded 05/05/2018. Analysis: Groups 1 and 2 previously defined in end note citation 8 were compared by their magnitudes of decline from the temperature peak to see if there was a difference between them once the climate switched to a cooling phase. The time to reach the first post-peak trough, and to their maximum troughs was calculated. Each group of peak to trough decline phases had a normal distribution (d’Agostino-Pearson test and Shapiro-Wilks test: P>0.05) but a different variance. As such a Welch T-test (unpaired) was used to assess group differences. Results: Group 1 (≥1.770C trough-to-peak) showed a mean temperature decline at the 1st trough after the main peak of 1.920C versus Group 2’s (≤1.770C trough-to-peak) mean temperature decline of 1.030C. This Group 2 decline represented a statistically significant difference in temperature decline over Group 1 (2-tailed P-value = 0.043). Group 1 showed a mean temperature decline at the maximum trough after the peak of 1.920C versus Group 2’s mean temperature decline of 1.230C, but this difference was not significantly different (-0.690C, P-value 0.08). Moreover, Group 1 rapidly declined such that its first post-peak trough was the same as its maximum trough i.e., Group 1 temperature fell abruptly. Group 2 showed a difference between its first and maximum trough of -0.200C, which was significantly different from its first post-peak trough (P-value = 0.002). Group 1 took two 45 years on average to drop -1.920C with its first and maximum trough being the same (-1.920C). By contrast, Group 2 took an average of 36 years to reach its first trough and 63 years to reach its deepest trough. Conclusion: The higher the preceding trough-to-peak temperature rise (i.e., a statistical outlier, tall temperature peak, or large warming phase) the greater and more abrupt the temperature falls to near its maximum trough when the climate switches.

[204]     Robert K. Booth et al., “A severe centennial-scale drought in midcontinental North America 4200 years ago and apparent global linkages.” The Holocene. Volume 15, Issue 3, 321 – 328. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1191/0959683605hl825ft.

[205]     J. Stanley et al., 2003, “Nile flow failure at the end of the Old Kingdom, Egypt: Strontium isotopic and petrologic evidence.” Geoarchaeology, 18: 395-402. doi:10.1002/gea.10065.

[206]     Ann Gibbons, “How the Akkadian Empire Was Hung Out to Dry”. Science 20 Aug 1993: Volume 261, Issue 5124, DOI: 10.1126/science.261.5124.985.

[207]     Jianjun Wang, “The abrupt climate change near 4,400 year BP on the cultural transition in Yuchisi, China and its global linkage.” Scientific Reports | 6:27723 | DOI: 10.1038/srep27723. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27723.pdf.

[208]       A restricted definition of climate change and its mitigation was enforced by Articles 1 and 2. (i.e., climate change blamed on humans, and anthropogenic global warming mitigation): United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations 1992. FCCC/INFORMAL/84, GE.05-62220 (E), 200705. [See page 3 and 4 for Article 1 and 2 definitions. Article 1 definition: “Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” Article 2 objective: “The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” Note: This definition for climate change was present at the IPCC’s 1988 founding. In other words, the science of climate change was predetermined (human activity, greenhouse gases) and had nothing to do with an international scientific consensus (other than via carefully selected government scientists). Article 2’s objective is focused on stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at levels that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, while ensuring food production and sustainable economic development. In other words, in 1988 Article 2 had already determined that human activity was dangerous and that it needed to be mitigated.].

[209]       The radiative forcing theory was installed in 1988 by UNFCCC Articles 1 and 2. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990). Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group 1. J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, New York, NY, USA and Melbourne, Australia 410 pages [See the Preface’s Introduction. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly established by our two organizations in 1988. Under the chairmanship of Professor Bert Bolin, the Panel was charged with: assessing the scientific information that is related to the various components of the climate change issue, such as emissions of major greenhouse gases and modification of the Earth’s radiation balance resulting therefrom, and that needed to enable the environmental and socio-economic consequences of climate change to be evaluated, (ii) formulating realistic response strategies for the management of the climate change issue.” The radiative forcing theory was predetermined from the IPCC’s outset. There is no mention of assessing the scientific information relating to natural climate change mechanisms that control earth’s climate over annual, decadal, centennial, millennial, and glacial cycle time-scales.].

[210]     On Maurice Strong. The Heartland Institute. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/. [Exposé: This page also cited John Izzard’s blog. “Maurice Strong, Climate Crook.” Quadrant Online December 02nd 2015. Available at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2010/01/discovering-maurice-strong/.Maurice Strong. (last accessed 21/03/2018)].

[211]     InterAcademy Council confirms the IPCC’s scientific bias and its bias-enabling procedures. Climate Change Assessments. Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC. October 2010. Committee Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Report available at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/. [Page 18; Critiquing the IPCC’s “confirmation bias.” Page 14; Government provided and politically aligned scientists. We are told that governments do not always put forward the names of the best climate scientist volunteers for the IPCC work. Political considerations are prioritized over scientific expertise and qualifications in the IPCC scientist selection process. Page 14; “Author selection” enables scientific bias. Co-chairs select lead and coordinating authors from a list of nominees provided by governments. Page 21; lack of independent review of AR1-4 arises because the working group co-chairs also select the review editors. Page 23; final synthesis reports are not written by independent expert scientists, but result from negotiations among government representatives and the IPCC chair and working group co-chairs. Page 24; line-by-line negotiation results in differences between the assessment reports and the final politicized synthesis report provided to governments.].

