Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Diderot said:
That is interesting, and right on the button it seems. Expect to see links that smear all contributors to that article from our resident flagellant believers coming to a post near us soon.....Diderot said:
That is a brilliant find. Thanks for the link.Sure is a good find, thanks for posting. A comment from the article:
This lady nailed it to the wall 32 years ago, while the pop scientists of the day were busy extrapolating forwards their current weather (much like today’s fraudsters) without even considering that things would soon change.
When you think about, all Climatology ‘research’ could have stopped right then and there in 1979. Many millions and billions should never have been spent. All subsequent research has really been nothing but socialism in disguise, an attempt at slavery using the weather as a foil.
Even long rangers like the great Joe b
di must marvel at this lady’s forecast.
This does need wide circulation. I’ll be linking back here for a long time.
Another scientist who called it corerctly and at about the same time (and independently) was Theodore Landscheidt. As he seemed to stay around, he got the usual vilification from believers including on here. I was first aware of his work in the late 70s to mid 80s. Some extracts are linked below with a couple of snips.
Click
From 1989
Energetic solar eruptions and corresponding disturbances in the earth’s magnetic field form a solar-terrestrial bridge for conveying instability, which induces a change of pattern in all kinds of terrestrial cycles. The last phase of major instability started in 1968 and ended in 1972. The next phase will begin in 2002 and come to an end in 2011.
More, from 2000
Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature (r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.
And 2003
As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth.
Click
This lady nailed it to the wall 32 years ago, while the pop scientists of the day were busy extrapolating forwards their current weather (much like today’s fraudsters) without even considering that things would soon change.
When you think about, all Climatology ‘research’ could have stopped right then and there in 1979. Many millions and billions should never have been spent. All subsequent research has really been nothing but socialism in disguise, an attempt at slavery using the weather as a foil.
Even long rangers like the great Joe b
di must marvel at this lady’s forecast.This does need wide circulation. I’ll be linking back here for a long time.
Another scientist who called it corerctly and at about the same time (and independently) was Theodore Landscheidt. As he seemed to stay around, he got the usual vilification from believers including on here. I was first aware of his work in the late 70s to mid 80s. Some extracts are linked below with a couple of snips.
Click
From 1989
Energetic solar eruptions and corresponding disturbances in the earth’s magnetic field form a solar-terrestrial bridge for conveying instability, which induces a change of pattern in all kinds of terrestrial cycles. The last phase of major instability started in 1968 and ended in 1972. The next phase will begin in 2002 and come to an end in 2011.
More, from 2000
Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature (r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.
And 2003
As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth.
Click
yeah but, no but, yeah but.....I NEED my taxpayer-funded grants, and he needs his fuel bill subsidised wonga for his windmills - climate reality doesn't get a look in - I NEED the sheeple to believe, otherwise I have to get more money in a more honest way - that just ain't how socialism works..... - anyway, think of the Polar Bears, and the children - let me show my my emotive montage with sad music, and you'll all be under my spell again.......keep their eye off the ball long enough for me to receive my next subsidy/grant..please, think of ME....sorry, I mean 'children' and all the fluffy stuff..........
I even have a disproportionate number of crusties and old time hippies helping me by way of their blogs and even media is infested with my fellow disciples to help spread the (anti) enlightenment and fooling the sheeple into thinking it is all true, and fooling them into thinking that most agree with me – all who spread the word will get a cut of the action, of course……..
I even have a disproportionate number of crusties and old time hippies helping me by way of their blogs and even media is infested with my fellow disciples to help spread the (anti) enlightenment and fooling the sheeple into thinking it is all true, and fooling them into thinking that most agree with me – all who spread the word will get a cut of the action, of course……..
Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 31st May 13:47
Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 31st May 13:47
Meanwhile, over on WUWT, a guest post by Willis Eschenbach. In it he highlights the dodgy and selective methods used by Mann to engineer the Hockey Stick.
Kill It With Fire
Don
--
Kill It With Fire
Don
--
I did a quick google of Dr Libby, as you do and came up with this.
Apologies if it was posted before.
Perhaps the loss of so many eminent Scientists has helped in the rise of the Hockey Team?
Seems Prof Hurd C Willett passed away in 1992.
Do we know if anyone continues his particular research line?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mMgMHQRNV6oC&am...
An interesting line in there sort of says the Bristle Cones of California as used by Mann, should be THROWN OUT as they can't be calibrated.
Apologies if it was posted before.
Perhaps the loss of so many eminent Scientists has helped in the rise of the Hockey Team?
Seems Prof Hurd C Willett passed away in 1992.
Do we know if anyone continues his particular research line?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mMgMHQRNV6oC&am...
An interesting line in there sort of says the Bristle Cones of California as used by Mann, should be THROWN OUT as they can't be calibrated.
Edited by VPower on Tuesday 31st May 22:23
Latest NOAA ENSO Advisory arrived today.
