Rather than spiraling into a global warming meltdown, we may be heading into the next ice age.
The U.S. National Solar Observatory, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and astrophysicists across the planet report that the nearly all-time low sunspot activity may result in a sustained cooling period on Earth.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Recent Comments
- Peter Carroll on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- dm on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Francis Barnett on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- czechlist on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Jehzsa on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
half will freeze as the other half burns
Don’t worry, the ‘unprecedented’ heat emanating from Michigan will keep Chicago cozy.
ourt with a whimper, not a bang.
Consider your source: The Washington Examiner, a free newspaper published by conservative billionaire Phillip Anshcutz:
“When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he ‘wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers”
Sort of the opposite of Time and Newsweek, which only hires and publishes left-wing trash.
If you say so Steve. So who should we believe? Bloggers? How about scientific experts trained in the field – just as you would if you got cancer, or wanted financial advice, or needed your car fixed. Btw, I didn’t say the examiner was trash. I didn’t use the invective that you chose to apply – simply that the source was, by its on admission, biased in a specific direction.
Ahh. You mean like Dr. Hansen – who predicted that zero emissions after 2000 would produce higher temperatures than what we are actually seeing.
This graph is from Hansen’s 1988 paper on transient climate change. And you would acknowledge then that the climate has warmed by over 1°F (0.6°C) since 1960? The blue line that you have overlaid on Hansen’s plot shows a downward trend in 2012 – can you explain that?
Even extrapolating and assuming no rate increase in emissions (which nearly all economists agree will happen) we would see a 3°+ warming by 2100? That’s in the range of projections, so even such a back of the envelope calculation should be cause for concern.
The blue line is GISTEMP- another product of Columbia University. Scenario C is “net forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” GISTEMP is below that. Temperatures are below a zero emissions scenario. Is that difficult to understand?
The GISTEMP data set is a NASA product, not Columbia. It tracks the difference from a 30-year average, whereas the Hansen simulations shown in the above plot are the amount of warming from 1958. If the GISTEMP data were measured against 1958 and you plotted it correctly the warming would be closer to the middle line on the plot above. (about 0.1 to 0.2 degrees warmer). Also, the downward value for 2012 that you have on your blue line is not on the GISTEMP plot that I can see, which is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
It is the same data updated through June 2011
OK. It’s well established that you don’t believe Hansen. But there are hundreds of other scientific experts in the field of climate science, and if you aren’t going to believe any of them, my question stands. Who shall we trust on issues of complexity? We cannot have a civilization based on lack of trust of everything complex – most of us couldn’t get in a car, or use TV, or accept our blood test results if we don’t trust some form of expertise beyond our own. Why is climate science held to a different standard?
I’ve written over 7,500 articles on this blog. It sounds like you are not very familiar with them or my writing.
Not all of them no. I don’t believe you are familiar with all the thousands of scientific articles on climate change either, but you use a fair amount of invective – as have other posters – regarding topics of which they have limited knowledge. That’s my point, we are certainly allowed to voice our opinions on all subjects, but for decision-making we do need to find sources we trust. For those who trust in your comments made in 7500 articles you provide a service, but I’m suggesting that there are many other sources that are better qualified than you and people should pay close attention to those as well. But, I do find the discussion interesting and appreciate your candor and willingness to post my replies (and am impressed at the speed with which you reply in return).
The IPCC forecast declining winter snowfall and fewer large snow storms. How did that work out?
*IPCC 2001 15.2.4.1.2.4. Ice Storms*
*Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms*
*http://observatory.ph/resources/IPCC/TAR/wg2/569.htm#1524123*
*IPCC Draft 1995*
*shrinking snow cover in winter*
*http://www.nytimes.com/ *
Perhaps Mark can tell us what “falsification” means.
It appears as if Mark is a BOT or totally unfamiliar with real climate research. He seems to believe in the current Pathological BS being passed of a climate research. We can not have a real civilization if we allow witch doctors to follow their Voodoo Science practices unsupervised.
Climate science is held to the same standards as other forms of science even if it is not a real science but a wannabe group of money grabbers.
BOT
What is a BOT?
http://www.terryballard.org/marvin.html
Mark:
You do not realize that some on this site have been following this charade for many years and have been reading most of the research that has been done in the name of science even if it did not follow scientific principles or was at best an excessive in Cherry Picking, Extrapolating to small of a sample to get unrealistic results, even just plain using garbage which fit the agenda.
Many on this site just hang around waiting for “Fresh Meat” such as your self to come into the water!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucMLFO6TsFM
Dear Mark,
When you say “most of us couldn’t get in a car” you’re suggesting that if I ask my car how to operate the door it will tell me that I can’t understand doors, then? It will brusquely inform me that since I don’t have a PhD in automobile ownership I can’t possibly understand how a door key works?
No, I was referring to the fact that most of us trust that the internal combustion engine, which is actually a series of controlled explosions, was designed by experts who know more than the average driver.
We use complex technologies and trust daily. I think if you knew many of the climate scientists personally you would find the vast majority to be hardworking experts doing their level best to analyze complex data. I do trust those that I know well, which does not mean that some specific predictions won’t be incorrect – but many will be and we should pay attention.
That complex stuff confuse me. Like cumputers.
