IN 2001 geologist Don Easterbook predicted the beginning of a period of global cooling. At a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco he again predicted a period of cooling based in part on correlation between past glacial fluctuations, his area of expertise, with periods of low solar irradiance and changes in the Pacific Ocean:
“GLOBAL, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.
The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3–5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3–0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007–2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.
Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25–30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over.
The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.
The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.
Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate. The degree to which we may be prepared to cope with these problems may be significantly affected by how much money we waste chasing the CO2 fantasy.
All of these problems will be exacerbated by the soaring human population. The current world population of about 6 ½ billion people is projected to increase by almost 50% during the next 30 years of global cooling (Figure 2). The problems associated with the global cooling would be bad enough at current population levels. Think what they will be with the added demands from an additional three billion people, especially if we have uselessly spent trillions of dollars needlessly trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, leaving insufficient funds to cope with the real problems.
********************************************************
Don J. Easterbrook is a geologist at the Department of Geology, Western Washington University. He has authored 8 books (including the text book Surface processes and landform Prentice Hall Publishing Co., 546 p.) ) and 150 journal publications.
This article is republished from Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco December, 2008.
Picture of the Nooksack Cirque, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, from Professor Easterbook’s website here: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/photos.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
gradual cooling trend since 1998
looking, starting a trendline with an outlier DISQUALIFIES you of being a serious scientist.
and i love the precision of his “prediction”. sorry, but this is not serious work.
and 2007–2008 was a year of sharp global cooling.
OMG! only teh 9th-warmest in the instrumental record!
Brrrrrrrr.
Was this guy laughed out of the room?
The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with
Depending upon the system, this is Denialist Argument 6 or Sceptic Excuse #13: “Gosh, there’s nothing we can do, so we might as well continue on our unsustainable path!!!! heart!!
Best,
D
Tim Lambert’s cronies strike early. I still have had no anser to my earlier question: if climate science is the study of weather over extended periods and areas, a real world solution must be about real world impacts that change weather events consistently in the short term to get a measurable impact over that extended time and space. What are the solutions that fit this need?
anser = answer.
I must read before submitting.
CoRev – if you believe that volcanoes can change climate you have your answer. i.e. changes in radiative forcing changes the climate.
You’ve got to laugh. 1998 wasn’t an “outlier” in 1998, it was “proof” that global warming was accelerating. Not just skeptics who cherry-pick, but I guess it is Christmas, and cherries are in season.
Anyway, as we’re talking about a real physical fact, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call anything an “outlier”, it may well be a “peak” or a “turning point”, and if so, where else would you measure decline from?
Luke, so far we have one natural cause. Any man made causes, especially those related to CO2, that can be identified and proven?
“IN 2001 geologist Don Easterbook predicted the beginning of a period of global cooling. At a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco he again predicted a period of cooling based in part on correlation between past glacial fluctuations, his area of expertise, with periods of low solar irradiance and changes in the Pacific Ocean”.
While Easterbrook predicted cooling, the IPCC summary based on extant climate science predicted continued warming.
Evidence shows Easterbrook as correct.
However, AGW isn’t about science and never was – for its proponents have now changed the goal posts and stated that climate change is the message du jour – and it is an unfalsifiable postulate, for whatever new weather event is observed, it will be attributed to climate change. We call it the God explanation in which anything can be explained as a result of God’s will or in this case, Climate Change.
So why the continuous mean spirited personal attacks by Sod, Dano and Luke here while the climate cools around them? Their behaviour has all the hall marks of the religious being profaned.
Because it was never about the science from the beginning.
Easterbrook makes lots of pronouncements but is pretty scarce on any detail. Correlations with solar activity is good? hmmmm – they are? and lately?
If the world if simply undergoing warming and cooling trends why if the underlying centennial trend upwards? We’re back to Cohers magic of the PDO and El Nino “building heat”.
Show me some statistics that he has a “forecast”. Show me the money !!
More geologists as non-greenhouse theorists dodging the climate journals.
Answer the question CoRev – do you think volcanic eruptions change the climate? and how?
Well Louis – you big goofy chook – show me the decrease in solar irradiance. Show me the money doofus !
Dano ,what’s wrong with you?Attack the author.You got that part right.Repeat the mantra ie Global warming is happening.You for got that part.Then you make assertions with no factual substantiation.Please don’t disappoint me again.Keep repeating the mantra!
You’ve got to laugh. 1998 wasn’t an “outlier” in 1998, it was “proof” that global warming was accelerating. Not just skeptics who cherry-pick, but I guess it is Christmas, and cherries are in season.
that was some pretty insane “laugh”.
in 1998, the year was the ENDPOINT of the data available. using it back then, was a GOOD thing to do. it was NOT cherry picking. (using all available data rarely is…)
it is completely different, when it is used as a START POINT now!
Anyway, as we’re talking about a real physical fact, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call anything an “outlier”, it may well be a “peak” or a “turning point”, and if so, where else would you measure decline from?
how you call it, is irrelevant. the question at hand is: is 1998 a good year to start a TREND analysis of temperature data?
and this question can be answered easily: NO.
a “TREND” (or “trendline”) is supposed to give you ADDITIONAL information about a GENERAL development. a “trend” starting in 1998, does NOT do that. you will see that, by looking at the “trend” from 1997 and that from 1999. they have all a completely different direction.
so the simplest method of a statistical analysis (variation of start point) shows, that 1998 is NOT a good year, to start an analysis.
that Easterbrook doesn t understand this, makes it completely impossible to take his results serious. it is garbage.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend
This has to be a total descent into denialist bullshit-ism –
Our lead post says : “Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible.”
ONLY TIME WILL TELL – *&*$@(*&$@^!(*@$ !!!!! WTF – this guy hasn’t got anything ….
“The sun’s recent behavior suggests ” SUGGESTS !! We don’t want “suggests” – we want proof !
Why spend trillions on bogus global cooling prevention.
Wonder how global cooling is melting the Arctic sea ice – oh bugger it – let’s not worry about details…
Sounds like alarmism? This will ruin the economy….. LOL !!!
Luke, yes. I partially answered you irrelevant question. Now answer either of mine.
Well CoRev if chnages in radiative forcing changes climate you have your answer. Thanks for playing – you can’t have it both ways.
If that is your answer to my questions then you are playing a game –again. If so, you are saying nothing. Answer my questions or admit you can not instead of changing the subject. Radiative forcing! Sheesh!!!!!!
CoRev – you are the one playing the game as denialists like to.
If you agree that changes in radiative forcing change climate – well that’s the answer to your question.
Another weather question – CoRev – what’s one of the main determinants of rainfall variability in Australia. It’s not a trick question. And it’s not weather !
Yup! Luke, you have not even attempted to answer my questions. Changing the subject, asking me irrelevant questions is just game playing. I guess we are done here. You have been shown to be unable to answer a simple set of questions about your belief structure.
Sad really, for all the BS you have spewed here.
Sorry, Jen for side tracking the article. Now, let’s get back to
discussing the merits of this article.
