PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="biffvernonStart learning (of course) at Wikipedia, which says
Quote:
Nasa's 2006 prediction. At 2010/2011, the sunspot count was expected to be at its maximum, but in reality in 2010 it was still at its minimum.

And then follow Easterbrook (a professor of geology so he knows all about AGW from the rocks):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/#more-41821

(Sorry for the WUWT link, but then people are citing sceptical science!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16306
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don Easterbrook? Don't make me laugh!
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16306
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like the geologist is not a historian of the European medieval.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RGR: yes, it's nice to see the historically founded Medieval Warming Period, and The Little Ice Age restored.

I was never sure why the CAGW brigade wanted rid of them. Without them the climate looks so rigidily stable and flat-lined for the last 1,000-2,000 years that the idea of it containing lurking positive feedbacks seems absurd. But it did give them the sensational 'hottest year EVER' headlines, all thanks to Michael Mann at the Hockey Team.

If you want to read how the science/statistics were bent to fit the wishes of climate 'science', (it's not science as I know it) and the views of dissenters supressed, this is a damn good read - at the 'whodunit' level:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/reviews

Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) will be another one of those scientists not approved by the CAGW brigade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7854
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Yeah, 'sunspots' are just a shorthand for solar irradience and the whole gamut of activity which formally couldn't be detected. Instruments can now measure the bright patches on the Sun and are a more direct measure than the optically visible Sunspots that were all we could see tears ago.


But the OP papers aren't relying on irradience. Variations in irradience only produce about 0.1 deg C difference over a solar cycle. It's the underlying magnetic effect which has a effect on the solar wind which reduces the earth's shielding against cosmic rays. More cosmic rays produce ions in the atmosphere, which cause cloud formation, which increases the earth's albedo, which reduces temperature by a lot more than 0.1 deg C.
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16306
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
lot more than 0.1 deg C.
What, like 0.3 degrees? Debating AGW is utterly non-constructive. The deniers will never change their position as a result of rationalism because that is not what brought them to their position.

Someone might succeed with non-rational argument but I'm not very good at that so I'll leave it to others. I know a bloke who is a god-believer who makes a good case for AGW within his own paradigm. It doesn't involve much science so may be a worthwhile enterprise under the circumstances.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RGR wrote:
Read the newest issue of Earth. They have a wonderful article in there about how some scientists advocate making scary claims to get attention for whatever they happen to be studying, on the groups that people won't pay attention to them if they actually tell the truth.

Amazing thing if they (the people advocating this idea) actually mean it. Would explain some things within the climate change debate though.

Do you have a link to the earth blog? Perhaps the 'scientist' who started all this was Stephen Schneider - -now, sadly missed.

Who knows, if he hadn't started the alarmist ball rolling we might have had a rational debate about the climate. However, it seems that logical thought on the climate is now entirely in the domain of the 'denier' camp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7854
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
However, it seems that logical thought on the climate is now entirely in the domain of the 'denier' camp.


I'm not a denier!
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3868
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
However, it seems that logical thought on the climate is now entirely in the domain of the 'denier' camp.


I'm not a denier!


Neither am I.

But I am healthily sceptical of the amount that the IPCC and some other organisations say we humans contribute to global warming of the planet. As much as certain people try to state, the consensus on AGW is far from settled.
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16306
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be logically impossible for a denier to deny being a denier.

(I think)
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3868
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
It would be logically impossible for a denier to deny being a denier.

(I think)


Hey Biff, I knew you would be the next to post. Wink But you were even faster than I expected. Smile I think you may be a bit confused again..... Twisted Evil
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neither am I, but then there are so many AGW grades these days - ranging from catastrophe merchant through warmists, lukewarmers, and skeptic to denier.

However, I do like the denier word - as a badge of honour. The ironic echo of 'holcaust denier' when the term's used by a bunch of AGW fascists!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 556

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To all those who think that climate scientists are in some way overstating things in order to get attention or research funding, you really need to take the time to see people working directly in the field speak about it, and if possible talk to them directly.

You'll quickly see that this is not them being alarmist for the sake of it: they are deeply worried about the trajectory that we are following.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 556

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pathetic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blue Peter



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 1853
Location: Milton Keynes

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
. . and where their next research grant is coming from.


But that applies to all scientists (and similar things for many other people). What is never explained is why climate scientists are uniquely evil in falsifying their work in response.


Peter.
_________________
Smile and wave boys, smile and wave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group