By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
chekie, that must have been an exciting find for you, after all, the planet hasn’t been showing any signs of warming recently.
and fwank, if the titanic hadn’t hit one those ice blocks 100 yrs ago you might of been able to wave yer arms and point to CO2 for the ice block that snapped of greenland.
go on……. wave em anyway, not much else has been happening
“… after all, the planet hasn’t been showing any signs of warming recently.
Another day, another massive, size 32 clownshoe fail – you really should give up those stupider-than-thou denier blogs and acquaint yourself with the real world out there, spotty.
[April was by far the warmest April on record in England; the average central England temperature (CET) was the highest in 353 years of records](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/weather-april-sunshine-rainfall)
[“We can already say now that this year’s April is one of the warmest we have ever experienced in Norway,” John Smits of the state meteorological institute told news bureau NTB.](http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/04/25/warm-temperatures-set-spring-record/)
[Ireland Records Its Warmest April On Record](http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-news/ireland-records-its-warmest-april-on-record/13552.html)
[March 2011 was the second lowest sea ice extent on record](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201103.gif)
I’m confident that many more will appear when the NOAA April 2011 temp anomaly map is published, but for now consider yourself debunked, yet again.
Relocations of recent events and trends in glacial-earthquake locations in Greenland
Veitch, S. A.; Nettles, M.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #C43A-0523
Glacial earthquakes in Greenland have been associated with calving events at marine-terminating outlet glaciers along the Greenland Coast (e.g., Ekström et al., 2003; Nettles et al., 2008; Joughin et al., 2008). Previous studies (Ekström et al., 2006) noted an increase in occurrence of these events between 1993 and 2005. Newly available data for years 2006-2009 (Nettles & Ekström, 2010) show a peak in glacial-earthquake occurrence in 2005; however, occurrence rates since 2006 remain approximately double those prior to 2000. We model waveforms for recent events (2006-2009) to obtain improved locations and associate earthquakes with individual glaciers. Analysis of previously published solutions (Tsai & Ekström, 2007) as well as our new results indicates “GROWTH” in the number of glaciers at which glacial earthquakes occur, as well as spatial changes in the locations of glacial earthquakes over time, most notably in Northwest Greenland, where the northern limit of detected glacial earthquakes has progressed northward. Glaciers quiescent prior to 2000 now contribute significantly to the glacial-earthquake catalog, accounting for more than 25% of recorded events since 2001, and more than 40% of recorded events in 2008. This may indicate a rapid retreat of the calving front and significantly increased flow speeds at previously stable tidewater glaciers.
thats great news chekie, australian wheat prices will soar 🙂
we can thank the NAO for that
Sorry chek,but that is all just ‘wether’,not climate.Just like last december in England was the second coldest in its history.Meaningless noise.
TW, I’m certain that every regular poster on this blog knows the difference between weather and climate.
But it’s a game spotty likes to play when he thinks it suits his case. And of course, his more egregious claims such as at #388 can be easily shown to be falsehoods.
And Canada had the warmest winter recorded.
PS on the whole “Just like last december in England was the second coldest in its history”: England had the second warmest WINTER in recorded history and the warmest APRIL in recorded history.
Just goes to show you can’t take ONE event and extrapolate.
No matter how much adding more data ruins your argument.
Canada, long winter…
“Planting season has been delayed many weeks, local observers point out, so producers have been slow to hire. The long winter and moist spring have also slowed construction of underground utilities and new homes.”
Net sales in North America were down by 1% compared to last year, impacted by year-end timing of some shipments as well as long winter in northern states of USA and Canada, which delayed the beginning of 2011 season.(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/idUS60711+03-May-2011+HUG20110503)
This year’s launch continues a tradition that dates back 126 years and came about three and half weeks later than usual due to a particularly long winter season.
I’ll play Sunspots weather game…
It doesn’t mean anything, but spotty does it *ad nauseum*
Jeff, He’s has abandoned any pretence of even giving us weather reports now.
@Freckles the Clowntroll: “Net sales in North America were down by 1% compared to last year”
Net sales of what, I wondered…
It turns out the quote comes from a business report on Rapala VMC, makes of the worlds favourite…wait for it…fishing lure…
Fishing gear as a proxy for temperatures! A 1% decline in regional sales shows us AGW is a fr*ud!
But wait, a few sentences on, it mentions they had 15% sales growth in the rest of the world, so that must mean…yup, our resident contra-auguste has poured the bucket of paint over his own head, again!
Cue the sad trombone arpeggio: Wah-wah-wah-waaaaaaahhh…
Oooh, Doctor Whiteface will be mad with him this time! And don’t the kids love it!
The “launching” referred to above is of the Maid of the Mist, which clown afficionados will recall is where Jim Carrey delivers his classic meltdown rant in “Bruce Almighty”:
“Bruce Nolan here, aboard the Maid of the Mist, in the fabulous Niagara Falls, New York … Oh, look, there’s the owner of the Maid of the Mist! Let’s have a talk with him, shall we?? Come here, Bill. You’ve been running the Maid of the Mist for years. Tell me, why do you think I didn’t get the anchor job? Is it my hair, Bill? Are my teeth not white enough? Or like the great Falls, is it the bedrock of my life, eroding beneath me? Eroding! EEEROODING! I’m Bruce Nolan, for Eyewitness News. Back to you, f&#%$rs.”
Not too highbrow, but classic contra-auguste clowning. My kids laugh till they pee themselves every time that scene comes on. And an apt description of the quality of the “arguments” here:
Hey, what a good game! I see your fishing lures and raise you a royal wedding: “The hottest April on record got people out buying summer clothing, said one analyst.”
For what it’s worth (hint: not much), it also seems to have been the windiest April on record in Galveston County, Texas, the driest March-April on record in Texas and the wettest April on record in the Ohio Valley. Not to mention the sunniest April on record in Ireland, and the cloudiest April on record in Chicago.
It was probably cold somewhere too.
NSW experienced in March2011 its 9th consecutive month with above average rainfall, something that has been recorded only once before, in 1916-17.
