WORLD IS COOLING NOT WARMING SAYS EXPERT

from News Weekly (National Civic Council)

http://newsweekly.com.au/articles/2009apr04_e.html

The Earth passed its global warming peak some years ago and is now in a 30-year cooling phase, a prominent American earth scientist, Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook, has concluded.

Professor Easterbrook's findings were published by the Center for Research on Globalization, an American research organisation based in California.

He said that despite the fact that there had been no overall warming of the Earth for the past 10 years - and some places had experienced record-breaking cold temperatures in 2007-8 - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modellers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming this century.

IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would seriously affect human life, the natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2.

pt1

pt2

Historical record

However, the historical record of alternate cooling and warming suggests a very different future.

Said Easterbrook: "Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5°C (1°F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090."

Professor Easterbrook said that climatic fluctuations over the past few hundred years showed regular alternate cycles of warming and cooling, each lasting about 30 years.

On the basis of ice core data, he said global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than those of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years.

"Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years," he said.

None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began.

Professor Easterbrook said that after several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range in the state of Washington, "My research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records.

In 1992, Dr Nathan Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations.

According to Easterbrook: "Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related. All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions, so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2."

Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 he projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century.

He said: "At that time, the projected curve indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2 - just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct."

He added, "Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC, but cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward.

"In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC."

Professor Easterbrook said that the consequences of climate cooling could be severe.

"The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far-reaching - e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it's already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change.

"All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about 9 billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling."

He concluded: "Global warming (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008 per cent) was not the cause of the warming - it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

"The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain.

"Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely."

- Peter Westmore (President, NCC)

Grendel wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 9:54am:

WORLD IS COOLING NOT WARMING SAYS EXPERT from News Weekly (National Civic Council) http://newsweekly.com.au/articles/2009apr04_e.html The Earth passed its global warming peak some years ago and is now in a 30-year cooling phase, a prominent American earth scientist, Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook, has concluded. Professor Easterbrook's findings were published by the Center for Research on Globalization, an American research organisation based in California. He said that despite the fact that there had been no overall warming of the Earth for the past 10 years - and some places had experienced record-breaking cold temperatures in 2007-8 - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modellers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would seriously affect human life, the natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. pt1

The only place don is prominent is here, do a google on him, this is the only site that don comes up on.

Grendel, it has been pointed out to you so many times before, that the skeptics analogous contention that GW will be like a heating oven, with each day/week/month/year?, hotter than the one before, is not, and never has been the contention of real scientists.
Of course the same factors which have caused weather fluctuations in the past, will not just disappear overnight, and so we will see cooling, and warming spikes, caused by other factors, but the warming trend, nonetheless goes on unabated.

It is good that real scientists keep questioning, but it is foolhardy for individuals to think that they alone have discovered the 'Truth', when it is contrary to the opinions of thousands of their peers.
That is just 'contrariness', and I know that you can relate to that grendel.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

---

Yep just like Columbus...  foolhardy...  scientists said he was going drop off the edge of the world.

there is no concensus and the IPCC modelling is flawed and scientists have been saying so since the first models and still are after the revised modelling...  there isn't even concensus on the cause of the warming period, that we seem to be out of now.

Seem to be out of???
Well seeing that I just went through the hottest hot spell I have ever experienced, and topped off with the hottest day ever in Melbourne, and the worst bushfires in the country's history, which are all just weather events, but it hardly inspires confidence that this lone scientist has got it right in his belief that we are now cooling.

The last arctic winter, was four degrees fahrenheit warmer than average, and just last week we saw the ice bridge linking to the wilkins shelf, collapse, for the first time in recorded history.

So while mild fluctuations linked to traditional el nino and la nina cycles, and the eleven year solar cycles, the vast consensus of respected scientists still consider global warming is continuing, despite the lonely voices of the few who determinedly attempt to try and confuse people with isolated weather reports.

It is not good enough to pretend that skeptics are just keeping an open mind, when they bloody mindedly ignore the studies of thousands of respected scientists, and latch onto individual voices that offer alternate theories, as being equally valid and important as the accumulated efforts of thousands of bona fide experts in the field.

Certainly when someone raises points, like easterbrook has, they should be examined, but they certainly are not noteworthy enough to invalidate everybody elses' work, which is how skeptics try and present it, which is both churlish, and childish.

I had to wear a sweater today. The Antarctic icebergs are closing in.

Now if you actually looked at your argument with unbiased eyes you'd see how biased and incorrect it is Mozz.

Suddenly daily variation is ok to use, suddenly bushfires many started by firebugs are part of the climate?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  

Actually Grendel, I supplied the graph, which shows that the cooling trend spoken of, is not supported by that data.

I then qualified that my statement, was only about the weather, I did not say it was a scientific analysis, just the fact that having just experienced the hottest hot spell ever recorded in melbourne, the hottest day ever recorded in melbourne, and the worst bushfires ever recorded in melbourne, I was not swamped by anecdotal evidence that we are, as contended by a very lonely voice, in a cooling period.

The fact remains, that it is pretty much accepted that only crackpots seriously challenge the facts about global warming, and nearly all scientists agree, all governments agree, and nearly all people agree.

But, it would be a dull old world without the lunatic fringe to supply us with new, and contradictory theories, because of their implacability.

So people who don't believe what you do... likw scientists I quote are crackpots and lunatics?

says a lot to me Mozz.

Lol
Censorship?

Funnily enough this article has already disappeared.

Sunday April 12, 2009
Beware the climate of conformity

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits, asks Paul Sheehan.

I suggest you buy and read "Heaven and Earth" Mozz.

Global warming and today was 5 degrees below average in Sydney.

I know, daily or seasonal fluctuations are common, but it could also be cooling rather than warming.

I would rather concentrate on pollution except CO2 rather than CO2 only.

Here's one of your 'respected scientists' at the European Geosciences Union's general assembly last month. It was good to see such an excellent turn out by climate skeptics for the 30 minute talk, which rambled on very creatively about other researchers' data  :P  

---

Hey muso..  read heaven and earth yet?
No?
How unusual.

The Geology don again?  ;D

The 'Appeal to Authority' gambit is wearing a bit thin, Grendel, especially since they are authorities on economic geology, astronomy and just about anything else except climate science.

Look - the most hotly contested data is the actual climate sensitivity, which is defined in terms of temperature rise for a doubling of CO2-e * concentration.

1.There is a clear relationship between CO2 concentration and warming, (I'd like to see you dispute that) and it's extremely easy to calculate using the forcing equation, which is a derivative of some pretty basic physics. Put different levels of CO2 in a tube and you can easily demonstrate how much it absorbs Infrared.  

2. The actual forcing due to CO2 is about 1 degree C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  

3. The climate sensitivity is generally taken to be about 3 degrees  C (plus or minus 1.5) including the 1 degrees C from the CO2 component.  The additional 2 degrees is due to feedbacks, which include things like increases in water vapour concentration, decreases in marine albedo due to melting sea ice and a few others.

4. The tropical rainforests are currently a sink for CO2. When global temperatures rise by a further 2 degrees C, they will start to become net emitters of CO2. By that stage, all the tree planting in the world won't help.

5. The climate sensitivity can be monitored using long term trends, either pre-industrial age or post industrial age. If we use post industrial age data, we need to account for thermal inertia in the oceans. The warming caused by the last 50 years will not be fully realised until 200 years hence.

I've tried to keep it non-technical. If you can grasp that basic science together with an appreciation of the Earth's carbon balance, you should be able to understand how it works. High School students seem to understand the science quite easily.


*CO2-e = (CO2 equivalents - includes other GHG's corrected for individual Global warming potential (GWP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Of course I'm wasting my time here. Why bother?

It was smacking ninety degrees outside.

It's not even summer yet.

I hate you.

Well some High school students understand it better than others.

If lack of sunspots is going to bring cooling instead of predicted warming, every man made degree extra will be a blessing.

If overdue ice age is coming, I doubt our 1 or even 5 degrees will amount to anything, might just slightly delay.

Happy wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 4:33pm:

If lack of sunspots is going to bring cooling instead of predicted warming, every man made degree extra will be a blessing. If overdue ice age is coming, I doubt our 1 or even 5 degrees will amount to anything, might just slightly delay.

Happy - a temperature difference of -6 degrees is all the difference between now and the peak of the last ice age.

The next Ice age could be several thousand years away. We're talking about 91 years until the end of the century.

A 2 degree C increase will change the tropical forests from net sinks to net emitters of CO2. A 2 degree C increase will kill the Great Barrier Reef and severely impact on staple cereal crops like rice, resulting in approximately a 30% loss in crop yield. We haven't see the impact of major world famines yet. We haven't seen the impact of the loss of seasonal melt water from the Himalayas either.

Do your homework. Sunspots increase solar irradiance.

We're not joking. This is for real.

Hi muso, welcome back.

CO2 is better then CO but the planet Earth can handle both.
Men(and women) are small in comparison to great unwashed Cosmos.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2009 at 8:25pm:

... Do your homework. Sunspots increase solar irradiance. ...

I am not in a position of making scientific studies on the subject myself.

All I do is look at the argument put by others who study the subject.
I would hate to see global warming and to see global cooling too.

I just have a reasonable doubt that right now we are heading toward global warming.

Ten years ago I would say definitely YES, today I say not sure, that’s all.

The political climate is changing - the only anthropogenic climate change.

Happy wrote on May 16^th, 2009 at 12:14pm:

I am not in a position of making scientific studies on the subject myself. All I do is look at the argument put by others who study the subject. I would hate to see global warming and to see global cooling too. I just have a reasonable doubt that right now we are heading toward global warming. Ten years ago I would say definitely YES, today I say not sure, that’s all.

The problem is that the arguments you are reading are not those advanced by people who study the subject.

