Discover more from Panocracy
Interlude – I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas ...
This time we have some prototype panocracy logo designs and mottos and I'd very much like your thoughts on which to develop (or your own alternatives).
We're deferring our look at the police because I just came across some very interesting and not very new research into (drum roll, cymbal crash) Climate Change and I thought I'd share it with you. It's not what we're being fed by the mainstreamers.
Whither the Climate?
There are many threads to this: the first is that CO2, everyone's favourite greenhouse gas, is actually a bit of an imposter. The main thread concerns the Sun, that big bright thing in the sky that we don't see very often here in Scotland.
“ …[leads to] the general conclusion that while variations in the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have somewhat modified our climates, it, probably, never was the controlling, or even an important, factor in the production of any one of the great climatic changes of the past, nor can be, of any great climatic change the future possibly may bring.” - W. J. Humphreys, Physics of the Air (1929)
Firstly, it's becoming clear that human emitted CO2, although it's been increasing for some time, is dwarfed by naturally emitted CO2.
It seems that the IPCC hasn't taken vulcanism into account, which is unfortunate as volcanoes emit a lot of CO2 - probably at least as much as humans (but, astoundingly, no one really knows). They've been doing this for a long time and have been implicated in major climate events in the past.
To further complicate things, Atmospheric CO2 increase lags atmospheric temperature rise by several centuries because the whole planet-sized complex of land, sea and atmosphere has that order of response time. So: rise in temperature first, rise in CO2 centuries later and not the other way round.
It's also true that more CO2 means more greenhouse effect – up to a point that is strictly limited by the physics of CO2 emission and absorption. Even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause the average temperature to rise by no more than 1.3C. This is down to the physics of heat absorption and re-emission by CO2. So we'd need a lot of volcanoes and a whole lot more fossil fuel burning.
So if atmospheric gases aren't the main driver of climate change, then it has to be extraterrestrial in origin and no, I don't mean aliens. The culprit is of course the Sun (and the odd supernova but that's another story).
Recent work by Zharkova and her colleagues (from which the graphs below are taken) has refined earlier ideas on the physics of sunspots and has provided a good description of the relationship between climate and sunspot activity.
In Zharkova's model global temperature is correlated with sunspot numbers – more sunspots mean higher solar irradiance and hotter temperatures. And it works the other way round too: fewer sunspots, cooler planet.
The thing is there are two major cyclic processes going on in the Sun that affect its energy output and they don't have quite the same frequency. So sometimes they add and sometimes they cancel - with roughly a 3 to 4 century period. In the graph, we can see the cancelling effect in the ‘little Ice Age’. Also in the graph more positive and more negative amplitudes are associated with more solar output.
This theory accounts well for previous hot and cold periods, like the mediaeval warming and mini ice ages and has also correctly predicted the very recent cooling of our climate.
It matters to us because we are now entering a period lasting a few decades where the solar magnetic waves cancel each other out again and so solar radiation will drop – the Sun will be quiescent.
As you can see, the red and blue waves are starting to cancel which means fewer sunspots: things will be cooling down for a few decades. Bad news for people who have been persuaded to expect the opposite and to throw away their main means of keeping warm. The Sun will be more quiescent than it was during the little ice ages of the 17th century.
Personally, I think the physics behind this is at least as credible as that promoted by the global warming catastrophists. It's more direct and can easily be falsified or confirmed just by waiting a few years!
Perhaps over the next decade or two we'll be glad we added some CO2 to the atmosphere. We may come to regret removing our major sources of energy - like the Germans did when the Russians turned off their gas pipeline. Our homes will need more heat and I wonder where that's going to come from.
Would a pancracy have stopped all this climate angst and potentially catastrophic misdirection? Well, what it would have encouraged is balance between conflicting arguments rather than a somewhat neurotic ‘consensus’. The direction of travel might have been the same or it might have been different but it would be missing the associated hysteria and risk of a consequent headlong rush into wintry extinction.
Personally, I’m breaking out my old sledge and investing in insulation makers and oil companies!
Logos and Mottos
Finally here are some logos kindly designed by my daughter, Julie, and some mottos that sound quite grand. These are simply to kick off the process of deciding on a memorable image for a panocracy and you may have ideas of your own!
I've suggested mottos in Latin as it sounds a bit more like we mean business. What do you think?
confidamus invicem – let us trust each other
progrediar simul - Let's move forward together
futurum est omnibus – the future is everyone
pro pluribus – for the many
multa pro paucis – the many for the few
melius semper - ever better
So there you have it. Please let us know what you think.
Next time we’re looking at the police - in a non-threatening way of course.