[212]     The IPCC discloses our limited oil and gas reserves AR5 (without emphasis). IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [See page 379. “There is little controversy that oil and gas occurrences are abundant, whereas the reserves are more limited, with some 50 years of production for oil and about 70 years for natural gas at the current rates of extraction (Rogner et al., 2012). Reserve additions have shifted to inherently more challenging and potentially costlier locations, with technological progress outbalancing potentially diminishing returns (Nakicenovic et al., 1998; Rogner et al., 2012).” Question: How will humans generate the carbon dioxide required to produce the global warming predicted by the IPCC for the 21st century with only 50 years of proven oil and gas left?].

[213]     The IPCC discloses our limited oil and gas reserves AR4 (without emphasis). IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [Exposé: See page 265, section 4.3.1. “The proven and probable reserves of oil and gas are enough to last for decades and in the case of coal, centuries (Table. 4.2). Possible undiscovered resources extend these projections even further.” Question: How will humans generate the carbon dioxide required to produce the global warming predicted by the IPCC for the 21st century with only decades of proven oil and gas left?].

[214]     Energy Information Administration Data. 50 years of proven oil and gas reserves (see Revolution’s Chapter 8): Energy Information Administration data was obtained from: International Energy Statistics. These calculations utilized the following data files. Natural gas https://bit.ly/2LC6GBo, Crude Oil https://bit.ly/2IWeEaP, Coal data https://bit.ly/2L6pk3w. [Analysis: These reserve timeline estimates are calculated by dividing the 2013 Energy Information Agency’s proven global oil, natural gas, and coal reserves by 2013 levels of production. This calculation tells us there are 50 years of proven oil and gas, and 130 years of coal reserves left. These reserve timeline estimates do not assume any population or economic growth, or a switch to a cold climate regime, which would accelerate energy demand and reduce the reserve timelines.].

[215]     U.S. Energy Information Administration report guess unproven reserves. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources. An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States. June 2013. [Critique: See Table 2, page 3 for proven and unproven conventional and non-conventional energy reserves. The US Energy Information Agency reserve revisions mean that one-third of world gas and one-tenth of world oil resources are projections for shale resources. These revisions also mean that 50 percent and 70 percent of total conventional and unconventional oil and gas projections respectively are classified as unproven reserves (i.e., guesstimates). See pages 15-19, Methodology: These 2013 reserve revisions were based on predictions involving the application of historic US shale oil and gas recovery rates to foreign petroliferous basins with similar geophysical characteristics. These revisions assumed the same optimum operating context internationally as in the USA. See Chapter 8 of my book for a more detailed critique on this tenuous assumption.].

[216]     U.S. Geological Survey guess unproven reserves. T.R. Klett et al., 2015, U.S. Geological Survey assessment of reserve growth outside of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5091. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155091. [Critique: (1) See page 1; “The U.S. Geological Survey estimated volumes of potential additions to oil and gas reserves for the United States by reserve growth in discovered accumulations. These volumes were derived by using a new methodology developed by the U.S. Geological Survey.” (2) See page 4; Assessment of Reserve Growth Outside of the United States “Because recoverable volumes for individual reservoirs were not reported for many fields outside of the United States, the individual accumulation analysis was not used. Data acquired from individually analyzed U.S. accumulations were used as analogs in this study.” Critique: Significant increases in US fossil fuel reserves resulted from the deployment of a new and non-validated forecasting methodology. Internationally, the reserve revisions were guesstimates, based on transferring historical precedents for the USA to overseas. None of these methods involved physically verifying the new reserves in the oil and gas wells or fields. That means these are unproven reserves].

[217]     All-time low for discovered resources in 2017: Around 7 billion barrels of oil equivalent was discovered. December 21, 2017. https://www.rystadenergy.com/newsevents/news/press-releases/all-time-low-discovered-resources-2017/.

[218]     Declining Reserve Replacement Ratios Deceiving In Resource Play Environment. November. 28, 2017. View Issue. Maurice Smith. JWN Energy. Daily Oil Bulletin. https://www.sproule.com/application/files/2415/1188/2978/Sproule-Declining-Reserve-Replacement-Ratios-Nora-Stewart-Steve-Golko.pdf.

[219]     Tom Whipple, Online article. “Peak Oil Review.” December 26, 2017. Originally published by ASPO-US. December 26, 2017. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-12-26/peak-oil-review-dec-26-2017/

[220]     Kjell Aleklett and Colin J. Campbell, “The peak and decline of world oil and gas production.” Minerals and Energy-Raw Materials Report 18.1 (2003): 5-20.

[221]     Ian Chapman, 2014, “The end of Peak Oil? Why this topic is still relevant despite recent denials.” Energy Policy, 64 . 93-101. http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/1708/.

[222]     This email was sent to the following recipients: David.Etheridge@csiro.au, ipcc-sec@wmo.int, tsu@ipcc-wg1.universite-paris-saclay.fr, tsu@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, tsu@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, Valerie.masson@lsce.ipsl.fr, pmzhai@cma.gov.cn, n.yassaa@cder.dz, nyassaa@usthb.dz, carolina@cima.fcen.uba.ar, greg.flato@ec.gc.ca, anna.pirani@universite-paris-saclay.fr, wilfran.moufouma-okia@universite-paris-saclay.fr, clotilde.pean@universite-paris-saclay.fr, chenyang@camscma.cn, robin.matthews@universite-paris-saclay.fr, sarah.connors@universite-paris-saclay.fr, zhoux@typhoon.org.cn, elisabeth.lonnoy@universite-paris-saclay.fr, tim.waterfield@universite-paris-saclay.fr, nicholas.reay@universite-paris-saclay.fr, yurong@cma.gov.cn, quan20080141@126.com, hans.poertner@awi.de, debra.roberts@durban.gov.za, andreas.fischlin@env.ethz.ch, Mark.Howden@csiro.au, cmendez@ivic.gob.ve, carlos.menvall@gmail.com, pereirajoy@yahoo.com, joy@ukm.edu.my, pyanda@gmail.com, tahazat@yahoo.com, melinda.tignor@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, elvira.poloczanska@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, katja.mintenbeck@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, bardhyl.rama@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, maike.nicolai@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, andres.alegria@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, jan.petzold@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, nora.weyer@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, okem.ipcc@ukzn.ac.za, craigm.ipcc@ukzn.ac.za, anka.freund@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, manqelep.ipcc@ukzn.ac.za, stefan.weisfeld@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, jussi.savolainen@ipcc-wg2.awi.de, j.skea@ic.ac.uk, vorsatzd@ceu.hu, andy.reisinger@clear.net.nz, rpichs@ciem.cu, goutbi@yahoo.com, dkorecha@yahoo.com, ccarraro@unive.it, carlo.carraro@feem.it, reep@aere.org, abdulla.amjad@gmail.com, e.huntley@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, r.slade@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, j.portugal@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, m.pathak@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, EHAUGHEY@tcd.ie, r.van-diemen@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, suvadip.neogi@ahduni.edu.in, purvi.vyas@ahduni.edu.in, m.belkacemi@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, j.malley@ipcc-wg3.ac.uk, j.shaw@ministers.govt.nz, Rachel.Ward@parliament.govt.nz, a.j.payne@bristol.ac.uk, anton@econologic.co.za, arevi@iihs.co.in, avelino.suarez@ciem.cu, bronwyn.hayward@canterbury.ac.nz, cosmasmiltonoboteochieng@gmail.com, csingh@iihs.ac.in, daniela.jacob@hzg.de, debbieannley@yahoo.com, Debra.Roberts@durban.gov.za, diriba.korecha@gmail.com, dongwj3@mail.sysu.edu.cn, drew.shindell@duke.edu, dubeop@mopipi.ub.bw, e.m.steg@rug.nl, fernando.aragon@colmex.mx, gszhou@camscma.cn, guiot@cerege.fr, h.deconinck@fnwi.ru.nl, handacollins@gmail.com, henri.waisman@iddri.org, hijioka@nies.go.jp, hourcade@centre-cired.fr, huppmann@iiasa.ac.at, ines@cima.fcen.uba.ar, Ipcc1.5nj@gmail.com, J.Kala@murdoch.edu.au, j.s.fuglestvedt@cicero.oslo.no, james.ford@mcgill.ca, jeff.hardy@imperial.ac.uk, jlynn@wmo.int, joanaportugal@gmail.com, joyashreeju@gmail.com, k.dekleijne@gmail.com, kainuma@iges.or.jp, kjiang@eri.org.cn, koba55_2000@yahoo.co.jp, kriegler@pik-potsdam.de, kzickfel@sfu.ca, liverman@u.arizona.edu, luis.mundaca@iiiee.lu.se, mahowald@cornell.edu, markku.kanninen@helsinki.fi, mehrotrs@newschool.edu, michael.taylor@uwimona.edu.jm, minal@mit.edu, morgan.wairiu@usp.ac.fj, motswiri@iafrica.com, msbuck@usp.br, Mustafa.babiker@aramco.com, mvilarino@ceads.org.ar, myles.allen@ouce.ox.ac.uk, neville.ellis@uwa.edu.au, oveh@uq.edu.au, P.M.Forster@leeds.ac.uk, p.newman@curtin.edu.au, paolo.bertoldi@ec.europa.eu, petra.tschakert@uwa.edu.au, PINHOPATI@GMAIL.COM, purnamita.dasgupta@gmail.com, r.warren@uea.ac.uk, raga.graciela@gmail.com, renee.van-diemen14@imperial.ac.uk, richard.millar@physics.ox.ac.uk, riyanti.djalante@gmail.com, rogelj@iiasa.ac.at, roland.seferian@meteo.fr, rtperez.ph@gmail.com, s.robsan@gmail.com, Sari.Kovats@lshtm.ac.uk, sharinahalim@ukm.edu.my, solomonef@spc.int, sonia.seneviratne@ethz.ch, sschultz@c40.org, susan@climatecommunication.org, taishiqq@gmail.com, tania.guillen@hzg.de, valeriemasson@lsce.ipsl.fr, veronika.ginzburg@gmail.com, vorsatzd@ceu.edu, wolfgang.cramer@imbe.fr, wsolecki@hunter.cuny.edu, yacob.mulugetta@ucl.ac.uk, fengelbrecht@csir.co.za, engelbrecht.FA@gmail.com, fuss@mcc-berlin.net, fuss@iiasa.ac.at, shukla@iimahd.ernet.in, stocker@climate.unibe.ch, cubasch@zedat.fu-berlin.de, wuebbles@illinois.edu, deliang@gvc.gu.se, MC.Facchini@isac.cnr.it, dave.frame@vuw.ac.nz, nmm63@cornell.edu, jan.gunnar.winther@npolar.no, jan-gunnar.winther@nofima.no, dingyh@cma.gov.cn, lindam@ucar.edu, pw11@damtp.cam.ac.uk, dhartm@uw.edu, albert.klein.tank@metoffice.gov.uk, albert.kleintank@wur.nl, mati@at.fcen.uba.ar, l.alexander@unsw.edu.au, stefan.broennimann@giub.unibe.ch, yassine@squ.edu.om, frank.dentener@jrc.ec.europa.eu, frank.dentener@jrc.it, Ed.Dlugokencky@noaa.gov, david.easterling@noaa.gov, alexeyk@ldeo.columbia.edu, b.soden@miami.edu, peter.thorne@mu.ie, martin.wild@env.ethz.ch, pmzhai@cms1924.org, jhurrell@ucar.edu, jose.marengo@cemaden.gov.br, tangang@ukm.edu.my, pedro.viterbo@ipma.pt, mrhein@physik.uni-bremen.de, steve.rintoul@csiro.au, shigeru@lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp, edmo@usp.br, dchambers@marine.usf, donc@usf.edu, richard.a.feely@noaa.gov, gul@sail.msk.ru, gregory.c.johnson@noaa.gov, simon.josey@noc.ac.uk, kostianoy@gmail.com, cmauritzen@whoi.edu, droemmich@ucsd.edu, ltalley@ucsd.edu, fwang@ms.qdio.ac.cn, Howard.Freeland@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, Silvia.Garzoli@noaa.gov, nojiri@nies.go.jp, josefino.c.comiso@nasa.gov, dgv@bas.ac.uk, Ian.Allison@utas.edu.au, jcarrasco@meteochile.cl, georg.kaser@uibk.ac.at, ronald.kwok@jpl.nasa.gov, pmote@coas.oregonstate.edu, t.murray@swansea.ac.uk, frank.paul@geo.uzh.ch, erignot@uci.edu, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, konrad.steffen@wsl.ch, tzhang@nsidc.org, tjzhang@lzu.edu.ch, J.Bamber@bristol.ac.uk, huybrechts@vub.be, phuybrec@vub.ac.be, Peter.Lemke@awi.de, valerie.masson@cea.fr, mschulz@marum.de, abeouchi@aori.u-tokyo.ac.jp, juerg.beer@eawag.ch, andrey@pik-potsdam.de, fidelgr@fis.ucm.es, Eystein.Jansen@uib.no, kurt.lambeck@anu.edu.au, juerg.luterbacher@geogr.uni-giessen.de, timothy.naish@vuw.ac.nz, T.Osborn@uea.ac.uk, ottobli@ucar.edu, quinn@ig.utexas.edu, maisa@dgf.uchile.cl, shaoxm@igsnrr.ac.cn, axel@hawaii.edu, envirosafe2007@gmail.com, anil.nidm@nic.in, rahimzadeh_f@yahoo.com, raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, heinz.wanner@oeschger.unibe.ch, philippe.ciais@cea.fr, chris.sabine@noaa.gov, gbala@caos.iisc.ernet.in, laurent.bopp@lsce.ipsl.fr, victor.brovkin@mpimet.mpg.de, pep.canadell@csiro.au, abha@sac.isro.gov.in, rd2402@columbia.edu, jng@virginia.edu, Martin.Heimann@bgc-jena.mpg.de, chris.d.jones@metoffice.gov.uk, C.Lequere@uea.ac.uk, rmyneni@bu.edu, slpiao@pku.edu.cn, shilong.piao@gmail.com, thorntonpe@ornl.gov, Christoph.Heinze@uib.no, Pieter.Tans@noaa.gov, olivier.boucher@lmd.jussieu.fr, randall@atmos.colostate.edu, artaxo@if.usp.br, breth@washington.edu, graham.feingold@noaa.gov, veli-matti.kerminen@fmi.fi, kondo@atmos.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp, hongliao@nuist.edu.cn, ulrike.lohmann@env.ethz.ch, philip.rasch@pnl.gov, satheesh@caos.iisc.ernet.in, satheesh@fiji.ucsd.edu, s.sherwood@unsw.edu.au, bjorn.stevens@mpimet.mpg.de, xiaoye@cams.cma.gov.cn, s.fuzzi@isac.cnr.it, penner@umich.edu, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov, stubenrauch@lmd.polytechnique.fr, gunnar.myhre@cicero.oslo.no, francois-marie.breon@lsce.ipsl.fr, w.collins@reading.ac.uk, hjp@lzu.edu.cn, dorothy.koch@science.doe.gov, lamar@ucar.edu, d.s.lee@mmu.ac.uk, david.m.lee@mmu.ac.uk, blanca@geofisica.unam.mx, teruyuki.nakajima@aori.u-tokyo.ac.jp, robock@envsci.rutgers.edu, graeme.stephens@jpl.nasa.gov, toshi@riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp, huazhang@cma.gov.cn, djacob@fas.harvard.edu, a.r.ravishankara@noaa.gov, k.p.shine@reading.ac.uk, greg.flato@canada.ca, jochem.marotzke@mpimet.mpg.de, babiodun@csag.uct.ac.za, pascale.braconnot@lsce.ipsl.fr, chou@cptec.inpe.br, wdcollins@lbl.gov, P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk, driouechfatima@yahoo.fr, emori@nies.go.jp, veronika.eyring@dlr.de, cef13@psu.edu, gleckler1@llnl.gov, e.d.a.guilyardi@reading.ac.uk, Eric.Guilyardi@locean-ipsl.upmc.fr, christian.jakob@monash.edu, kattsov@mail.ru, chris.reason@uct.ac.za, markku.rummukainen@nateko.lu.se, isaac.held@noaa.gov, a.pitman@unsw.edu.au, serge.planton@meteo.fr, N.Bindoff@utas.edu.au, P.A.Stott@exeter.ac.uk, akrishna@cas.iitd.ernet.in, Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca, gutzler@unm.edu, Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk, yyhu@pku.edu.cn, mokhov@ifaran.ru, mokhov@omega.ifaran.ru, James.E.Overland@noaa.gov, judith.perlwitz@noaa.gov, sebbari@gmail.com, xuebin.zhang@ec.gc.ca, bartholy@caesar.elte.hu, robert.vautard@lsce.ipsl.fr, yasunari@hyarc.nagoya-u.ac.jp, bkirtman@miami.edu, scott.power@bom.gov.au, adedoyin@mopipi.ub.bw, george.boer@ec.gc.ca, francisco.doblas-reyes@bsc.es, amfiore@ldeo.columbia.edu, kimoto@aori.u-tokyo.ac.jp, meehl@ucar.edu, mprather@uci.edu, abdoulaye.sarr@anacim.sn, schaer@env.ethz.ch, r.sutton@reading.ac.uk, oldenborgh@knmi.nl, gavecchi@gmail.com, gvecchi@princeton.edu, Gabriel.A.Vecchi@noaa.gov, delecluse@lodyc.jussieu.fr, pna@lodyc.jussieu.fr, Tim.Palmer@physics.ox.ac.uk, tim.palmer@jesus.ox.ac.uk, theodore.shepherd@reading.ac.uk, fwzwiers@uvic.ca, M.Collins@exeter.ac.uk, reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch, Julie.Arblaster@monash.edu, j.arblaster@bom.gov.au, jean-louis.dufresne@lmd.jussieu.fr, thierry.fichefet@uclouvain.be, pierre.friedlingstein@cea.fr, P.Friedlingstein@exeter.ac.uk, gaoxuejie@mail.iap.ac.cn, gutowski@iastate.edu, tim.johns@metoffice.gov, gerhard.krinner@cnrs.fr, mxolisi.shongwe@knmi.nl, mshongwe@wmo.int, tebaldi@ucar.edu, MFWehner@lbl.gov, sylvie.joussaume@lsce.ipsl.fr, mokssit.abdalah@yahoo.fr, taylor13@llnl.gov, Simon.Tett@ed.ac.uk, john.church@unsw.edu.au, clarkp@geo.oregonstate.edu, unni@darya.nio.org, anny.cazenave@legos.obs-mip.fr, anny.cazenave@cnes.fr, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, sveta@noc.ac.uk, Anders.Levermann@pik-potsdam.de, markm@soest.hawaii.edu, gamilne@uottawa.ca, nerem@colorado.edu, pnunn@usc.edu.au, tad.pfeffer@colorado.edu, detlef.stammer@uni-hamburg.de, jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr, r.s.w.vandewal@uu.nl, plw@noc.ac.uk, cdxiao@lzb.ac.cn, cdxiao@bnu.edu.cn, hesselbjerg@nbi.ku.dk, krishna@tropmet.res.in, e_aldrian@yahoo.com, edvin.aldrian@bmkg.go.id, sian@yonsei.ac.kr, iracema@cptec.inpe.br, iracema.cavalcanti@cptec.inpe.br, goswami@cmmacs.ernet.in, alexhall@atmos.ucla.edu, Jk_kanyanga@yahoo.com, kitoh@jmbsc.or.jp, kossin@ssec.wisc.edu, gabriel.lau@cuhk.edu.hk, James Renwick <james.renwick@vuw.ac.nz>, d.b.stephenson@exeter.ac.uk, sxie@ucsd.edu, zhoutj@lasg.iap.ac.cn, John.Fyfe@ec.gc.ca, trenbert@ucar.edu, gian-kasper.plattner@wsl.ch, gdh@rays.cma.gov.cn, simon.allen@geo.uzh.ch, wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch, alex.nauels@climateanalytics.org, david.victor@ucsd.edu, esamhasan62@yahoo.com, esam_hasan62@hotmail.com, pkdadhich@megazingsolutions.com, Jos.Olivier@pbl.nl, rogner@iiasa.ac.at, gruebler@iiasa.ac.at, sgupta@econdse.org, kunreuther@wharton.upenn.edu, valentina.bosetti@unibocconi.it, cooke@rff.org, varundutt@yahoo.com, varundutt@gmail.com, minh.haduong@gmail.com, ha-duong.minh@usth.edu.vn, hermann.held@uni-hamburg.de, jllanes@cim.uh.cu, jllanes@fec.uh.cu, anthony.patt@usys.ethz.ch, eshittu@gwu.edu, eweber@princeton.edu, bayer@iiasa.ac.at, ckolstad@stanford.edu, kurama@atpsnet.org, john.broome@philosophy.ox.ac.uk, annegrete@menon.no, marthamichelinecarino@gmail.com, dfullert@illinois.edu, christian.gollier@tse-fr.eu, hanemann@berkeley.edu, rashid.hassan@up.ac.za, frank.jotzo@anu.edu.au, mizan.khan@northsouth.edu, lukas.meyer@uni-graz.at, marlene.attzs@sta.uwi.edu, mattzs@hotmail.com, dbouille@fundacionbariloche.org.ar, snorre.kverndokk@frisch.uio.no, mfleurba@princeton.edu, sivan.kartha@sei.org, sibo@dtu.dk, Esteve.Corbera@uab.cat, lecocq@centre-cired.fr, yokeling@twnetwork.org, lutz@iiasa.ac.at, muylaert@ppe.ufrj.br, norgaard@berkeley.edu, c.okereke@reading.ac.uk, asagar@hss.iitd.ac.in, lpr@adc.coppe.ufrj.br, m.ruth@neu.edu, JASathaye@lbl.gov, r.gerlagh@tilburguniversity.edu, suh@bren.ucsb.edu, J.R.Barrett@leeds.ac.uk, h.deconinck@science.ru.nl, cdmdpa@yahoo.com, cristobal@citma.gob.cu, naki@iiasa.ac.at, jiahuapan@163.com, him_ensc@iari.res.in, ricej@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, rrichels@epri.com, david.stern@anu.edu.au, toth@iiasa.ac.at, pzhou@global.bw, pzhou@eecg.co.bw, aviel.verbruggen@uantwerpen.be, leon.clarke@pnnl.gov, aki@rite.or.jp, gblanford@epri.com, ishervanden@psu.edu, krey@iiasa.ac.at, loeschel@uni-muenster.de, mccollum@iiasa.ac.at, paltsev@mit.edu, srose@epri.com, shuklapr@ahduni.edu.in, massimo.tavoni@cmcc.it, massimo.tavoni@polimi.it, bvanderzwaan@jhu.edu, vanderzwaan@ecn.nl, detlef.vanvuuren@pbl.nl, chenwy@tsinghua.edu.cn, weyant@stanford.edu, bashmako@online.ru, bruckner@wifa.uni-leipzig.de, helena.chum@nrel.gov, adelaveg@unam.mx, gdlavg@gmail.com, edmondsj@umd.edu, a.p.c.faaij@rug.nl, bundit.fun@gmail.com, amitgarg@iima.ac.in, edgar.hertwich@ntnu.no, edgar.hertwich@yale.edu, Damon.Honnery@monash.edu, david.infield@strath.ac.uk, suduk@ajou.ac.kr, riahi@iiasa.ac.at, n.strachan@ucl.ac.uk, RHWiser@lbl.gov, zhang_xl@tsinghua.edu.cn, kparikh@irade.org, j.skea@imperial.ac.uk, roberto@ppe.ufrj.br, R.E.Sims@massey.ac.nz, jan.corfee-morlot@oecd.org, creutzig@mcc-berlin.net, xcruz@unam.mx, xochitl.cruz@atmosfera.unam.mx, d.dimitriu@mmu.ac.uk, mfi.msc@cbs.dk, lmfulton@ucdavis.edu, oliver.lah@wupperinst.org, alan.mckinnon@the-klu.org, P.Newman@curtin.edu.au, ouymg@tsinghua.edu.cn, jjschauer@wisc.edu, dsperling@ucdavis.edu, geetamt@civil.iitd.ac.in, edeakin@berkeley.edu, skr@pet.coppe.ufrj.br, hashem.akbari@concordia.ca, lcabeza@diei.udl.cat, nick.eyre@ouce.ox.ac.uk, AJGadgil@lbl.gov, gadgil@ce.berkeley.edu, harvey@geog.utoronto.ca, jiangyi@tsinghua.edu.cn, Enoch.Liphoto@eskom.co.za, seba@noa.gr, murakami@ibec.or.jp, jparikh@irade.org, cpyke@usgbc.org, azniz132@salam.uitm.edu.my, marilyn.brown@pubpolicy.gatech.edu, tpalvolgyi@mail.datanet.hu, manfred.fischedick@wupperinst.org, amrosama@integral-egypt.com, A.A.Acquaye@kent.ac.uk, jma42@cam.ac.uk, ceron@numericable.com, ygeng@sjtu.edu.cn, gengyong@iae.ac.cn, Haroon.S.Kheshgi@ExxonMobil.com, alessandro.lanza@cmcc.it, alessandrolanza.al@gmail.com, dp@itdt.edu, LKPrice@lbl.gov, esantall@fio.unicen.edu.ar, tanaka.kanako@jst-lcs.jp, kanako.f.tanaka@gmail.com, R.Clift@surrey.ac.uk, vnenov@btu.bg, mercedes@unb.br, pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk, harry.clark@nzagrc.org.nz, donghm@mail.caas.net.cn, elnour_elsiddig@yahoo.com, Helmut.Haberl@aau.at, R.Harper@murdoch.edu.au, Jo.House@bristol.ac.uk, ms_jafari@sbu.ac.ir, masera@gmail.com, cmbow@start.org, cheikhmbow04@gmail.com, ravi@ces.iisc.ernet.in, nh.ravi@gmail.com, cwrice@ksu.edu, carmenza.robledo@usys.ethz.ch, francesco.tubiello@fao.org, thelma@dsr.inpe.br, gert-jan.nabuurs@wur.nl, shobhakar@ait.asia, karen.seto@yale.edu, agbigio@gwu.edu, hblanco@usc.edu, giandelgado@unam.mx, a-inaba@cc.kogakuin.ac.jp, akansal@teri.res.in, lwasa_s@arts.mak.ac.ug, JEMcMahon@lbl.gov, daniel.mueller@ntnu.no, jin.m@cityu.edu.hk, harini.nagendra@apu.edu.in, anu@umn.edu, robertc@berkeley.edu, julio.torres@cubaenergia.cu, jtorres.cu@gmail.com, robert_stavins@hks.harvard.edu, mcg@ucema.edu.ar, michel.denelzen@pbl.nl, michael.finus@uni-graz.at, j.gupta@un-ihe.org, n.hoehne@newclimate.org, axel.michaelowa@pw.uzh.ch, Matthew.Paterson@uOttawa.ca, wengang@cdmfund.org, Wiener@law.duke.edu, Harald.Winkler@uct.ac.za, Antonina03@hotmail.com, anact@hotmail.com, shardul.agrawala@oecd.org, sklasen@uni-goettingen.de, leonardo.barreto-gomez@energyagency.at, thomas.cottier@wti.org, agamez@uabcs.mx, dabo.guan@uea.ac.uk, gutmon@ice.co.cr, ljiang@popcouncil.org, ygkim@kei.re.kr, joanna.lewis@georgetown.edu, Messouli@ucam.ac.ma, michael.rauscher@uni-rostock.de, noim.uddin@enviro-mark.com, tony.venables@economics.ox.ac.uk, Volodymyr.Demkine@unep.org, khal@dtu.dk, som@isid.ac.in, thomas.sterner@economics.gu.se, dpchimanikire@science.uz.ac.zw, ndubash@gmail.com, goulder@stanford.edu, adam.jaffe@motu.org.nz, xavier@uvigo.es, managi.s@gmail.com, Catherine.Mitchell@exeter.ac.uk, jmontero@uc.cl, tengfei@tsinghua.edu.cn, tzylicz@wne.uw.edu.pl, seroa@ipea.gov.br, sgupta@adb.org, jochen.harnisch@kfw.de, paul.frankel@calcef.org, gomez@iiasa.ac.at, ehaites@margaree.ca, Yongfu.Huang@wider.unu.edu, kopp@rff.org, blefevre@wri.org, haroldo.machado@undp.org, emanuele.massetti@pubpolicy.gatech.edu, carlo.carraro@cmcc.it, ignacio.perezarriaga@iit.comillas.edu, virginia_burkett@usgs.gov, marco.bindi@unifi.it, conde@servidor.unam.mx, rupa.mukerji@helvetas.org, asun@cicero.oslo.no, gyohe@wesleyan.edu, letreut@lmd.jussieu.fr, j.palutikof@griffith.edu.au, roger.jones@vu.edu.au, apat@umd.edu, stewart.cohen@canada.ca, S.Dessai@leeds.ac.uk, anlammel@gmail.com, Robert_Lempert@rand.org, monirul.mirza@utoronto.ca, hvonstorch@web.de, hvonstorch@email.de, rbierbau@umich.edu, b.jimenez-cisneros@unesco.org, bjimenezc@iingen.unam.mx, taikan@iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp, n.w.arnell@reading.ac.uk, benito@mncn.csic.es, p.doell@em.uni-frankfurt.de, smwakalila@yahoo.com, zbyszek@pik-potsdam.de, kundzewicz@yahoo.com, zkundze@man.poznan.pl, Bob.Scholes@wits.ac.za, Josef.Settele@ufz.de, R.A.Betts@exeter.ac.uk, s.bunn@griffith.edu.au, paul.leadley@u-psud.fr, dnepstad@earthinnovation.org, seas-dean@umich.edu, taboada.miguel@inta.gob.ar, troot@stanford.edu, losadai@unican.es, PohKam@nus.edu.sg, gattuso@obs-vlfr.fr, hinkel@globalclimateforum.org, ab_khattabi@yahoo.com, kathleen.mcinnes@csiro.au, fdsantos@fc.ul.pt, R.J.Nicholls@soton.ac.uk, dkarl@hawaii.edu, Hans.Poertner@awi.de, Philip.Boyd@utas.edu.au, w.cheung@oceans.ubc.ca, slluch@cibnor.mx, d.schmidt@bristol.ac.uk, peter@ocean.ru, k.drinkwater@mmu.ac.uk, apl@ucewp.kiev.ua, jrp@plen.ku.dk, a.j.challinor@leeds.ac.uk, k.cochrane@ru.ac.za, mark.howden@anu.edu.au, dlobell@stanford.edu, p.k.aggarwal@cgiar.org, kaija.hakala@luke.fi, david.satterthwaite@iied.org, kiunsi@aru.ac.tz, mark.pelling@kcl.ac.uk, john.balbus@nih.gov, odcardonaa@unal.edu.co, pdg@iegindia.org, J.F.Morton@gre.ac.uk, david.dodman@iied.org, baris.karapinar@boun.edu.tr, fmeza@uc.cl, martaguadalupe.rivera@uvic.cat, katharine@kulima.com, edcarr@clarku.edu, doug.arent@nrel.gov, R.Tol@sussex.ac.uk, efaust@munichre.com, jphella@suanet.ac.tz, jphella@yahoo.co.uk, skumar@econdse.org, strzepek@mit.edu, 619113649@qq.com, amjad.abdulla@environment.gov.mv, krksmith@berkeley.edu, a.woodward@auckland.ac.nz, campbelllendrumd@who.int, honda.yasushi.fn@u.tsukuba.ac.jp, liuqiyong@icdc.cn, jolwoch@sansa.org.za, revich@ecfor.ru, ras1214@harvard.edu, rainer.sauerborn@urz.uni-heidelberg.de, pmags@ensp.fiocruz.br, Andy.Haines@lshtm.ac.uk, N.Adger@exeter.ac.uk, jmpulhin@up.edu.ph, dabelkog@ohio.edu, grete.hovelsrud@nord.no, mlevy@columbia.edu, uoswald@gmail.com, Coleen.Vogel@wits.ac.za, paldunce@uchile.cl, robin.leichenko@rutgers.edu, lennart.olsson@LUCSUS.lu.se, maggie@swiftkenya.com, arunagra@umich.edu, siri.eriksen@nmbu.no, snma@stanford.edu, xusm@tsinghua.edu.cn, zakields@yahoo.com, scutter@sc.edu, saleemul.huq@iied.org, d.goudou@afdb.org, fplansigan@yahoo.com, kuni.t@pwri.go.jp, roger.pulwarty@noaa.gov, ielshinnawy57@gmail.com, mredst@uw.edu, roberto.sanchez-rodriguez@ucr.edu, rhm2137@columbia.edu, rhm@pnnl.gov, wvergara@wri.org, richard.klein@sei-international.org, g.midgley@sanbi.org.za, bpreston@rand.org, mozaharul.alam@bcas.net, frans.berkhout@kcl.ac.uk, KDow@sc.edu, hgitay@worldbank.org, gmh1@columbia.edu, l.leclerc@ifad.org, anil.markandya@metroeconomica.com, mccarl@tamu.edu, mechler@iiasa.ac.at, ana.iglesias@upm.es, stale.navrud@nmbu.no, auffhammer@berkeley.edu, ulf.molau@bioenv.gu.se, dastone@runbox.com, rik.leemans@wur.nl, MCampos@oas.org, omichael@princeton.edu, joern.birkmann@ireus.uni-stuttgart.de, GLUBER@emory.edu, Brian.ONeill@du.edu, mike.brklacich@carleton.ca, fdenton@uneca.org, achala.chandani@iied.org, burtoni.ian@gmail.com, mariafernandalemos@puc-rio.br, masui@nies.go.jp, karen.obrien@sosgeo.uio.no, KWarner@unfccc.int, suruchib@teri.res.in, w.leal@mmu.ac.uk, jean-pascal.vanypersele@uclouvain.be, hewitson@csag.uct.ac.za, ajanetos@bu.edu, tim.carter@ymparisto.fi, giorgi@ictp.it, richard.jones@metoffice.gov.uk, lschipper@climate-adaptation.info, vanaalst@climatecentre.org, pduffy@whrc.org, isabelle@enda.sn, i.niang@unesco.org, ruppel@sun.ac.za, mabdrabo@hotmail.com, mabdrabo@arca-eg.org, jon.padgham@futureearth.org, learyn@dickinson.edu, sari.kovats@lshtm.ac.uk, riccardo.valentini@cmcc.it, aurens.bouwer@deltares.nl, elenag@noa.gr, Daniela.Jacob@hzg.de, mark.rounsevell@ed.ac.uk, jean-francois.soussana@inra.fr, lucka.kajfez.bogataj@bf.uni-lj.si, lined@ami.ac.cn, corlett@xtbg.org.cn, xuefeng.cui@bnu.edu.cn, rdlasco@yahoo.com, rlasco@cgiar.org, elindgren@lhtge.com, takeuchi@unu.edu, francis.chiew@csiro.au, lesley.hughes@mq.edu.au, andrew.tait@niwa.co.nz, blair.fitzharris@otago.ac.nz, david.karoly@csiro.au, prlankao@ucar.edu, debra.davidson@ualberta.ca, diffenbaugh@stanford.edu, pkinney@bu.edu, paul.kirshen@unh.edu, gmagrin@cnia.inta.gov.ar, ecastell@uvg.edu.gt, gpoveda@unal.edu.co, svicuna@ing.puc.cl, jean.ometto@inpe.br, oleg@oa7661.spb.edu, jnl@unak.is, jnl@svs.is, andrew.constable@aad.gov.au, Anne.Hollowed@noaa.gov, prowset@uvic.ca, john.stone@rogers.com, terry.chapin@alaska.edu, r.mclean@adfa.edu.au, Leonard.Nurse@cavehill.uwi.edu, john.agard@sta.uwi.edu, virginie.duvat@univ-lr.fr, netatuap@sprep.org, fabry@csusm.edu, k.hilmi.inrh@gmail.com, svein.sundby@hi.no, ct@pml.ac.uk, Eric.Martin@meteo.fr, sgomm@wmo.int, dsgo@wmo.int, asgo@wmo.int, are_res@wmo.int, wds@wmo.int, cer@wmo.int, cullmann@bafg.de, dra@wmo.int, executiveoffice@unep.org, championsoftheearth@unep.org, billiontreecampaign@unep.org, secretariat@unfccc.int