To say that sunspots decrease solar activity is like saying that the Sun orbits the Earth. Do you understand that the Earth actually orbits the Sun, or is that too scientific for you? Would you prefer to just keep an open mind on it because you don't understand the maths of gravitational theory?

This is an all too frequently quoted cop-out - I don't understand the science so I'll keep an open mind.

The science is pretty basic stuff that can be understood by most intelligent teenagers (note - we don't currently have any of those on this forum that I'm aware of - so surprise me).

tallowood wrote on May 14^th, 2009 at 10:01pm:

Hi muso, welcome back. CO2 is better then CO but the planet Earth can handle both. Men(and women) are small in comparison to great unwashed Cosmos.

Tallow - yes yes - you hate the human race, and you think it's all going to end in 2012, and there is nothing that can be done about it, and you don't care anyway.

Believe it or not, I actually like people, even the middle of the road cud chewing variety, because they also have a role in producing thinking human beings, and we need thinking human beings right now.

Quote:

The problem is that the arguments you are reading are not those advanced by people who study the subject.

Al Gore....  rotflmao  :D :D :D

http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
Ice In The Greenhouse:
Earth May Be Cooling, Not Warming
Jens Bischof is author of Ice Drift, Ocean Circulation And Climate Change and is a research assistant professor in Old Dominion’s Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Climate facts to warm to

Quote:

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/ocean-cooling-falsifies-global-warming-hypothesis/

Quote:

A problem for the AGW hypothesis now, is that the oceans have been cooling.  Indeed there is no known mechanism to account for what some describe as vast amounts of missing heat, suggesting that contrary to the AGW hypothesis, heat is not accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer any radiative imbalance from all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. According to William DiPuccio, in a guest post at the blog ‘Climate Science’, this not only demonstrates that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.   Mr DiPuccio concludes “When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.”

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=121
Worry About Global Cooling - Not Warming
Dr. Tim Ball is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and Chairman of NRSP. He was one of the first climatology PhD's in Canada and taught and researched in the field as a professor at the University of Winnipeg for many years.


Quote:

Anyone with even a minimal understanding of science has a right to be at least skeptical about such pronouncements. After all, rapid climate change is known to have occurred many times in the past, long before humanity arrived on the scene. The evidence that the 20th century's modest warming is unusual and due to our release of CO2 is questionable at best. How can anyone seriously believe Environment Canada's confident assertions that CO2 rises drive global warming when ice cores show temperature rises before CO2, and the Earth cooled steadily between 1940 and 1980 as our CO2 emissions increased at the fastest rate in history? Environment Canada's approach is backwards for an even more important reason.

Even tho he's wrong I think it only fair that boofy post his cut and pastes from the 3% of scientists who disagree with global warming, its not fair that the 97% of scientists who believe the earth is warming have their studies published whilst the small number of skeptics do not.

Nice figure Squippo...  probably not even accurate.  Nor on topic.

Mind you if you have proof that global warming is primarily caused and driven by man-made CO2 emissions,  then you should be up for some sort of science prize...  because no one else has yet.

We all know climate warms and cools Squippy...  that aint the argument.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:

Nice figure Squippo...  probably not even accurate.  Nor on topic. Mind you if you have proof that global warming is primarily caused and driven by man-made CO2 emissions,  then you should be up for some sort of science prize...  because no one else has yet. We all know climate warms and cools Squippy...  that aint the argument.

Try and stay on topic puppy, like you and your climate deniers I have no proof either way, thats a scientists job, and as we know more than 90% of experts on the subject dissagree with you pup.

I'm not never have been a climate denier...  always believe in climate.

Read "Heaven and Earth" yet Squippo?
No?  How unusual for you.

You probably don't realise it but I'm staying exactly on topic.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 3:43pm:

I'm not never have been a climate denier...  always believe in climate. Read "Heaven and Earth" yet Squippo? No?  How unusual for you. You probably don't realise it but I'm staying exactly on topic.

There is no heavan pup, thats your first mistake.

DWMT Squippo...  educate yourself for a change.
You can't spell, haven't read the book, have no idea what it about and you managed to do that in one very short sentence,
Well done  :D

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 4:01pm:

DWMT Squippo...  educate yourself for a change. You can't spell, haven't read the book, have no idea what it about and you managed to do that in one very short sentence, Well done  :D

Wow, I cant spell, you don't have a spell checker either do you pup? I'll make sure I pick you up each time you make a mistake puppy.
This will be fun.
As for your other s hit, dwmt. you aren't up to it since your little nervous breakdown.

you bore me...

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 4:14pm:

you bore me...

The feeling is mutual .

Typical GA.

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 1:49pm:

tallowood wrote on May 14th, 2009 at 10:01pm: Hi muso, welcome back. CO2 is better then CO but the planet Earth can handle both. Men(and women) are small in comparison to great unwashed Cosmos. Tallow - yes yes - you hate the human race, and you think it's all going to end in 2012, and there is nothing that can be done about it, and you don't care anyway. Believe it or not, I actually like people, even the middle of the road cud chewing variety, because they also have a role in producing thinking human beings, and we need thinking human beings right now.

Hate or love takes to much of energy, by-product of which is CO2, which is may be not so bad for biomass grows but I am energy conservationist and say biomass to biomass, energy to energy and in that way you are correct I don't care but neither does the Environment.

wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 2:26pm:

Even tho he's wrong I think it only fair that boofy post his cut and pastes from the 3% of scientists who disagree with global warming, its not fair that the 97% of scientists who believe the earth is warming have their studies published whilst the small number of skeptics do not.

Mate, almost right. The figure is about 99.997%, and when it comes to climate scientists, almost 100%.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:

Nice figure Squippo...  probably not even accurate.  Nor on topic. Mind you if you have proof that global warming is primarily caused and driven by man-made CO2 emissions,  then you should be up for some sort of science prize...  because no one else has yet. We all know climate warms and cools Squippy...  that aint the argument.

Changes in global climate were primarily driven by changes in irradiance from the sun prior to the industrial age. The main causes were changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and changes in solar activity.

We understand these parameters pretty well nowadays, to the extent that we can measure solar irradiance directly and extrapolate it back through the ages.

Nobody can use the word 'proof' in a scientific pretext, especially non-scientists. To say that there is no proof is a bit like saying that there is no proof that we receive infrared radiation from the sun.

I have no proof that you exist. For all I know, you could be a computer virus, written by somebody who has way too much time on their hands.

In the same way that we have overwhelming evidence that we do get infrared radiation from the sun, we have overwhelming evidence that continuing to burn fossil fuels will result in a plethora of unwanted effects, including disastrous changes in ocean pH and global warming.

Now, are you saying that we don't have overwhelming evidence? Tell me more, without cutting and pasting nonsense.

wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 4:18pm:

Grendel wrote on May 18th, 2009 at 4:14pm: you bore me... The feeling is mutual .

OK, we all know that you love each other, now can we please stick to the subject?  ;)

Here's a review of "Heaven and Earth"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

I'm glad that somebody else had enough free time to actually buy and read the book.   ;D

It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.

Michael Ashley is professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW.


Another review:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"

Another review:

http://novakeo.com/?p=3931

I found others - too numerous to post. Some people enjoy tearing this nonsense apart. They probably need to get out more.

You know you shouldn't quote people who aren't climate scientists...  tsk tsk tsk.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thanks Muso, I'm glad I didn't wast my money.

Think I'll buy Jared Diamond's "Collapse" instead.

It doesn't take a climate scientist to recognise bullshit when he sees it.

Do you suppose that climate scientists are clamouring to give the book rave reviews? Anyway, the last review I linked to was from a paleoclimate specialist.

Well that's a point I've made with you ad nauseum but it has never stopped you from crying out the mantra ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Perhaps you should stop being a hypocrite.

I expect the book to be attacked by the climate industry just as it has been and people like you to be in denial of anything it has to say.

A paleoclimate specialist?  hmmm...  isn't that what Bob carter is...  another person you ridicule and ignore?

Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

Oh dear...  what a wicked web we weave eh Muso...

Oh dear someone else shares my opinion of your quoted review Muso...

PT 1

The Weekend Australian publishes a dismissive review of Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth which has all the usual alarmist ingredients, in the following order:

ad hominem attacks (despite claims to the contrary);

choosing one isolated fact and then trying to discredit it;

extrapolating ingredient 2 to the entire book;

ignoring the main arguments completely;

and hints at censorship.

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 8:28am:

Well that's a point I've made with you ad nauseum but it has never stopped you from crying out the mantra ad nauseum ad infinitum. Perhaps you should stop being a hypocrite. I expect the book to be attacked by the climate industry just as it has been and people like you to be in denial of anything it has to say.

The climate industry???? An astrophysicist and a paleoclimate specialist are hardly the climate industry.

By the way, you fail to recognise that cosmic rays and the orbital fluctuations of the Earth are well within the domain of an astrophysicist.

I've asked you this before, but since when did just about every scientific establishment on Earth become the 'Climate Industry' ?

Mate, if you wore your clothes like your arguments, you'd have body parts turning blue and dropping off at this time of the year.

pt2

http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael-ashley-reviews-ian.html

Mate the only climate deniers around here is you and your lot.

A bigger bunch of hypocrites and slaggers I've yet to meet.

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 8:32am:

A paleoclimate specialist?  hmmm...  isn't that what Bob carter is...  another person you ridicule and ignore? Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Oh dear...  what a wicked web we weave eh Muso...

No - Bob Carter has never published on paleoclimate. Paleontology is the study of fossils. Most of your friends should know what a fossil is, Grendel.

ROTFLMAO

Bob Carter contributes regular media (and other) comment and opinion on scientific issues which relate to his areas of knowledge. He also offers lecture or workshop presentations by arrangement. His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.

Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.

Bob's research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature.


papers listed here...

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm

published opinion pieces etc

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

Which one is about paleoclimate?

I'm sorry didn't you look close enough...  or does it have to have a specific title for you to understand?

Bob Carter Paleoclimate Scientist.... huh?????????????????

“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

If he's a paleoclimate scientist, what qualifications does he have in that field, and what publications has he made on paleoclimate?


I would suggest none.

(By the way, I know somebody who's a Rocket Scientist too, but that's a different nutter.)

- oh and I have this bridge for sale - really cheap......

hey buddy...  no need to go feral because you were caught out being a world class hypocrite.

Oh and there are publications listed on climate change and others that relate to it without directly mentioning the word.  Oh dear.

As usual all you deniers are capable of is ridicule and denial.  How unusual.

oh and one more time...

Dr. Robert M. Carter, Geologist and paleoclimate researcher, James Cook University

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 8:59am:

hey buddy...  no need to go feral because you were caught out being a world class hypocrite. Oh and there are publications listed on climate change and others that relate to it without directly mentioning the word.  Oh dear. As usual all you deniers are capable of is ridicule and denial.  How unusual.

Well, I guess when you can't answer a simple question like 'Where is his work on paleoclimatology if he's a Paleoclimate scientist?', then I guess you need to resort to insults and ad homs.

What's the problem anyway? If he's such a respected paleoclimate scientist, he must have published something on paleoclimate. It's not an unreasonable request.

Look I'll tell you what I'll do. I went to school with a leading paleoclimate specialist who researches at the University of Phoenix Arizona. He knows practically everything that has ever been published on paleoclimate.

If Bobby Carter has actually published anything on paleoclimate, my mate will be be able to dig it up.

Don't hold your breath.

I keep tossing in quotes you keep ignoring them...  what does that tell you?

Quote:

The conference terminated with a lunchtime plenary session. There, the third plenary speaker of the day was Dr Bob Carter, a geologist and palaeoclimate scientist from Queensland, Australia. Dr Carter mostly discussed climate policy matters. He compared the relative merits of the current policy of trying to “prevent global warming” by reductions of carbon dioxide emissions (Plan A), with the merits of adapting to climate change as and when it occurs (Plan B).

hell I even highlight stuff for you.

I've been introduced as all kinds of things when presenting papers.

Look - don't worry about it. I'll ask Marty.

You know I can quote other paleoclimate scientists/specialists which makes my point correct and yours just as hypocritical...   ;D

also...

Panel participants at the August 8 debate included skeptical Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre and Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers and is an outspoken dissenter of Gore and the UN IPCC's climate claims.

oh and one more time...

Quote:

Robert M. "Bob" Carter,is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland[1] and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia.[citation needed] He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181.[2][3]

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 9:38am:

You know I can quote other paleoclimate scientists/specialists which makes my point correct and yours just as hypocritical...   ;D also... Panel participants at the August 8 debate included skeptical Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre and Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers and is an outspoken dissenter of Gore and the UN IPCC's climate claims. oh and one more time... Quote: Robert M. "Bob" Carter,is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland[1] and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia.[citation needed] He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181.[2][3]

Blah - what's your source? Without a source, you're wasting your time, even if you haven't produced any paleoclimate research.  

By the way, I'm a dentist. I've never done anything with teeth, except eat food, but I'm an outspoken and respected dentist. My charges are reasonable. Would you like me to fix your teeth?

It doesn't matter anyway. I will give you a voluminous list of all his publications relating to paleoclimatology when I hear back tomorrow.

No no no....  you should be more correct...  you mean even though you couldn't be bothered to look properly and missed stuff.

Just because you don't know things doesn't mean they don't exist.

But now we all know you are a world class hypocrite.

Oh BTW the quote prev came from a well known "out the skeptics" site.  You surely must have read it before.  ::)

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:

No no no....  you should be more correct...  you mean even though you couldn't be bothered to look properly and missed stuff.

No paleoclimate research on the list you provided. Paleostratigraphy is not the same thing.


Quote:

Just because you don't know things doesn't mean they don't exist. But now we all know you are a world class hypocrite. Oh BTW the quote prev came from a well known "out the skeptics" site.  You surely must have read it before.  ::)

I restrict myself to scientific sources. A so called 'skeptic site' is generally aimed at a wider audience than scientific journals, which are intended for serious academic purposes.

You might as well quote something off You-Tube about setting off homemade rockets. It would be just about as relevant.

rotflmao

sure you do...

I've seen you quote stuff from these sites.

Carter has been outed on an "out the skeptics site"  thats your buddies...  more interested in ridiculing, slandering, libelling and slagging off at others than addressing the message.  they provided his background and credentials.

oh BTW how many times do I have to reproduce the same word for you to understand it?  
How many lists of papers and publications need I reproduce before you learn to read them properly?

For those interested in more than the miniscule non-core point Muso seems obsessed with.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

—Paul Johnson

On Bab Carter

- Apparently he hasn't published in any major journals that deal with paleoclimate. That's all I can get at this stage.

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 3:49pm:

For those interested in more than the miniscule non-core point Muso seems obsessed with. http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article? —Paul Johnson

There is absolutely no science in that statement. Which Paul Johnson would that be? The Evangelist?

muso wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 7:49am:

Grendel wrote on May 19th, 2009 at 3:49pm: For those interested in more than the miniscule non-core point Muso seems obsessed with. http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article? —Paul Johnson There is absolutely no science in that statement. Which Paul Johnson would that be? The Evangelist?

The world is flat brigade alive and well muso, don't
waste your time, some people just don't
have the brain capacity to see reality.

Oh so now you've moved the goalposts from papers to major journals eh Muso...  what's up...  found a paper after all eh.  ;D

Oh and BTW don't know who Johnson is...  don't care...  but his point is relevant.

You gonna be a hypocrite again and start with the MUST be a climate scientist to have a relevant opinion?  You already proved you don't stick by your own rules.

muso wrote on May 18^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

Do you understand that the Earth actually orbits the Sun, or is that too scientific for you? Would you prefer to just keep an open mind on it because you don't understand the maths of gravitational theory? This is an all too frequently quoted cop-out - I don't understand the science so I'll keep an open mind. The science is pretty basic stuff that can be understood by most intelligent teenagers (note - we don't currently have any of those on this forum that I'm aware of - so surprise me).

Without trying to "react" to tone of your post.

Just do some studies yourself (as I get the feeling that you are "some" kind of scientist) where do we get most of our heat from?

And what is going to happen to planet Earth if all of the sudden all Sun's energy would be blocked from reaching us?

Then stop and think for a while, what would happen if the Sun itself would reduce energy emission?

Thank you for considering my post.

Happy - sorry about the tone of my post, especially if you happen to be a teenager LOL. That snide remark was directed at somebody else, who probably enjoyed it.

Virtually all the energy that warms the Earth comes from the sun - that's a given. However the sun has been fairly constant in the last 50 years or so, yet we've noted some temperature increases. The atmosphere has the effect of trapping the heat, and the extent to which that happens depends on the concentration of Greenhouse gases.

I have degrees in Chemistry and Environmental Science, the later one being Environmental Science,  but I'm not very good at explaining things that are second nature to me as a result of my training, and I get frustrated sometimes when I try.  

So Muso how goes it...  moved the goalposts back yet...  your buddy come up with the goods yet?

Ready to apologise to Bob Carter yet?

BTW training isn't the same thing as indoctrination and I think as far as Climate change goes its been an indoctrination.

Oh and BTW...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/611/UN-IPCC-Scientist-No-convincing-scientific-arguments-to-support-claim-that-increases-in-greenhouse-gases-are-harmful-to-the-climate

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/488/NASA-Scientist-Declares-Climate-Dissent-Scientific-analysis-must-conclude-the-basic-theory-wrong

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:43pm:

Oh and BTW... http://www.climatedepot.com/a/611/UN-IPCC-Scientist-No-convincing-scientific-arguments-to-support-claim-that-increases-in-greenhouse-gases-are-harmful-to-the-climate http://www.climatedepot.com/a/488/NASA-Scientist-Declares-Climate-Dissent-Scientific-analysis-must-conclude-the-basic-theory-wrong

I don't have time to read all this crap. The second one was from a retired rocket scientist, who obviously has an agenda. It's sad when these eggheads end up scrambled in later life. It's even sadder that most school kids understand the basic concepts better than he does.

So what you're saying is that we should accept the occasional eccentric view rather than the bulk of published science?

hmmm.

muso wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:31am:

… So what you're saying is that we should accept the occasional eccentric view rather than the bulk of published science? hmmm.

Not exactly on subject, but fellows who brought up idea that bacteria can also be responsible for stomach ulcers, met with head on resistance from
muso wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:31am:

… the bulk of published science …

that no bacteria can survive stomach acid.

I am not saying that this is the case here, but I am open minded to suggestion.

That's a totally different matter. Some things you should keep an open mind on. Some things are so obviously concocted lies that they don't deserve a second glance.

You just have to dig a little bit below the surface to show that most so-called 'climate skeptics' don't even put forward an internally consistent case.

How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
None. It's too early to say if the light bulb needs changing.

I would rather concentrate on reduction of energy use due to finite character of some type of fuels.

I would also concentrate on poisonous side of some concoctions that have breakdown so slow to non-existent that we should take note and start to worry.

Despite that it is highly likely that we have bout of global warming, we should also spend time to think up some ways to survive global cooling.
(After all there in no worse thing than being caught with pants down).

Happy wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 3:23pm:

I would rather concentrate on reduction of energy use due to finite character of some type of fuels. I would also concentrate on poisonous side of some concoctions that have breakdown so slow to non-existent that we should take note and start to worry. Despite that it is highly likely that we have bout of global warming, we should also spend time to think up some ways to survive global cooling. (After all there in no worse thing than being caught with pants down).