So, these “experts” on internal combustion: when you ask them how an internal combustion engine works, do they tell you that you’re not smart enough to understand? Do they tell you that you should be scared and give them money so your headlight fluid doesn’t spill out and poison all the softshell crabs living in the Chesapeake Bay?
Curry? Linzen? Pielke Sr? Pielke Jr? Motls? Spencer? Christy? Roman M? Lucia? McIntyre & McKitrick? Svalbard? Svensmark?
Many of the above agree that temperatures are increasing and there is serious concern, even if they do not all agree on the details. Spencer? give me a break. The temperature plot on his site is also incorrectly labelled. geez.
Fresh meat? Could anyone here stand up and say that they can see that the GISTEMP data shows temperatures warming steadily (despite SG plotting error which reduces the warming, unintentionally I hope)? It’s clear that you can all find projections that are incorrect – the same would be true of any science (watch those prescriptions you’re taking) but can’t any of you quote projections that have been correct – increased precipitation rates and flooding combined with more intense droughts, perhaps. What do you think Gov. Perry thinks about now?
Come on, get past the “is it happening” debate and start asking serious “skeptic” questions. For example, if it’s warming by X amount can we adapt reasonably at a reasonable cost. This is what the military is already doing, as are your insurance companies – guess what your insurance companies are find out? And guess what’s going to happen to your rates?
I’d rather not be doing this in 20 years having an “I told you so” discussion. It would be better to work together on solutions, adaptations, – you know, unite and advance into the future, that sort of thing.
No, they don’t and no, there is not.
Yes many of them do.
OMG – are you suggesting that the x-axis on my graph might be shifted by half a millimeter on that overlay of Hansen’s extremely precise graph? I am devastated.
Steve, you are a sarcastic man and you seem to have made up your mind. Sorry I bothered you all in your little cocoon. Have a nice decade – it’s going to be warmer, wetter, more wild fires, more agricultural losses due to drougts and heatwaves, and the free market will deal with it one way or another. This is not like a debate over evolution – the answer will be discovered by everyone over the course of time. And, I hope there is a record of blogs like this so people remember just exactly who was misleading who.
On your way out the door – read this http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/bad-weather/
Re: ” The temperature plot on his site is also incorrectly labelled. geez” Really? How so?
Sounds to me that you are the one who is prejudiced.
Re ” And, I hope there is a record of blogs like this so people remember just exactly who was misleading who.” I hope so too!
Spencer shows a plot of the satellite temperature data. On Spencer’s plot of the data he labels the greatest warming as “El Nino warming” and the greatest cooling as “Mt. Pinatubo cooling”, as if to imply the warming trend is really just a coincidence of two natural events. He also labels a “+0.31°C” warming for the last data point, but doesn’t say that the value is the amount above the average of the entire record, which is not the value of significance on this plot. The value of significance is the measure of how much temperatures have increased since the beginning of the record, which is more like 0.6°C…double what his erroneous labeling implies. He does not, of course, label the various La Nina events or the declining phase of the solar cycle, which have masked much of the greenhouse trend during the past decade and nowhere in the text of that web page does he point out the most simple and obvious fact of the plot – that the satellite data actually corroborate the temperature increase shown by the surface temperature record that he loves to criticize:
You really haven’t a clue have you?
GISS temp is a joke based on NCDC’s even worse Joke.
Historic records show that we are experiencing weather that is relatively mild compared to some periods throughout history and prehistory. Insurance companies are in business to make money and any advantage they can find by promoting an imaginary problem is money in their pockets as revealed by the Catlin group and the reinsurance companies.
Adaptation to natural weather variations is what led to the current state of technological advance enjoyed in most countries because nature is about striving to overcome adversity by adapting. Warming or cooling is possible in the future and the people of the world already exist in the conditions projected by your Climatologists.
I agree with the unite and advance idea. The first step would be to dismantle the entire climatology community and stop wasting money on garbage science which is the only thing that supports the fantasy of future calamity due to human induced climate change that is well withing natural variations experienced within the last 5 thousand years.
I am still here 30 years later saying I told you so, and probably even longer because I was interested in the coming Ice Age in the 70s which I thought was an adaptation issue to a non problem then.
Please provide your data:
“Historic records show that we are experiencing weather that is relatively mild compared to some periods throughout history and prehistory.”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/bad-weather/
Gosh, Mark, it’s almost like you haven’t seen anything on this weblog. Unless you’re trying to say that the current drought is worse than the 1950s. Or the 1930s. Or maybe you’re trying to say that we’re having more and larger hurricanes hitting the US than in years past. Or perhaps you’re alluding to the fact that the current heatwave is somehow worse than the earlier heatwaves from, oh I don’t know, the 1930s or the 1910s. Silly us, of course you’re referring to the fact that we have more tornadoes now than in the past. That must be it.
But I guess someone should explicitly cater to you and spoon-feed you the links to all of the things that you can’t be bothered to research while you’re busy reading those “thousands of papers” you’re intimately familiar with.
Mark:
Please hang around so others can have a short at a sitting Duck. As some claim, it is like shooting fish in a barrel with a shot gun. A Sporting event even!
Sorry. Getting hungry myself. Later.
SHOT!!!
Mark:
I will give you this tidbit:
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
If it’s a matter of trust, it’s not science. I trust Galileo on that. 😎