Broken Hill experienced its coldest March on record.
Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island broke all sorts of temperature records in March as a result of the unusually warmer ocean temperatures.
Just a note to the passers-by, f wank has been de-fanged, yes he’s just clowning around and the worst he could do would be to gum you to death.
f wank, I’m glad you got kick out out of those climate proxies.
i got kick out of this
New paper: Increased solar activity caused far more global warming than assumed by the IPCC
A recent peer-reviewed paper published in Astronomy & Astrophysics finds that solar activity has increased since the Little Ice Age by far more than previously assumed by the IPCC. The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC. Thus, much of the global warming observed since 1850 may instead be attributable to the Sun (called “solar forcing”), rather than man-made CO2 as assumed by the IPCC.
f wank will tell you all where that came from.
“Easter is particularly late this year”
so……jeff, are you now trying to tell me that climate change has made Easter late in Holland ?
That’s a good one.
Spotty says: “Thus, much of the global warming observed since 1850 may instead be attributable to the Sun (called “solar forcing”), rather than man-made CO2 as assumed by the IPCC.
Except of course that doesn’t match our observations of stratospheric cooling, which this mysterious, previously unknown external energy would also have to warm on its way through in order to overheat the troposphere, and neither does it explain the decreasing diurnal temperature gradient.
Funnily enough, GHG warming does explain these observations well, but clearly not to cranks and their hobbyhorses who prefer to ignore obvious basic tests in favour of their denialist crank theories.
> The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC.
Which makes the warming from that what?
I notice you haven’t quoted that.
> Thus, much of the global warming observed since 1850 may instead be attributable to the Sun (called “solar forcing”), rather than man-made CO2 as assumed by the IPCC.
Sorry, the sun can’t explain why it’s warmer at night, where there is an entire planet in the way of the sun.
And no, it can’t explain much of the warming seen. Partly because the sun has been at a low for a long time whilst temperatures still rise. The sun can’t explain that.
> Partly because the sun has been at a low for a long time whilst temperatures still rise.
Didn’t Sting or The Police have the answer to that?
“There must be an invisible sun / that gives its warmth to everyone”
Hey, it’s just about as plausible as anything else sunspot writes 😉
Here is the paper, read it and weep
A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance
leads to large historical solar forcing
The CO2 trolls in here remind me of Galileo’s problems with the IPCC back in the 1600’s
You don’t actually read anything you quote as your “evidence”, do you spotty?
The intro of the paper alone confirms it is not saying what you think it does.
So the question is which bottom-feeding, junk-spewing denialist orifice did you gullibly take on trust when it told you that paper refuted AGW?
It looks like Wayne Swan read that paper.
“Other savings tell of the Government’s greatest folly — its falling for the global warming scare.
A $1.6 billion cut comes from cancelling or winding back of dud global warming programs, none of which Labor should have started.”
> A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing
So they’ve managed time travel? Or is it that the paper thinks it has a different method to reconstruct TSI in the past?
It is still unable to answer why the past 50 years has seen the sun activity diverge from the temperature records.
If the paper is correct, then that divergence is greater proof that the current warming period is due to a non-natural effect and is of even greater effect than previously expected.
More damning evidence, the CO2 scam is melting much quicker than the ice.
Recent observations and studies of breaking of ice shelves and ice sheet mass losses must be carefully assessed in the context of Arctic climatology which is now identified as being linked to low frequency atmosphere/ocean oscillation with a period of 60-80 years. An excellent temperature dataset for the entire Arctic basin has been prepared by Dr Igor Polyakov (University of Alaska) for the period 1860-2005.
This dataset shows clearly that the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935 and 1936 and the present temperature in the Arctic is about the same as it was in the mid-1930s. Further, the Arctic witnessed significant icecap and glacier melting during the 1920s and 1930s as evidenced by the following commentary “The Arctic sea is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (US Weather Bureau 1922)”.
Also, the temperature history of Greenland shows that the 1920s and 1930s were the two warmest decades over Greenland, in a long dataset from 1880 to 2007. These observations and the US weather Bureau report strongly suggest that the Arctic witnessed significant ice melt and icecap mass loss during the 1920s and 1930s, however, no detailed quantitative calculations (of icecap mass loss) were possible then due to lack of adequate remote sensing technology.
An estimate of sea level rise can be made by observing that from 1940 to 2010, global sea level has risen by about 13-14 cm. Of this rise, the steric (thermal) component of SLR can be estimated at about 6 cm while the eustatic (melt part) contribution is about 8 cm. If these estimates are used to extrapolate SLR to 2100, we obtain a maximum of 12 cm of SLR due to the eustatic (melting) contribution, while another 8 cm or so due to steric (thermal expansion) contribution.
In summary, the estimate of over 1m and higher rise in sea level by 2100 (in next 90 years) seems unrealistic, when analyzed in the context of present sea level rise which is just about 1.5mm to 2.0 mm per year with almost NO component of acceleration. (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/guest-weblog-post-commentary-on-%E2%80%98sea-level-rise%E2%80%99-by-madhav-khandekar/)
Why Greenhouse Gases Won’t Heat the Oceans
Climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr has noted that land surface temperature records (which comprise the vast majority of temperature records prior to the satellite era (1979-)) are unreliable due to land use changes and urban heat island effects, and that we should therefore look to ocean heat content changes as the most reliable metric for assessing global heating and cooling. The oceans cover 71% of the global surface area and hold at least 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere. Many have claimed that the ‘missing heat’ from ‘anthropogenic global warming’ has gone into the oceans, even though the heat seems to be ‘missing’ from the oceans as well. Recent data from the ARGO network of ~3200 floating robot sensors has shown that since full deployment of the system in ~2003, the ocean heat content has declined despite steadily rising ‘greenhouse’ CO2 levels: How could this be? Here are the physical reasons why increasing concentrations of ‘greenhouse gases’ would not be expected to increase ocean heat content:
1. Infrared radiation from ‘greenhouse gases’ causes evaporative cooling of the oceans rather than heating CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ re-emit radiation to the Earth and space in the long-wave infrared (LWIR) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While ultraviolet and visible radiation from the Sun does penetrate the surface of the oceans to cause heating, the energy output of the Sun is relatively stable and obviously not linked to man. However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing ‘greenhouse gases’ is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface ‘skin’ of the oceans. Stephen Wilde, LLB (Hons.), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society explains this in detail, excerpted below: ………………
I should get a Nobel Prize for my efforts of gathering information to educate the mentally impaired 🙂
You haven’t “gathered” anything – you’re just regurgitating crap you’ve swallowed from denialist blogsites.
