LOL... Flyinfieros still denies anything that disagrees with his delusion.
The Hockey Stick graph is not anywhere close to the actual temperature historic readings.
The median temperature still is only .2 degrees or less, off the last benchmark posted
Arn
Yup. Conversing with him is a waste of time. You always get the same bullshit. He has two methods, and that's all he knows. One, insult the person and their sources, probably so he doesn't actually have to work at understanding the material. Two, repeat himself, as if repetition makes what he presents more credible and true the second, third and fourth time.
If they could have started earlier, they could have stopped by to say hello to the warmist morons who got stuck in the sea ice that should have been gone by now.
Copy and pasting a list of studies is not what I consider conversing.
You're using this thread as a personal bullhorn to makeup for your lack of scientific backing.
You made the claim that the Medieval Warm Period is either non-existent, or wasn't global. I provided you with several published and peer reviewed papers that show otherwise.
Originally posted by fierobear: You made the claim that the Medieval Warm Period is either non-existent, or wasn't global.
It did exist but was not global in extent. Several global temperature reconstructions show this.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I provided you with several published and peer reviewed papers that show otherwise.
And I can provide you with several published and peer reviewed papers that show it was not global. What's supposed to take place is discussion, not a shouting match like you prefer.
The MWP has known natural causes that explain it's scale. But most importantly, even if you only consider the northern hemisphere where the MWP is most visiable "the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia." Several reconstructions agree with that conclusions and in my opinion they are the most convincing evidence. Source.
Originally posted by fierobear: If they could have started earlier, they could have stopped by to say hello to the warmist morons who got stuck in the sea ice that should have been gone by now.
Can you provide a source for the prediction that Antarctic sea ice is supposed to be 'gone by now'?
Or just admit you made it up to go with your insult.
By the way, he's not crossing sea ice. He's crossing land ice, which is in decline.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-31-2014).]
You have to make up your mind if what you are showing is Kelvin or Celcius.
Let me be the first: Hint 1: The graph shows temperature deltas, not temperature values. Hint 2: By definition, the magnitude of a Kelvin is identical to a degree Celsius. (N.B. Since 1968, use of the term "degree[s] Kelvin" has been deprecated in favor of simply "Kelvin[s].") Hint 3: The temperature units used have no effect whatsoever on the overall shape of the plot and the information it conveys. Further evidence (as if we needed any) that you have absolutely no understanding of the science and mathematics behind the subject. You're grasping at straws ... or perhaps just trolling.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-18-2014).]
What you've not addressed is the historical data which does not support AGW
You have arguably high points in 1998 (.65 with el nino) and 2010 with .55, however you also have -.62 in 1984 and -.49 in 1992.
Sure you have a pattern develop 2001 to 2007 but then it oscillates ever since and has not stabilized into a trend.
You AGW guys talk in absolutes about Global Warming as a given, and the models do not anticipate the swings from year to year at all. The models are an estimation but the promoters claim they are real and verified and a given.
For the famous melting ice, you can see a net loss in the Arctic since 1978 of 1 million sq kms
But look at antarctica over the same period where the sea ice has expanded 1 million sq kms
In other words the data does not support the claims of dire effects due to AGW.
You can talk about the oceans absorbing the sun's rays and they do. It does not change the data
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-31-2014).]
Let me be the first: Hint 1: The graph shows temperature deltas, not temperature values. Hint 2: By definition, the magnitude of a Kelvin is identical to a degree Celsius. (N.B. Since 1968, use of the term "degree[s] Kelvin" has been deprecated in favor of simply "Kelvin[s].") Hint 3: The units used have no effect whatsoever on the overall shape of the plot and the information it conveys. Further evidence (as if we needed any) that you have absolutely no understanding of the science and mathematics behind the subject. You're grasping at straws ... or perhaps just trolling.
the chart in question has a relative "0". and a scale running between roughly -.75 and +.75.
Here is the Kelvin vs Celcius comparison
the Moberg chart is without reference and refers to both Celcius and Kelvin scale. Also it has red added after 1900 which tells me the data is mixed.
Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
"We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years," said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. "We're living in a dream world."