Global Cooling is not about to take place within the next few thousand years. Maybe the next ice age may even be cancelled out by the effect of global warming,  but you're right in saying that we tend to concentrate on some things too much. We've dropped the ball on some issues.

Here are a couple of examples:

Swine Flu is one timely reminder of the sad state of preparation of the world for a global epidemic.  It could get much worse if it mutates.

We should be developing plant species to adapt to gradually increasing temperatures, but we're not. Virtually all the work being carried out is on increasing yields of existing crops, including increasing pest and disease resistance  

It seems that Earth climate is far more steady then environmentalists ideas but who knows may be in near future an unknown today factor will change today's opinions again. I hope we still will have popcorn no matter what opinions are.  ;)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html


Quote:

It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.

There are 8 fallacies cited in this article alone.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

The Science and Public Policy Institute ! (aka Robert Ferguson) has an undergraduate degree in history from Brigham Young University, and a master's degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University.

Wow! he must be an expert on climate.  ::)

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party.........

Pull the other one.

Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005

Wow  shooting messengers and ignoring messages again.

How unusual for a hypocrite such as yourself... who quotes others not recognised in climate science when it serves your purpose, but ridicules anyone elses use of such people.  ::)

Ah BTW if somebody was something that is a statement that they are not anymore.  As for relevance and proof...  you seem light on both there.  Oh and he is just one of many people at SPPI and he is the president ie NOT a researcher or policy advisor or creator there.  Funnily enough there are other people better "qualified" for that.  Gee lying by omission...  how unusual for you.

I doubt Al Gore has any qualifications re climate or science...  yet he has been the most influential advocate for your cause.

Refute the arguments or don't waste our time.

I note; SPPI has no affiliation with those corps mentioned by you and are in fact just what they present themselves to be.

Quote:

Wow  shooting messengers and ignoring messages again.

We have discussed this point on many occasions Grendel, and it always come back to the same basic answer.

It is not about "shooting the messenger", it is about identifying 'spoilers', or in other words, those whose aim it is to promote confusion, and disseminate misinformation to promote confusion.

Real skeptics, who offer scientific theories for consideration, and put their theories and data up for peer review, do not fall into that category, because they are offering up their views in an appropriate, and professional manner, and they are seeking to add to the knowledge already compiled on this subject.

Those who offer no data or theories to be peer reviewed, but merely promote wild, and usually contradictory 'stories' deserve to be identified as mere spoilers, whose credentials deserve to be brought into question.

It is a pretty simple, yet important distinction to make.

I'm sorry, what a pitiful attempt at a defence.

Your definition of a spoiler... is anyone who disagrees with you.

Hate to break it to you but lots of people dissent and your concensus is hanging around your ankles with the credibility of the modelling.

The wheels dear Mozza are falling off the climate catastrophe wagon.  Be prepared for an even bumpier ride.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

Wow  shooting messengers and ignoring messages again. How unusual for a hypocrite such as yourself... who quotes others not recognised in climate science when it serves your purpose, but ridicules anyone elses use of such people.  ::)

Hey - It doesn't take a climatologist to check a guy's qualifications.

For an argument that is built on the dishonest debating technique of 'Appeal to Authority', the defense requires a demonstration that the so called authority is not really an authority at all, but is basically blowing it out of his posterior.

Ever see the Wizard of Oz?

Do you recall the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the all-powerful and all knowing Oz was really a charlatan. When Dorothy's dog Toto pulled back the curtain, they found out that Oz was just a little old man speaking in a microphone  

It went something like:

""I am the great and powerful paleoclimatology researcher and Rocket Scientist....Don't look behind the curtain!....eeek!"

or something like that.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

Oh and he is just one of many (Translation many = 7) people at SPPI and he is the president ie NOT a researcher or policy advisor or creator there.

Oh the SPPI has researchers? Tell me more? What research papers have they written on climatology?

resorting to ridicule again...

honestly you are a world class hypocrite.

you set the rules.  you failed to stick to them.

BTW do you think you have to be a pig farmer to know what a pig is?

I suggest you pull your head in before someone mistakes you for a turtle.

Oh btw did you find out anything yet or have you just done the right thing and apologised to Bob Carter?

Of course not...  

Meanwhile we sit and watch as you do what you accuse others of.
Total hypocrite that you are.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 2:59pm:

resorting to ridicule again... honestly you are a world class hypocrite. you set the rules.  you failed to stick to them. BTW do you think you have to be a pig farmer to know what a pig is? I suggest you pill your head in before someone mistakes you for a turtle.

Not a problem. You didn't see the need to correct the original observation that  Robert Ferguson has an undergraduate degree in history from Brigham Young University, and a master's degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University.

No climatology qualifications. Please feel to correct me if you think I missed something.

Should I tell you about his 6 cohorts too?

This thread is very funny, apparently you don't need to have any knowledge on climate change to make comment on it.
;D

Seems to me his experience and qualifications are pretty good for a president of an organisation.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

over 31,000 signatures from the US alone.

Here's one his cohorts:

William Kininmonth is an Australian climate change skeptic. His only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth.

In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! It's difficult to find good help these days.

Yes, this thread is quite hilarious Skippy.

Running to cheersquad bozos like skippy is hardly doing you any good.
he doesn't even read whats written and when he infrequently does its only one side of the argument.

So BOB CARTER...  address the person not some other person.

sheesh...  basic debating skills go right out the window with you eh hypocrite.

Al Gore Mr credibility for you...  eh?  Whats' that j-curve boy.  How many mistakes in an Inconvenient lie?

William Kininmonth is an Australian meteorologist noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes on the topic of climate change. He believes that the warming trend of the recent century is not unusual, and he is critical of the simple model of climate systems represented by the IPCC. While Kininmonth believes that anthropogenic sources may make a small contribution to global warming, he believes the natural variability far exceeds that contribution, and this poses serious hazards for human kind.

Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998[citation needed], with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992).

Well keep it coming your omissions and hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 3:11pm:

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php over 31,000 signatures from the US alone.

Been there done that. You have a short memory, Grendel.  I can't be bothered searching through the posts. Don't you remember the guy with the disclaimer on his website? Quite a few of the small number of climatologists on that list are sueing for defamation.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 3:19pm:

Running to cheersquad bozos like skippy is hardly doing you any good. he doesn't even read whats written and when he infrequently does its only one side of the argument. So BOB CARTER...  address the person not some other person. sheesh...  basic debating skills go right out the window with you eh hypocrite. Al Gore Mr credibility for you...  eh?  Whats' that j-curve boy.  How many mistakes in an Inconvenient lie?

Grendel - once again - learn the basics. They are not that difficult. Standard high school stuff.  Come back when you understand what a ludicrous statement this is :

"Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere."

yeah yeah  so you say I guess the other 30,000 aren't eh.

ROTFLMAO

just how thick are you?

Every argument you toss up i throw back in your face.

You say someone without any qualifications makes a dumb or wrong statement.  gee really.  I toss dumbo unqualified Gore (who is waaaaay less qualified than Kinnimonth actually)  back at you for making many statements all of which can be sourced and contextualised and you pretend I never did it.

ROTFLMAO at your ignorance and hypocrisy.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 2:40pm:

I'm sorry, what a pitiful attempt at a defence. Your definition of a spoiler... is anyone who disagrees with you. Hate to break it to you but lots of people dissent and your concensus is hanging around your ankles with the credibility of the modelling. The wheels dear Mozza are falling off the climate catastrophe wagon.  Be prepared for an even bumpier ride.

You are losing the plot (as well as the argument) Grendel.

I defined what I consider spoilers to be, and it has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with them, it is whether they are real scientists, providing real data, for real consideration, and review, or whether they are just politically, or financially, motivated schills, spruiking a line of bull, to promote misinformation, and who seek to promote confusion with that misinformation.

The real scientists, who I may disagree with, are not spoilers, hence your definition of a spoiler, as merely someone I disagree with, would be completely inaccurate.

No wonder you are afraid to provide your own definitions of what you believe in, if that is the level of understanding you are displaying.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 3:29pm:

ROTFLMAO just how thick are you? Every argument you toss up i throw back in your face. You say someone without any qualifications makes a dumb or wrong statement.  gee really.  I toss dumbo unqualified Gore (who is waaaaay less qualified than Kinnimonth actually)  back at you for making many statements all of which can be sourced and contextualised and you pretend I never did it. ROTFLMAO at your ignorance and hypocrisy.

Gore is basically a communicator. He is quoting from the research conducted by others in full consulation with them.

Oh I almost forgot...  does it ever cross your mind that peopel involved in the IPCC reports have also disagreed with how their research was represented and withdrew or asked to be left iff the report due to misrepresentation of their work and position?

I guess not...  just another thing you ignore.

Oh right those film-makers are really all research scientists.
(BTW Gore read a script)

Your rules state that no-one who is not a climate scientist is allowed to make comments.  Oh hypocrite.

Gore has been your best weapon at propaganda delivery and scaremongering and he's making a motza out of it...  just another point you ignore and are totally hypocritical about.

hey muso...  chk chk Boom...

you've got nothing.

Oh wait...  b4 I forget

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/611/UN-IPCC-Scientist-No-convincing-scientific-arguments-to-support-claim-that-increases-in-greenhouse-gases-are-harmful-to-the-climate

I have reluctantly concluded, after detailed study of the evidence presented by the IPCC, that there are no convincing scientific arguments to support the claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate. [...]

The IPCC “central/benchmark projections” are based on a combination pf ridiculously oversimplified models and unrealistic futures scenarios. The projections themselves conflict with the current fall in global temperatures, the absence of any warming in New Zealand, and the lack of local evidence of sea level change. [...]

more dissent from people involved with the IPCC

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

So, I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.

and...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 3:19pm:

Running to cheersquad bozos like skippy is hardly doing you any good. he doesn't even read whats written and when he infrequently does its only one side of the argument. So BOB CARTER...  address the person not some other person. sheesh...  basic debating skills go right out the window with you eh hypocrite. Al Gore Mr credibility for you...  eh?  Whats' that j-curve boy.  How many mistakes in an Inconvenient lie?

On the contrary, I read most posts, I skim over the obvious right whinge loony posts, like what you write, but still find a need to  correct your mistakes. ::)

Now where were we?
Oh yes...

more dissent from people involved with the IPCC

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

So, I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.

and...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

A true scientist in government? Quelle scandale! Mon dieu! Are the French about to lead Europe into a second Enlightenment and a new age of reason?
Climate Depot reports:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy appears ready to appoint renowned geophysicist and former socialist party leader Dr. Claude Allegre – France’s most outspoken global warming sceptic – to head the new super-ministry of industry and innovation.

Ze rest is 'ere, at Ze Spectateur:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3649281/a-true-scientist-in-government-quelle-scandale.thtml

Can we have some actual scientific argument instead of the 'Appeal to Authority' gambit, because it gets boring refuting it all the time.

The trap is that the only counter to 'Appeal to Authority' is to demonstrate that the authority is not an authority.

Even if that's true, which it usually is, it leads to claims of hypocrisy.

Just so that everybody is aware - a claim about climatology requires qualifications in climatology.

A claim about a person's qualifications can be verified by just about anybody - no specialist knowledge required. A secretary can do it.

Muso, is it true that there have been ice ages (significantly cooler climate) in the past with greater levels of atmospheric CO2 then at present?

Soren wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 9:58am:

Muso, is it true that there have been ice ages (significantly cooler climate) in the past with greater levels of atmospheric CO2 then at present?

Read my posts in the other thread about the Ordovician glaciation.

muso wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

Can we have some actual scientific argument instead of the 'Appeal to Authority' gambit, because it gets boring refuting it all the time. The trap is that the only counter to 'Appeal to Authority' is to demonstrate that the authority is not an authority. Even if that's true, which it usually is, it leads to claims of hypocrisy. Just so that everybody is aware - a claim about climatology requires qualifications in climatology. A claim about a person's qualifications can be verified by just about anybody - no specialist knowledge required. A secretary can do it.

Can we design a repeatable experiments to test various environmental hypothesis? "It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false". If we cannot design such an experiment, an environmental hypothesis is not scientific.

Yeah, I did. A classic snow job.


"... here's quite an old paper that may have some answers"  Or it may not, as it happens. It's the kind of wild assumming that woudl say things like "if Auntie Mary had a willy she'd be Uncle Bob"



Quote:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PalOc..14..542P The analysis of the geologic record [i]has revealed a question concerning how the Late Ordovician glaciation could have occurred simultaneously with high CO2 levels (10-18x). Sensitivity studies using a coupled atmosphere-ocean-sea ice model show that it is possible to maintain a permanent snow cover (which corresponds to 60% of all the glacial deposits found on Gondwana) under 10x CO2 levels, warm fall/cool spring orbital parameters, a 4.5% reduction in solar luminosity, a length of day of 21.5 hours, and an enhanced snow/sea ice albedo of 0.3. A cold summer orbit experiment with 10x CO2 and a reduced snow/sea ice albedo of 0.1 also sustains a permanent (albeit less extensive) snow cover. The geographic configuration of the Late Ordovician results in an up to ~42% increase in the global ocean poleward heat transport in the Southern Hemisphere relative to present-day and a significant asymmetry relative to the equator[/i].

It is not even as straightforward as the Auntie/ Uncle hypothesis. All it actually says is that the question arises whether Auntie Mary, in case she had a willy, could be taken for Uncle Bob with a long white beard, considering that experiments with dummies along these lines showed the possibility of mistaking one for the other from a long way away.

Welcome to scientific research, Soren.  We can't say too much for certain about a glaciation that happened 433 Million years ago, just as we can't say for certain what 'absolutely definitely' caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

This explanation makes a great deal of sense though. Ever wonder why there was so much more ice cover in the Antarctic nowadays? Land masses have that effect.

So I see your desperate clutch at straws and I'll raise you my intelligent guess based on the best data we have available.

Incidentally your highlighting indicates that you don't understand the flow of the abstract. It starts off with the questions and doubts, then shows how the study addresses them.  

tallowood wrote on Jun 1^st, 2009 at 8:25pm:

Can we design a repeatable experiments to test various environmental hypothesis? "It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false". If we cannot design such an experiment, an environmental hypothesis is not scientific.

OK Karl Popper  :P
Yes - the claim that the increased increased tropospheric warming is largely due to the increased CO2 concentration is testable.

The reasonable test is that the stratosphere should show a corresponding cooling for that period.

If the observed tropospheric warming is due to increased solar output, then that should show an increase in stratospheric temperatures and an increase in solar irradiance.  

That's a reasonable test to apply.

We already know how much cooling is caused by CFC's and other ozone depletants.

Quote:

From ABC, 1 Jun 09 RED CENTRE SHIVERS IN RECORD COLD Alice Springs has had its coldest May day on record, with the temperature reaching just 9.6 degrees Celsius on Saturday. After a balmy 29.6 degrees Celsius the previous Sunday, winter came two days early to the Red Centre. Jenny Farlow from the weather bureau says Saturday was the coldest May day ever recorded in Alice Springs. And it was only slightly warmer yesterday, reaching 10.8C. "It was actually really interesting because the minimums were very close to the maximums," she said. The cooler temperatures and steady rain caused havoc for some sporting events, including the weekend's horse racing. "They just deemed it unsafe to run so unfortunately we had to call the meeting off," the turf club's general manager, Matthew Champ, said. The operations manager at the Alice Springs airport, Simon Hatfield, says there was no disruption to scheduled flights but it had to postpone a runway upgrade last night.

I know one event doesn't make climate change, but seems that those events of record cold temperatures are recorded more often in last few years.

One of the models for global warming mentioned that while icecap are melting we can expect temporary drop in average and extreme temperatures, so this could also be confirmation of warming.

Well, time will tell.

I'll say this, Happy. Watch this space. I see that they are forecasting an El Nino by the end of the year.

2010 might be just a tad hotter than normal, especially if the Sunspot cycle catches up by then.

An El Nino....  OMG are you saying man-made CO2 drives that now.  ::)

:D :D :D

OMG weather and climate confusion
OMG solar activity

What is the world coming to?

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 12:08pm:

...  I see that they are forecasting an El Nino by the end of the year. 2010 might be just a tad hotter than normal, especially if the Sunspot cycle catches up by then.

I watched few days ago program that proved Indian Ocean to affect our rainfall not Pacific Ocean.

If I could have it my way. Pipelines with water from the north would be heading south.

By the way great recession buster opportunity, also desalination plants in every coastal city.
(After all if icecaps are melting we have dilution of salinity, so we could only help here concentrating salinity a bit)

Happy wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 12:25pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 12:08pm: ...  I see that they are forecasting an El Nino by the end of the year. 2010 might be just a tad hotter than normal, especially if the Sunspot cycle catches up by then. I watched few days ago program that proved Indian Ocean to affect our rainfall not Pacific Ocean. If I could have it my way. Pipelines with water from the north would be heading south. By the way great recession buster opportunity, also desalination plants in every coastal city. (After all if icecaps are melting we have dilution of salinity, so we could only help here concentrating salinity a bit)

I saw that show Happy, I think it was Catalyst, it was very interesting as it did show our climate here depends largely on the Indian Ocean not the Pacific.

Grendel wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 12:18pm:

An El Nino....  OMG are you saying man-made CO2 drives that now.  ::) :D :D :D OMG weather and climate confusion OMG solar activity What is the world coming to?

Grendel - do us all a favour and learn the basics. I already gave you a good link on climate with lots of pretty pictures.

The solar cycle has a small but discernable cyclical effect on solar irradiance.  We're currently at Solar minimum, and the latest work shows that the next peak will be around 2013.

http://www.physorg.com/news163083874.html

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

Here you can see the effects of the Solar cycle on Solar irradiance. Look at the bottom 3 graphs.


http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_62_0904.png

You can see the regular changes amounting to about 2Wm-2. That's about 0.14% fluctuation, which is hardly substantial.

Incidentally, do you see how little the output of the sun has changed since 1978?

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 9:25am:

tallowood wrote on Jun 1st, 2009 at 8:25pm: Can we design a repeatable experiments to test various environmental hypothesis? "It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false". If we cannot design such an experiment, an environmental hypothesis is not scientific. OK Karl Popper  :P Yes - the claim that the increased increased tropospheric warming is largely due to the increased CO2 concentration is testable. The reasonable test is that the stratosphere should show a corresponding cooling for that period. If the observed tropospheric warming is due to increased solar output, then that should show an increase in stratospheric temperatures and an increase in solar irradiance.   That's a reasonable test to apply. We already know how much cooling is caused by CFC's and other ozone depletants.

But is the experiment repeatable?

Muso, I don't disagree with you, just try not to use word scientific as final argument.

ROTFLMAO

keep telling yourself that everyone is dumber than you if it makes you happy Muso.
(Obviously some personal issue there)

I know the basics thanks.

I was just laughing at your hypocrisy etc, etc, etc...

tallowood wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 7:54pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 9:25am: tallowood wrote on Jun 1st, 2009 at 8:25pm: Can we design a repeatable experiments to test various environmental hypothesis? "It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false". If we cannot design such an experiment, an environmental hypothesis is not scientific. OK Karl Popper  :P Yes - the claim that the increased increased tropospheric warming is largely due to the increased CO2 concentration is testable. The reasonable test is that the stratosphere should show a corresponding cooling for that period. If the observed tropospheric warming is due to increased solar output, then that should show an increase in stratospheric temperatures and an increase in solar irradiance.   That's a reasonable test to apply. We already know how much cooling is caused by CFC's and other ozone depletants. But is the experiment repeatable? Muso, I don't disagree with you, just try not to use word scientific as final argument.