“An excellent temperature dataset for the entire Arctic basin has been prepared by Dr Igor Polyakov (University of Alaska) for the period 1860-2005.”
I believe is a mistake – he had collated Arctic temperature data 1860-2000, and published it in 2002.
There is no reference in your regurgitation, and on Pielke’s site there is no reference to this “-2005” dataset.
If you make claims, you reference them. I believe you should get an anti-nobel prize for your shoddy scholarship.
In fact, here’s what Polyakov has to say, himself (not the words delusional idiots put in his mouth):
“temperature of the intermediate-depth (150–900 m) Atlantic water (AW) of the Arctic Ocean has increased in recent decades.”
“AW warming helped precondition the polar ice cap for the extreme ice loss observed in recent years.”
@clowntroll: “Just a note to the passers-by, f wank has been de-fanged, yes he’s just clowning around and the worst he could do would be to gum you to death.”
Saying it doesn’t make it so – as we have seen, when the contra-auguste holds the pie, chances are he’ll be the one covered in cream shortly…
First our clowntroll gives us the hilarious scene of the 8 year old flailing wildly as the adult [holds them at arms length](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AtArmsLength): “This is, of course, more common in comedic situations, or other situations in which a humorous “haha look at this guy, he’s pathetic” act is preferred to a merciless beatdown.” Timeless contra-auguste clowning…
So he moves on to another, giving us his take on the classic one where dozens of clowns emerge one after another from the tiny car…Our clowntroll opens the door for Doctor Whiteface himself, who emerges first (of course) to the gasps of the crowd. He shows the expected arrogance dispensing economic “wisdom”, but works in irony as he fails (as ever) to appreciate that the origin of the word “economy” connotes the conservation of ones resources. Doctor Whiteface is followed by Pielke, and then in a genuinely original moment of buffe, Pielke is followed by … Pielke again!
Who will be next out? Watts? McIntyre? Maybe the jokers from CO2 “Science”! The kiddies are rivetted, and can barely contain their excitement! The adults, of course, have mostly seen it before, but laugh along with the littlies, appreciating that in amoungst the tired old gags, there are a few moments of clowning genius.
Personally, I’m just waiting for the wierdos in makeup to get out of the ring so the trapeze act can start…
Channel Ten confirms new Sunday morning show hosted by Andrew Bolt
That will put the fox in the pen with the chicken little’s.
hmmmm…….I wonder what topic’s he will cover ?
Probably the great issues of the age that he’s familiar with – expounding ignorance in the press, the rise of ignorance in modern society, the encouragement of ignorance by a corrupt and decadent political class, giving the ignorant and ill-informed an equal voice, the relentless drive to dumb-down society for corporate gain, finding the lowest common denominator, and of course promoting stupid phuckwittery for profit.
The tipping point arrives for Climate Hysteria
New study links cosmic rays to aerosols/cloud formation via solar magnetic activity modulation
( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/17/new-study-links-cosmic-rays-to-aerosolscloud-formation-via-solar-magnetic-activity-modulation/ )
Yeah, being a major disinformer, Watts really is shovelling up as much junk as possible to bury the oh-so personally embarrassing results of his pet, multi-year surface stations project.
Guess what – the temperature record is sound and the world is warming, just like the professional scientists say.
Expect many more such * nothing * posts until his clack of goldfish-memoried followers cannot recall so much as what a surface station ever was.
Sorry chekie, I shouldn’t tease you by posting links to that shill for the nuclear industry.
Here is the source,
Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover
New input to the United Nations climate model: Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, Physics and Astronomy, AU, along with others including Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen and Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.
( http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/ )
CO2 – ha
This should relieve the symptoms of CO2 psychotic syndrome
Cern will also be publishing their Cloud experiment soon.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L09805, 4 PP., 2011
Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam
Cosmic rays incrase nucleation rate
A particle beam is not needed for experiments
Ions are important for atmospheric nucleation rate
Martin B. Enghoff
National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen
Ulrik I. Uggerhøj
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Sean M. Paling
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
We have studied sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation in an atmospheric pressure reaction chamber using a 580 MeV electron beam to ionize the volume of the reaction chamber. We find a clear contribution from ion-induced nucleation and consider this to be the first unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions that resemble the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion-induced component of the nucleation. This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.
Received 8 February 2011; accepted 31 March 2011; published 12 May 2011.
Citation: Enghoff, M. B., J. O. P. Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark (2011), Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09805, doi:10.1029/2011GL047036.
( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml )
“Cosmic rays incrase nucleation rate”
Compared to what? No cosmic rays at all?
You see, condensation needs water vapour to happen. If there isn’t enough, the droplet dries quicker than it forms and is starved of more moisture by its creation.
And if there were more clouds, we’d be seeing them.
Oddly enough, it seems you denialists are relying on invisible clouds.
“have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere.”
Known about for ages:
But you need water vapour. And to have more cloud you need more water vapour. But cosmic rays don’t cause water vapour.
While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.
I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.
If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states……………….
( http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/ )
> While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now
You’ve been trumpeting that this was proof of the death of AGW for years.
Or were you thinking only of “up until now in this message”, since it starts with the statement you’ve been skeptical but then go all unskeptic from then on?