Dano
The WMO has just said that 2008 was the tenth warmest year. What does that mean? It means when you look at data that 2008 was cooler than 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997. This means the trend is towards cooler since 1998 (the so-called anomaly has dropped by 30%), I think no one really knows if 2009 will be cooler again but it is likely. Cooler weather events are being reported everywhere. I have seen a CNN report rubbishing the whole religion, Poznan was a disaster as was Rudd’s ETS the measures will not change anything other than costing the public some money. I think the new religion feels itself being backed into a corner. So again the question to the warming evangelists. You think humans can change the world temperature so what is the optimal temperature with reasons why? If you do not know there is no damned point to anything you say.
yeah, best to you too Dano; and thanks for channelling Dr Watkin’s recent gobbledegook about 2008 being the 15th warmest on record, and warmer than all but 2 years in the previous century; also, since the 15 warmest years occurred since 1990 that would make 2008 the coolest year in the last 15 years; so much for the instrument record, unless of course that instrument is the rectal thermometer which is obviously doing the rounds amongst the AGW glitterati.
sod, you’re an idiot; there’s no other explanation; you should be banned from WFT; you use it like a bogun taking a Maserati off-road; luke, the company you keep is lowering your IQ and increasing your shrillness. I’ve told you before PDO doesn’t “build heat”; it relocates it;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-there-cumulative-enso-climate.html
There is no storage of [CO2/AGW caused] heat;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/response-to-el-nino3.jpg
The graph of response time to SST and GMST is well within Trenberth’s 3 month lag response; the mechanism of the reduction in the upwelling of deep water is well known, as is the subsequent/consequent mechanism of repeated El Nino’s; what sod can’t understand with his cherry fetish and fixation on 1998 is that 1998 is a perfect trend start because it was not followed by a succession of other El Nino’s as occurred from 1976 onwards after the GPCS.
The issue is what causes the upwelling cessations; Bob has done a good correlation between SST and solar and ENSO which I’ll post later; you assert that AGW can explain ENSO; where is the correlation let alone the cause?
I have two comments.
First, I think we need to use the AMO rather than the PDO. The AMO provides a much better explanation of temperature changes (on long-term decadal and short-term monthly basis as well). Secondly, the AMO is more closely tied to the significant energy exchange which exists between the atmosphere and the oceans through the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation.
There are three very active regions where energy is being exchanged between the ocean and the atmosphere, the northern atlantic (and the Gulf Stream), the ENSO region and the southern atlantic (and the Antarctic deep ocean circulation nodes.) The PDO is not related to the THC like the AMO and southern atlantic are. The AMO provides a much better correlation to global temperatures than the PDO.
Second, the impact of volcanoes has been vastly overstated. Have you ever looked closely at the monthly temperature trends around the major volcanoes? They are very hard to pick out. Even Krakatoa hardly registers at all in the Hadcrut3 dataset. Mount Pinatuba is easier to pick out but the climate varies unpredictably when there isn’t volcanoes. Temps actually spiked +0.5C in the year after El Chichon. If I showed you a five-year temperature trend without any dates on it, you could NOT pick out the dates of volcanoes.
I know the climate models have huge volcanic impacts built-in and there is significant data on the decline of solar irradiance making it to the surface after volcanoes but volcanoes do not have the impact predicted on surface temps. They are very evident in stratosphere temps and are, in fact, the major driver of stratosphere temps but not the surface.
carumba, Jennifer won’t show that graph stand-alone; never-mind here it is in Barry Moore’s recent post;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/the-physics-of-global-warming-is-complicated-barry-moore/
Yeah Bill, Bob Tisdale shares your view about the PDO which he thinks is a residual of ENSO, as does Newman;
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
In respect of volcanos there does seem to be both a troposphere and stratosphere effect;
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Strato2.gif
This means the trend is towards cooler since 1998
Cherry-pick much?
Outliers as starting points aside, HadCRUT doesn’t show a decreasing trend (they say 9th warmest). La Niña residuals are the reason for the coolth.
Nonetheless, decision-makers don’t listen to denialist ululating on blogs, they are briefed by scientists. Decision-makers aren’t including the denialists in all these discussions we’re having about adaptation and mitigation.
Wonder why? Don’t they tote around Rand wherever they go? Gosh, doesn’t everyone?
Best,
D
The El Chichon eruptions ocurred in late March and early April 1982 and the Mount Pinatubo major eruption ocurred in June 1991. The junkscience graph is off by a year somewhere.
This is all too early. We do not have evidence of a cooling period now. A possibility — sure. But there simply isn’t enough data.
It is also quite possible that we are seeing a “pause” in global warming, and that the upward trend will continue shortly. Guaranteed — no. But a reasonable viewpoint. There simply isn’t enough data.
I agree with Graham that the treatment of 1998 has been poor all around. The alarmists shouldn’t have been using it as proof of warming and the denialists shouldn’t be using it as proof of a turnaround. If you want to talk about a change in the trend, it would make more sense to look at 2002… and given that is only 8 years ago the best thing to say at the moment is that there simply isn’t enough data. 🙂
Dano
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
This shows positively that we have a decline. I am not happy in many ways about this as Easterbrook says a rise in temperature is better for us. Since CO2 has increased by 20 points while we have lost all temperature gains of the last 10 years please explain why. I would like to see the temperature rise by at least 2C that is 16 world average. I am greatly dissapointed in that CO2 does not seem capable of achieving sufficient temperature rise. So tell me Dano what is your ideal temperature and what temperature the world was when there was no climate change. Come on admit it as Luke did you have no idea what your aims are.
J H
I agree there is just not enough data for any of this. It is apparent things have generally risen since around 1750. Suddenly around 1980 this became humanities fault. Now the populace is not going to take notice of a 0.6C rise in 100 years so it was connected to anything that happens in the environment. “Climate Change” is harped on about ad infinitum without convincing evidence of a connection. The answers I want are when didn’t we have extreme weather events and what temperature are we to aim for? The alarmists put the idea about that we could just change the weather no problem! I say rubbish and we do not whether it will be colder or warmer next year or in ten years time. There are major changes which few people know of or talk about. The Sun is devoid of sunspots. Yes I know it could not possibly affect anything, lets switch it off for a while to see if thats right. The ionosphere is about 200Km closer than is was a short time ago. The Earth and the Sun magnetic fields have changed significantly. Maybe these have an effect? Or is it women smoking as was believed in the 1920s?
DHMO,
Thats actually a scary graph … 39 of those 50 years are between 1950 and 2007. With the 25 hottest occuring since 1970.
Strangely, Hadley interpret their own anomaly data as representing a long term upwards trend (how stupid are they eh ?) and, further, that anyone who thinks global warming isn’t happening has their head in the sand.
If the trend is still down after a few more years (by 2015 I think I remember someone saying) then I’ll change my mind. But until then I’ll do the conservartive thing and be informed by the scientific consensus – not some dribbling denialists who seem habitually incapable of submitting their work to be published in peer reviewed journals and … well … just make stuff up.
Chris
I don’t see why it is scary. A trend line would show we are still on the rise but so what? The huge array of ancillary effects is what is supposed to scare us. The arguments for these are not convincing. When was the world devoid of extreme weather, sea level change, cold snaps, heat waves, drought and so on, never. If the temperature does continue to rise I will say hooray. If the Arctic did melt why would it be a not an advantage? Our only problem is idiots who think we can establish a mythical ideal by promoting poverty. They will fail as it is becoming apparent in Europe.
So, HadCrut hardly gives nod to the ’30’s; it’s beyond doubt the ’30’s were the warmest in the US; even corrupt GISS has been dragged screaming and kicking to that; what’s odd, apart from Hansen and Dano’s Rand snark, is the fact that the ’30’s were warmer in Greenland and Iceland too;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004IJCi..24.1193H
The paper notes a dipole between parts of northwestern Europe and Iceland and Greenland, but with the US warmer in the ’30’s, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and parts of then Russia, the whole concept of a warmer late 20thC becomes problematic, or at least regional; how does that tally with a uniform distribution of the agent of the devil, sorry, humanity, CO2?
CoRev – your ducking of my question is a disgrace. Simply answer the question. An answer might be ENSO. It’s not a weather phenomenon.
NB.The comment 29 Dec 08 “Well Louis you big goofy chook…” is not mine.I’ve been hacked into.Mine was totally different taking Dano to task.There seems to be some inside espionage lurking on OLO.
Someone get luke a ‘pan’ before he implodes. As for “Well Louis you big goofy chook”; the principle of Similar Fact Evidence will be the only thing which can absolve luke.
The conflict yet may be resolved.We have a cross over of identities here.I’m ARJAY yet my comments bare no relation to my identity.I thought computers were infallible just like the pope.
If I showed you a five-year temperature trend without any dates on it, you could NOT pick out the dates of volcanoes.
you might be up to something there. perhaps (shock!) temperature isn t mono causal at all?
so a strong el nino could cover a small volcanic eruption?
keep thinking that direction!
This is very interesting since my last posting bears no identity[ie ARJAY]How can this be possible?How did my original comment get intercepted and deleted? I smell a rat.Who is Cohenite? Some one has hacked into OLO.
Could Dano be our Green Berett who wants to take Jennifer to task?If so Dano,you are in deep do do.You have crossed the line.ARJAY.I just love intrigue.
DHMO,
You might well say hooray but show me your hard evidence that 6 billion people and the economic and agricutural systems that support us all can adapt to continually rising temperatures over VERY short periods of time without severe dislocation/expense/loss.
Economists say it is cheaper to mitigate sooner rather than later and is NOT massively expensive. What was the figure from Garnaut ? … 0.1% reduction in annual growth ? Seems we can easily tip a trillion or so into trying to fix the market meltdown but couldn’t possibly spare a couple of billion on AGW control.
Like I said above, surely a conservative approach means you should go with what the informed scientifc consensus tells us and try to reduce the risk of it getting REALLY bad down the track by attempting some form of GHG mitigation ?
You’d have to think that would be a less risky course of action but strangely, we get denialists throwing their hands up, stampeding all over the place, swallowing hook line and sinker any dreck written on any blog anywhere (just as long as it denies the science) … and then expect the rest of us out here in reality land to … what ? … just ignore the climate guys and do nothing ?
FFS, blowing the whole box and dice on what some ranter on a blog, or some fruitcake like Monckton says is just radical, blithering, stupidity.
Chris W, since you believe in “controlling AGW” when you say “…spare a couple of billion on AGW control.” Maybe you can answer my question.
Moreover, when do we start measuring impacts of the “couple of billion” invested in controlling AGW? Do we need to wait the full 30 year cycle, or can we start after 5, 10, 15, etc. years? Some earlier commenters seemed to think that anything less than 30 years was cherry picking. Do we need to wait 1/2 a life time to tell if the investment was at all effective?
If we assume that AGW is right and the IPCC projections are right (!) then you can allocate a cost to the disruption those unchecked AGW effects will cause; you can also allocate a cost to the best-case measures to prevent those unchecked AGW effects and how much those measures will cost; William Nordhaus, Shellenberger and Lomborg have all done cost/benefit analysis and the cost of doing nothing costs less than implementing measures; and that’s assuming you accept that AGW is correct. Chris W’s deplorable missmash is a tipping-point riddled, Freudian vision incorporating the hackneyed concept that the best and the brightest are still firmly in the AGW camp. Lomborg notes that implementing Kyoto, that is stabilising emissions to a 1990 level, would cost $30 trillion for a benefit of $8 trillion [ Cool It p 42]; Nordhaus is something similar. But that’s alright because part of that benfit would be supplanting the Western greed which produced the ‘meltdown’, an entirely ideological confection which manifests all the watermelon qualities of many AGW supporters.
You would almost hope that there was some bad bastards on the climate rationalist side of the argument. A conservatives protest is a big fat joke isn’t it? They never happen for starters and if they did it would just be one bloke with a sign which says “Go with the evidence” or something like that.
“Like I said above, surely a conservative approach means you should go with what the informed scientifc consensus tells us and try to reduce the risk of it getting REALLY bad down the track by attempting some form of GHG mitigation ?”
No you are completely wrong here. What you do is you go with the evidence. What you are calling “informed scientific consensus” is nothing of the sort. And if it is it runs counter to the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Risk management also must be on the basis of evidence and reason. And not on the basis of a committment to irrationality. Its irratioinal to turn down a small amount of hypothetical warming in an ice age. Simple as that. Perhaps if you were living 55 million years ago you might be able to make a case. But then again since there is no evidence for any non-neglible effect of the CO2 all you would likely be doing is denying the inhabitants of the time their air conditioners.
Why should I believe that a peddler of misinformation like Easterbrook should be taken seriously? So people like Jenny Marohasy like to believe that every major institution that studies climate is wrong and Easterbrook is right? Why? Because he tells you what you want to hear?
I don’t want the future climate of our planet determined by policies based on the work of people who’ve already lost the climate science debate.
ok so we shouldn’t start a trendline with an outlier. you mean like showing a warming trend from an ice age 140 years ago? why are global warming preachers such hippocrits? guess it’s a trend with religeous types.
Do you have a reference to the IPCC prediction you mention,
qoute:
“The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038”
We know they do you moron!!!! The soot and SO2 puts up a shield and therefore stops all that solar energy from being punched in the oceans. What is the matter with you? You are an idiot mate. You get in the way. Were it not for idiots like you the climate rationalists would be free to nut out there own differences in these matters.
As to the PDO and solar activity. It can be traced back hundreds of years the melting and freezing of the ice up North in relation to these two factors alone. So we are going to get colder. And that ice is on the way back. Its a mystery why the idiots side of this argument was in such despair and nashing of teeth to be losing arctic ice in the first place. The science says that the ice is on the way back. And it doesn’t say anything else.
and 9th warmest year since records began in the outlier years of a mini ice age would indicate it has started to cool.
Avoiding the usage of 1998 for starting a trend line suggests one which is more interesting. Let us start 1,600,000 years ago, when the 100,000 cycle of ice ages came on stream. We can observe the warm periods, which last around 15,000 years, plus or minus a few thousand. It appears we are on the tail end of the current warm period. Where do we stand with respect to the past climates? If the AGW theory is correct, and we can create warmer weather with adding CO2, then it might be in our best interests to provide incentives to liberate the CO2 which has been trapped in the coal and limestone deposits. I have been subject to very cold temperatures. Hot is better.
I see we have a new crop of AGW moths drawn to the flame of science here.
The holidays really bring them out.
So where’s the campaign to replace coal fired power stations with nukes, guys?
Here’s a nice site I found : http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/vhtr.htm
Pity we didn’t already have a nuclear industry not beset by green lunacy. We’d be further along with this.
Ken Fabos “So people like Jenny Marohasy like to believe that every major institution that studies climate is wrong and Easterbrook is right?
I don’t want the future climate of our planet determined by policies based on the work of people who’ve already lost the climate science debate”.
The first thing you need to do, Ken, is awaken from your slumber. Most major institutions to which you refer base their rhetoric on the IPCC. If the IPCC is wrong, then the other major institutions are wrong too. Agreed? Guess what…the IPCC is wrong.
The IPCC is one of the only major institutions in history that has had its science accepted on pure consensus. Not only that, they base their findings on virtual science (computer models) while rejecting data collected directly by satellites.
The University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) is a major institution in that it is one of only two recognized sources of satellite temperature data sets. They are fighting a battle with the computer model-based institutions to which you refer, to have their data acknowledged. One of the researchers, Roy Spencer, is having difficulty publishing a paper which refutes computer model theory and has resorted to writing a book to get his work published.
If you think people like Spencer have lost the battle, you are naive, and as I have indicated, asleep. There never has been a battle. Science based on direct observation has never indicated there was a problem with our climate. The claims of climate disaster came from an astronomer who is a computer modeler, and were embellished by a politician who could not understand what his professor, Roger Revelle, had taught him.
People like you are followers who blindly accept what you are told based on faith alone.
Hmmmm lets see now … the IPCC findings are accepted by every government on the planet, and their treasury departments, every national science acadamy, all national meteorological bodies, tens of thousands of climate and physical scientists, insurers, the Australian coal industry, miltary strategists, etc, etc, etc … versus … erm … the non-peer-reviewed bloviations of a list of not-quite-650 people all described as ‘scientists’ who deny AGW and whose ideas are espoused by their acolytes here – cohenite, CoRev, Bird, plus a smattering of other loons.
Given the above equation I’m kinda stunned that you guys would think a reasonable person or indeed, a responsible decision maker, should be taking all their advice from a bunch of ranters such as yourselves or the somewhat-less-than-650. Jesus wept … thats just insane !!
I’d have to say the following describes to a tee what ails you denialwits … “The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average” (thank you Wikipedia).
“The first thing you need to do, Ken, is awaken from your slumber. Most major institutions to which you refer base their rhetoric on the IPCC. If the IPCC is wrong, then the other major institutions are wrong too. Agreed? Guess what…the IPCC is wrong.
The IPCC is one of the only major institutions in history that has had its science accepted on pure consensus. Not only that, they base their findings on virtual science (computer models) while rejecting data collected directly by satellites. ”
Completely wrong, the IPCC does no research, it is only basing it’s findings on the research of independent scientists, from all over the world.
“Science based on direct observation has never indicated there was a problem with our climate. ”
Satellite data is not direct observation, it is interpolated. Creating the output data is a complex process. It’s a valid source of temperature data, but don’t think it’s some sort of pristine, unprocessed temperature record.
You mean the ‘independent” scientists relying on government funding, SJT ?
Chris W; you are a troll and lier; insurers do not support AGW;
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/001468normalised_australia.html
Well thanks cohenite.
I liked this bit from the Insurance Council of Australia’s issues doco “Climate Change: Improving Community Resilience to Extreme Weather Events” (the link is down at the bottom on their main page) …
“The establishment of a central federal and state sponsored facility, responsible for coordinating research, stakeholder engagement and community communication is considered an essential step towards improving community resilience in the face of climate change. The general insurance industry notes the recent founding of the Climate Change Adaptation Centre (CCAC) which should provide Australia with a suitable structure in which to mix the relevant considerations and develop a well considered strategic approach to improving resilience to future extreme events”
And this … http://www.insurancecouncil.com.au/IssuesSubmissions/Submissions/ReviewoftheIGAfortheABCB/tabid/1591/Default.aspx
Regardless of what your linked study says, it kinda sounds like they’re taking AGW a bit more seriously than you are. Maybe they know a bit more than you ? Now I know you think that’s impossible, so say it with me now … “Hello my name is cohenite and my incompetence robs me of the metacognitive ability to realize AGW is both real and a threat”. You’ll need to practice it for the next DKA meeting.
Pigs bum Cohenite
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-03-08-US-insurers_N.htm
http://www.munichre.com/en/press/press_releases/2008/2008_09_29_press_release.aspx
AGW theory predicted run-away warming of the earth with increasing CO2. But the earth has cooled since the 1930s when so many records were set in the U.S. for the hottest recorded temperatures. Now, the theory has been changed once again. First the predictions were for an ice-age in the late 1970s, then changed again during the next couple of decades to run away warming. Now is has again been altered to predict a temporary cooling. Published, peer-reviewed papers abound, both pro and con, regarding the theory.
What, if anything, will disprove the theory? Apparently nothing, as it mutates with the climate, and has become metaphysical.
Well
We Are In Fact Going Into A Combination Of Things (1) Ocean Currents Are Shifting (2) Earth Is Tilting Back (3) Solar Minimums (It Has Been A Long One And Has Not Restarted) Any One Of These Has A Dramatic Effect On Temperature And They Are All Pointing To It Getting Colder. Plus Solar Winds Have Decreased Along With Their Temperature
Check Out This Web Site
you want real science here you go
http://Science.Nasa.Gov/Headlines/Y2008/23sep_Solarwind.Htm
“The Average Pressure Of The Solar Wind Has Dropped More Than 20% Since The Mid-1990s,” Solar Wind Sensor Onboard The Ulysses Spacecraft, Which Measured The Decrease. Ulysses, Launched In 1990, Circles The Sun In A Unique Orbit That Carries It Over Both The Sun’s Poles And Equator, Giving Ulysses A Global View Of Solar Wind Activity:
Curiously, The Speed Of The Million Mph Solar Wind Hasn’t Decreased Much—Only 3%. The Change In Pressure Comes Mainly From Reductions In Temperature And Density. The Solar Wind Is 13% Cooler And 20% Less Dense.
The One Thing That Heats The Earth The Sun And its Winds Temperature Have Dropped 13% Cooler.
Now You Know Why The Scientist’s Are Jumping Off The Global Warming Bandwagon Try Growing Food When The Grounds Covered With Snow Or Ice! We Will Be Fine Because We Have All Of These Fine Scientists Trying To Make It Colder While Telling Every One To Shut Up The Debate Is Over! Wake Up People The True Drivers Of Global Climate Change Will Not Shut Up, Follow Some Fancy Computer Program, Worry About Making Some Environmental Group Or Government Happy To Get Funding. Those Who Put Their Faith In Someone’s Agenda Instead Of Real Science Will Find Themselves Looking Foolish. Let’s Just Hope It Does Not Get Too Cold
Better Read Up People on Solar Minimums They Are Not a Good Thing
Luke’s USA Today reference, the title and date: U.S. insurers lagging on global warming
Updated 3/8/2007 4:46 PM
Luke, this reference proves Cohenite’s point. The MunichRe reference just adheres to the EU policy. Gotta do better than that, Buddy Boy.
BTW, this is what Prometheus, Roger Pielke’s site, had to say about the MunichRe issue just today.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/overselling-disasters-and-climate-change-by-munich-re-4826
“Munich Re, one of the largest global reinsurance companies, has often skirted near the line of scientific credibility when discussing disaster losses and climate change. This week Munich Re stepped way over that line when it uses the issue of human-caused climate change to suggest higher reinsurance rates and support for a global climate treaty.”
Yup! Businessmen doing bidness, gasp! gulp! But, not science!
Well CoRev – after you sepos stuffing the world’s economy with your crap financial system – excuse me while I barf.
Looks like we’ve got ourselves some sock puppets – hello Willimc or is it Don?
I love this stuff
“Now You Know Why The Scientist’s Are Jumping Off The Global Warming Bandwagon Try Growing Food When The Grounds Covered With Snow Or Ice! We Will Be Fine Because We Have All Of These Fine Scientists Trying To Make It Colder While Telling Every One To Shut Up The Debate Is Over! Wake Up People The True Drivers Of Global Climate Change Will Not Shut Up, Follow Some Fancy Computer Program, Worry About Making Some Environmental Group Or Government Happy To Get Funding. Those Who Put Their Faith In Someone’s Agenda Instead Of Real Science Will Find Themselves Looking Foolish. Let’s Just Hope It Does Not Get Too Cold
Better Read Up People on Solar Minimums They Are Not a Good Thing”
You clown – get off the blog – what a load of utter bilge.
CoRev.
Silly me, I thought that cohenite’s blisteringly stupid point was that insurers do not support AGW … except that they do.
What is that principle, Occam’s Razor ? “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”.
The simplest explanation would seem to be that they’ve actualy assessed what the science is saying and have decided that prudence dictates they start thinking and acting strategically about it and the potential impacts on their businesses – they are insurers after all.
But no, they’re pigeon-holed by one from the nowhere-near-650 list (and you of course) as shifty and dishonest … merely paying lip service to AGW because, well, business is business.
I can’t believe how you craven denialwits eagerly line up to swallow mutiple and conflicting varieties of slop in preference to the peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
Luke, you’ve really been off your game this week end. Did you even read the articles you referenced???
Maybe you are unaware of how businesses operate, but when they see a new opportunity, Ya’no like CC, then they try to get in early and dominate it. Al Gore, Jim Hansen, the ethanol and Munich Re are prime examples. The US insurance industry is regulated by each of the 50 states and they must prove 50 times over why they are raising rates. Might make a difference, Don’cha think?
BTW, how’s that answer to my question coming?
Don Collicott
You should be careful when you point to inconvenient facts – Luke explodes like a dampened Roman Candle and then looks for the nearest messenger to verbal, especially when the data NASA reports adds weight to the electric universe theories.
The point is that we are dealing with government science and not disinterested geniuses working away in their labs making new scientific discoveries. We are up against the system and we always lose that one. Some of us have learnt from history and are preparing to adapt to the impending economic disaster the climate clowns have in store for us. Goading the morons is not a useful thing to do as it attracts unecessary attention and when the system decides to get rid of you, it will.
Climate change is the means by which the state can increase its taxes by making us feel collectively guilty.
Hence the fact that Don Easterbrook predicted a cooling cycle years ago means nothing to them – a generation has already had its minds addled by progresive education policies – and the greatest collection of scientific facts will dissade them.
“Errata”
…….will dissuade them NOT.
Chris W. “Given the above equation I’m kinda stunned that you guys would think a reasonable person or indeed, a responsible decision maker, should be taking all their advice from a bunch of ranters such as yourselves…”
The problem with AGW types like you, Chris, is one of comprehension. Did you not understand one word I said? Let me summarize it for you.
1)the IPCC admitted in TAR that it cannot predict future climates, but it tried to anyway.
2)the IPCC, for whatever reason, adopted probabilities generated by computer models to predict future climate STATISTICALLY.
3)In TAR, the IPCC admitted real temperature data collected by satellites was contradicting their statistical projections.
4)Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who collects and analyzes the data that contradicts the IPCC can no longer get a paper published which contradicts the IPCC findings.
5)The IPCC are wrong because their predictions have borne no fruit. They were wrong about the hockey stick graph that alleged 1998 was the hottest year in a millenium. They were forced to amend that statement, a failure of a 4000-man peer review. They were wrong about the relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming. The atmosphere has not warmed in 10 years.
That’s the problem with reasonable people like you, Chris. You look to other reasonable people for reasonable answers. I have news for you. The real world follows no reasonable rules, no matter what you reasonable people may think. Computer modeling is an attempt to bring human reasoning to unreasonable phenomena. Any time you try to bottle science it will come back and kick you in the pants. Then again, you reasonable people seem to love bending over for that.
I wonder if David from the BOM will show his face and answer or respond to Gordon Robertson ‘s post above.
Of course not, I forgot, its not been peer reviewed. Silly me.
Ye gads Chris W spare us the peer-reveiwed scientific consensus. What are your mates saying?
http://www.climateaudit.org:80/?p=4742
And don’t forget the geniuses behind the Lehman Brothers model. That’s right, they could pick climate 100 years out but not the firm 6 months out hahaha….
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/18/p28760
One reason why the MWP needed to be removed from climate data was the inability for climate science to model the LIA.
The annals of the KoreaN Choson Dynasty document a period incorporating the LIA in which “During the 17th century, there was a long-term drop in overall global temperatures, which led to a sharp reduction in agricultural production. This, in turn, brought about widespread famine and epidemics and had major social and political repercussions. The extended abnormal temperature drop of this period has been recognized by natural scientists, who have called this the “Little Ice Age.” However, little research has been done on the cause or causes of this temperature drop beyond John A. Eddy’s work on the decline in sunspot activity. After I came across the 17th-Century Crisis theory in the works of Western scholars, I felt that the Annals of the Chosôn Dynasty (Chosôn wangjo sillok in Korean; hereinafter referred to as the “Annals”) could potentially be a valuable source of reliable information for this time period. The scribes who compiled the Annals were faithful and meticulous in recording all natural and unusual (often seen as supernatural) phenomena, in accordance with the distinctive Confucian view of nature. Because of this, I believed that these records could provide much valuable insight into phenomena that attended and perhaps led to the Little Ice Age. After ten years of research, I can demonstrate that my initial expectations were correct. ”
and concludes
“1. “The existence of the Little Ice Age can indeed be confirmed, but its time frame must stretched beyond the 17th century to begin around 1500 and end around 1750.
2. The basic cause of the Little Ice Age was the numerous meteor which fell consistently over a long period of time. Among the records in the Annals, there are many more phenomena which are consistent with the Alvarez collision theory than those which support Eddy’s theory on the decline in sunspot activity.
3. The Little Ice Age was accompanied by drought, floods, plague, famine, pestilence and other calamities. Discussion of these disasters and the political, social, and economic repercussions they brought about has been initiated by historians of the “17th-Century General Crisis” school, but a more rigorous and detailed analysis of the records in the Annals has great potential in stimulating further discussion and understanding. Study of the undoubtedly terrifying natural phenomena which occurred when meteors fell would provide new perspective on the tremendous religious and ideological changes which took place around the world.
4. The material in the Annals include detailed observations of comets, as exemplified in Reference Note 7, and other unusual astronomical phenomena, which I feel could be excellent material for expert analysis. Scientists could use this material to further refine their understanding of the earth’s environment at that time. (Source: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/korea/)
I suspect the AGW crowd would have some problems figuring out how to incorporate unpredictable meteorite swarms into the code, let alone model a non-linear, chaotic system such as the atmosphere, so if you can’t model it, make sure no one knows about it.