Yes,

It's repeatable again and again. We can keep monitoring the rise of tropospheric temperatures and the drop in stratospheric temperatures until the cows come home!

Grendel wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 7:58pm:

ROTFLMAO keep telling yourself that everyone is dumber than you if it makes you happy Muso. (Obviously some personal issue there) I know the basics thanks. I was just laughing at your hypocrisy etc, etc, etc...

If you knew the basics you would realise that if we liken global warming to a car driving up a hill,  then solar cycle influences would be like driving up the hill on a bumpy (corrugated) road.

And Grendel, I don't think that everybody is dumber than me. On this subject, I am perhaps privy to more information by virtue of my profession, but that doesn't make me more intelligent.

Here's an inconvenient truth for "An Inconvenient Truth": Remember what they used to call "climate change"? "Global warming." And what did they call it before that? "Global cooling." That was the big worry in the '70s: the forthcoming ice age. Back then, Lowell Ponte had a huge best seller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

The answer to the first question was: Yes, it had begun. From 1940 to 1970, there was very slight global cooling. That's why the doom-mongers decided the big bucks were in the new-ice-age blockbusters.

And yet, amazingly, we've survived. Why? Because in 1970 the planet stopped its very slight global cooling and began to undergo very slight global warming. So in the '80s, the doom-mongers cast off their thermal underwear, climbed into the leopardskin thongs, slathered themselves in sun cream and wired their publishers to change all references to "cooling" to "warming" for the paperback edition. That's why, if you notice, the global-warming crowd begin their scare statistics with "since 1970," an unlikely Year Zero which would not otherwise merit the significance the eco-crowd invest in it.

But then in 1998 the planet stopped its very slight global warming and began to resume very slight global cooling. And this time the doom-mongers said, "Look, do we really want to rewrite the bumper stickers every 30 years? Let's just call it 'climate change.' That pretty much covers it."

Why did the Earth cool between 1940 and 1970?
Beats me. Hitler? Hiroshima? Maybe we need to nuke someone every couple of decades.

Mark Steyn

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 9:48am:

Why did the Earth cool between 1940 and 1970? Beats me. Hitler? Hiroshima? Maybe we need to nuke someone every couple of decades.

Try changes in solar irradiance. Let the records speak for themselves. Spot the furfie time folks.

---

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html


Quote:

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit. Which is this: Global warming is a hoax. He has testified about this to the U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out. "I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby-boomer, yuppie thing."

Oops almost forgot...  temperatures have been trending down since the high in 1998.

Undeniable.
Indisputable.

Wrong again boofster.






"This argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate. Climate is generally defined as the weather conditions averaged over a long period, usually around 30 years. One can not discern a trend in climate change by looking at small numbers of years, much less a single one. On top of that, this fallacious objection is using global temperatures in a single month, not even an entire year!  The particular Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2008 drop used for this argument is indeed large, but it is by no means the only place you could pick to draw a steep line, either up or down. Look at the huge leap up from month 219 to month 231 or the sudden drop from month 152 to month 164 (I am only using intervals of 12 months to avoid seasonal bias). This is very noisy data and those dramatic fluctuations turned out to be just that: noise.

Discerning a trend from noisy data is one of the most basic processes in scientific research, so even though this argument has a naive appeal to the majority of us with no statistical training, you can be sure that any scientifically trained individual trying to make a case for cooling out of this graph is not being intellectually honest. Please consider any source of this argument as very unreliable, either by being very uninformed about basic scientific processes, or very dishonest, hoping to take advantage of less informed people."
www.grist.org/article/temperatures-plummeted

So is boof unreliable,uninformed about BASIC SCIENTIFIC PROCESS,or just VERY DISHONEST?

Dont talk to me if you don't want a reply odious one.

Oh and seeing you fauked to understand even the one sentence I wrote i suggest you get someone with at least  2nd class education to explain it to you  :D

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:

Dont talk to me if you don't want a reply odious one.

I'm not talking to you , I'm showing everybody else just how unreliable you are.

No...
you are showing them how ignorant and stupid and obsessive...  you are.

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 4:05pm:

No... you are showing them how ignorant and stupid and obsessive...  you are.

Now you are just acting like the spoilt little brat you are.
I've made a post that shows what you say to be WRONG, you don't like it so you bitch and flame and troll, just give up, you aren't up to it sweetcheeks.

Probably most appropriate action would be to prepare our economy to withstand global cooling and warming and overpopulation as well as exhaustion of resources.

In the end its all about adaptation happy, something I've been pushing since day 1.

I would rather like to see human race be prepared to what future can offer us rather than adapt to what happened after the event.

In the end changes have to be made either way, and it can be argued that preparation for all possible scenarios can tie up enormous resources with knowledge that only some will be utilised.

But overpopulation is one of bigger items in my opinion irrespectively of anything else.

Preparation is part of adaptation.

You wouldn't go to either pole in your swimmers now would you?

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 10:06pm:

Preparation is part of adaptation. You wouldn't go to either pole in your swimmers now would you?

Not yet, too cold

I don't think you'll need 'em for quite a while...  if ever.

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2009 at 3:24pm:

Oops almost forgot...  temperatures have been trending down since the high in 1998. Undeniable. Indisputable.

- and you can actually write nonsense like that with the graph showing the data 2 posts above? You could have at least waited a few weeks until people had forgotten about what the global temperatures have done since 1998.

Of course you could select a dataset such as hadcm3, and that's the one of the few datasets that shows a drop in temperature over that period,  because it omits a large portion of the near polar latitudes. The Brits obviously don't have the same resources as the Yanks.

---

No I actually look at an up to date graph of yearly global temps and notice that indeed since 1998 with the exception of 1 year temperatures have been and continue to go down...

I can't believe your dishonesty Muso.
(and I'm sure you or anyone who can read graphs knows exactly what I mean)

Here i was thinking you were rabidly and fanatically misguided...  until now.

That Seattle Times article has one memorable paragraph in it:

The skeptics' view, and it's so true.

When you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth.

It is a planet where global warming isn't happening — or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

The only thing they got wrong is that you need not one, but several parallel earths to accomodate the different views.

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 3:24pm:

No I actually look at an up to date graph of yearly global temps and notice that indeed since 1998 with the exception of 1 year temperatures have been and continue to go down... I can't believe your dishonesty Muso. (and I'm sure you or anyone who can read graphs knows exactly what I mean) Here i was thinking you were rabidly and fanatically misguided...  until now.

OK - Which dataset are you looking at?

Grendel, one of these days it might just click that you've been conned. Then again, I doubt if you'll ever 'get it'.

oh dear...  the one you just posted...

You do have problems...  don't "transfer" ok

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 3:50pm:

oh dear...  the one you just posted... You do have problems...  don't "transfer" ok

Grendel,

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or what, but the graph I just posted showed all available datasets.


These include ukmo_hadgem1, ukmo_hadcm3, ncar_pcm1, ncar_ccsm3_0 and 19 other datasets from around the world. THe yellow line represents an average of all the datasets.

Not to state the obvious too er obviously, but the yellow line is increasing with time. That means a warming trend.

If there is something I'm missing, let me know.

ROTFLMAO

Is there something you are missing?  

Only the nose on the front of your face.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Puhlease don't kid me that you are that dumb, just be honest.

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 7:06pm:

ROTFLMAO Is there something you are missing?   Only the nose on the front of your face. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Puhlease don't kid me that you are that dumb, just be honest.

ok -now you be honest. Actually look at the graph on my reply 141 this time and tell me if the yellow line is going up or down since 1998.

Freeman Dyson Takes On the Climate Establishment (naughty, naughty man. Ed.)

Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has been roundly criticized for insisting global warming is not an urgent problem, with many climate scientists dismissing him as woefully ill-informed. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Dyson explains his iconoclastic views and why he believes they have stirred such controversy.
by michael d. lemonick

On March 3, The New York Times Magazine created a major flap in the climate-change community by running a cover story on the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson that focused largely on his views of human-induced global warming.

Basically, he doesn’t buy it.

....


Many climate scientists were especially distressed that the Times gave his views such prominence. Even worse, when the profile’s author, Nicholas Dawidoff, was asked on NPR’s “On The Media” whether it mattered if Dyson was right or wrong in his views, Dawidoff answered, “Oh, absolutely not. I don’t care what he thinks. I have no investment in what he thinks. I’m just interested in how he thinks and the depth and the singularity of his point of view.”

This is, to put it bluntly, bizarre.



Continue reading a Yale Environment 360 where you can also hear the interview  http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

rotflmao

I can read graphs apparently you cant.

Honestly do you think anyone with even 1/2 a brain is gonna fall for the yellow line con you are trying to pull.

How dumb do you think everyone is?

Your line slopes up from left to right, from the origin point to the end point.
Draw one now from 1998 to the end point which way does it slope?  :D

Now as I asked before...  fess up, be honest.

And I haven't even mentioned the "Simulated Temperatures"  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dpuhlease lets just stick with the real stuff eh.  ::)

... and the rationale? or is this just another appeal to authority without an actual argument again?

Well if that's what it has sunk to, I see your Freeman Dyson and I raise you James Lovelock,  Raymond Pierrehumbert, Stephen Schneider, Kevin E. Trenberth and Peter Rayner.

All of the above authorities are climatologists, and they are all published climatologists with real arguments - not just "I don't buy it".

If you want to study Climatology in Australia, Monash University have a very good Atmospheric Science programme.


http://www.arts.monash.edu/ges/research/climate/index.php

Soren - Did you think the thick yellow line was going downwards since 1998 too?

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:

rotflmao I can read graphs apparently you cant. Honestly do you think anyone with even 1/2 a brain is gonna fall for the yellow line con you are trying to pull. How dumb do you think everyone is? Your line slopes up from left to right, from the origin point to the end point. Draw one now from 1998 to the end point which way does it slope?  :D Now as I asked before...  fess up, be honest. And I haven't even mentioned the "Simulated Temperatures"  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dpuhlease lets just stick with the real stuff eh.  ::)

Good. I have your attention and you're starting to think instead of blindly cutting and pasting - Now please provide a graph that illustrates your point, Grendel, and quote the dataset this time.

You can't use annual means for the simple reason that there is too much variability at the one year timescale. You need to use at least 4 year means. In the first graph, use the red line, which uses 5 year means.

We're talking about climate here, not annual variation.

muso wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:21pm:

Soren - Did you think the thick yellow line was going downwards since 1998 too?

Which way yellow lines go does not excite me. I have no argument about temperature changes in certain parts of the globe, over the whole globe or what have you. Happens all the time is my my guess. I just don't but the antropomorphic climate change baloney.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242713385/102#102


And all the Bob Brown and Al Gore of this world care only about the antropomorphic bit. It is a political argument to shackle, hinder and undermine. It is an antropophobic argument, like all its predecessors.

ROTFLMAO
I'm using 10 years goober....

You are a goose...

I've been waiting for you to try that one on for ages now and its as dumb if not dumber than your original crap.

In another 10 years when the trend is still downwards and 10 ten years after that will you eventually concede you got it wrong or will you move the goal posts so that the start point is in an Ice Age where the temperatures are negative and your graph still slopes upwards.  :D :D :D

Since 1998 the TREND has been downwards...  pretty simple really...  just admit that's true.

I don't expect an apology from a hypocrite and liar.

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 2:17pm:

Here you can see the effects of the Solar cycle on Solar irradiance. Look at the bottom 3 graphs. You can see the regular changes amounting to about 2Wm-2. That's about 0.14% fluctuation, which is hardly substantial. Incidentally, do you see how little the output of the sun has changed since 1978?

In a scale of Sun's output maybe it is substantial:

Quote:

New Scientist 4 April 2009, page25 “The sunlight landing on Earth’s surface each day totals a whopping 120,000 terrawats, nearly 7,000 times the power currently used by all humans”

Comes out that humans use about 17 terrawats a day.

If Sun’s energy output fluctuates by 0.01% either way we get 12 terrawats more or less, depending which way it goes.

Hence lack of spots that lower the output of Sun’s energy can equal to all human activities many times over, ... interesting

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:51pm:

ROTFLMAO I'm using 10 years goober.... You are a goose... I've been waiting for you to try that one on for ages now and its as dumb if not dumber than your original crap. In another 10 years when the trend is still downwards and 10 ten years after that will you eventually concede you got it wrong or will you move the goal posts so that the start point is in an Ice Age where the temperatures are negative and your graph still slopes upwards.  :D :D :D Since 1998 the TREND has been downwards...  pretty simple really...  just admit that's true. I don't expect an apology from a hypocrite and liar.

I'm not sure what a goober is? Is that somebody who hasn't heard of using a simple thing like running averages to determine a trend?

Do you need a tutorial?

Happy wrote on Jun 8^th, 2009 at 6:41pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 2:17pm: Here you can see the effects of the Solar cycle on Solar irradiance. Look at the bottom 3 graphs. You can see the regular changes amounting to about 2Wm-2. That's about 0.14% fluctuation, which is hardly substantial. Incidentally, do you see how little the output of the sun has changed since 1978? In a scale of Sun's output maybe it is substantial: Quote: New Scientist 4 April 2009, page25 “The sunlight landing on Earth’s surface each day totals a whopping 120,000 terrawats, nearly 7,000 times the power currently used by all humans” Comes out that humans use about 17 terrawats a day. If Sun’s energy output fluctuates by 0.01% either way we get 12 terrawats more or less, depending which way it goes. Hence lack of spots that lower the output of Sun’s energy can equal to all human activities many times over, ... interesting

Happy,

You'll have to explain that a bit more. The key factor is not the energy expended, but the CO2 (etc) released. All the heat comes from the Sun. As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it changes the heat distribution in the atmosphere, causing the troposphere to warm. Compared to the energy provided by the sun, human energy production is tiny. You've got that bit right.

I'm not sure if you were making a point beyond that, but at least you're trying to think it through.

Nobody was ever talking about the direct heat from Human energy use.

muso wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 12:31pm:

Happy, You'll have to explain that a bit more. The key factor is not the energy expended, but the CO2 (etc) released. All the heat comes from the Sun. As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it changes the heat distribution in the atmosphere, causing the troposphere to warm. Compared to the energy provided by the sun, human energy production is tiny. You've got that bit right. I'm not sure if you were making a point beyond that, but at least you're trying to think it through. Nobody was ever talking about the direct heat from Human energy use.

Problem could be if instead of loudspeaker global warmers group, global coolers were right.

Prolonged lack of spots on the Sun could lead toward next overdue ice age.
Deficit of energy received from the Sun could be partially compensated by CO2 emitted ….

Happy wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:31pm: Happy, You'll have to explain that a bit more. The key factor is not the energy expended, but the CO2 (etc) released. All the heat comes from the Sun. As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it changes the heat distribution in the atmosphere, causing the troposphere to warm. Compared to the energy provided by the sun, human energy production is tiny. You've got that bit right. I'm not sure if you were making a point beyond that, but at least you're trying to think it through. Nobody was ever talking about the direct heat from Human energy use. Problem could be if instead of loudspeaker global warmers group, global coolers were right. Prolonged lack of spots on the Sun could lead toward next overdue ice age. Deficit of energy received from the Sun could be partially compensated by CO2 emitted ….

Well it ain't going to happen. Solar Cycle 24 has already started. We've already had the solar magnetic field reversal, since the new sunspots were reverse polarity.  Besides, we had virtually no sunspots in the past couple of years, and it didn't exactly make a lot of difference.

Are we going to have another Maunder minimum? I don't think so.

---

Quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/09/2593268.htm?section=justin From ABC 9 Jun. 09 COMBET WON'T GUARANTEE FIELDING'S ACCESS TO SCIENTISTS By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers Climate Change Assistant Minister Greg Combet will not say whether he will allow Family First Senator Steve Fielding to speak with Government scientists over the causes of global warming. After spending a week in the United States on a fact-finding mission, Senator Fielding says he now has doubts over whether human activity is the primary cause of climate change. Senator Fielding wants the Government to explore whether solar flares could be a major driver of climate change and wants to talk the issue over with Government scientists. With the Coalition refusing to back its carbon trading scheme before climate change talks in December, the Government is relying on the crossbench senators to get it through the Senate by the end of the month. But Mr Combet will not say whether he will give Senator Fielding access to government scientists. "We don't discuss these things through the media, with all due respect. We'll sit down with Senator Fielding and go through the issues," he told The World Today. Mr Combet says the Government remains determined to get the legislation passed despite Senator Fielding's doubts. "One thing that we are determined about, that shouldn't be underestimated, is to get this carbon pollution reduction scheme through because we do accept the science," he said. "The science is in on this issue from the Government's standpoint. Global warming is a reality." Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett says the science is clear that greenhouse gases are a major cause of climate change. "While there is some discussion about just exactly how much the changes in the sun's activity might affect global warming, all of the estimates that are considered in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] indicate that it's considerably below that caused by other effects - including that of greenhouse gases," she told Radio National. "What we're seeing now is an unprecedented change and its primary cause is due to greenhouse gas emissions."

He might be wrong like me, but not giving “Senator Fielding access to government scientists” could be unnecessary water on conspiracy wheel.

ROTFLMAO

So when you gonna get lessons in reading graphs Muso?

Cant refute cant debate ...  you got big problems.

Cant admit the TRUTH!!!!!!

Happy wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 4:19pm:

He might be wrong like me, but not giving “Senator Fielding access to government scientists” could be unnecessary water on conspiracy wheel.

If you ask me, it would be a big mistake if they didn't try to explain it to him.

Grendel wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 4:28pm:

ROTFLMAO So when you gonna get lessons in reading graphs Muso? Cant refute cant debate ...  you got big problems. Cant admit the TRUTH!!!!!!

Sigh  ::)

In statistics, a moving average, also called rolling average, rolling mean or running average, is a type of finite impulse response filter used to analyze a set of data points by creating a series of averages of different subsets of the full data set. A moving average is not a single number, but it is a set of numbers, each of which is the average of the corresponding subset of a larger set of data points. A moving average may also use unequal weights for each data value in the subset to emphasize particular values in the subset.

A moving average is commonly used with time series data to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. The threshold between short-term and long-term depends on the application, and the parameters of the moving average will be set accordingly.

While ago couple of scientists from Japan run computer model on climate change and they came to conclusion that up to 10 years melting icecaps would actually cause temporary cooling effect.

(Roughly 1 gram of ice at 0 C temperature needs about 80 calories to become 1 gram of water at 0 C)

Should their model be right, current seemingly cooling could be just model playing itself out in reality.

Later part of that model would bring catastrophic temperature rises after icecaps are gone.

The only problem is that Southern icecap is actually shrinking in some parts and increasing in thickness in other parts of Antarctica.

The thicker it gets the heavier it gets the more likely to break off... but hey that'll be blamed on global warming too.

Happy wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 10:36am:

The only problem is that Southern icecap is actually shrinking in some parts and increasing in thickness in other parts of Antarctica.

That's not actually a problem. That's actually good. If East Antarctica were actually melting at this stage, we'd have extremely major problems. Fortunately, our problems are just major.

Let's get this right.

Deniers often use the 'A' word - Alarmist.

Listen up -

It's the message that's alarming, NOT THE MESSENGER!

THEOREM: Climate alarmism does not exist.
PROOF: You can't actually overdo the "alarmism", because very plausible scenarios are THE MOST ALARMING IMAGINABLE.

(And this is one reason why the GW debate is so messy and astroturfing sells so well.)  ;D

Happy wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 10:36am:

While ago couple of scientists from Japan run computer model on climate change and they came to conclusion that up to 10 years melting icecaps would actually cause temporary cooling effect. (Roughly 1 gram of ice at 0 C temperature needs about 80 calories to become 1 gram of water at 0 C) Should their model be right, current seemingly cooling could be just model playing itself out in reality.

That's the problem with using simplified and incomplete 'models'. Does the so called 'model' take into account changes in albedo due to decreased sea ice? No? Well it's the main effect in play in the Arctic, and to some extent in the Antarctic Peninsula. (In plain language, seawater looks much darker from Space and absorbs more heat than ice, which tends to reflect radiation.)

As far as  East Antarctica goes, well come back in 3000 years and it might be an issue by then.

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 9:25am:

We already know how much cooling is caused by CFC's and other ozone depletants.

Interesting. Green policies (getting rid of CFCs) are major contributors to warming. What next? Bring back leaded petrol?

The greens said we'd die from the hole in our socks - I mean the ozone layer. So we rushed in, preventative-like, changed our ways - and waddaya know? we are going to die from warming (or cooling) !!!

CFC, or chlorofluorocarbon, gases were widely deployed in air conditioning and refrigeration units before they were found to destroy the ozone layer and banned under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. They were replaced by HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) gases that have far less effect on ozone but have since been revealed as extremely powerful greenhouse gases. A tonne of HFC-23 used in refrigeration has the same global warming potential as 14,800tonnes of CO2.


Got that?

1 tonne of HFC23 'green' gas = 14,800 tonnes of CO2. Fourteen thousand and eight hundred TONNES of CO2.

That's what a wag would call a smacking inconvenient truth.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25669015-5013404,00.html

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 8:18pm:

muso wrote on Jun 2nd, 2009 at 9:25am: We already know how much cooling is caused by CFC's and other ozone depletants. Interesting. Green policies (getting rid of CFCs) are major contributors to warming. What next? Bring back leaded petrol? The greens said we'd die from the hole in our socks - I mean the ozone layer. So we rushed in, preventative-like, changed our ways - and waddaya know? we are going to die from warming (or cooling) !!! CFC, or chlorofluorocarbon, gases were widely deployed in air conditioning and refrigeration units before they were found to destroy the ozone layer and banned under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. They were replaced by HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) gases that have far less effect on ozone but have since been revealed as extremely powerful greenhouse gases. A tonne of HFC-23 used in refrigeration has the same global warming potential as 14,800tonnes of CO2. Got that? 1 tonne of HFC23 'green' gas = 14,800 tonnes of CO2. Fourteen thousand and eight hundred TONNES of CO2. That's what a wag would call a smacking inconvenient truth. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25669015-5013404,00.html

Hmmm Let's compare apples with apples though.

All this is true, but the mass of HFC23 that is actually released into the atmosphere is miniscule compared to that of CO2. Like we put out roughly 27,000Tg (teragrams) of CO2 every year. By  comparison, we emit something like 0.005Tg of HFC23.  Those figures are 'near enough' estimates. I could probably look them up.  

So even given the higher GWP(Global Warming potential), it's insignificant in the scheme of things. The figure usually quoted is the 100 year time horizon, and for HFC-23, that is actually 11700 (CO2=1).

You have to look at the total impact. Let's not confuse ozone depletion with the greenhouse effect. The world actually did something about the Ozone depletion with the Montreal protocol. That was one crisis that we averted.

By the way, the CFC's that were gradually replaced from 1987 onwards generally had high GWP's too, so the implication that the HFC's were worse, is misleading.

The highest GWP that I know of is sulphur hexafluoride, which is used as an insulator in some High Voltage transformers. The GWP for SF6 is 23900 (CO2=1), but again the total global emission is miniscule - even less than for HFC23.  

We averted that crisis did we?
How big is the hole now.
last time I looked it was still there and as big as ever.

Grendel wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

We averted that crisis did we? How big is the hole now. last time I looked it was still there and as big as ever.

Almost as big - but if we had done nothing it would have been much bigger. Yes,  we averted a crisis.

The Ozone hole has actually decreased slightly in the last two seasons, but some of that is due to reduced solar activity. However the total Stratospheric chlorine has reduced.

The best you could say is that it is stabilising. The duration is shorter in recent years than for historical maxima.

On current predictions, it will start to close around 2050.

Sure..

We know its seasonal too don't we and that its almost that time now.
A natural variation you forgot to mention.

2050?  Well I probably won't be around then.

Grendel wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 11:47am:

Sure.. We know its seasonal too don't we and that its almost that time now. A natural variation you forgot to mention. 2050?  Well I probably won't be around then.

Yeah, it's seasonal in that the largest effect happens around September every year, and it's also affected by variations in the solar cycle.  I thought I already mentioned the solar cycle.

The main indicator is the slow decrease in stratospheric chlorine.

I might still be around in 2050. You never know. All that green tea must do something for me ;D

muso wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 12:07pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 11:47am: Sure.. We know its seasonal too don't we and that its almost that time now. A natural variation you forgot to mention. 2050?  Well I probably won't be around then. Yeah, it's seasonal in that the largest effect happens around September every year, and it's also affected by variations in the solar cycle.  I thought I already mentioned the solar cycle. The main indicator is the slow decrease in stratospheric chlorine. I might still be around in 2050. You never know. All that green tea must do something for me ;D

Correlation ... causation ...what was that again?

tallowood wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 12:25pm:

muso wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 12:07pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 11:47am: Sure.. We know its seasonal too don't we and that its almost that time now. A natural variation you forgot to mention. 2050?  Well I probably won't be around then. Yeah, it's seasonal in that the largest effect happens around September every year, and it's also affected by variations in the solar cycle.  I thought I already mentioned the solar cycle. The main indicator is the slow decrease in stratospheric chlorine. I might still be around in 2050. You never know. All that green tea must do something for me ;D Correlation ... causation ...what was that again?

Tallow - Can you please be less vague for a change? Don't tell me that you're an ozone depletion skeptic  ;) - or are you talking about green tea ? LOL

muso wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 3:51pm:

Well it ain't going to happen. Solar Cycle 24 has already started. We've already had the solar magnetic field reversal, since the new sunspots were reverse polarity.  Besides, we had virtually no sunspots in the past couple of years, and it didn't exactly make a lot of difference. Are we going to have another Maunder minimum? I don't think so.

Just to confirm that, here's some breaking news:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090706-sunspot-activity.html

Quote:

After one of the longest sunspot droughts in modern times, solar activity picked up quickly over the weekend. A new group of sunspots developed, and while not dramatic by historic standards, the spots were the most significant in many months. "This is the best sunspot I've seen in two years," observer Michael Buxton of Ocean Beach, Calif., said on Spaceweather.com. Solar activity goes in a roughly 11-year cycle. Sunspots are the visible signs of that activity, and they are the sites from which massive solar storms lift off. The past two years have marked the lowest low in the cycle since 1913, and for a while scientists were wondering if activity would ever pick back up.

Looks like we're coming out of Solar minimum.

It appears we are now entering a period of COOLING PREDICTIONS>>>


Quote:

In addition, in even more bad news for the Union of Concerned Scientists, many scientists are now predicting a coming global COOLING. (See: Scientist: 'There is no possible global warming threat for at least next 193 years' -- Predicts possible COOLING; Australian scientists declare climate change 'a natural phenomenon'...warn of 'severe COOLING'; Geologist warns of 'coming ice age'; The Sun: 'Lowest of any solar cycle since 1928' and 'Global temps have flat lined since 2001...This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950...Cooling trend could last for up to 30 years' - June 22, 2009 )

Well, unfortunately we will probably not have to wait long for the loons to drop this line of cock and bull.
The latest studies show the exact opposite of what these denialist crackpots have been contending, contrary to ALL, respected scientific opinion.

A few years ago we expected to see slight cooling until 2011/12, but new studies expect the heat to be back on in force as early as next year, with new record highs exceeding 1998 predicted with it.

We may hope for two things from this, that governments will start to act more rapidly, and denialists will finally shut the heck up.
(At least until the next phase peaks, and then they will claim we are cooling again, the cretins)


Quote:

New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics The Guardian, July 27, 2009 The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study. The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming skeptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument. The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Nino southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years. The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record. The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Nino warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen. Bob Henson, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said: "To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate change isn't happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7430&Method=Full

LOL
The Guardian the biggest PC LW propaganda sheet in the world.
You gotta know your sources Mozz.
Someone forgot to tell him the El Nino effect doesn't count.  LOL.
Pity we'll have to wait to see if those alarmist predictions/guesses/wishful-thinking turns out to be right eh.

Now where were we oh yes you ridiculing and calling people with dissenting opinions loons.

How come the alarmists are now saying that warming has been good or those record cold temperatures we've been having would have been far worse?  LOL.  I do wish they'd make up their minds.

It is a report, on a soon to be published study Grendel, it is not an op-ed piece from some loony blogger.

It is the findings of a prominent scientific study.


The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.



I know facts don't appeal to you, they are much harder to have an honest debate over.

It's not FACTS Mozz...  its a guess.

Oh BTW in case you missed it whilst having a caniption...  I was talking about the future predictions...  which cant be any way you look at it... FACTS.