Norman Page is a doctor. Not a climate science doctor. A petroleum geology doctor I believe.
Norman Page tells Dr Pauchari to use Google (early 2008)
In January 2010 Norman Page posted the following email he said he sent to Dr Pauchari, Chair of the IPCC, back in April/May 2008. He suggested to Dr Pauchari that he "Google" to see what is happening with the climate. He got a response to a previous email but not the one below. Archived here - my bold and italics and hyperlinks:
It is a month since my first e-mail and I thought I might draw your attention to a few more articles of interest.It is clear that temperatures correlate much better with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( Controlled by solar activity) than with CO2 levels. Google - PDO cooling -and look at Easterbrooks graphs and comments.. Also google - Jason satellite cooling - for a discussion of the current situation.
Google -- ball UN structures - for an anlysis of how the IPCC came to distort the science for political ends. You are obviously in a better position to judge Ball's position than I am ,but what he says looks very plausible to me.
In the meantime Solar Cycle 24 continues to fail to appear making the cooling predictions more and more likely.
I do hope you will soon feel that you can speak out publicly on these matters in the near future to perhaps forestall damaging actioThank you for your careful consideration of my original e - mail.A useful discussion of the IPCC forcing and feedback factors can be found by googling - pielke monckton guest -
Best Regards Norman Page
Norman Page predicts a cooling spell - in January 2009
In January 2009 he wrote (archived here):
The Sun is entering a quiet phase - possibly a Dalton minimum - and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now in a negative phase. Both of these facts suggest a possible 20 - 30 year cooling spell during which cooler temperatures could produce shorter growing seasons and a serious drop in food crop production.
Twenty four months later 2010 was declared in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society to be the equal hottest year on record with 2005.
Norman Page today says the scientists don't know nuffin'
Norman continued on his merry way predicting all sorts of catastrophes, of the cooling kind. His latest effort is today at WUWT (archived here), and he writes:
In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers.What cooling trend, you may ask...
Norman waffles on about models, showing he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He tosses everything he can think of into the mix: cosmic rays, neutrinos, it's the sun, CO2 is too small to have an effect. If there's a denier meme out there Norman's latched onto it. At one stage he writes:
The simplest working hypothesis for forecasting future climate is that the change in the temperature trend from warming to cooling in 2003 (Figs 6 and 7) marked both the change in the PDO phase and the peak in the 1000 year cycle.He wanders around saying that nights are colder than days and winters are colder than summers and making similar profound observations. He summarises his "findings" a couple of times. Here's his final summary, ending with a warning that a Little Ice Age may be imminent:
- Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
- Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
- Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
- Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
- Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
- General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
- By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
- The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
- Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.Here is that prediction. It's not the most extreme by a long shot:
Good to see that Anthony Watts isn't neglecting other climate nutters. He's been relying on stodgy but reliable in denial Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale a bit too much. Too boring! WUWT needed livening up and who better but an "ice age cometh" veteran, Dr Norman Page.
From the WUWT comments
Norman attracted quite a few conspiracy nutters (archived here), for example, Txomin says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:06 pm
UN global control over the World and National economies…?
Eve says, mysteriously:
October 29, 2013 at 11:02 pm
What the ICPP an governments have done is to drive everyone from the north to the south. Those that have legs, that is. Leaving for the Bahamas. Will chat with you later about how much cheaper it is to not have to heat your house.
albertalad says he cannot fathom how CO2 can have super powers:
October 29, 2013 at 11:51 pm
You touched on CO2 – as you know nitrogen and oxygen make up fully 99% of the atmospheric gases with all the other trace gases making up the final 0.01%. How in any sane universe can a tiny trace gas like CO2, as the IPCC and other AGW believers claim, so completely control the world’s heat content? That is insane. Illogical. No where near possible – yet they claim such super powers for CO2. Why can’t we defeat this ridiculous concept? Their entire warming fantasy is based on CO2. Everything.
Henry Galt is a regular at WUWT. He is a conspiracy theorist of the 'climate science is a hoax' variety and says much the same thing each time IIRC:
October 30, 2013 at 12:35 am
Now all we have to do is find some investigative journalists to start the truth ball rolling. Ethical politicians will read about the contortions the IPCC scientists have gone through to produce their robust projections and command some honest judges to duly process the team and their cause.
Oh, and the UN, NGOs, formerly respected academies and societies, government departments, windmill farmers, PV fiefdoms, carbon traders, chief scientists, activist organizations, ecoloonies and uncle Tom Cobbley and all will soon see the error of their ways, awake to the murder and damage being committed worldwide in the name of their beloved environment, fold their tents and bother the rationalists no more.
There is no /sarc tag. There is despair in my soul.
There are a number of oxymorons in my first paragraph and millions of morons in my second.
Jean Parisot is under some illusion (delusion?) or other, maybe thinking that developing countries would all be developed if not for climate science and says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:52 am
The Treasury decision infuriates me. It is one thing for we, the rich and comfortable, to delude ourselves and pursue asinine energy policies. But, for us to deny developing economies the access to the cheap energy that they desperately need, is morally vacant.
Scarface doesn't know the simplest thing about the world and says (my bold italics):
October 30, 2013 at 1:34 am
“g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.”
Exactly the reason I stopped believing one word of the warnings about Global Warming.
Up to that point I thought that CO2 was about 15% of the air, based on the alarming news! When I started to look things up for myself, I turned into a skeptic and will be one until proven wrong.
RMB says those silly scientists ignore the fact that water can't get hot because of surface tension. RMB has never dipped his or her toe in a body of water:
October 30, 2013 at 1:35 am
The key to the fact that the models don’t work is dead simple, they ignore surface tension. If you attempt to put heat into water through the surface you will find that the heat is rejected. Radiation penetrates surface tension, physical heat does not. There is no such thing as climate “sensitivity” to co2 because of this simple fact. I would recommend that everybody try getting heat through the surface of water using a heat gun, the complete rejection of the heat tells the story. In short radiation yes, heat no.
Rob gives a conventional WUWT response and says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:19 am
herkimer isn't counting the days but says (excerpt, my emphasis):
October 30, 2013 at 5:43 am
...Now that it has been clearly shown that during the last 16.8 years rising levels of CO2 do not raise global temperatures...
Greg Roane seeks clarification and asks, very politely:
October 30, 2013 at 5:56 am
Dr. Page, thank you! One small question, for clarity: Conclusion 1 states “…Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.”
Is it possible to be both + and – 0.25 degrees colder? Or do you mean “up to 0.25 degrees colder” instead?
Thank you sir.