Hence the Hockey Stick, the statistical chicanery involved in making the MWP disappear, hence making the LIA disappear at the same time, and hence eliminating the need to somehow program the GCM so that it can predict when the next LIA might occur.
And now the usual suspects are engaged in their, oooh so predictable, verballing of competent scientists.
Incidentally anyone know of a sceptic blog that is bothering to counter Barry Brooks specious output?
“5)The IPCC are wrong because their predictions have borne no fruit. They were wrong about the hockey stick graph that alleged 1998 was the hottest year in a millenium. They were forced to amend that statement, a failure of a 4000-man peer review. They were wrong about the relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming. The atmosphere has not warmed in 10 years.”
They were right 😉
SJT
You might do your own case some good by quoting the peer reviewed literature in support of your statements, instead of making ex-cathedra pronouncements.
I’m a skeptic of global warming but I have an open mind. For any of you warmers out there, you can convert me if you can replicate Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph using all of his original data except the Tilander Sediment and Bristol Cone Pine proxies.
Or, you can convert me if you can come up with a Global Climate model that explains the last 100 years of temperature record using evap/precip as a negative feedback with a minimum value of (6Wm-2 k-1).
I’ll be waiting.
Thanks
Ed
Verballed by Chris W and luke; and incidentally how come luke is allowed to swear so much; you are a naughty boy luke and your new year resolution should be not to be so abrasive. MY link showed that a study of Insurance payouts called “Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards: 1967-2006” conclusively showed no payouts or losses remotely consistent with AGW; here’s what it says;
“The collective evidence reviewed above suggests that societal factors – dwelling numbers and values – are the predominant reasons for increasing insured losses due to natural hazards in Australia. The impact of human-induced climate change on insured losses is not detectable at this time. This being the case, it seems logical that in addition to efforts undertaken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, significant investments be made to reduce society’s vulnerability to current and future climate and the associated variability. Employing both mitigation and adaptation contemporaneously will benefit society now and into the future.
We are aware of few disaster risk reduction policies explicitly developed to help Australian communities adapt to a changing climate, yet disaster risk reduction should be core to climate adaptation policies (Bouwer et al., 2007). . .
An increased threat from bushfires under human-induced climate change is often assumed. Indeed Pitman et al. (2006) and others anticipate an increase in conditions favouring bushfires. However, analyses by McAneney (2005) and Crompton et al. (in press) suggest that the main bushfire menace to building losses will continue to be extreme fires and that the threat to the most at-risk homes on the bushland– urban interface can only be diminished by improved planning regulations that restrict where and how people build with respect to distance from the forest. Disaster risk reduction of this kind would immediately reduce current and future society’s vulnerability to natural hazards.
Please read the whole paper luke; too much to expect when you don’t read your own links. The paper says no AGW influence is detectable; admittedly the paper is typically mealy-mouthed and makes the usual concession about taking precautions to combat something which doesn’t exist, but that is due to the climate of fear and loathing which bozos like you guys contribute to. Now, you and this Chris W cockey fellow rant on about insurance business models where particular insurance companies are going to make a buck out of AGW even though their own records show no AGW influence; this is par for the course with banks and other financial industries and, I’m ashamed to say, lawyers, falling over themselves to make a buck out of this scam before the scales fall from the eyes of the punters. So, luke and Chris; you are clowns!
Here we go – Australia is now “the world”. WTF !
Cohenite – don’t be so patently dishonest and desperate. Munich and Swiss RE are VERY interested in climate change and investing significantly. We know by now that you’ve never made a climate risk decision in your life. These guys do daily and really really need to know if the probabilities have changed. I KNOW YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS ASPECT. Whether the science has proven any changes are yet occurring is another matter. But the evidence is tantalising. Munich RE have invested significantly at Potsdam in the science.
To assert the firms are doing to make a killing or up premiums is just your predictable little perverted denialist spin.
The “denied” factoid that Swiss and Munich RE are interested is THE very simple point.
Meanwhile CoRev is your typical energy guzzling sepo – turn the bloody unused light off mate. You need to be charged much more if you think you can leave lotsa plant running that you don’t need. What a waste.
Coarse language – Motty, Birdy, xxx days Till My Head Explodes etc taught me ! Ever considered the hypocrisy factor? Of course not. I get so much abuse on this blog that it’s yourself that should be considering standards. And is it not Australia?
http://www.climateandinsurance.org/global.html
Examples of Munich RE’s interest
http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/natural_catastrophes_and_risks/default.aspx
http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/weather_catastrophes_and_climate_change_is_there_still_hope_for_us/default.aspx
Luke said: “I get so much abuse on this blog that it’s yourself that should be considering standards. Trolling for sympathy? Not that you don’t give your own share of abuse.
BTW, in American what is sepo? Insults work better when both parties understand the language.
Anyway, have a Happy New Year! That goes for all who write and visit here.
I think Luke is on holidays.
He didn’t do much of a job of selecting someone to stand in for him, while he’s away.
The real Luke has a sense of humour, & can be quiet reasonable at times.
CoRev
Happy new year as well.
As for sepo – perhaps Luke should explain?
One reason Luke posts here is because DFAT refuses to make use of his skills in diplomacy. Apparently DFAT people point out that wars have been caused by lesser diplomatic despatches.
Louis, having Luke define sepo for me sounds ominous. Luke does seem a little off his form this past few days. Mostly invective with little value to his entries. Even his references have been lame. Oh, well, no doubt he will return a better person.
More hypocritical crap from Munich RE, and the insurance industry.
They can’t, and don’t, actually separately identify that portion of risk that is attributable to Co2 induced climate change, from normal ie natural climate change.
And they cant separate out increases in payouts that have occurred, from population density increases, as well as inreases in ppty values etc.
That depends also upon whether or not your policy included, or excluded natural disasters
But what they do have now, is yet another reason to hike premiums even further for what they do insure.
Just one more scam built on top of The Great Scam.
Bingo, Malcolm Hill gets it. He said: “But what they do have now, is yet another reason to hike premiums even further for what they do insure.
Just one more scam built on top of The Great Scam.”
The real denialists here are starting to look desperate for confirmation.
CoRev: American = Yank = Septic tank = Sepo.
See……..
Well CoRev – this is a fairly rough establishment – blame Motty. But Aussies are humourless recalcitrants. But let me help you.
(1) The Australian male’s definition of foreplay: “Are you awake”
(2) The Tasmanian male’s definition of foreplay “Are you awake Mum”
(3) censored beyond the pale advance on (2)
(4) How do you know when a New Zealander (probably a sceptic) has burgled your house. Ans: Your thongs (flip flops) are missing and your pets are spooky (censored and adapted).
(5) Difference between an Australian and NZ funeral. One less drunk at the Australian event.
(6) Why is it impossible for Jesus to have come from NZ – ans: can’t find 3 wise men and a virgin.
(7) How do you know when a gay person has burgled your house: There’s a quiche in the oven and the dishes are done.
And yet … no one who matters in things AGW is actually listening to you guys.
Now why is that I wonder.
Do you think multiple conspiracy theories of worldwide scams by large mainstream groups cynically trying to make a quick buck out of some confected global warming myth plays well out there in reality land ? You know, where the responsible decision makers are.
Nup … bad news I’m afraid … sounds exactly like the prattling of full-blown numbskulls.
Denialwits get suckered at every turn by the sciency sounding dribble of Macintyre, Monckton, Pielke, and anyone else from the you-had-to-count-some-of-them-twice-to-get-650 list. You are being played for saps yet your misplaced sense of superiority (back to good old Dunning-Kruger) won’t let you see it. You guys seem to enjoy being done-over by those goons yet, bizarrely, Gordon asserts that it is reasonable people who like to bend over … WTF ??!!.
Man, on the available evidence I’d have to say you lot would even drop your pants for the Easter Bunny !!!
Chris W
” no one who matters in things AGW is actually listening to you guys.”
Thank heavens for that – usually when the authorities start to listen its usually to collate the evidence for the following witch hunt with us as the star acts.
But you ruin your rant by mindlessly repeating the AGW lexicon for verballing sceptics.
As one on the 650 list (You are on the larger list of booboisie?) I haven’t found anyone being suckered by my dribble.
hopwever I have seen many being suckered by the fraudulent dribble of the those who matter in AGW, though.
So Chris, you are not only a troll but a crude one as well; the test of the best against the rest was borne out in the recent Evan’s gerfuffle about the THS; putting aside the movable goalposts and the sophistry the best of the best was the argument put by Schmidt that the so-called THS signature at 9.1(c) could not be distinguished from a solar THS; Schmidt said there was an equivalence between 2xCO2 and a 2% increase in solar forcing in respect of the THS. As G Bird observed a 2% increase in solar forcing is about 400 million years worth; so to explain away an unambiguous AGW prediction of a THS for 2xCO2 the AGW best produce an argument that a dud prediction wasn’t really a prediction anyway because it could not be distinguished from an impossible condensation of solar activity. This is typical of a scam populated by egos, spivs, fringe ideologues and misanthropes; but as I say to luke; I’ve still got an open mind; so prove me wrong with something sensible Chris.
Well Cohers – it’s a question of risk management.
I think by now you can decide how you want to load the balance scales. For Munich RE it might not be an “inflated” premium – moreover whether to take your business or NOT.
Crude ?? All I can say cohenite is that Gordon’s proposition that I routinely enjoy having my buttocks nipped made me see red and thus I felt the Easter Bunny crack was apt.
Perhaps if you lie down with birds you get up with lice.
Risk Management?
That’s something strictly limited to the market by its pricing mechanism.
Government inout into this via legislation automatically makes the market dissappear.
Louis – yes well gramps we can see you’ve never built any infrastructure. Off you go to bed now you pretentious old twit.
Anyway back to the topic – seems that AGW has already saved humanity from an ice age.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-12/uow-sde121708.php
http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/318978
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm08&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm08%2Ffm08&maxhits=200&=%22U33B-07%22
Great stuff – will keep the pseudo-sceptics busy for a while.
Shocked! shocked I tell you. I’m absolutely flabbergasted, that the bright young man, Luke by name, used a pejorative. Tsk, tsk, tsk. He actually called me a septic tank??????
Of course, it loses some of its vigor when translated to American. When I told Ms CoRev what he said, she was so flustered she said: Well, uh well, uh uh well you just tell him he’s a poopy head.
So, take that Luke. You pseudo-neuvo- anachronism for a AGW science groupie. I hope it begins to warm again so that the discussions can get back to science, good and bad.
Computer Models predicated on AGW theory failed to predict the very cold weather experienced in Alaska, Canada and the northern U.S. But the theory was not disproved, only modified. By changing the parameters it now predicts alternate warm and cold periods, following which will be run-away warming. Furthermore, they include probability errors saying they have a 90% chance of predicting the future. As a consequence, if their predictions do not come to pass they are not falsified.
Peer-reviewed studies of ice-cores show temperature changes always proceed CO2 changes. Why does this not falsify AGW theory?
No no no CoRev – it’s not a major insult – moreover a mild degree of playful insolence to our bigger brother.
WilliMc – what twaddle “Computer Models predicated on AGW theory failed to predict the very cold weather experienced in Alaska, Canada and the northern U.S.” – yes of course. They don’t predict seasonal climate or the exact weather in the future – how could they? Changing of parameters ?? Hot and cold? Mate – you are a sucker for denialist bullshit. You should expect some cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world – I suggest you have little grasp of what being asserted by AGW modelling. Indeed I even blogged here on CAO. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001802.html
As for CO2 changes & ice cores (a) we’ve been over this about 100 times here – but exactly – what would you expect – CO2 would inevitably follow from a Milankovitch type warming trigger and act as a secondary feedback http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ (b) if you read my links above – it indeed suggests we have not entered a glaciation thanks to early AGW from land development and agriculture
luke; Ruddiman again? Ruddiman says that ACO2 increased about 8000 years ago, pushing it up to about 280ppm until the kick on in the 20thC; Sage’s work shows that human civilisation kicked off about 12000 years ago when CO2 rose naturally from 200 to 270ppm;
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x?journalCode=gcb
If Sage is right then Ruddiman and Vavrus et al that you link too have about 10ppm of ACO2 to play around with; but the jury is still out with historical levels of CO2;
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf
And I’d really like one of the statistical whizzs from your side of the fence to look at this analysis of past CO2 levels;
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/usefiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf
That Drake analysis of past CO2 levels is here;
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf
Willimc
“Peer-reviewed studies of ice-cores show temperature changes always proceed CO2 changes. Why does this not falsify AGW theory?”
Because the proponents of AGW KNOW they are right, therefore that ice core data must be wrong or badly analysed. And if they can’t get rid of it, they simply ignore it by not thinking about it.
Cohenite,
Drake’s analysis is pretty conclusive – temperature precedes CO2.
I should add to Wiilimc’s question – AGW is also a non falsifiable hypothesis, otherwise the ice core data would have clinched it. In any case this fact is also proof that it isn’t science.
So the argument has to settle on the real agenda behind the AGW.
Hi Louis; the Drake paper provides a simple adjustment to historical CO2 levels which, as you say, further removes any semblance of correlation between temp and CO2; still, I concede this is a problematic area; perhaps the best analysis of the CO2/temp record is by Steve McIntyre;
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
Plus Craig loehle’s paper;
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
And this site is fun;
http:www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html [ // excluded]
Cohenite – yawn – mate this is way past Ruddiman. Do try to keep up with your reading. zzzzzz
But Cohers – shhhhh – don’t tell WilliMc about the PETM – shhhh
Louis – of course temperature precedes CO2 in the ice cores – what else would you expect – are you actually that stupid? And what does it have to do with AGW – nothing !
Cohenite
Luke points out that Ice Core CO2-Temperature reconstructions has nothing to do with AGW.
This proves my point made earlier that inconvenient facts are ignored.
Roy Spencer’s latest post on his new blog http://www.drroyspencer.com/ puts it all into perspective.
In terms of physical behavour, CO2 is basically irrelevant in the scheme of things, especially when you have the energy inputs and outputs of the Earth badly wrong.
Cohenite, and all others
When posting a url here, just remove the http:// from the url and it will be automatically added to it when you submit it.
Thanks Louis; I’ll definitely be using those graphs; perspective is everything as Figs 5 and 6 from this piece demonstrate;
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Cohenite
You are a veritable source of new information – but it’s the old graphology trick by manipulating the axes of graphs to inflate visual effects. John Brignell dwelt at length on it years ago.
I finished reading David Archibald’s new book Solar Cycle 24 and the appendices are excellent – until I sat down and studied Bishop Hill’s summary of the Caspar and the Jesus Paper, I was not that certain I understood what Steve McIntyre demonstrated – well, I had an idea but was confused with the terminology.
David’s effort is excellent and should be read by anyone who doesn’t need to understand the nitty gritty of the science, for what little there is behind AGW.
In any case AGW is simply a well crafted fraud that is continually unravelling as more and more thoughtful scientists start to look into it.
I always wondered what would happen when the social sciences ended up controlling the quasi-scientific disciplines of geography during the middle 70’s. AGW!
But the fact that a geologist can predict a future climate state from his own area of expertise and be proven, more or less, correct suggests that the biggest mistake made by the IPCC was to ignore the geologists.
Not to worry, science wins out in the end, it is the minimising of the collateral damage during the slow awakening that remains top priority.
Incidentally we are not fighting AGW proponents per se, but the state, or the system – both ALP and the Libs because both support big government. AGW is simply the latest ploy to tax us using guilt as a forcing.
I wonder when Luke will notice the sea change in attitude and change sides.
The global climate system has NOT cooled since 1998. This is easily provable:
1. Most of the heat capacity of the climate system is in ocean (80+%)
2. The oceans are still expanding pretty steadily since 1998, with minor fluctuations from La Nina events (1999 and 2007).
3. This expansion is partly from melting land ice, but more from thermal expansion.
4. This thermal expansion is the direct result of an imbalance in the heat budget of the climate: heat-in > heat-out.
QED, the climate is still warming at a steady rate since 1998.
The most recent data show a rapid increase of sea level in 2008, erasing the decline of the 2007 La Nina year, putting the sea level increase back on the steady uptrend in place since the beginning of satellite data.
Please write again after the total heat content of the climate system has measurably decreased.
Brad, do you have links for your assertions? Otherwise rubbish;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SIYXrFZ6nEI/AAAAAAAAADU/VKrUIi87sTM/s1600-h/Global+Sea+Level.bmp
Oh Brad,
http://www.redbubble.com/people/krisvahl/art/458188-8-oh-brad
Can you save us? Sob, sob, sob………..
Brad is spot on Cohers and you’ve just showed your hand arguing black is white for the clients. You climate crook. This is typical pseudo-scepticism. Pathetic even by your standards.
I prefer http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
But Cohers likes to present a snippet of a time series, not even up-to-date (missed today’s readings!) with a hand drawn line through it. Ask Mrs Cohers about testing the significance of regressions too. NS I think you’ll find.
WJP and Cohers – try this – will explain the details of sea level argument – http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=eDTp1TdWCQM
“climate crook”? Anyway hope this is long enough for you luke; and no, it’s not a Youtube link;
http://www.science-direct.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4RP0MR9-8&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F15%2F2008&_rdoc=14&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235801%232008%23997319998%23683218%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5801&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=28&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2fdd45939db81d7f31df7fd7ac58e71
And my old favourite;
http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
So much for thermal swelling, or whatever you want to call it.
Oh dear, that first link didn’t deliver; well mustn’t disappoint luke; try this one instead;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003175.html#comments
Relevance – nil. Desperate Cohers. Desperate.
I confess that I did not wade through all the post and the links. But what I did read had enough mantra about “cycles” without some statistical metric to make me worry. Reminds me of “chartist” technical analysis of stocks. Which any finance professor will tell you is rubish. Let’s not associate with rubish. Do better denialists! I am one of you, but I hate it when you entertain silliness. Makes me worry that we don’t have so much in our quiver.
hello cohenite,
from your response of January 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm:
“Brad, do you have links for your assertions?”
Thanks for the question, but I’m not sure what you mean. Are you unfamiliar with the numerous published papers that estimate the sizes of the various components of the climate system in terms of heat content? (Assertion #1)
here’s a few:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/Beltrami_et_al_Journal.pdf
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-76939-2006-AB.pdf
Assertion #2: the oceans are expanding. Jennifer posted a chart a few weeks ago:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sea-level-drop.jpg
I love how she labeled it “sea-level-drop”. She’s such a kidder. Do see on the chart how the 1998 values range from about -15 to 0mm? And the 2008 values are from about +10 to +30mm?
Is that too hard to read or understand? I thought it was pretty plainly obvious that sea level has been rising since 1998, by roughly 30mm, or about 3mm/year. Do you disagree?
Then you put up a chart showing a portion of the same data, from 2005 to 2007/early2008. Is that limited window of data relevant to the question of what has happened since 1998? Remember the OP? Waaaaaaay up top is says – and I quote:
“…and global cooling has occurred since 1998. ”
So are we discussing cooling/warming since 1998, or since 2005?
Do you agree that sea level is 30mm higher now than in 1998 (assertion #2), and that most of the heat capacity of the climate system is in the ocean (assertion #1)?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hello Brad,
I think cohenite’s point was that the slidy thingo on SahulTime tells us there has been 0 metres of sea level rise for the last 5476 years … so therefore, ipso facto, QED, primo, secundo, tertio, etc ,etc, anyone in the world who thinks sea level has risen based on what the data says is completely and utterly freakin bonkers.
Hmmm, but maybe I’m reading him wrong …
Well anyhoo, it IS rather cool to muck around with.
Totally agree – its amazing how the warmists get so spiteful, bitter and nasty in blogs like this the world over as soon as an alternate view is provided. The very essence of science and being a scientist is that all theories are considered and that balanced debate continues indefinitely. The day that stops is the day science dies. The ‘warmists’ have become ‘prostitutes of science’, and as an environmental scientist myself this AGW religious fanaticism makes me ill to the very core! So much so that Iam currently considering a career shift, as I no longer an proud of my profession.
Everything I was taught in becoming a scientist, is to debate, consider, re-consider and to check and double check and to consider all hyoptheses.
The very behaviour of warmists practically gives themselves away. They’re quick to jump the skeptics collective throats about being selective in their arguments – yet the very foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in the selective use of data. Everything, and I mean ‘everything’ that the ‘warmologists’ prescribe to is based on the selective use of available information.
Talk about the High Priests preaching “do as we say and not as we do”.
As communism was the great ideological failure of the 20th century in its attempt to repress human development, so too will ‘de-carbonism’ eventually be seen as the great ideological failure of the 21st century in trying to repress human development.
Prof Bob Carter also agrees with Dr Easterbrook, the evidence is more supportive of a cooling trend. Anyhow, the question most often evaded is: ‘where is the causal connection specifically between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming?’ Dr David Evans, late of the Australian Greenhouse Office for six years, failed to make a causal connection between any CO2 and global warming. Also, anthropogenic CO2 represents only 3% of all CO2 emissions, it is difficult to imagine that even if all man-made emissions ceased there would be much difference to climate change even if one could find a causal connection. Isn’t this all about new markets and more money for the seriously wealthy?