Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Are we entering a period of global cooling?http://t.co/na3AFG465m

 

Talk about going around in circles and who are these eminent scientists who don't appear to have any links to papers they have published?

 

Many eminent climate scientists from around the world believe that the Earth is heading into "an extended period of global cooling that may not end until the middle of this century."

 

As I've reported frequently in the Coeur d'Alene Press and elsewhere in the past decade or so, widespread global warming "ended 15 years ago in 1998." At least it hit 'the pause button.'

 

The global warmist's climate models have been "gravely flawed," according to many climate scientists, including yours truly. It was only six years ago that the BBC predicted that "the Arctic would be 'ice-free' by 2013." Well, that didn't happen, needless to say. They were dead wrong!

 

 

Coeur d'Alene Press. Is that the equivalent to the DM?  And the BBC didn't predict anything. They misquoted a scientific paper that said it would be ice free by 1916 plus or minus three years.

Edited October 1, 2013 by knocker

[pottyprof]

Actually the scientist who said that actually said 2016 plus or minus three years. I wonder why most sceptics latched on to to 1913 and not 1919?  In fact I don't wonder.

 

Actually there were a few scientists who backed the 2013 figure in about 2006-7.  I think that was when another area of the scientific community were guessing that the sun was going to burn us up and boil the seas this cycle.

 

I wonder why most solar scientists believed it was going to be the most active cycle on record?  In fact I don't wonder....

[knocker]

Special Climate Statement 46 – Australia’s warmest September on record

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs46.pdf

Edited October 3, 2013 by knocker

[SomeLikeItHot]

Actually there were a few scientists who backed the 2013 figure in about 2006-7.  I think that was when another area of the scientific community were guessing that the sun was going to burn us up and boil the seas this cycle.

 

I wonder why most solar scientists believed it was going to be the most active cycle on record?  In fact I don't wonder....

 

You can stop wondering because its a fiction. For a start most solar scientists weren't predicting anything at all as they know the predictive methods are poor so they are just studying the phenomena not entering the guessing game.

 

However for those that were this link here shows predictions in literature collected in 2007 for cycle 24, Most were going for something similar to or weaker than cycle 23 (which was not nearly the most active), yes a handful went at the top end of the range that would be potentially most active cycle, the overwhelming majority went for something less than what occurred in early 60s.

 

I would be interested however if you could show a link to those scientists who not only claimed an intense cycle was coming but that it was going to have a major warming impact?

[Fergus Brown]

Hi, is this where I come and play? I got thrown out of the scepticism thread, cause i'm not very sceptical.

I do, though, play with climate science: http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/

 

What's today's canard?

[knocker]

Yes Fergus this is where you play. You can't argue the toss in the sceptics thread without fear of being drawn and quartered.

[Fergus Brown]

Hi Knocker, nice to meet ya. Don't worry, I'm a bit of an old hand at this, going back a few years. 

 

I'll happily rise to the bait anywhere anyone wants me to on the subject. But I've always thought that debate is useful, since it allows people to weigh up evidence and consider their own prejudices in the light of alternative views and evidence.

 

It would be a shame if there was nowhere for a mass debate

[jethro]

Hi Knocker, nice to meet ya. Don't worry, I'm a bit of an old hand at this, going back a few years. 

 

I'll happily rise to the bait anywhere anyone wants me to on the subject. But I've always thought that debate is useful, since it allows people to weigh up evidence and consider their own prejudices in the light of alternative views and evidence.

 

It would be a shame if there was nowhere for a mass debate

 

Hello P3, welcome back. Long time, no see.

[Fergus Brown]

Hello P3, welcome back. Long time, no see.

Hi Jethro, nice to see you again . I was ill. Got bored. Got a new Job. Was doing something else. all the above and others besides. 

How you keeping? Still of the Climate Agnostic persuasion?

[Interitus]

Yes Stewart the coldest year ever  recorded in the Arctic

 

This may be the sceptic thread but that's just rubbish.

Edited October 5, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue
Just thought I'd subvert the next Cuban Missile Crisis?

[jethro]

Hi Jethro, nice to see you again . I was ill. Got bored. Got a new Job. Was doing something else. all the above and others besides. 

How you keeping? Still of the Climate Agnostic persuasion?

 

Fair to middling, ta. I haven't been around much either for pretty much the list of reasons you give above.

 

Am I still Agnostic.....I long since decided Mark Twain sums it up best. I like to sit and watch from the sidelines, chuckling at the absurdity of it all. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Fergus ! Glad to hear things are in a nicer place for you these days, wish i could share in some of that good fortune!!! I've read through your replies to stew over in 'the other place' ( odd how things evolve eh?) and have to thank you for their clarity. Sadly my noggin is not working too well these days and so folk are happy to misinterpret me whole sale. I too have been chastened for being 'patronising', never my intention, so I'm relived to find another soul who finds their posts interpreted that way?

 

Both health issues and board management limit my ability to post these days but to read your comments makes me feel that the way I see things will have representation here and that makes me glad.

 

Happy for your return.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Fergus Brown]

Hi Gray Wolf,

good to hear from you. We must try to avoid making this too much like a school reunion.

Sorry about your health problems - it's a bummer.

I'm playing for now, but who knows how long I'll have the luxury of time? It's a circumstance of life. Have just started a new blog - come and visit: http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/

Communicating online is often problematic. One can only stick to principles - listen to the other person (or in this case, read carefully) - respect their right to be themselves, however they come across - try to say what you mean and mean what you say - admit when you are wrong.

I've long got over the idea that I know better - but I do think I 'understand differently', at times.

 

got to go...

[Devonian]

Stewfox said:

 

"I suppose you have kind of 'supported' unknowingly the reason why there are two separated threads, I'm not sure if there is much benefit in trying to preach to someone re 'where they have gone wrong' ?"

 

Why do you use the word 'preach'?

 

Where did Fergus use the phrase you quote him ('where they have gone wrong')?

[Tamara]

You can stop wondering because its a fiction. For a start most solar scientists weren't predicting anything at all as they know the predictive methods are poor so they are just studying the phenomena not entering the guessing game.

 

However for those that were this link here shows predictions in literature collected in 2007 for cycle 24, Most were going for something similar to or weaker than cycle 23 (which was not nearly the most active), yes a handful went at the top end of the range that would be potentially most active cycle, the overwhelming majority went for something less than what occurred in early 60s.

 

I would be interested however if you could show a link to those scientists who not only claimed an intense cycle was coming but that it was going to have a major warming impact?

NASA continually underestimated the weakness of SC24 and were forced to back track and re-evaluate their predictions. The likes of Landscheidt, prior to his unfortunate death, was the first solar scientist to predict the changes in phases to quieter solar activity. The problem is that the likes of him are not deemed reputable in AGW theory circles

[Methuselah]

NASA continually underestimated the weakness of SC24 and were forced to back track and re-evaluate their predictions. The likes of Landscheidt, prior to his unfortunate death, was the first solar scientist to predict the changes in phases to quieter solar activity. The problem is that the likes of him are not deemed reputable in AGW theory circles

No, you're are wrong, Tamara; he's as reputable as anyone-else...And, based on the Solar physicists' recent collective 'success', I'd suggest that that's not very...Then again, he might even - should his methods yield such good results in the years to come - have made a landmark contribution to Solar physics...An open mind is needed? 

[Devonian]

NASA continually underestimated the weakness of SC24 and were forced to back track and re-evaluate their predictions. The likes of Landscheidt, prior to his unfortunate death, was the first solar scientist to predict the changes in phases to quieter solar activity. The problem is that the likes of him are not deemed reputable in AGW theory circles

Not really the thread for such stuff (otoh, the two thread system seems to be breaking down atm...) but I'd happily look at a graphical prediction by L. for the current solar cycle. I've, tbh, never seen such a graphic. 

Edited October 6, 2013 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

I presume by "AGW theory cicles" that "climatology" is the meaning.

 

Anyway, is there a general unfair dismissal of Landscheidt's work by climatologists? His peer reviewed solar stuff seems quite good and accurate, but his grasp of climatology, from what I've read, seems far from expert like. 

 

We should be hitting the coldest point of the next 2 centuries around 2030 according to Landscheidt, with only the odd El Nino interrupting the downward trend, but we haven't even started cooling yet?

[Methuselah]

I presume by "AGW theory cicles" that "climatology" is the meaning.

 

Anyway, is there a general unfair dismissal of Landscheidt's work by climatologists? His peer reviewed solar stuff seems quite good and accurate, but his grasp of climatology, from what I've read, seems far from expert like. 

 

We should be hitting the coldest point of the next 2 centuries around 2030 according to Landscheidt, with only the odd El Nino interrupting the downward trend, but we haven't even started cooling yet?

That's why there's a very necessary caveat to my extolling the virtues of open mindedness, BFTV: open mindedness, in matters scientific, is always a good thing...unless, of course (as too often seems to happen) the basic tenets of physics and thermodynamics get lost amongst the waffle...

 

I also stick by my earlier assertion: that - one way or the other - Landscheidt's work may well improve humanity's understanding of the Sun...But, perhaps, climate science is best left in the hands of qualified climate scientists?

[Methuselah]

Personally speaking I think man-made climate change is a load of twaddle and a great big lie just to get the gullible to pay more "green taxes" and what not, the Earth has heated up quicker and cooled down quicker in the past before there were cars and factories etc.

So I've never bought into this whole global warming thing, I do believe in "climate change" but these changes are not man made, it's just Earth's natural cycle.

In which case, you are in the wrong thread...

[Gaz1985]

In which case, you are in the wrong thread...

 

Just giving my point on it dude haha

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just giving my point on it dude haha

 

Perhaps you could respond in this thread http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76447-natural-climate-cycles-discussion/page-5

 

What natural cycles do you believe to be responsible for recent warming?

[SomeLikeItHot]

NASA continually underestimated the weakness of SC24 and were forced to back track and re-evaluate their predictions. The likes of Landscheidt, prior to his unfortunate death, was the first solar scientist to predict the changes in phases to quieter solar activity. The problem is that the likes of him are not deemed reputable in AGW theory circles

 

Nasa did get SC24 wrong no doubt about it, but to be frank Landschreidt has made a lot of predictions about Solar effect and its strong link to pretty much everything like the stock exchange and all human events.  Many of his predictions have not borne out either.

 

For Example:

1981 paper Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, and Climatic Change claims in the abstract

"The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811."

 

Just two cycles early but not to worry.

 

On the basis of this he concludes.

 

"It is to be expected that the climatic conditions in at least three decades after 1990 will be more severe than after 1811"

 

As far as I am aware we are more than two decades into that period and I am pretty sure that hasn't been the case unless he meant severe heat. Later on he revised those predictions to later dates.

 

I don't want to get into him in particular he did a lot of good research and much may turn out to be valuable, but there are good reasons why his predictions might have been ignored given it seems to have been wrong on 2 out of 3 attempts.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-30#entry2802132

 

It's probably just as well there are two threads because someone saying what many think is correct is a lie and that in believing in it we're gullible isn't the best way to spread peace and love in here...imo...

Edited October 6, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

For how long will so-called 'sceptics' rabbit on about 'unknown feedbacks'? Are we supposed to assume that they - whatever they are - are all negative, or what? Or, do we assume that, like most of things Natural, they add-up to near zero?

 

Sounds like the 'last chance saloon' to me...