Colorado State University’s Dr. Bill Gray precisely forecast the climate nearly a decade ago.
06/05/2006
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University’s Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
“They’ve been brainwashing us for 20 years,” Gray says. “Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”
My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle ’40s to the middle ’70s.”
He has been shunned by his peers, and had his funding cut off by Al Gore in 1993 – for telling the truth. Something which is strictly verboten in climate science. I am proud to say that Dr. Gray is a good friend of mine, and has taught me everything I know about how the climate actually works.
Also, in 1978, two California scientists predicted the warming in the late 20th century, and the cooling in the 21st century
There actually are climate scientists who understand the climate. Most are just afraid to speak up, because being honest in climate science is simply not permitted by the people who control the money.
Meanwhile, the shills in alarmist organisations showered with taxpayer’s money for promoting the correct message appear to be having a laugh at everyone else’s expense – the new Met Office climate model is called “EndGame” –
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/endgame-a-new-dynamical-core
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog.
The problem is they are adjusting the data so much, that you cannot tell. People can as they see things are not as bad, but it is always “somewhere else” that is causing the temperatures to rise. Somewhere else being where no one actually lives. How convenient for the earth to hide the heat where there are no temperature gauges or people.
That is why I like the site http://iceagenow.info/ as an antidote.
There have been two basic camps in climate academe, those who spout “greenhouse effect” and “runaway global warming” with alarm, and those who beat the drum for “ENSO” (or “multidecadal ocean oscillations”) and a cyclical variation in global temperature, on top of a widely-believed global warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age (c. 1680) of 0.5 °C/century (but, like Phil Jourdan above, I doubt their global temperature records either way, since I found the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere model for Earth’s troposphere agrees precisely with the same pressure regime in Venus’s atmosphere–when the latter’s temperatures are corrected for its closer distance from the Sun–despite Venus having 2400 times the concentration of CO2, more than twice the albedo, a miles-thick planetary cloud cover and an entirely solid planetary surface, all hugely different from Earth but having no effect on the temperatures). To the academic theorists of the latter (ENSO) persuasion, the time period from about 2000 to 2030 is expected to show a slight temperature decline, like the periods 1940 to 1970 (or ’75) and 1880 to 1910. I say it should amaze both sides that the Standard Atmosphere model, known for over a century, agrees so precisely with Venus’s atmospheric temperature profile for ONE DAY (October 5, 1991), which literally screams out “stable equilibrium” for both planets, to any competent physicist (and a reader of my blog informed me, a few months ago, of Venus data from 1979 that also agrees with the Earth’s Standard Atmosphere). But even the most recalcitrant global warming skeptics–aside from me–believe implicitly in today’s non-climate earth science theories, and so think that a mere 5 degree decrease in global mean surface temperature must bring on a global ice age (that would take it down from the present 59°F mean temperature, to 50°F, and I say that it is the height of hysteria to think 50°F is consistent with a global ice age). So I say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists. None. Zero. Period. As in, they all need to let go of their current theories, across all the earth sciences, if they want to become competent in my book. Of course, I have an entirely different, dogma-free perspective on the Earth, since I found, in my own research, that its surface was reformed wholesale, less than 20,000 years ago, and to a great design whose features gave rise to all the so-called “ancient mysteries” of man, worldwide (so there was no “continental drift” over millions of years, but deliberate breakup, transport, and reassembly of landmasses to their current shapes and locations). And the present generation would rather war with one another, than realize that scientists, and mankind generally, have painted themselves into a corner with a failed paradigm that specifically denies the possibility of deliberate design of the Earth.
Harryd- there are those climate scientists who say simply that we do not know. — that there is a great amount of uncertainty and that climate science is only at the very beginning of its understanding.
I am quite sure Roy Spencer would believe in a deliberate design.
I am going to look into what you are saying.
The key issue is not temperature but whether or not snow in winter melts. All ice ages has this in common: suddenly, for some reason, the winter snow especially in North America, doesn’t melt at all and this continues for thousands and thousands of years until a very sudden and very hot spike in temperatures melt it all and begins a brief interglacial era.
So average temperatures don’t matter, it is how cold in summer it is in key regions mainly around Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes. Not even Europe matters, all ice ages begin, I suspect, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, basically.
+1
That is why the switch from a zonal to a meridional pattern of the jet stream matters. It follows the shape of the Laurentide Ice sheet.
EXACTLY. Looking at places that didn’t have this happen means missing the obvious. Sudden cold in this key area is of greatest importance. If somewhere else is warmer is meaningless.