From the actual report conclusion:
“During the 4-week run, around 50 nucleation bursts were produced and recorded”
Wow. 4 weeks, 50 nucleation bursts. But no matter that a TRACE GAS like CO2 cannot possibly affect the climate, such a tiny effect MUST, yes?
woW, you make a 3 year old retarded wombat look intelligent
Sunspot, a complete scientific novice, cracks me up with his latest pontification:
*While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore*
EGADS!!! The sage of wisdom has spoken! Climate scientists everywhere drop what you are doing and write in here immediately, as the world’s most esteemed climate science expert has spoken! Forget the fact that he isn’t a scientist, has published diddly squat in a peer-reviewed journals, and does not attend conferences and workshops where these issues are discussed and debated! Scientists don’t need any of these qualifications to be considered THE world’s most respected people in the field of climatology!
Back to planet Earth. The scientific community does not care a rat’s ass what sunspot thinks. And that is precisely because of the fact that he has no pedigree in the field. Zilch. Zippo. Nix. And for the scientific community on the whole, Svensmark’s latest offerings will be very easy to ignore.
Cosmic ray control, free energy/over unity/perpetual motion/whatever-this-weeks-creationist/intelligent-design-renaming-is – is there anything spotty won’t slavishly repeat from blogposts?
Note to spotty: blogposts aren’t science.
They may be comments on science but that’s it.
Will Spencer submit a paper?
The fossil-fuelled denialati will treat his blogpost as fully peer-reviewed and spun from purest alchemical gold.
Guys, the spotted one didn’t do anything but cut and paste Spencer’s blog. It’s Spencer who says he was skeptical of the CR claims until now. Do you really think spotty “made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years”?
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: It’s far better to ignore spotty’s ranting and cut-and-paste jobs and let him rot here by himself.
> …the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate…
That’s sunspot ineptly trying to quote Spencer and failing the “quoting” part. You know, like kids learn to do in school.
Spencer’s readers should also remember that Spencer has made other non-peer-reviewed claims/preliminary estimates before that fit his ideology that human influences just can’t be very significant – as have Watts and any number of other “skeptics”.
Guess how many of those have survived post-publication peer review?
I guess sunspot is hoping that if he touts someone with such a poor record, eventually he’ll have to get lucky. Unfortunately reality doesn’t feel any particular need to work that way – and it makes sunspot look deeply desperate. But that’s not a new observation, is it?
> Guys, the spotted one didn’t do anything but cut and paste Spencer’s blog.
So copyright infringement and plagiarism?
JUST LIKE WEGMAN! Wotta buncha crims.
Seems like the denialerati have an emerging M.O.
spots, you are looking at life upside-down.
This is why you get everything wrong.
Just like you get it wrong in 425.
I take it, since you didn’t have anything to say, that you didn’t read the paper either and that the revelation of the conclusion came as a shock to one who believed that CLOUD was going to (finally) prove AGW wrong.
Poor spots. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
You’re right. Spotty didn’t even phrase it, but cut-and-pasted it here as if was he was one who had made the statement. But it was Spencer after all. Its just that I rarely check out spotty’s links, as they are usually so gumbified. As you say, its denial as science, blog style.
And yes, I must admit that I am completely wasting my time responding to his guff. Your point is well taken: its time to leave spotty in exile here.
I post peer reviewed science, and you mugs just deny it, or attack me, or the author. Everybody knows that peer review is corrupted, one sided science.
Harvey can’t even follow links ?
Here is another scientist for all you one eyed gravy train mugs to attack.
by William Happer, he is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
“The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.”
“The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.
The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.
This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the medieval warm period and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.”
full text here…
( http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases )
“Everybody knows Cranks need to believe that peer review is corrupted, one sided science”.
Fixed that for you spotty.
And now you’re gullibly lapping up disinformation from Happer about the MWP in the FAR?
Do you really think Happer doesn’t understand that the graph used was based on [Central England Temperature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_Temperature)and wasn’t a global reconstruction, because one hadn’t been constructed at the time?
Why, yes you are and yes you do.
That’s why yours and Happer’s and the rest of your zoo’s malinformed opinions are irrelevant.
Chekie & other CO2 trolls, here’s a little more on what Harper said about peer review.
If there were any “competent scientists” in here, they also would be extremely saddened by this corrupt peer review process, but there’s not !
“A traditional way to maintain integrity in science is through peer review, the anonymous examination of a scientific paper by qualified, competing scientists before publication. In a responsible peer review, the authors may be required to make substantial revisions to correct any flaws in the science or methodology before their paper is published. But peer review has largely failed in climate science. Global warming alarmists have something like Gadaffi’s initial air superiority over rag-tag opponents in Libya.
Consider this comment from one of the most respected IPCC leaders, as revealed in the CRU e-mails: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to define what the peer-review literature is.” And consider the CRU e-mail comment on a journal that committed the mortal sin of publishing one of the heretical papers: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Peer review in climate science means that the “team” recommends publication of each other’s work, and tries to keep any off-message paper from being accepted for publication.”
“There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey-stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2. What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?
A major problem has been the co-opting of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet? Especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time? Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research.
Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.” Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proven” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than 1 degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky, “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.
What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don’t like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold? Publications of contrary research results in mainstream journals are rare. The occasional heretical article is the result of an inevitable, protracted battle with those who support the dogma and who have their hands on the scales of peer review. As mentioned above, we know from the Climategate emails that the team conspired to prevent contrary publications from seeing the light of day and even discussed getting rid of an editor who seemed to be inclined to admit such contentious material.”
tch…tch…tch….tch…..these CO2 climate scientist’s are a loathsome lot, hahaha, just look at the way that they have all of you gullible fools in here bewitched. hahaha
5/18/2011 A snowplow faces 23 feet of snow on Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado on May 13.
SALT LAKE CITY — Late winter storms are packing a punch to the Rockies, piling snowpack on top of already record levels across the West where officials are concerned about historic flooding, avalanches and mudslides.
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43083815/ns/weather/ )
and tell me, is this (below), weather or climate ?
Greenland,here are some interesting temp charts
When you activate the link, place your cursor over “current week.” Then, from the drop-down menu that appears, select “All” and you will see how temps have been, on average, declining significantly there.
( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Greenland+TEMPERATURE )
( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=LAKE+TAHOE+TEMPERATURE )
how odd…..Greenland is getting cooler !!!
For the second time, why are you all here responding to him? You know he’s going to spam something else in lieu of having anything intelligent to say.
He’s yet another smug conspiracy nutter and it isn’t worth your time to reply to him.
Just let him talk to himself in here and ignore him.
I’ve been saying the same thing, John. Spotty never answers posts, posts the most ridiculous claims (like the one above where Greenland is supposed to have cooled about 30C in the last 30 years- wtf??), and is insufferably immune to rational thought.
Ah but while what you say is absoluely true, Robert and John, you’re ignoring the democratisation that apostolic denialism bestows.
Here we have Happer, a Princeton professor and PhD (albeit 40 years past his sell-by date) and Sunspot, an anonymous internet herbert, both earnestly regurgitating the same stupid, debunked-a-thousand-times-over memes, as if they meant something.
I believe Orwell foresaw it best – and I paraphrase:
“The readers looked from Happer to Sunspot, and from Sunspot to Happer, and from Happer to Sunspot again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
“and an unusually cold and wet spring, more than 90 measuring sites from Montana to New Mexico and California to Colorado have record snowpack totals on the ground for late May, according to a federal report released last week. ”
( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22snow.html )
“We have 18 months to stop climate (AGW)change disaster.” ~ Prince Charles, May 2008
so much for the catastrophic warming
198 Posted by: Jeff Harvey
“Yeh, sunspot, and this may be showing that the Gulf Stream is breaking down as rapidly as many climate scientists argued that it would only ten years ago due to rapid warming in the Arctic…”
here yer go pinocchio……….
30 Mar 2010.. Gulf Stream is not slowing down, scientists claim
The Gulf Stream is not being slowed down by climate change, a study indicates.
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7536760/Gulf-Stream-is-not-slowing-down-scientists-claim.html )
haven’t you been raptured yet, spotty?
So much for catastrophic spots getting a clue…
I found this for you woW,
Polar Ice Rapture Misses Its Deadline
While Harold Camping spends this week trying to wipe egg off his face after real-world events spectacularly falsified his prediction that the Christian rapture would occur on May 21, global warming alarmists are similarly trying to wipe egg off their faces after real-world events spectacularly falsified their predictions of an imminent polar ice rapture.
This week, a 1979 Palm Beach Post article resurfaced in which Steven Schneider, who for the past 30 years was one of the most prominent global warming alarmists, claimed the west Antarctic ice sheet could melt before the year 2000 and inundate American coastlines with up to 25 feet of sea level rise. Obviously, the west Antarctic ice sheet was not raptured away last century, and New Yorkers can still drive rather than swim to work.
If Steven Schneider was the only alarmist making spectacular – and spectacularly wrong – predictions about global warming and polar ice melt, then perhaps we could simply write it off as a single person who walked a little too far off the deep end. But spectacularly wrong global warming predictions, about polar ice and many other global warming-related issues, is par for the course for global warming alarmists.
Mark Serreze, a researcher with the federally funded National Snow and Ice Data Center, frightened the masses in June 2008 by claiming there was a 50-50 chance the North Pole would be ice-free in the upcoming summer. The media reported Serreze’s prediction with a frenzy rarely equaled even among media-created global warming scares. Adding fuel to the fire, global warming alarmists lined up in droves to add their John Hancock to Serreze’s claim. Many prominent alarmists even claimed Serreze was too conservative with his prediction.
For example, Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at England’s Cambridge University, told the June 27, 2008, London Independent, “People are expecting this [Arctic ice melt] to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before.”
As it turned out, the North Pole never came close to melting, with the Arctic Ocean containing 1.65 million square miles of sea ice at its 2008 minimum.
Much like Camping is now claiming his May 21 Christian rapture prediction was essentially accurate, but that he was merely a few months off regarding the timetable (news alert: beware October 21, 2011!), the alarmists are now claiming their failed North Pole predictions were essentially accurate, but merely a few years off regarding the timetable. They now claim the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free by the year 2020 or 2030. Don’t bet on it.
Speaking of bets, I have contacted some of the people making such claims about an imminent polar ice rapture, asking them if they would like to place a wager with me regarding their prediction. It’s funny how they all seem to have misplaced their wallets.
The alarmists, moreover, have not confined their rapture predictions to polar ice.
The Star Chamber of global warming cartels, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claimed in its most recent report that global warming is likely to rapture away the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. When investigators discovered there was no scientific evidence to support the claim, and a good deal of scientific evidence countering the claim, the rapture prediction was canceled.
The media spent much of the past decade parroting alarmist claims that global warming was shutting down the Gulf Stream and the Atlantic Ocean Conveyor Belt. That rapture alarm has been canceled, too……….
Winter – Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent
1967 – 2011
( http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1 )
No snow rapture either
Ahhh, classic clowntrolling again. Here’s a tip – read the article your denialist source is quoting before jumping on the bandwagon, it helps prevent facepalming – even Steven Goddard got this one right. But what am I thinking, Freckles wants to wear the pie in the face, its his role in life.
The clowntroll says: “This week, a 1979 Palm Beach Post article resurfaced in which Steven Schneider…claimed the west Antarctic ice sheet could melt before the year 2000 and inundate American coastlines with up to 25 feet of sea level rise. ”
The article actually says: ‘”It is surely the most dramatic of the possible carbon dioxide-induced effects and its initiation cannot be ruled out as a possibility before the end of this century,” Schneider said in a report to a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.’ (my emphasis)
Guess what – 30 years of data tells us the initiation of the process became clear in the mid to late 90’s. Knock me down with a feather, the climatologist was right, and the rejectionists are wrong. AGAIN!
Freckles flop-flop-flops his giant clown shoes offstage to wipe the cream off his face, and no doubt getting ready for another round of clowntrolling…after all he’s the Oleg Popov of cliamte denial.
Ahh, clarity fail (lost in edit) – the “it” Schneider refers to is the loss of polar ice caps generally, not specifically the melting of the WAIS. The loss of these caps will be seen first with the Arctic Icecap, of course.
WIAS will follow, but more slowly.
Spotty may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer, but [Dana Rohrabacher](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/republicans-climate-solution-clearcut-the-rain-forest/) makes him look brilliant by comparison.
Spring NH snow extent:
“The hypothesis of the day that the public is being encouraged to be alarmed about is that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming.
“That’s a testable idea. And the test is: you look at a period of the temperature record and you look at a period of the carbon dioxide emissions. So, step back 10 years to 2001. Since then there’s been a five per cent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that’s 25 per cent, almost a quarter of all the carbon dioxide we’ve put in the atmosphere since 1751. And what’s happened to global temperature? It’s gone down slightly by a bit less than 0.05 deg. C. As a scientific hypothesis, that’s the test; and the hypothesis fails the test.”
( http://australianconservative.com/2011/05/the-central-hypothesis-of-global-warming-fails-the-test-professor-bob-carter-says/ )
”Decline in Snowpack Blamed on Warming”–headline, Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2008
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013101868.html )
and now ……
”Record Snowpacks Could Threaten Western States”–headline, New York Times, May 22, 2011
( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22snow.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all )
Britain enjoying the hottest May since 1772
> And the test is: you look at a period of the temperature record and you look at a period of the carbon dioxide emissions.
Wow, Bob Carter is either deeply disingenuous or completely incompetent at defining and interpreting basic scientific tests! Who knew?! Thanks for confirming that for us, sunspot!
The Weather Makers Re-examined:
Tim Flannery’s best seller under the spotlight of climate change realism
D Weston Allen
* 400 pages *100 plus illustrations *300 plus peer-reviewed references * well indexed
The Weather Makers Re-examined is the first comprehensive review and critique of
The Weather Makers – the 2005 best seller that propelled Tim Flannery to become the Australian of the Year (2007) and now the Climate Change Commissioner for the Gillard Government.
Leading IPCC reviewer, Vincent Gay PhD., calls Dr. Allen’s Re-examined “the most knowledgeable and comprehensive indictment of the global warming bandwagon.” The former Director of the US Department of Energy and the Environment, William Happer PhD., tells the author, “The people of the world should collectively thank you, and maybe they will some day.”
Dr. Allen puts every chapter of Tim’ Flannery’s thesis on global warming alarmism under the spotlight of the most up-to-date scientific realism – in climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, the reliability of the temperature records, sea levels, glaciers, the true state of the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, the Great Barrier Reef, extreme weather events, acidification of the oceans, oscillating Atlantic and Pacific currents and much more.
The Weather Makers is shown to contain 23 misinterpretations, 28 contradictory statements, 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 66 over-simplications or factual errors, 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.
Always a scholar and a gentleman, Wes Allen never uses ad hominem arguments, but treats Tim Flannery with courtesy and respect. His predilection for cautious understatement, however, makes for some humorous one-liners. For example, he says that after Flannery has diagnosed his beloved Gaia as suffering from a raging fever, he has nothing more to offer her than some feeble “homeopathic remedies.”
With CC Commissioner Flannery now leading the charge for a government carbon tax to mitigate Gaia’s raging fever, the timing for the publication of The Weather Makers Re-examined could not be better…………..
( http://www.irenicpublications.com.au/html/excerptsWMR.html )
“A peer-reviewed paper published in The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds that natural changes in global cloud cover over the 21 year period 1983-2004 are responsible for at least 3 times as much global warming as has been attributed to greenhouse gases over the 104 year period of 1900-2004. The paper finds the decrease in reflectance from clouds (albedo) over only the past 21 years has accounted for a change in solar energy delivered to the Earth surface of ~ 7W/m2, whereas all greenhouse gases are claimed to only account for (assuming you believe the IPCC) a ~ 2.4 W/m2 change over a much longer 104 year period. The paper also finds that climate models do not account for these cloud changes, that cloud changes are much more variable than previously thought, and that the cloud changes are not man-made or related to greenhouse gases. The author of the paper has provided a pdf presentation of these findings, excerpted below:”
( http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/study-finds-global-warming-from-natural.html )
Top Scientist Says New Solar Wobble to Prolong Global Cooling
May 31, 2011
As a new solar minimum takes our planet towards global cooling an increasing number of scientists give credence to a new theory blaming our Sun’s wobble.
It started in 2007 when scientists saw that gravitational forces in our solar system may have a huge impact on Earth’s climate. Professor Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, explains why there is suddenly so much interest in her theory in an exclusive interview with klimatskeptik.cz.
Professor Charvátová calls it Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) and she claims it will have serious impacts on our climate. She says a predictable “wobble” of our Sun called barycenter shift alters Earth’s weather patterns. Few climatologists have yet studied this phenomenon. But the evidence supporting Professor Charvátová’s SIM theory is becoming ever more compelling.
Our Wobbling Sun
Increased international interest in the SIM ‘wobble effect’ began after Australian scientist Dr. Richard Mackey published a paper addressing the effects of the barycenter shift in The Journal of Coastal Research in 2007. Mackey drew inspiration from the work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge……………..
( http://www.suite101.com/content/top-scientist-says-new-solar-wobble-to-prolong-global-cooling-a373733 )
From Their Own Mouths: AGW is a LIE.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
Um, Sunspot, you may have only recently emerged from a long period in stasis, because it is well-known that the schneider “quote” is in fact a manufactured mis-quote, whereas the Houghton “quote” is a complete fabrication.
You are either purveying nonsense or lies.
Which is it?
In either case, though, this makes you an entirely non-credible and useless source for facts or educated opinion.
> You are either purveying nonsense or lies.
> Which is it?
Both. Nonsense and lies. It’s a lie is obvious. That it’s an obvious lie means the lie itself is nonsensical. At least if it were plausible or hard to refute, the lie would at least have *some* sense in its creation.
As it is, there was no point in the lie.
So malevolent distortion and ouright fabrication are spotty’s latest gifts to the Deltoid community.
I’d humbly suggest to Tim that until spotty can provide unabridged primary sources for each of those ‘quotes’ then any further posts from him/her should be indefinitely queued.
That spotty has not (and in at least one case cannot because it’s a complete fabrication by that kitchen table’n’laptop outfit calling themselves the SPPI) of course once again shows his non-existent and totally fake ‘sceptisism’ in its true light. Again.
As you can see below Schnieder’s words were not “taken out of context”, he said what exactly what he would say to another alarmist warmer !
In other words he spoke out of school.
He failed to use self censorship and then tried, unsuccessfully, to weasel and worm his way out of it !
He was saying to do what you all in here do !
“During the TV debate,
months before Simon’s APS News
article appeared, I pointed out that he
was taking only part of the full quote
and that part was seriously out of context
— this is the same source he
“quoted” in APS News. The full quote
follows, where I have italicized what
portions of it Simon quoted and bracketed
what I did not say but he attributed
to me in the APS News article:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are
ethically bound to the scientific
method, in effect promising to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
— which means that we must include
all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are
not just scientists but human beings as
well. And like most people we’d like
to see the world a better place, which
in this context translates into our working
to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that
we need [Scientists should consider
stretching the truth] to get some
broadbased support, to capture the
public’s imagination. That, of course,
entails getting loads of media coverage.
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This ‘double ethical
bind’ we frequently find ourselves in
cannot be solved by any formula. Each
of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being
honest. I hope that means being
( http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf )
he goes on……
“Vested interests have repeatedly
claimed I advocate exaggerating
threats. Their “evidence” comes from
partially quoting my Discover”……..
Looking from the other side of the debate, any logical person would conclude the, “Vested Interest’s”, are the mongrels that want to burden the population with a CO2 tax based on faulty science and lies !
You are correct, “the Houghton “quote” is a complete fabrication.”
Sheez, I got tricked by that one !
it was a much smaller fabrication than the CO2 fabrication, I didn’t get tricked by that one.
Shorter sunspot : Yes, any logical person would conclude my beliefs are based on faulty science and lies. But it’s all I’ve got.
(PhysOrg.com) — During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate.
Until now, scientists have had no accurate way of knowing the long-term history of the glacier. Local records of the ice date back to 1602, and it is clear that the Rhone, like other glaciers in the Alps, has retreated dramatically in the past 150 years. This melting has exposed intriguing clues – remnants of trees from once-forested land, and artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green……………………….
( http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-swiss-glacier-finely-tuned-climate.html )
Shorter sunspot: “I’ve already shown I don’t understand the difference between ‘climate’ and ‘weather’, now here I am again demonstrating I don’t know the difference between ‘regional’ and global’. I guess this explains why I’m such an easy-peasy mark for disinformers and this whole IPCC thing is just way over my head”.
SPECIAL CLIMATE STATEMENT 33
Coldest autumn for Australia since at least 1950.
yep, so we have higher CO2 and lower temperatures, the climate must be scared of the new tax.
i reckon there is a few in here wondering where and why the climate models failed, even the most diehard alarmist warmer trolls in here would be starting to doubt their own sanity.
thoughts of of a diehard warmer
“the IPCC has fooled us, and the real problems have gone unheeded”
suggestion, never trust the UN or a government funded climate scientist !
‘weather’. anything weathery going on in the US at the moment that you know of?
no wonder you’re confined here.
yes billie boy, i’ve seen the us weather, warming sure isn’t global.
As this image of the Uinta Mountains in northeast Utah (USA) shows, winter’s snow is lingering into summer. On June 26, the snowpack on the southern face of the range was 849 percent above average. The northern face had 892 percent more snow than average.
( http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-news/july-snow-for-u-s-state-of-utah/28022.html )
this might interest you bill ?
“Compared to the near 20% of the country in serious drought, the 1950s when up to 60% was affected and especially the 1930s when 80% of the United States felt the effect of drought and heat.”
( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/23/the-texas-centered-drought-versus-1918-1956-and-1934/ )
Congratulations Sunspot, by cherry-picking local weather and ignoring global climate you have changed my mind and I now see global warming for the scam it is.
“The analysis, by NSW principal coastal specialist Phil Watson, calls into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australian coast by 2100 — the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change.”
“Mr Watson’s findings, published in the Journal of Coastal Research this year and now attracting broader attention, supports a similar analysis of long-term tide gauges in the US earlier this year. Both raise questions about the CSIRO’s sea-level predictions.”
“Dr Brady said the divergence between the sea-level trends from models and sea-level trends from the tide gauge records was now so great “it is clear there is a serious problem with the models”.
“In a nutshell, this factual information means the high sea-level rises used as precautionary guidelines by the CSIRO in recent years are in essence ridiculous,” he said. During the 20th century, there was a measurable global average rise in mean sea level of about 17cm (plus or minus 5cm).”
now lets see…….
12 Jul – Australia’s Snow Best For 21 Years
The worst snow in at least 16 years brought parts of the country to a standstill today.
Heavy snow, sleet and high winds made conditions treacherous throughout the country and motorists were urged to avoid all but urgent travel.
The South Island was hardest hit with many roads closed, flights cancelled and people told to stay home.
A number of state highways around the country were closed, however
Rare snowfall on Earth’s driest desert in Chile
Heavy snow brings Bolivia to a halt
Chilean Towns Trapped Under Eight Feet of Snow
yep…thats what twenbarff defines as “the missing heat”.
anybody seen ian fry lately ?
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed………………
“Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate and persuaded 9% more Australians
to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’”
Roy Morgan Research
The journal ‘Remote Sensing’ does not even appear on the Web of Science. A number of journals in the field of remote sensing do with quite high impact factors; why not this one? And why would the authors of the article not go for a top journal? The answer should be obvious.
Strike one on sunspot.