California in 2013 received less rain than in any year since it became a state in 1850. And at least one Bay Area scientist says that based on tree ring data, the current rainfall season is on pace to be the driest since 1580 -- more than 150 years before George Washington was born. The question is: How much longer will it last?
Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.
Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall -- the kind that would cause devastating floods today.
The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.
Here is the Kelvin vs Celcius comparison ... the Moberg chart is without reference and refers to both Celcius and Kelvin scale.
Previously addressed:
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Hint 1: The graph shows temperature deltas [i.e. differences], not temperature values. ... Hint 2: By definition, the magnitude of a [degree] Kelvin is identical to a degree Celsius. ... Hint 3: The units used have no effect whatsoever on the overall shape of the plot and the information it conveys. ... You're grasping at straws ... or perhaps just trolling.
Your follow-up post deserves at least a triple facepalm: You continue to display that you have no idea what you're talking about.
quote
Also it has red added after 1900 which tells me the data is mixed.
If you had bothered to read (and understand) even the first paragraph of the sourceFlyinFieros cited, you would already know that the data in blue is low-resolution proxy data (primarily from tree rings, ice cores, and sediments), that the data in red is instrumental data (i.e. direct temperature observations) gathered since 1880, and that the reference line is based on the 1961-1990 mean (not median) observed temperature:
"The reconstruction from Moberg et al. (2005) utilizes complementary information from proxy data that preserve both low- and high-frequency climate information. High-resolution data from tree rings reflect annual to multidecadal variability best and are precisely dated to the calendar year. The low resolution proxy records used here, from ice cores, boreholes, cave stalagmites, and lake and ocean sediments, contain information at centennial scales, but are based on less precise dating. A methodology based on wavelet transformation was used to isolate the climate information at the appropriate frequencies for each of the two types of data. The resulting reconstruction combines this information to include climate variability at annual to centennial scale frequencies. The reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere annual temperature anomalies is scaled to the 1961-1990 instrumental mean temperature, in degrees K (equivalent to degrees C). The Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature from instrumental records has been added to this graph (in red) for comparison and is scaled to the same mean period. "
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-03-2014).]
We are not talking about delta temperature at all. Delta Temperature is the difference between temperatures taken at different elevations. We are talking about temperature in Celcius or Fahrenheit recorded by weather stations whose elevation is not taken into account.
Flyinfieros posted the Moberg graph which says on the face of it that he is talking about "degrees C" and "degrees K"
What Mobert himself says is
quote
The reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere annual temperature anomalies is scaled to the 1961-1990 instrumental mean temperature, in degrees K (equivalent to degrees C). The Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature from instrumental records has been added to this graph (in red) for comparison and is scaled to the same mean period.
so we know that (a) the graph only deals with the Northern Hemisphere and (b) it is scaled to the mean temperature of 3 specific decades. So the scale of being below the 1961 to 1990 mean temperature for about 2 millenia has to be totally wrong. The reason? We know there have been previous periods in world history when the temperature was higher than it was in the 60's in the Northern Hemisphere. (don't forget farming in Greenland 400 years ago) At it's heart the graph seems to indicate a temperature variation of about 1 degree C over thousands of years.
In other words the scale is of no value whatever in any discussion, particularly if you are trying to advance the idea of AGW
This graph, however, reflects a summary of temperature values year by year from 1979 to 2013.
You can see a trend from 2001 to 2007 upward. You can see a shorter trend from 2012 forward, downward. You can see the temperature in 2013 is exactly the same as it was in 1991.
There just is no evidence in the data to suggest AGW while there are books full of evidence that the UN came up with a plan to move money from Canada and the USA, to move industry out of North America, to denigrate the standard of living in North America by creating a false and fraudulent "scientific" phenomenon called "anthropogenic global warming"
Originally posted by Arns85GT: What you've not addressed is the historical data which does not support AGW Click to show
You have arguably high points in 1998 (.65 with el nino) and 2010 with .55, however you also have -.62 in 1984 and -.49 in 1992. Sure you have a pattern develop 2001 to 2007 but then it oscillates ever since and has not stabilized into a trend. You AGW guys talk in absolutes about Global Warming as a given, and the models do not anticipate the swings from year to year at all. The models are an estimation but the promoters claim they are real and verified and a given.
For the famous melting ice, you can see a net loss in the Arctic since 1978 of 1 million sq kms Click to show
But look at Antarctica over the same period where the sea ice has expanded 1 million sq kms Click to show
In other words the data does not support the claims of dire effects due to AGW. You can talk about the oceans absorbing the sun's rays and they do. It does not change the data.
I think that it is fair to say that you believe that you can falsify (and in fact, have already falsified) Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
I think that the best description of what AGW is supposed to like like at this point in time--regardless of whether AGW is true or false--is the first part of the latest assessment report from the IPCC:
I am singling out this one report, because I think it is the closest that there is to a gold standard, as far as describing what the consensus would be (if there were a consensus) among scientists on the definition of AGW.
If you can demonstrate that there's a discrepancy between what the world is actually like at this point in time, and what the world is supposed to be like at this point in time, according to this IPCC report, then I would say that you have falsified what most people would consider to be the scientific consensus about AGW: no mean feat, given the wide accordance of scientific respectability that has been bestowed upon the IPCC by so many of those climate "warmists" or "alarmists" that you have line up against.
When I say "what the world is actually like at this point in time", that includes all the historical patterns or trends of various kinds of data from their preindustrial baselines to where the numbers are known to be at this very day, such as temperature data, sea ice coverage or extent (as in km2), land ice coverage or extent (km2), and total mass for the cryosphere (kg), which would be the mass that is comprised by all of the world's land and sea ice, snowpacks and glaciers, all added together.
Do you think that this is "framing the narrative" in an unfair or prejudicial way on my part? If so, please feel free to expand on that thought.
I think that the only testable statement from the IPCC that relates to the cryosphere is that the mass of the cryosphere has been and continues to be on a downward trend since the preindustrial baseline. That does not exclude some natural variability or temporary reversals of an overall downward trend, or some smaller intervals for which the mass remains unchanged: but the overall and persisting trend from baseline to present day has to be clearly downwards.
But guess what? I haven't memorized the entire IPCC report, and I just can't find the time right now to start parsing it from top to bottom. But I like to think of myself as a fair-minded individual. So I will offer a more rigorous testable statement: That the mass of the Antarctic cryosphere (land ice + sea ice + snow packs) has been and continues to be on a downward trend since the preindustrial baseline. Just the part of the planetary cryosphere that is comprised by Antarctica. Is that not even more than "fair"..? Or just "fair"..?If not, please feel free to expand on that thought. I would be interested--and doubly gobsmacked,, to boot--if you were able to provide a verifiable quotation from the IPCC report about AGW and its effects on Antarctica that you could falsify. (I would even be gobsmacked, if not doubly gobsmacked, if you were able to provide any verifiable quotation from the IPCC report that you could falsify, but I'm trying to keep the focus here on Antarctica.)
Does your assertion (above) that the extent of the sea ice surrounding Antarctica has increased by 1 million km2 since 1978 falsify what I just put up there?
I'm very skeptical about that, on two counts. The first one is that you are quantifying the extent of the Antarctic sea ice (km2), but not the mass of the sea ice (kg). But you know what? I'm feeling uncharacteristically fair-minded today, so I will let that slide (for now) and respect any observation about the extent of the sea ice as perfectly interchangeable with any parallel observation about the mass of the sea ice.
But what about the land ice and the snow packs?. Since I haven't seen any specific reference to snow packs in my meanderings through various reports that are available online, I will also take that off of the table. (Maybe it's already rolled into what they call the "land ice", in various reports.) Just the land ice. Can you demonstrate that when the trends for the land ice and the sea ice all put together--the net Antarctic cryosphere--are combined by addition and subtraction (respecting signs), that there is not an overall declining trend from the preindustrial baseline to present day? If so, please feel free to proceed with a demonstration, followed by any brief self-congratulatory statement (or a null statement), according to your personal tastes. If not a demonstration that falsifies the net loss of Antarctic cryosphere, please feel free to expand...
Regardless of whether you are moved to proceed with such a demonstration, or with some other form of message board responsiveness (excluding the null response), I think it would contribute much to this discussion if you would consider the substance of a very recent report from January 24, 2014, on the findings of some researchers at New York University, as described in The Christian Science Monitor online. It's just about 2 standard-sized pages of text, with an embedded video segment of 28 minutes. I think the text is more than sufficient (I haven't viewed any of the video). If you find it agreeable to comment on this report, please consider paying particular attention to these few sections that I have copied and pasted here, especially the single paragraph that I have highlighted using boldface:
Rapid warming along the Antarctic Peninsula and puzzling shifts in the distribution and extent of winter sea ice at the bottom of the world appear to have their roots in a natural climate swing centered in the tropical Atlantic, according to a new study by researchers at New York University.
The warming of the region is of concern because of its implications for sea-level rise, while the shifting and slight increase in winter sea ice has become a favorite talking-point among many of global warming’s political skeptics.
Over the past 50 years, the region's average winter temperature has risen by 5.6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit). Untangling the relative influence of natural climate swings and warming from the build-up of greenhouses gases from human industrial activities and land-use changes has been challenging in this region. Climate models have generally failed to reproduce the warming on the peninsula, according to researchers with the British Antarctic Survey. This makes it hard to say if the region's rapid warming will continue.
Getting a better handle on the drivers behind the warming is crucial to projecting the future of the region and its glaciers, rivers of ice whose loss currently is contributing to sea-level rise.
Counterintuitively, the mechanism that the study’s lead author Xichen Li and colleagues at NYU have identified also suggests that as the climate continues to warm, its effect on AMO may lead to a continued long-term growth in the extent of winter sea ice off of Antarctica.
Essentially sea-surface temperatures during the AMO's warm phase form atmospheric waves that quickly end up in Antarctica's South Pacific sector, triggering the formation of a patch of low pressure about the size of the continental US. This region of persistent low pressure sets up over the Amundsen Sea west of the Antarctic Peninsula.
In the Southern Hemisphere, winds in a low-pressure system flow clockwise. This circulation draws warm marine air from the northwest and onto the peninsula. As the flow continues, it moves across the ice sheet and back out to sea, driving winter sea ice from the Bellinghausen and Amundsen Seas into the ice that has formed on the Ross Sea and reducing concentrations in the Weddell Sea as well.
In the end, other factors are likely to be supporting the growth of winter sea ice off of Antarctica, researchers say. For instance, some researchers have shown how an increase in meltwater from thinning ice shelves in West Antarctica may be freshening seawater, raising its freezing point. This fresher water would freeze more readily than its saltier counterparts.
"There probably are multiple causes" for the slight increase in winter sea ice detected so far, writes John King, science leader at the British Antarctic Survey in Britain in an e-mail.
"I think Li and co-authors make a pretty strong case for the Atlantic being potentially important," he writes. "Their paper is a useful step forward in understanding recent Antarctic climate change, but it's not the end of the story."
Thank you for your kind indulgence in this new facet of what continues to be a very enjoyable message board discussion.
And so concludes this installment of my new serial publication, which I have tentatively decided to entitle--wait for it:
Of Ice and Men
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-01-2014).]
to: Arns85GT cc: any interested forum members re: my previous post, immediately before this one
The latest IPCC report (The Physical Science Basis) is a sizable document, well over 1000 standard length pages of text.
If anyone wants to consider the feasibility of falsifying AGW by producing some data that clearly contradicts any exact and verifiable quotation(s) from IPCC source material, here are two easier places to start. The press release is just a single page and the other one is just two pages. I would copy-and-paste, but I can't do that with PDF-format documents like these:
We are not talking about delta temperature at all. Delta Temperature is the difference between temperatures taken at different elevations. We are talking about temperature in Celcius or Fahrenheit recorded by weather stations whose elevation is not taken into account.
Only in Arn's fantasyland. What you posted is utter nonsense!
The plot is clearly labeled: "Temperature Anomalies, degrees K" and "Temperature Anomalies, degrees C."
Definition -- Anomaly: A difference or departure from normal (or from some reference value)
quote
so we know that ... (b) [the graph] is scaled to the mean temperature of 3 specific decades.
We "know" no such thing. The data is normalized to the 1961-1990 mean, not "scaled." There is a difference.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-02-2014).]
The first cited study is published at a social science journal turned low standards climate journal with a chief editor enforcing her political agenda.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI) - Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT. - Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal - EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF) - Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal - Elsevier lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence) - The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 22 times - "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) - "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands - "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing - "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
The rest of your objection is GARBAGE. Whrer is the Heartland Institute mentioned as a place of published papers? "Science" and "Geophysical Research Letters" were other journals prominent on my list. Your "heartland Institute" argument is invalid, and wearing thin.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-02-2014).]
The latest IPCC report (The Physical Science Basis) is a sizable document, well over 1000 standard length pages of text.
If anyone wants to consider the feasibility of falsifying AGW by producing some data that clearly contradicts any exact and verifiable quotation(s) from IPCC source material, here are two easier places to start. The press release is just a single page and the other one is just two pages. I would copy-and-paste, but I can't do that with PDF-format documents like these:
You keep quoting IPCC officials who are bravely trying to maintain the position they have taken. The facts do not support their position. So why post it?
Yes the climate continues to change as it always has. Yes we are in a post ice age era No, it is not warmer this year than last No, the islands have not disappeared beneath the waves No. the hurricanes have not increased No, we do not have millions of climate refugees.
And to cap it all off we are having a Duesy of a winter.
You keep quoting IPCC officials who are bravely trying to maintain the position they have taken. The facts do not support their position. So why post it?
Yes the climate continues to change as it always has. Yes we are in a post ice age era No, it is not warmer this year than last No, the islands have not disappeared beneath the waves No. the hurricanes have not increased No, we do not have millions of climate refugees.
And to cap it all off we are having a Duesy of a winter.
Arn
Here we go again, stating predictions 50-100 years into the future and pretending they were for today.
You don't understand the difference in Kelvin and Celsius and yet you brush off the world's climate scientists as incompetent.
But hey, look outside...it sure is cold out there.
Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling January 28, 2014 - 12:02 PM By Barbara Hollingsworth Subscribe to Barbara Hollingsworth RSS 445 141
Al Gore: Public ‘Lulled’ Into Accepting 'Using the Atmosphere as an Open Sewer'
Former Vice President Al Gore. (AP) (CNSNews.com) – Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.
Easterbrook’s predictions were “right on the money” seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a “planetary emergency.”
“When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it’s luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button,” Easterbrook told CNSNews.com.
“For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC,” said Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” which was published in 2011. (See EasterbrookL coming-century-predictions.pdf)
In contrast, Gore and the IPCC’s computer models predicted “a big increase” in global warming by as much as one degree per decade. But the climate models used by the IPCC have proved to be wrong, with many places in Europe and North America now experiencing record-breaking cold.
Easterbrook noted that his 20-year prediction was the “mildest” one of four possible scenarios, all of which involve lower temperatures, and added that only time will tell whether the Earth continues to cool slightly or plunges into another Little Ice Age as it did between 1650 and 1790.
“There’s no way to tell ‘til you get there,” he told CNSNews.com. But he lamented the fact that governments worldwide have already spent a trillion dollars fighting the wrong threat.
“How does it feel to have been right?” CNSNews.com asked Easterbrook.
“To be really truthful, it’s wonderful. There’s nothing that makes you feel better than to be right and be able to say, ‘I told you so,’” replied Easterbrook, who was also an official reviewer of the IPCC reports. “But I’m not gloating about it because it’s not good news. It’s bad news.
“And in many respects, I hope that I’m wrong. And the reason I hope that I’m wrong is because it’s going to cost several million people their lives if I’m right. In Third World countries where food and water are a problem right now, it’s going to get worse. Cold is way worse for humanity than warm is.”
Easterbrook said he made his earlier prediction by tracing back “a consistently recurring pattern” of alternating warm and cool ocean cycles called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that occurs naturally every 25 to 30 years. He discovered that the PDO corresponded with a similar temperature cycle demonstrated by isotope ratios found in Greenland ice cores going all the way back to 1480.
“We don’t know what the driving mechanism is, but it’s very consistent. It’s happened five times a century and every time it’s happened, there’s been a corresponding change in global temperature, either warm or cool,” Easterbrook told CNSNews.com.
“What I did was I projected this same pattern forward to see what it would look like. And so in 1999, which was the year after the second warmest year on record, the PDO said we’re due for a climate change, and so I said okay. It looks as though we’re going to be entering a period of about three decades or so of global cooling.
“And so in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, on the basis of taking the temperature records that go back a century or more and simply repeating the pattern of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, and so on.
“And that in fact has happened. We have now had 17 years with no global warming and my original prediction was right so far. But we have still probably another 20 years or so to see if the cooling trend continues, and if it does, then my prediction will be right and my methods will be right. And so what it boils down to is, so far so good.”
Easterbrook added that his long-term prediction until the end of century is “a lot more nebulous” due to the still-unknown effect of the sun, which has entered a “grand solar minimum” occurring every 200 years. “Everything we think depends on what’s going to happen with the sun.”
But based on past climate data, he says the most likely scenarios are “either deep cooling, or a return to another 25-year cycle of light warming/cooling, but nothing even approaching the 10 degrees warming the IPCC folks are predicting.”
Easterbrook prediction
(Dr. Don Easterbrook)
When CNSNews.com asked Easterbrook if anybody from the IPCC, which “ignored all the data I gave them,” ever admitted that he had been right, he laughed.“No, every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause, like a tiger waiting under the rug.”
Easterbrook noted that 32,000 American scientists have signed a statement that there’s no correlation between climate change and carbon dioxide levels. “I am absolutely dumbfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make absolutely no sense whatsoever….
“These people are simply ignoring real-time data that has been substantiated and can be replicated and are simply making up stuff,” he told CNSNews.com. Driven by a quest for money and power, he added, “what they’re doing in the U.S. is using CO2 to impose all kinds of restrictions to push a socialist government.”
“One thing many people don’t realize is that CO2 by itself is incapable of causing significant climate change. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 39/1,000ths of one percent. It’s nothing. Ninety-five percent of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, and water vapor is not changing. …
“No doubt CO2 has been climbing, but the total change in atmospheric composition [since 1945, when CO2 levels began to increase] is one 9/1,000ths of one percent. So how are you going to have a 10 degree climate change by changing this tiny amount? You can’t do it,” he says, which is why the trillion dollars already spent worldwide on reducing carbon dioxide has had little effect.
“The people who are climate deniers are the people who are denying global cooling," Easterbrook told CNSNews.com. "We haven’t had any global warming in 17 years, and they are denying that. And so we’re not the deniers. They’re the deniers.” - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news...sthash.RkUkGi89.dpuf
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 02-06-2014).]
E&E is a trashy fringe platform of a journal enforcing political opinion.
E&E published a paper that is skeptical the sun is mostly hydrogen, but instead mostly iron. Source.
Hydrogen filled sun? Pish, the scientific consensus is meaningless! I think the sun is made of spaghetti and it's an Italian conspiracy, with breadsticks and overpriced wine. Can I publish at E&E now?
"I suspect that NASA has used some of the same tricks to peddle AGW (anthropologic global warming) that it used to promote the myth that planet Earth is heated by a steady, H-fusion reactor in the core of a Hydrogen-filled Sun." - Oliver Manuel / 'iron sun' author Source.
I agree with Gavin Schmidt, "Saying a paper was published in E&E has become akin to immediately discrediting it." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Your "heartland Institute" argument is invalid, and wearing thin.
Heartland is a biased political lobbyist organization. You constantly substitute the underhanded and disgraceful Heartland and their associates as real evidence.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Hmmm, the PDO, right again. IPCC projections wrong, AGAIN. How about that?
Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling
These anti-scientific claims have been debunked for years but the tall tale lives on.
Inconvenient to consider 98% of the evidence isn't it? Source.