ENSO-neutral conditions have developed and are expected
to continue at least through the Northern Hemisphere
summer 2011. A transition from La Niña to ENSO-neutral
conditions occurred during May 2011 as indicated by
generally small sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies
across the equatorial Pacific Ocean east of the Date Line.
The latest weekly Nino index values showed near-average
SSTs in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific
(Niño-4 index of –0.2°C and Niño 3.4 index of –0.1°C), and
above-average SSTs in the eastern equatorial Pacific
(Niño-1+2 index of +0.7°C). The subsurface oceanic heat
content anomalies (average temperatures in the upper 300m
of the ocean) remained elevated, but relatively constant
during the month, reflecting a large area of above-average
temperatures at depth. Consistent with other transitions
to ENSO-neutral conditions, the atmospheric circulation
anomalies continued to show some features consistent with
La Niña, albeit at weaker strength. Convection was enhanced
over eastern Indonesia and suppressed over the central
equatorial Pacific. Also, anomalous low-level easterly and
upper-level westerly winds weakened but persisted over the
central Pacific. Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric
anomalies reflect a transition to ENSO-neutral conditions, but
with lingering La Niña-like atmospheric impacts, particularly
in the global Tropics.
Jones now significant (again)...probably closer to the aim. As to who's reporting it on their employer's propagandasitewebsite while nursing a semi at the prospect of a return to the good old days, no surprises there.
Only to be expected. Wait a while. Do a U-turn. Try to carry on as if nothing happened and nobody noticed.
Did we ever suspect the usual suspects of not being brazen? Off the scale brassneck goes with the turf.
Only to be expected. Wait a while. Do a U-turn. Try to carry on as if nothing happened and nobody noticed.
Did we ever suspect the usual suspects of not being brazen? Off the scale brassneck goes with the turf.
turbobloke said:
Did we ever suspect the usual suspects of not being brazen? Off the scale brassneck goes with the turf.
No, but I do expect that with more cool summers and cold winters, people are going to become immune to this s**t and stop voting for those who support it (and tax us accordingly). At that point things will change, and then we will see the scientists hung out to dry.Purely localised and not significant even to Jones, but there was a weather forecast this week for grass frost in rural areas of the midlands. Near the middle of June.
A few more severe winters on, and hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths tallied up, might do something...as to what, who knows! Western politicians have taken leave of their senses.
A few more severe winters on, and hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths tallied up, might do something...as to what, who knows! Western politicians have taken leave of their senses.
Oakey said:
The Phil Jones interview, last year saying no statistically significant rises in temp since 1995 must have hurt the causeRichard Black is all excited because Phil Jones, says it is now significant...including 2010.
Unfortuanetly a colleague of Jones - Paul dennis a UEA head of department disagrees, as does D Keenan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1371...
BBC: Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/06/global-war...
Douglas Keenan, at Bishop Hill (comments) says NOT siginifcant.
Paul Denniss (UEA) criticises the statement as well (comments)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/10/j...
"Following is an R session showing the statistical calculations. The temperature data (HadCRUT3) was downloaded from the CRU web site today.
> t9510<- ts(c(0.275, 0.137, 0.352, 0.548, 0.297, 0.271, 0.408, 0.465, 0.475, 0.447, 0.482, 0.425, 0.402, 0.325, 0.443, 0.476), start=1995)
> library(nlme)
> confint(gls(t9510 ~ time(t9510), cor=corARMA(p=1,q=0)))
2.5 % 97.5 %
(Intercept) -48.929568004 4.37230179
time(t9510) -0.001989347 0.02462824
As shown, the 95%-confidence interval for the slope of the line includes 0. Hence the trend is not significant.
Jun 10, 2011 at 7:06 PM | Douglas J. Keenan
I'm rather bemused by the article. 1995-2009, no significant warming, 1995-2010 significant warming and perhaps 1995-2011 no significant warming depending on this years temperature. Who knows! Adding a year to the trend and suddenly claiming significance as the headline asserts ('Global warming since 1995 'now significant') really shows a complete lack of understanding of linear regression, let alone the nature of the data.
Jun 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM | Paul Dennis
[University of East Anglia]
of course saying that the world temperature has statistically significantly increase (or decrease) in temperature is rather missing the issue...
Assuming natural climate processes have not stopped completely (ie warming since last ice age) then this increase is X = Natural + AGW, and nobody really has a clue (as far as I can see) to what % to put on either!
"Assuming natural climate processes have not stopped completely (ie warming since last ice age) then this increase is X = Natural + AGW, and nobody really has a clue (as far as I can see) to what % to put on either!"
Not a straighforward point to respond to...the devil is in teh detail of what is defined as AGW and how it's measured.
However to keep things simple I'll go for ~ zero on the AGW side at < 1%
Immeasurably small.
Not a straighforward point to respond to...the devil is in teh detail of what is defined as AGW and how it's measured.
However to keep things simple I'll go for ~ zero on the AGW side at < 1%
Immeasurably small.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff