Vast Body of Scientific Data for Past 2,000 Years Affirms Sun, Not CO2, Controls Climate

Written by Roger Higgs DPhil Oxford

Southern California Pacific Ocean Sunsets - YouTube

New study by respected Oxford-trained (DPhil) international geological consultant relying on archaeological, astrophysical, geological and palaeoclimatological data covering the last 2,000 years shows it is the Sun, not CO2, that controls global temperature.

Dr Roger Higgs DPhil (geology, Oxford, 1982-86), Geoclastica Ltd, UK, Technical Note 2020-1, 13th Jan 2020 writes:

Only key citations are given; please email for others. A cross-match between graphs of the Sun’s output and Earth’s mean surface temperature is obvious at two scales: (1) the last 2,000 years (2ky), represented by proxies (PAGES2k 2017 temperatures; Vieira et al. 2011 cosmogenic isotopes), both graphs being ‘hockey sticks’ with decadal ‘sawteeth’; and (2) the last 250y (Berkeley temperature compilation; Chatzistergos et al. 2017 sunspotgroup numbers).

In both cases, temperature clearly lags the Sun’s output by 80-120y, aligning: (A) the sawteeth;
(B) the ~1820AD and ~1700AD temperature- and solar minima (Little Ice Age nadir); (C) ensuing ‘modern warming’ and solar buildup to the modern solar Grand Maximum (GM; 1937-2004), strongest in 2ky; and (D) the next-strongest GM ~275-345AD and, tellingly, the ~400-450 warmest half-century (except post-1950?; Pages2k fig7a,b,c). Undeniably the Sun drives global temperature (Svensmark solar-magnetic/cloudiness link?).

In turn, sea level (SL; post-1700 tide-gauges) closely cross-matches temperature, SL lagging ~20y. Both lags probably reflect ocean thermal inertia and ‘conveyor-belt’ circulation (downwelled solar-heated North Atlantic water eventually upwells at Antarctica, affecting glacier flow rate into the ocean, hence SL). A sharp SL rise of 2-3m in only ~100y ~350-450AD reached ~1.5m above today’s SL.

This rise, sandwiched between SL falls of ~2m in ~200y, is Godwin’s (1943) ‘Romano-British transgression’ (RBT), aka Dunkirk II (Low Countries, explaining ~410-450AD Frisian-Anglo-Saxon exodus to Britain), St Firmin (France), Gilbert V (Pacific) and Wulfert (USA). Fairbridge’s updated (1976) Holocene SL compilation shows this oscillation (and others, likewise correlatable to solar GMs), verified by many later geological and archaeological studies. (Note also Blanchon et al. 2009 last-interglacial ~3m rise in <50y.)

A glacio-eustatic origin, not glacio-hydro-isostatic, is indicated by RBT’s rapidity, great latitudinal span and associated global warming ~400AD (above). I suggest upwelling ‘GM-overwarmed’ water unleashed a Marine Ice-Sheet- and/or Ice-Cliff Instability event. Indeed, Antarctic seabed corrugations and cross-cutting iceberg ploughmarks suggest recent collapse of Antarctica’s ice-sheet snout (overhanging the grounding line) after the buttressing ice-shelf fragmented (Wise et al. 2017 fig 4; “ice apocalypse” of Goodell 2017).

If correct, the last such event made the grounding line recede behind its present position and occurred <11ky ago (Graham et al. 2013). This timing accords with the ~350-450 RBT; moreover Antarctic sea-surface temperature increased ~4°C in <100y ~300AD (Shevenell et al. 2011 fig 3d).

CONCLUSIONS: (1) Modern warming coincides with rising CO2 accidentally; (2) warming will continue until ~2090, lagging ~100y behind the modern solar GM’s 1991 magnetic peak (cosmicrays.oulu.fi); (3) the modern GM portends another rapid ~3m SL rise by ice collapse, starting by ~2040 and ending by ~2100 (NB currently increasing Antarctic ice-shelf bottom-water temperature, under-melting, grounding-line retreat and glacier velocity; and accelerating world SL rise); (4) IPCC (2014) assertions supposedly incriminating man’s CO2 emissions but disproven here include: (A) the Sun is unimportant in climate change; (B) Holocene SL was never higher than now; and (C) no SL oscillation of the previous 1700y exceeded 25cm (“medium confidence” only) until the ongoing ~30cm rise since 1700 (in fact RBT was ~10x greater, and averaged ~30x faster).

Download the PDF of the paper at www.researchgate.net


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (38)

  • Avatar

    Joseph Clem

    |

    Yep, Bible data covering the last 2,000 years shows it is the Son, not CO2, that controls global temperature.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Joseph,

      The Bible is a history book but it does not chronicle much of the last 2000 years. But it begins In the Beginning so there are no prehistoric times. And I believe the first page of Genesis is accurate.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Ron Kramer

    |

    Not just the sun. But orbital mechanics… solar system alignment of the planets, the wobble of the sun caused by Jupiter. The earth’s wobble and tilt and our magnetic field. Most people seem to think of the sun as their furnace. It’s not a set it and forget it, thermostat. Many factors vary our climate in multitudes of ways. IT’S NOT A CONSTANT!

    • Avatar

      JaKo

      |

      What would be truly puzzling if the IPCC would completely ignore this paper:
      It has the same predictions plus higher SL, yet it refutes completely their main culprit.
      That would show once more that IPCC should be called IPPC (Policy Change).

  • Avatar

    Greg

    |

    Who would have guessed that after looking at Dr Higgs profile on Linked in, he has worked for the fossil fuel industry since the 1970’s and is now a “independent” global consultanting geologist for those same companies.
    Honestly people, you will have do better than this if you are going to dish up rubbish like this on the subject of climate change.

    • Avatar

      LB

      |

      Greg, would you have us instead trust climate data model projections championed by people who maintain climate data models for a living? That’s like asking cattle ranchers and dairy farmers to assess the efficacy of vegan diets– they might be honest and sincere but, really, what would you expect them to say, that their industry is based on a lie?

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Greg, AGW is a hoax. Learn the relevant physics.

      Then you won’t have to live in such science-denial.

      • Avatar

        Greg

        |

        You say “science denial?”
        Nearly 100% of climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change and you people say they are all wrong?
        In my book THAT is science denial!

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Sorry Greg, but your “climate scientists” are in it for the money. CO2 can not warm the planet. People like you haven’t studied the issue, so you just take the lazy path–“go along to get along”.

          “Cold” does not warm “hot”, but you can’t even understand that simple concept or you would realize you’re being duped by your “climate scientists”.

          • Avatar

            Harry Wilson

            |

            What the fuck are you babbling about, co2 stops long wave light escaping back into space you stupid fuck, nobody says it heats.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Here are two examples of the “duping”.

            From NASA:

            NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth’s atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up

            From UCAR:

            With more greenhouse gases in the air, heat passing through on its way out of the atmosphere is more likely to be stopped. The added greenhouse gases absorb the heat. They then radiate this heat. Some of the heat will head away from the Earth, some of it will be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule, and some of it will wind up back at the planet’s surface again. With more greenhouse gases, heat will stick around, warming the planet

            .

        • Avatar

          Andy Rowlands

          |

          Much as I hate to rain on your parade Greg, but the so-called ‘consensus’ has been thoroughly debunked, it doesn’t exist. Science is not done by consensus, it’s not a vote. Consensus is a political tool, it has no place in science.

          • Avatar

            Harry Wilson

            |

            You’re a moron.

        • Avatar

          Graeme Bird

          |

          It used to be about evidence Greg you dimwit. Science isn’t for everyone.

    • Avatar

      Graham

      |

      Funnily enough most geologists and geophysicists work for the extractive industries, because for some reason fossil fuel companies need to employ experts in deep earth history to find oil, coal and metal. Those experts also understand that CO2 has never been a primary driver of climate in deep antiquity, because of the same knowledge of Earth Science that makes them valuable to those searching for fossil fuels!
      It’s like claiming biologists are in the grip of big pharma for speaking out on anti-vax rubbish.

  • Avatar

    JimE

    |

    We as a society have lost our common sense. The sun is the major factor controlling our climate….just consider the dark side of the moon and the conditions there without the sun’s warmth. If CO2 were the only culprit then plant trees, only white roofs/roads(less heat absorption) etc. But too many times its about power/money and not a real problem to solve. The solutions they (global warmers) come up with do not solve the problem, only makes them richer/more powerful!!! My solution is planting trees, industrial hemp and all its byproducts, changing patent law so more technologies come to market etc. Yet there will still be change in the climate……change is inevitable, its a fact of life!!

    • Avatar

      Alan Lee Falk

      |

      Serously, JimE? There is no “dark side of the moon.” It rotates on its axis over the span of one month and during that time, each “side” is exposed to the power of the sun.
      When the moon is “full” the side facing the earth is lit by sunlight.
      When it’s a New Moon, that side is not lit, but the ‘far side’ is.

      Hope that helps. You might want to explore some similar topics at Quora.com… 🙂

      • Avatar

        Andy Rowlands

        |

        The Moon does not rotate on it’s axis, that’s why the same half is always facing us. It rotates around the Earth.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Andy,

          Don’t think you are correct. I got a lot of mileage, in the third grade, out of the earth rotates about its axis as it revolves about the sun.

          So the moon rotates about its axis with a period nearly equal to the period of its revolution about the earth. That’s what keeps almost the same side facing the earth.

          Please check out my comment at (https://principia-scientific.org/ipcc-expert-behind-eight-discredited-ocean-acidification-papers/) You might find it interesting.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Andy,

            Previously I had not carefully read what Alan had written. It might have helped you to see his point if he added: The Earth is between the Sun and Moon when the moon is full and the Moon is between the Earth and Sun when the moon is new. So when the moon is full, that is the sunlight lit side we see. And when the moon is new the sunlight lit side is the side we never see as we cannot see the same side toward us because it is not sunlit.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Jerry, you can find link after link that claims the moon rotates on its axis. So a person has to be able to think for themselves, and understand two motions: “orbiting” and “rotating on an axis”. Otherwise they will fall in the trap they are supposed to fall in.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi JD,

            Learning should be a life-long process and we need to help others to remember what they maybe forgot or it is possible that their teacher taught them something which was not correct.

            But you are right, only we (an individual) are responsible for what we learn or do not learn if the information is available to learn from. We should not forget, that the atmospheric jet streams only became known to most in the world until after the end of WWII. And I doubt if many today ‘really’ understand its cause or causes. We observe the effect but the cause is harder to find.

            Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Alan, you may have misinterpreted JimE. His “dark side of the moon” was clearly the side away from the sun — “there without the sun’s warmth”.

        And, as Andy has already mentioned, Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. It merely changes direction due to its orbit. It’s the same motion as a racehorse running around an oval track.

        • Avatar

          Andrew Butler

          |

          The racehorse has to keep changing direction to get around the track. The moon completes one rotation per orbit. It’s slow (somewhere in the region of 10 kph, I think I read) but it IS rotation. The Earth also rotates in the same direction as it orbits, but we complete 365.25 rotations per orbit.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Yes Andrew, Earth has both motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. But Moon only has one motion — “orbiting”. That’s why you would see all sides of Earth, if viewed from the Sun. But, you only see one side of Moon, from Earth.

            That’s why this is such an interesting issue. NASA, and most universities have it wrong.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi JD,
          A satellite in an orbit moving the same speed as the surface of the Earth would not need to rotate around an axis but for satellites traveling faster or slower than the surface of the Earth there would need to be some rotation to keep one side facing the Earth. Doesn’t the International Space Station need to fire thrusters to keep it orientation?
          Herb.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Herb, the orbital speed is not a factor. Orbital motion is orbital motion, regardless of the speed. Two orbiting objects, at different distances, would have different speeds.

            And don’t get confused by distractions like manmade satellites. The simplest example is always the best. The racehorse is simple to understand and cannot fool anyone. The racehorse “orbits”, but does NOT “rotate on its axis”.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi JD,
            The impetus for a satellite to travel in a straight line and the effect of gravity are from the center of mass of the satellite. Why would these two actions create a orientational preference unless the center of mass was located on one side?
            Herb

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Herb, secure a string to a tennis ball. Holding the other end of the string, swing the tennis ball in an orbit around you. The sting is acting on the ball’s center of mass.

            Notice the “orientational preference”. Notice the tennis balll is NOT rotating on its axis, as it orbits.

            It’s the same motion as the racehorse.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi JD,
            Instead of using a tennis ball attached to a string, use a yo yo where the string is attached to a central axle (center of mass) which is connected to the yo yo body by frictionless bearings. As the yo yo is swung in a circle the outer edge of the yo yo (diameter) is larger than the inner edge so it travels further and encounters more friction. This will, cause the yo yo to rotate in the opposite direction it is traveling. In order to keep the same face directed towards the center of the circle the yo yo must rotate around the axle in the same direction it travels.
            In order for a horse to go in a circle its outer hooves must travel further than its inner hooves so it is constantly turning towards the center of the track.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Yes Herb, a racehorse must turn, or change direction, to orbit the center of the track. But, the horse is NOT rotating on its axis.

            It’s the same motion as the tennis ball or the moon–orbiting, but not rotating on its axis.

          • Avatar

            Whokoo

            |

            Hi Geran,

            My favourite race horse wins by such a large margin it always does a pirouette on one leg before crossing the finishing line.
            It is called the racehorse anomaly.
            Apart from this anomaly you are on to it on this occasion.

    • Avatar

      Steve East

      |

      If you plant tree’s , yet seek to LOWER CO2 when we are already at historically lower levels … then those tree’s will not prosper and live as is the case with all plant life and crops! The result would be low Oxygen and low food availability when we will already have moved away from meat! End of human life … riots in the end game as remaining humans fight for food !

  • Avatar

    Glenn Darlington

    |

    Thanks for this website. In Australia we not only fighting bushfires. weare also fighting an avalanche of climate change activists and trolls descending on any and all comments in defence of science. the production of your literature is extremely helpful and its appreciated.
    Thank you. G

    • Avatar

      Sean

      |

      It’s funny, Glenn, how everyone waves the climate-disaster banner over the 4.9 million hectares burned in the 2019-2020 fire season, and how this was clearly driven by anthropogenic climate change. Somehow, though, they never mention the 117 million hectares burned in the 1974-1975 fire season, the 45 million hectares burned in the 1969-1970 Dry River-Victoria River fire, the 40 million hectares burned in the 1968-1969 Killarney-Top Springs fires, the 38 million hectares burned in the 2002 Northern Territory fires, or the 5 million hectares burned in the Black Friday bushfires in 1851. Because if they did, they’d have to admit that it was boneheaded forest-maintenance policies, not climate change, that has been the foundation of the recent brushfires, and they wouldn’t be able to beat the “CO2 is the root of all evil” drum the way they have been.

  • Avatar

    Steve East

    |

    If you plant tree’s , yet seek to LOWER CO2 when we are already at historically lower levels … then those tree’s will not prosper and live as is the case with all plant life and crops! The result would be low Oxygen and low food availability when we will already have moved away from meat! End of human life … riots in the end game as remaining humans fight for food !

Comments are closed