Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “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
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
Recent Comments
- 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
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
Solar minimum, within what will be classified as a strong La Nina and yet look at the temperature figures from GISTEMP, UAH, HadCRUT, RSS and NOAA. The globe is anonymously warm compared to previous decades.
Maybe the its-not-warming-its-cooling enthusiasts can remind me just when is the warming supposed to stop and the cooling to start?
La Nina normally gets reflected in Satellite temperatures around February.
Cthulhu says:
December 19, 2010 at 1:59 am
anonymously warm
What a laugh. Thanks for the comic relief.
The warming stopped 15 yrs ago – where have you been since then?
evidence:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.243696/plot/uah/from:1979/offset:-0.0854413/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.336136/plot/rss/from:1979/offset:-0.0989373
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/offset:-0.243696/plot/uah/from:1999/offset:-0.0854413/plot/gistemp/from:1999/offset:-0.336136/plot/rss/from:1999/offset:-0.0989373
You’ve cited GISS data. Try it with UAH or RSS, which are satellite datasets with no GISS-like extrapolations necessary. Trend is flat to declining over the period 1998-present.
Data here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Bruce, you done good, except…..notice his links. He cited all…..GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS…..only he picked the time line he preferred to see. For almost the last 15 years, we could go up and down the databases and see warming to flat to cooling trends depending upon what db and time periods we want to pick.
The funny part is, these dolts don’t realize when they say we are warming, the obvious question is, ‘since when’? These guys want to show us recent warming, so they do. But the answer is we’ve been warming since we started to come out of the last ice age. But we’ve been cooling since the last optimum. We get a snap shot in time of statistically meaningless weight. Only at the time we can start measuring such stuff and voila……massive alarm! Same people that are afraid of their own shadow every time the sun comes up.
Weather isn’t climate, but then a few years compared to a few millenium is the difference of night and day. They might as well say it was hotter today than yesterday. It holds the same meaning.
Don’t let it get to you, laugh at them.
lol, and they accuse skeptics of cherry picking. Sorry I won’t take the time to do the offsets of multiple databases, we’ll just do two, if for no other reason than to show that 2 can play the same game. One land temp, one sat.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
Uhmm, instead of going back 32 and 12 years, why not just go back 10 to see when it quit getting warmer? But you knew that already. But here is the funny part………
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.5/plot/rss/from:2001.5/trend
You girls are going to get to see this for a year, at least! When did the warming stop? There’s your answer.
Ctulhu, thank you for trying to convince with sound arguments and evidence. But there is little demand for that kind of things at this forum. We have our own evidence; we already know what is happening.
We know your evidence is fabricated, and that its sources are simply trying to tax-funded research funds with their AGW scare. A few honest scientists and the people have had enough and take this scam no more.
No amount of your evidence will ever convince us.
Very droll but I notice you still have not told me who peer reviewed Hansen’s adjutments.
The end is near!
Yes, well spotted.
Cthulu has started his graph in 1999. I wonder why he did not use 1998?
Perhaps it was because he would have got this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010
Cthulu obviously does not realise that we have had much practice in seeing through such statistical manipulation.
Steve, have you taken a position in the debate over the influence of solar activity on decade and multi-decade Earth temperature trends?
Latest NOAA graphs of solar activity (“predicted values” curve does not reflect the latest NASA forecast):
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
The current NASA forecast, 5 October 2010:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
There isn’t any question that long periods of low solar activity correlate well with extended periods of cold weather.
Yes, but there is no proven mechanism driving this relationship — and the correlation does not prove causation. The question is what we can expect in the near future, especially if Livingston and Penn are correct. Even more so if we get a series of powerful La Ninas.
There is no proven mechanism for gravity either.
Fabius Maximus says:
December 19, 2010 at 5:26 am
Yes, but there is no proven mechanism driving this relationship
You’ve been around Leif too much.
There isn’t any question that long periods of low solar activity correlate well with extended periods of cold weather.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8g00rYMaDs
OK, I’m done with here. Much of the information is interesting, but increasingly you mislead readers. As here, equating solar influence on decadal climate changes — and gravity. The former is a early-stage theory, a poorly-understood subject of current debate. Also there are posts mocking and misrepresenting legitimate research.
The results adds to the chaff flooding the Internet, a form of Gresham’s Law at work. Very sad considering the fine work that built your reputation.
Maybe it’s you that’s wrong Fabius?
By the way Fabius, do you understand how gravity works?
Too bad, Fabius, you could have been interesting. My interpretation is that the research that gets mocked deserves to be. I can’t speak to Steven’s disposition or motives, but the level of sophistication of some of this “research” is below standard. For example, if one is to assert something as wild as “cold is proof of warming”, then it needs to be shown, not as was stated, “this is consistent with the models”. Or maybe you’re referring to the research that asserts our polar bears are in peril? Even though no such evidence exists.
Fabious, its past time to demand better from our “researchers”. Heck, its past time the researchers started demanding better from the other researchers that represent their vocation.
You want to know why the overwhelming majority of the citizenry no longer believes the “climate disruption” meme? Because of the unbelievable and fantastic claims that went unchallenged by climate scientists.
The list is almost endless. Yes, this research needs to be dispatched to the trash heap. If alarmists and climatologists refuse to clean up this mess, well, for myself, and apparently Steven, there are more than enough people that are intent on shining the light of truth upon such nonsense.
You want an more dignified response? How about demanding a more dignified assertion?
Splendid riposte that, with Wiley E Coyote’s cousin’s prints all over it and oh so typical of I’m gonna take my bat & ball an’ go home! sniff
Perhaps a qwik’n’dirty search for the latest CERN data might help a bit too
In 30 words or less: Svensmark’s assertion that changes in cosmic radiation directly correlate cloud formation has been proven in line with his earlier cloud chamber experiments. END of STORY!
And the following won’t help your cause much either: ~
Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010) doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149
Copyright © 2010 SciRes.
Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/
On the Recovery from the Little Ice Age
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, USA; [email protected]
Received 28 July 2010; revised 30 August 2010; accepted 3 September 2010.
ABSTRACT
A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested, on the basis of a much longer period data, that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery.
The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important im-plications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested, on the basis of a much longer period data, that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its re-covery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and re-move them from the present global warm-ing/cooling trend.
It’s strange that there are educated people that say the sun has little effect on the climate because the numbers they are looking at don’t match what they see happening in climate. The earth is very, very small compared to the sun. Very little changes in the sun make for larger than little changes on earth. The earth is in the atmosphere of the sun. Changes in the atmosphere of the sun will make for changes in the earth. It is impossible to be otherwise. This demand made by some that every mechanism and coupling must be understood before it can be an intelligent thing to say that the sun has a significant effect on climate on earth is a bit puzzling.
I never understood it either. People supposedly looking for causes of what is making us warm, yet they’ve never looked at that fireball that makes us warm every day! Sheer lunacy! (heh)
data correlating well with climate
Nicola Scafetta, PART 1, on which solar data set to use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOvszg8PXc
Nicola Scafetta, PART 2, on which solar data set to use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0Bjxensd0
They have been looking for plausible reasons that anything other than CO2 would not be a leading cause of recent weather patterns. Evidence points to a variety of natural causes that drove historic weather patterns but to convince others that CO2 is the primary driver all other mechanisms need to be reduced in strength.
The premise was formed that humans activity is the leading cause of climate change in the late 50s or early 60s and the work has progressed along those lines since then even if new information has come along showing natural connections.
As with Mann’s Hockey stick, historic records need to be smoothed out to reduce past natural variations.
This is also supported by the current development of solar activity. Solar activity has passed the zenith of a nearly 200 years continuing phase of high activity and will decline in coming decades. Around the years 2040/2050, scientists expect a new so-called solar minimum, with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/18/how-germanys-weather-team-views-the-hottest-year-ever/#more-29647
“I think it is even conceivable that the Arctic ice spreads significantly in the years to come,” said Globig. The impact of solar activity on climate has been criminally underestimated for a long time.
From Benny Peiser web site, Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) :
Speculation Alert: “New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out”
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2053-speculation-alert-qnew-little-ice-age-cannot-be-ruled-outq.html
I thought La Nina (cold water) meant drought in California. That obviously isn’t working this year.
If these California rains had coincided with El Nino (warm water), the propaganda machine would be shrieking about global warming. Come to think of it, they’ll shriek global warming even if the water is cold!
Also worth noting this at Spaceweather.com, regarding the clarity of the stratoshpere.
“Keen explains why lunar eclipses can be used to probe the stratosphere: “At the distance of the Moon, most of the light refracted into the umbra (Earth’s shadow) passes through the stratosphere, which lies 10 to 30 miles above the ground. When the stratosphere is clear, the umbra (and therefore, the eclipsed Moon) is relatively bright. On the other hand, if the atmospheric lens that illuminates the Moon becomes dirty enough, light will be blocked and the eclipse will appear dark.”
This is timely and important because the state of the stratosphere affects climate; a clear stratosphere “lets the sunshine in” to warm the Earth below. At a 2008 SORCE conference Keen reported that “The lunar eclipse record indicates a clear stratosphere over the past decade, and that this has contributed about 0.2 degrees to recent warming.”
What will the eclipse 21st eclipse look like? “The stratosphere is still fairly clear, and the December 2010 eclipse should be normally bright,” predicts Keen. “I welcome any and all reports on the brightness of future lunar eclipses for use in my volcano-climate studies. While actual brightness measurements (in magnitudes) made near mid-totality are most useful, I can also make use of Danjon-scale ratings of the eclipse. Please be sure to note the time, method, and instruments used in your reports.” Submit your observations here.
Just imagine how cold it is going to get when a big volcano goes off.