Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations
Discussion
Mr Whippy said:
Dogsey said:
Mann said:
"But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might be more complex than "natural" warming."
Mann could have said:
"But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might not be more complex than "natural" warming."
A quote was worded in the negative, but the word could and might could flip and say the exact opposite.
It's just propoganda speak. Insidious, and we are forced to pay for it!
It seems no matter what happens now that isn't perfect ideal weather, it's climate change and that is made more changey because of co2... I'm surprised so many "scientists" put their name to this any more. Ah yes, money!
It's always unusually dry / wet / warm / cold / changeable these days. There's seemingly no such thing as just 'weather' any more 
Just seen that there's some snow forecast over the weekend - it's climate change gone mad I tell you!
Tangent Police said:
Oakey said:
Guys, AGW is back on.
The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm
Vigilantes with pitchforks required I think. The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm
This idiocy is totally and utterly a million miles from where it should be.
mybrainhurts said:
Oh, god...
bbc article said:
"If the response of the Earth in the past is analogous to the temperature increase caused by greenhouse gases... it could lend credence to this counterintuitive notion of a La Nina response to global warming," said Professor Mann.
But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might be more complex than "natural" warming.
"What this gives us is an independent reality check," said Professor Mann.
"There is still a fair amount of divergence among the various models - in terms of how El Nino changes in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
"Some of the best clues we can get are by going back to the distant past and seeing how the Earth actually responded."
Cool your boots.....But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might be more complex than "natural" warming.
"What this gives us is an independent reality check," said Professor Mann.
"There is still a fair amount of divergence among the various models - in terms of how El Nino changes in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
"Some of the best clues we can get are by going back to the distant past and seeing how the Earth actually responded."
Last week it was all CO2, now it's all natural this and natural that.
Still:
could, might, clues, natural, distant past, maybe, [help me I'm drowning in my sea of not very much to actually say]
There is still a fair amount of divergence among the various models - that'll do me, no need to make policy yet then.
Cancel Copenhagen, sorry lad's it's off... no point is there? Well really is there? We're not sure what is going on here.....
Here we have a Mann [sic] who has driven the theory that man made CO2 is driving climate change, changing tack and saying, 'well there is some Natural stuff i nthere that we don't uinderstand yet.
The guy is a 1st class A1 w
ker and he should be stripped of any point of authority that he holds on this subject.
deeps said:
turbobloke said:
The images shown are H-alpha which reveal active areas including spots but the spot areas don't look the same as they would in visible light.
For H-alpha images to look the way they do, for so long is...unprecedented....a tipping point...a sign that taxes are too low...really taking us back to the Dalton Minimum if not the Maunder Minimum (latter of Little Ice Age fame). There are no indicators at this stage inconsistent with either, to see how deep and prolonged this long-predicted Gleissberg deep minimum is we must continue observing and look to the data.
Thanks for 2nd photo. So how long does a new spot normally take to appear, and how long does it last for once it's there?For H-alpha images to look the way they do, for so long is...
How can periods such as the current minimum have been predicted, and presumably using that theory how long will it last do you think?
The length is in most text books is given as the typical 11-year cycle but when the Sun is very active the Hale cycle period is shorter than 11 years and when inactive the length is much longer. The nadir of the Little Ice Age 'Maunder Minimum' saw the Sun effectively spotless for a considerable period, we're heading that way now though there's likely to be a growth in activity at some point before an equally or more depressed cycle 25. NASA have revised their thoughts about cycle 24 and 25 several times as reported on here and elsewhere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/08/more-revisio...
Prior to Climategate this subject was a major heresy for all the totally false reasons explored in previous climate threads.
However, as per revisions of 'official' thinknig as linked above, and with NASA going from not daring to mention Dalton Minimum conditions to now talking about it, others with less strings from officialdom are looking at the possibility of cycles 24 and 25 remaining extremely low and moving into Maunder Minimum territory.
Wattsup article said:
NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
”Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
Better late than never.”Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
As already indicated this was last seen (with a causally correct temporal relationship) in the Little Ice Age which had frost festivals on the frozen-over River Thames. The freezing conditions would be sufficient to explain that but the faithful still harp on about peripheral matters as a feeble excuse and attempt to do the same hit job on the Little Ice Age as we saw the CRU e-mail conspirators attempting to do to the Medieval Warm Period.
As an illustration, the last time there was a discussion of Dalton Minimum and likely impacts somebody asked what would this mean in 'real life': during the last Dalton Minimum there was the 'year without a summer', 1816, also known as 'eighteen hundred and froze to death' where temperatures in parts of normally warm N America failed to rise above freezing at midday in July on at least one occasion. This was a combination of very ow solar activity and volcanic cooling.
Dalton Minimum article by Dr Willie Soon and Steve Yaskell said:
Sleet fell in the Northeast United States, and snowdrifts remained 2 feet deep in late spring. In Franconia, New Hampshire, 88-year-old physician Edward Holyoke, an amateur astronomer and meteorologist who kept detailed weather records for 80 years, wrote on June 7: [i]“exceeding[ly] cold. Ground frozen hard, and squalls of snow through the day. Icicles 12 inches long in the shade at noon day.”
Nobody could recall such a cold spring. Sheep froze in meadows and small birds were “easily caught by reason of the cold” or were found dead in fields.
This is one of the travesties of the current situation. Politicians are taking nations off in entirely the wrong policy direction, expecting non-existent manmade-up warming when cooling is more likely, and thanks to the same political incompetence as a nation we're nearly bankrupt and cannot do what the Russians and Chinese are doing now with soveriegn funds, buying up many acres of food growing land in the tropics.Nobody could recall such a cold spring. Sheep froze in meadows and small birds were “easily caught by reason of the cold” or were found dead in fields.
Instead we get f
kwits wanting to put a 55mph limit on the country to slow it down further when the likely effect of global cooling if continued will bring it to its knees in a matter of days or hours, telling us to not use tungsten bulbs and to switch off computers left on stand-by...while spending upward of £100 billion on pointless windymills while the country is facing sky high energy costs already (due to the risible Climate Change Levy and other green lunacy) and prices will go muich higher due only to existing green bullst.So when even The Independent reports that in the recent cold winter there were 37,000 cold related deaths, you know there's trouble ahead if this continues.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fue...
"Fuel bills blamed for 50% rise in winter deaths"
"Almost 37,000 people died during last cold spell, new figures reveal"
Yet, as I indicated when posting that link before, they keep banging on about the 2000 excess deaths in the heatwave of 2003 and pointing overseas that to countries that junkscience and computer GIGO says will never get useful rain only droughts and floods.
Where is it coming from in terms of prediction...as per the many climate change threads over the last 7 years I've been involved in, it's the Gleissberg cycle, a pattern in extrema of the Hale cycle.
A leading player in the Gleissberg deliberations, lampooned in the past by the faithful IPCC boy scouts, was Dr Theodore Landscheidt. He wasn't alone but he spoke out on his work on solar data decades ago when natural modest 'global warming' was underway which showed that there was a deep solar minimum ahead, beginning in earnest around 2012 and extending for several decades. He's still regarded quite wrongly as a comic figure by the ecoluminati but one name doesn't matter as there are contemporary Russian solar astrophysicists repeating this 'warning' now. Personal attacks are the style of the faithful but are irrelevant and nowadays post-climategate there are many more jokers and clowns on the other side of the debate.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage...
There are both imperfections and misrepresentations in records and reports of Landscheidt but in the basic premise of Gleissberg relevance to climate he has much worth reading. The above is a mix of popular and technical aspects and with the above proviso is well worth a read (or skim).
The only way to know what to plan for is to ingore disreputable science and the comics its printed in, and look to total solar activity measures (irradiance and eruptivity) and thermometers - not treemometers.
Buy Damart. But if and when natural warming returns, we should be thankful as it's a damn sight better to be around in a 'climate optimum'.
toppstuff said:
Anyone here able to give a brief synopsis of where these revelations actually sit in the big scheme of things at present?
Ok. My own 'brief pose' as an ethical scientist has only been several years longer than Ludo's five internet pages, so you may feel free to disbelieve me, but...o Global warming appears to be a con perpetuated by a small number of very bent scientists.
o The mainstream media do not seem to be keen to report on recent information.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff