Today's climate change discussion has become contentious in America.  Those that try to deny the reality of the Greenhouse Effect have so put the scientists in a box that they have been over-reacting defensively.  Without the Greenhouse Effect our world would be an ice ball.  That's 16 degrees cooler Celsius or 29 degrees cooler Fahrenheit.  Melting the ice over Greenland or Antarctica would raise the oceans enough to endanger half the world's population.  So the crisis is not trivial, yet not all the information is out there and the science is not complete.  Fake science from the fossil fuels industry is a real challenge, and because of this fake science, some real science is being misjudged, overlooked, or even attacked.  I dare to set the record straight at the risk of being labelled a climate denier, which I am not.

Greenhouse Effect Clarified

In 1828 when the first research discovered that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can raise temperatures, it was also discovered that each doubling of the carbon dioxide raised the temperature a fixed amount.  So there are diminishing returns on the Greenhouse Effect.  This was demonstrated by a student paper using a climate model that showed when he exceeded the professor's instructions to go out one hundred years only, and instead went out two hundred years, he discovered that the effects leveled off in the second century. 

In my Unitarian church group in Eugene Oregon USA, in the early nineties, I had a professor friend who taught Biology.  One day he stated that the environment is getting so bad that in about a decade we are going to face real disasters.  Then his wife spoke up and said he's been saying the same thing for fifty years.  Perhaps Lovelace's Gaia Hypothesis about the resiliency of the Earth is accurate, and the Earth adjusts to all these insults and injuries. 

In a seminar, circa 1990, I was attacked viciously just for asking a question of one environmentalist academic on a panel at Notre Dame.  Late on the plane flight home I asked a scientist sitting next to me, and he answered that the science is there, but there are lots of uncertainties remaining.  The 97% of scientists claim has been around for a very long time.  Richard Mann's attempt to eliminate the warmer period one thousand years ago is a major exception to his hockey stick claims.  Many other claims ignore their lack of current fit when this cycle theory would readily correct that inaccuracy.  Telling them that after their lecture and giving them a handout does no good.

Reuschlein's Climate Cycle Origins

            Inspired by Richard Hansen of NOAA data from 1899 to 1988 shown on C-SPAN, about the extreme nature of the 1988 drought in the USA, I videotaped and decoded that data to begin a three year effort to explain the 54 year cycle's natural origins.  Only the 1934 and 1936 droughts met the very high temperature departure level of the 1988 drought, 54 and 52 years apart.  Each of these three years were 50% more than the 4^th place year.  Using 16 data sets from "Trends 90" and other sources, the puzzle finally fell into place comparing the Northern and Southern Hemispheres temperatures.  After I published "Natural Global Warming" May 7, 1991, one of my readers next month commented that the June 16, 1991 Pinatubo volcano eruption confirmed my theory, exactly 108 years after Krakatoa in 1883.  Those are the two largest volcanic eruptions in the last 200 years.  The US Blizzard of 1996 was the biggest blizzard since the US Blizzard of 1888 just 108 years before.  These two perfect fits were every other 54 year cycle and both in the oceanic half (Southern Hemisphere hotter) of the 108 year cycle.

Weather Wealth and Wars

Extending the cycle to economics and then wars took several years.  Multi-year moving averages of different lengths clearly pointed to tops and bottoms 54 year apart in the US economic history data, as well as the US temperature data.  But the timing did not match and it took a long time to find the link.  The link finally emerged not through agriculture but through Frederick Taylor is the pioneer in this area with 1890s railway building studies.  Then the relative economic success of temperate zone versus tropical economies, stock market studies showing better performance in cold months and long term US analysis showing weaker economic growth in long term warming periods all confirm the Taylor findings in a wider set of areas.  Lastly, the major wars had a periodicity to them.  They consistently occur after major economic booms are ending, when wealth and differences among nations are at a peak.  They also occur in major cold years at the end of cooling streaks.  Knowing when wars tend to occur reduces the uncertainty that leads to military over-preparation, which is costly to society.  Good defense planning will reduce the military whenever war is less likely.  Nicolai Kondratieff in 1926 in Russia began the work on long cycles in economics.  See the link attached for my detailed power-point as presented in Toronto at the World Conference on Sociology to a beaming audience of proud Russians and others.

Presentation Combining the Three Kondratieff Waves, Natural, Economic, Wars:

https://www.academia.edu/37064850/Weather_Wealth_Wars_54_Year_Cycle_7-21-18_2p

List of 56 major events 2.5% error (1.32 years average error) on 54 years cycle time:

https://www.academia.edu/4101856/EVENTS_Weather_Economy_War_List56_54yrCycle_3p.

Please cite this work as follows:

Reuschlein, Robert. (2018, July 27), "Climate Theories Clarified", Madison, WI:  Real Economy Institute.  Retrieved from: https://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelease/Climate-Theories-Clarified-USA,2018160104.aspx

Dr. Peace, Professor Robert Reuschlein, Real Economy Institute

Nominated Vetted for 2016, Given Odds for 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

Possible Favorite in 2018 Nobel Peace Prize Announced October 5th.

Contact: bobreuschlein@gmail.com, Info: www.realeconomy.com