Lord Monckton wins a lousy debate? Who made up the audience? Laypeople who understand nix about climate science like sunspot? This means nothing at all. All it shows is that people will ‘vote’ in useless debates like this according to their short-term selfish interests and idealogical biases. We’ve seen over the past year or so how Monckton’s ‘facts’ have been destroyed time and time again.
See above; Sunpsot citing a few examples of recent weather events as ‘proof’ that AGW isn not happening. This dishonest and frankly stupid behavior has been comprehensively debunked dozens of times on this thread alone, and yet spotty keeps coming back with it. This isn’t science, its rank ignorance. Data taken over the past 50 years shows that more and more warm records are being set and fewer and fewer cold records, right across the globe. Spotty cherry picks cold weather events and ignores the vastly greater number of warm weather events. Check ice extent in the Arctic this summer; also temperature records over most of the higher latitudes. It shows unprecedented warmth.
Strike three. Spotty is out.
My advice: close this thread and get rid of spotty from Deltoid for good.
i suppose that you have noticed that now your mob of alarmist’s are trying to tell the world that the reason for the “missing heat” is sulfur from chinese coal emissions, or now aerosols are having a greater cooling influence.
More CO2 = Less heat ????
The climate models are well and truly busted, and morons like you are still sucked in, or desperately trying to protect your funding and carbon investments.
As for the weather reports, if you look at the weather reports and then cross reference those with the GISS Temperature Anomaly Chart for that period, you will see that GISS indicates warm, when the fact is the local reporting states it’s cold.
Tip #1 don’t be sucked in by GISS
Tip #2 don’t be sucked in by Jeff(pinocchio)Harvey
ps, pinocchio has been shown evidence that arctic ice has been less in the past, greenland has been warmer and the antarctic hasn’t melted indeed it is still gaining ice
give your science badge back keloggs pinocchio, your a farce !
Note how just about everybody who writes into Deltoid thinks that you are a complete idiot. The only one who apparently doesn’t agree with that asseement appears to be yourself.
Given that you are a legend in your own mind, I wonder constantly why your wisdom never translates to publications in journals, books, interviews in the media etc. Instead you harp away on this web site where nobody takes your rants and musings at all seriously. Heck, you’ve been banned to your ‘own’ pithy lttle thread. Every wonder why?
> More CO2 = Less heat ????
Given you stated:
> the reason for the “missing heat” is sulfur from chinese coal emissions,
You apparently think that the chemical symbol for sulfur is CO2.
Is this the case?
“Norman Cohn wrote this about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but it’s a general point about conspirazoid political movements: There exists a subterranean world where pathological fantasies disguised as ideas are churned out by crooks and half-educated fanatics for the benefit of the ignorant and superstitious.”
Which is as good a definition of spotty and his fellow victim travellers as I’ve encountered anywhere. (h/t to onthefence at the UK Guardian).
here’s an interesting quote chekie.
“It may well be that life thrives in a warmer world but that doesn’t mean a warmer world in the near future will be a happy place for a lot of humans. An ocean 10 metres higher and hotter summers in places with dry summers will make a lot of people very unhappy.”
Posted by: Chris O’Neill | June 4, 2005 5:53 PM http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php#comment-1343005
hahahaha, 10 metres hahaha
chris, was that gunna be by 2010 ?
this is a more recent quote chekie,
“He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.” The climate models used by global warmists suggest we should have twice the warming we’ve actually seen recently.”
Professor Murry Salby, chair of climate at Macquarie University
he shoots the shit outta the CO2 crapola
Are you talking about this guy?
Only 20 publications since 1989 and 246 citations? What IYO makes him a sage of wisdom? Seems like you would cite your dentist’s opinions if he said what you wanted to hear.
And your arguments are a joke, as usual. Since when does citing a few cold weather events ‘prove’ that the GISS monthly figures are incorrect? I could cite many more extreme warm events and you’d scream out that I was confusing weather with climate, as you have done before. So its OK for you to cherry pick a few cold weather events but when someone counters with much more geographically widespread high temperature events (e.g. Canadian winter, 2009-2010; last summer over central and western Asia) you bitterly denounce this. You know what you are? A bloody hypocrite.
“chris, was that gunna be by 2010 ?”
Given spots things sulfur’s chemical notation is CO2, it’s hardly surprising that he also sees “2010” in a post that doesn’t contain that figure.
He’s blasted on gange.
he did better than you pindickio
i see that you still don’t understand that we have been through a few warm year’s, does this ring a bell ?
El Nino ?
North Atlantic Oscillation ?
Tell me pindickio, do you still think that Gulf Stream is breaking down ?
Or can you admit you were being an alarmist arm waving sucker ?
wow (ian fry), i see that your still pathetic.
Sunspot, you clown, ‘Rate My Professor’ is an American web cite… and besides, I work in a Research Institute and not a University. Your ignorance as to the way academia works, however, doesn’t surprise me one little bit.
Your hero also hasn’t been published or cited as much as me or my colleagues here… he’s not even close in either category. And he’s trounced by the likes of Mann, Hansen, et al… Again, trust you to search under every rock to find someone – anyone – in denial.
If sunspot had looked a bit harder it would have found a Jeff Harvey and two Jeffrey Harveys, none of them being the one who posts here.
Sunspot, you are an illiterate ignoramus with delusions of intellectual capability. Everything you write is laughable.
Why can’t you grasp the simple fact that the world is full of people who are way smarter than you?
read this cute little quote again numbo’s.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.” Professor Murry Salby
hahaha, this thing is going viral, the CLOUD experiments will be interesting also
Carbon cycle questions by Judith Curry
“I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.”
“Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.”
@ 472 pinocchio spat, “Check ice extent in the Arctic this summer;”
new paper soon to be published
Large variations in Arctic sea ice
“For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen. The results of the study will be published in the journal Science”
the other side of the coin…..
Antarctica sea ice shows accelerating increase over past 30 years
and this for twirlybird
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
yeah I know twirlybird, they were only morons, only brainiac’s like you are smart enough to believe the climatescopes.
you can turn your air-conditioner off and shut the windows now pinocchio.
Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.