Just been reading Stephen Murgatroyd's flawed piece on global cooling, courtesy of the redoubtable Aileni, a wonderful chap but with a block on this issue.
In the article, Murgatroyd says that "it has also been warmer than it is now or is likely to be in the future. There have in fact been six global warming periods over the last half million years. " He mentions, further on, "Lord John Maynard Keynes observation that “When the facts change, I change my mind”. It is time for us to do the same."
So let's look at the facts changing. First, from About:
This by Live Science:
... and:
On the Maunder Minimum, which cooling advocates link to the current lack of sunspots:
So one variable leads to cooling but the overwhelming trend to warming swamps it.
One more:
Of course it's warming and the breaking off of chunks at the poles is not due to cooling. Gee - this thing just needs a little common sense. All right - Russia, where I was for 12 years.
In 1998 we had temperatures on seven occasions under minus 30 but by 2004, these had reduced to the extent that the snow season had contracted by two weeks and continued to do this until I departed. In the winter of 2007/8, there were NO minus 30 temperatures. The snow had contracted and the average winter temperature had progressively risen. I know this because I bothered to record these things.
Any Russian can tell you it is warmer now than earlier so where do people get off suggesting we are cooling? They are looking at studies, each with its counter-study negating it, when all they have to do is look out of the door and observe.
Sorry if I'm a little blunt here.
UPDATE on Sunday: Whiplash article, courtesy Wolfie.
In the article, Murgatroyd says that "it has also been warmer than it is now or is likely to be in the future. There have in fact been six global warming periods over the last half million years. " He mentions, further on, "Lord John Maynard Keynes observation that “When the facts change, I change my mind”. It is time for us to do the same."
So let's look at the facts changing. First, from About:
One part scientists agree on is that the earth is warming. Data sets show the increases in temperatures over years. Temperatures will always fluctuate, but the general trend in data is a warming.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have also increased. Scientists agree that data from multiple sources indicates that CO2 levels have risen steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
This by Live Science:
As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
... and:
“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
On the Maunder Minimum, which cooling advocates link to the current lack of sunspots:
“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100...
So one variable leads to cooling but the overwhelming trend to warming swamps it.
One more:
The warming around Earth's tropical belt is a signal suggesting that the "climate system has exceeded a critical threshold," which has sent tropical-zone glaciers in full retreat and will melt them completely "in the near future," said Lonnie G. Thompson, a scientist who for 23 years has been taking core samples from the ancient ice of glaciers.
Of course it's warming and the breaking off of chunks at the poles is not due to cooling. Gee - this thing just needs a little common sense. All right - Russia, where I was for 12 years.
In 1998 we had temperatures on seven occasions under minus 30 but by 2004, these had reduced to the extent that the snow season had contracted by two weeks and continued to do this until I departed. In the winter of 2007/8, there were NO minus 30 temperatures. The snow had contracted and the average winter temperature had progressively risen. I know this because I bothered to record these things.
Any Russian can tell you it is warmer now than earlier so where do people get off suggesting we are cooling? They are looking at studies, each with its counter-study negating it, when all they have to do is look out of the door and observe.
Sorry if I'm a little blunt here.
UPDATE on Sunday: Whiplash article, courtesy Wolfie.
Never mind, James - just get warm underwear.
ReplyDelete"Sorry if I'm a little blunt here."
ReplyDeletea little wrong wont kill you
:)
ReplyDeleteMust be getting that old provocativeness back again
Don't apol. for being blunt.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, you can't look out of your window, all you see is local weather, which as I pointed out, is changing for any number of reasons
Within the last few hundred years the Thames has frozen thick enough to walk and skate on, and Kent has grown grapes. There are "natural" rhythms, (as opposed to alleged man made rhythms) that are far more powerful than anything we can produce, short of nuclear.
There were 7 or 8 large meteor hits in 8000bc +/- all ocean, with heat and kinetic energy that raised global sea temperatures by 8C, and it took 'till 2000bc to return to "norm". Hence the civilisations of Iceland and the northern Scottish Isles, and a great many other migrations.
The statistical methods, scientific methods, etc that were used to create the hockey stick graph, all bastardised existing scientific and statistical standards, for political ends.
Concerning sunspots and their cycles, all were measured and predicted by the Maya, (although privately I suspect the knowledge was inherited)and form the basis of lesser known aspects of their calender. Those sunspots that you mentioned ceased abruptly a couple of years ago. Up to that point the polar ice caps on Mars, and a few other planetary moons in the solar system were melting at the same rate as the Earths polar regions.
Go figure! No CO2 up there!
If you were to consult the physical explorations/examinations of Dr Velikovsky, and examine the relationships there, with the studies carried out by Prof C H Hapgood, you would realise that what we are taught at school is mostly irrational nonsense, suited to a particular political objective. And yet this nonsense is regurgitated by the MSM on an almost daily basis.
I have to wonder how science can ever progress with these attached millstones.
Between 1928, and 1934, Archeologist, Sir Leonard Woolley was excavating the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. He discovered a thick alluvial deposit deep down beneath the modern surface of the site. But it was not virgin soil. many metres below he discovered a far more ancient civilisation, very advanced. Fired clay pottery showed the alluvial deposit to be laid down in 4000bc, approx. Microscopic analysis showed that the earlier city had been destroyed by fire, and then by flood. The flood must have been enormous, the sediment was 5 meters, sometimes 15 metres thick (I have photos). The cause of this must be registered somewhere in historical climate/temperature records.
The point I am making is that if you lived anywhere around 4000 bc, firstly you would be worried about global cooling caused by cooling oceans, and you'd be scared shitless about flooding.
(And there is evidence from around 9000bc, that civilisations were indeed scared shitless about tidal waves and flooding, which ties in nicely with Velikovsky and Hapgood findings, - which once again illustrates the nonsense of conventional explanations)
In the Book of Enoch, the Abyssinian version, (now Ethiopian), version, discovered by James Bruce in 1773, translated by Prof. R. Lawrence, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, chapter LXXIX, where Uriel is speaking to Enoch, Enoch has received detailed instructions of solar system planetary movements, and other star movements, he is informed, - and I summarise, - shortly, the years will be shortened, the earth will stand still, planting and harvesting seasons will vary tremendously, the moon will alter its orbit, and period, and many of the prime stars (bright stars) will change their position/direction, the classes (brightness) of stars will change, they will not appear in their usual season. (I've left a lot out).
(Now I find this amazing, that stars and planets should be differentiated at this early date. Proclus, in his commentary on Platos Timaeus also makes this distinction, and also the distinction between earth fire, and the fire of the Sun.)
Once again this complies exactly with he findings of Velikovsky and Hapgood, whose findings also match exactly with magnetic core samples found in rocks at various periods of time.
Non of this research is discussed, and indeed Velikovsky has been ridiculed, (and I agree some of his work is in error) but the parts I mention, (deliberately obliquely), I find to be increasingly confirmed, although the authors of the findings, probably being unaware of Hapgood, Enoch, and Velikovsky, don't realise that which they are confirming.(smile)
The point is, the temperature fluctuations required to create the mayhem predicted by the scaremongers, the hockey stick graphs, which incidentally have been revised to more acceptable levels lately (although the cacophony of "climate-change" trumpets does not subside now that the taxes and trading schemes are in place, - tell a lie often enough), are so outlandish, so fraudulent, that the entire basis for their claims, ie that they are all man-made, is so obviously fraudulent. There are so many sub-patterns, complications, feed-back loops that are still not understood, and as I have shown, so many other, solar-system-wide events, that to take ANY period of time in arbitrary isolation, and subject our entire civilisation/species to a set of laws/taxes/etc, that fundamentally alter detrimentally the way that planetary business is conducted, on the basis of subverted science, has to be viewed with an absolute mountain of suspicion. And when researches are continually finding holes in the accepted models, and on publication are then subjected to sanctions of various strength, more suspicions are aroused. When those same "authorities" then resort to retrospectively altering historical data, to justify their taxation/exchange trading (very profitable) models, you become convinced that very powerful people are involved in global fraud.
Locally temperatures may be going up, or down.
It proves NOTHING
Globally, temperatures may be going up or down, the CO2 link is absolutely unproven, in fact the reverse is proven, - it therefor proves NOTHING
The "man made" global warming is manifestly unproven.
Current changes may, or may not be happening.
So What?
IF THEY ARE NOT MAN-MADE, AND ARE THEREFOR SELF CORRECTING, WHERE IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL THE VARIOUS TAXES, AND INTERFERENCE, AND INSANE LEGISLATION?
Of course it's warming and the breaking off of chunks at the poles is not due to cooling.
ReplyDeleteEntirely predicted by the implications of the authors I mentioned
The hockey stick graphs were of course discredited and the Gore/IPCC agenda well known and for what reasons.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as Penn State meteorologist Michael Man said:
“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
That says it all, really.
That says it all, really.
ReplyDeleteIt says nothing!
Solar activity ceased 2 or 3 years ago.
Your own graph shows global temperature declines for the last 3 years.
Projections based on other criterior suggest cooling commencing by 2020.
In the 1970s, which is subjectively what people compare with, the fear was generally of cooling, and headlines were asking if we were entering a new mini ice age!
Your tropical zone glaciers article was dated 2006! Which means the data related to a period when the sunspots were active!
The hockey stick graphs were of course discredited and the Gore/IPCC agenda well known and for what reasons.
Precisely my point.
These "facts" were used to start the global debate which ushered in all the green taxes and credit trading scams, - taxes which are still being added, all in the name of "green".
“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
ROFLMAO
Your friend michael mann is the owner of the hockey stick, THAT YOU SAY IS DISCREDITEDfor gawds sake, so he would say that wouldn't he
And the article is from 2005, well befor the mountain of evidence disproving his crap was released!
NOTHING IS PROVEN, NOTHING!
The "man made" global warming is manifestly unproven.
Current changes may, or may not be happening.
So What?
IF THEY ARE NOT MAN-MADE, AND ARE THEREFOR SELF CORRECTING, WHERE IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL THE VARIOUS TAXES, AND INTERFERENCE, AND INSANE LEGISLATION?
Well, Well!
ReplyDeleteHave read the pdf. Writing an official letter and making what appear irrefutable points such as, "Did you include the bristlecone pine series in your calculations?"does not, in itself, constitute refutation of alleged flaws.
ReplyDeleteI'm not referring to the actuality here and your points, Anon, are very strong, as are those of the writer of this letter but my point is that that is not the end of the ball game, just raising questions.
The questions need to be answered and in the case of the bristlecone, there is a case that they did not need to be included, except as a side issue. Just as the trend to cooling quoted in all these posts and articles does not negate the products of human agency, whilst it is not negated in itself.
We are talking about two things - you are referring to solar and environmental cooling and I'm referring, along with the bulk of the scientists on the ground,as touched on in the post, the net effect of all factors, human induced [through population and practices, esp. corporate]and non-human induced.
Rather than fighting the notion of human agency, which is so logical and obvious, given, for example, Chinese coal burning and industrial practices - it would be better to identify and nail WHICH human agency we're talking about.
This brings it right back into the political sphere and the way the very people who want to impose carbon footprints and the like on us are the the ones who commissioned the progressive destruction in the first place.
In other words - Them again.
Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels
ReplyDeleteClimate Experts Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash.
Tropical storms line-up to lash the US, meanwhile its been raining since mid-August in the UK as we brace for a second year of flooding.
Just as the model predicted.
When Nixon went to China he asked Chou En Lai what he thought about the French Revolution. "It's too early too say," he replied and I reckon the datasets of temperatures are too young at present to make a firm decision either way. Most are derived from extrapolations of old records of dubious accuracy (eg CET) or ice core measurements etc. I accept that the climate is changing because the climate has always been changing - ice ages, warmings - as one excpects in a dynamic system. But I believe that the cause may be due to cosmic ray clouding associated with decreased/changing earth and solar magnetic activity. Perhaps instead of donning anti-capitalist hairshirts we should invest in remedial measures to mitigate the impact of climate change. If scientists accept that earthquakes and volcanos can't be stopped why can climate change? But over population is the 7 billion people in the room.
ReplyDeleteNo model projected zero warming since 1998 and cooling over the last two years. Mann's hockey stick was, for AGW proponents, an absolute truth. It is still the foundation of AGW science.
ReplyDeleteScience had previously held that warming would result in drier weather and less rainfall. When an increase in rainfall was noted in recent years a new model was developed that showed, hey presto, that warming would lead to more rainfall. This was another example of tinkering with the inputs to get the desired output.
The problem is, despite this increased rainfall (Northamptonshire has experienced a 130% increase since July), all measures (apart from James Hansen's) have shown cooling for the last two years and zero warming for eight years before that.
It has also been claimed that global warming was melting the Arctic. But within the last year it was found ocean currents had reversed. Scientists now quietly accept that it was this rather than warming that has affected the ice cover. But it is played down in the media.
Despite an increase in CO2 and more coal being burnt in China and India, warming has not been recorded since 1998. If this simple fact could not be projected only a few years ago, what confidence can we have in dire projections from 2020?
Too much does not add up. The more these claims are undermined by actual events, the more desperate the shrill cries become and the greater the urgency to 'act now'.
A growing number of scientists are now rediscovering science and rejecting the previous claims, have realised the IPCC has a political rather than scientific agenda. The counter-consensus is growing.
Right on, Tony
ReplyDelete