Scientists baffled as Sun activity falls to century low

THE Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.

"I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC.

"If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he said.

The lull is particularly surprising because the Sun has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at its peak.

The lacklustre climax also follows a solar minimum – the period when the Sun’s activity troughs – that was longer and lower than had been anticipated.

Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, told the BBC there was a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.

He compared the current circumstances to the latter half of the 17th Century, when the sun went through an extremely quiet phase referred to as the Maunder Minimum.

That era of solar inactivity coincided with bitterly cold winters to Europe, where the Baltic Sea and London's River Thames froze over. Conditions were so harsh that some described it as a mini-Ice Age.

Prof Lockwood says we may see a repeat if the Sun continues to dip, positing that the results would be dominantly felt in Europe due to the flow of an air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather.

"It's a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low," he said.

;D ;D ;D LOL I saw that this morning too funny Rupe trying to put his spin on global warming.this is a great thing, it will help keep global warning at a manageable level.

Yeah, it is funny and shows the desperation some feel to discredit AGW.

But global temperatures have been climbing all the time.

Even if we do go into a “little ice age” (doubt it) emissions are still growing (might accelerate as more fuel burned to heat houses and workplaces etc) and the oceans are still acidifying. To Adelaideans this week the thought of an iceage has its attractions LOL!

http://s3.argim.net/files/s/sid_ice_age_3.gif

But we're globally warm!!!

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

Yeah, it is funny and shows the desperation some feel to discredit AGW. But global temperatures have been climbing all the time. Even if we do go into a “little ice age” (doubt it) emissions are still growing (might accelerate as more fuel burned to heat houses and workplaces etc) and the oceans are still acidifying. To Adelaideans this week the thought of an iceage has its attractions LOL!

Drat! It's the simians fault.......

http://media.giphy.com/media/G04q9iMD5DGWk/giphy.gif

That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

Yeah, it is funny and shows the desperation some feel to discredit AGW. But global temperatures have been climbing all the time. Even if we do go into a “little ice age” (doubt it) emissions are still growing (might accelerate as more fuel burned to heat houses and workplaces etc) and the oceans are still acidifying. To Adelaideans this week the thought of an iceage has its attractions LOL!

And if you read the story the sun heats up to a point then cools down, only this time its a little early.
Its one thing all the global warming alarmist always leave out of the equation is that the heat that the sun puts off changes the temperature of our planet. The fact that the sun has been warming for quite some time just shows the carbon had nothing to do with it.

So its solar maximum with no sun spots?!!!

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming.

No its not good news, its rather bad news, A warmer Earth is more desirable as more food can be produced, A cooler Earth could lead to food shortages.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. No its not good news, its rather bad news, A warmer Earth is more desirable as more food can be produced, A cooler Earth could lead to food shortages.

Rubbish - too much of the world is full of desert.

skippy. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

;D ;D ;D LOL I saw that this morning too funny Rupe trying to put his spin on global warming.this is a great thing, it will help keep global warning at a manageable level.

Total tosh.
But let's not forget the 97% of alarmist scientists and their shyte models have been dead wrong for 17 years. You'd need to be brain damaged to follow the warmist circus, or paid...

maybe it's natures way of culling the population ;)

Rider wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 10:52am: ;D ;D ;D LOL I saw that this morning too funny Rupe trying to put his spin on global warming.this is a great thing, it will help keep global warning at a manageable level. Total tosh. But let's not forget the 97% of alarmist scientists and their shyte models have been dead wrong for 17 years. You'd need to be brain damaged to follow the warmist circus, or paid...

and your model is right is it ?  ;D LOL

Rider wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 10:52am: ;D ;D ;D LOL I saw that this morning too funny Rupe trying to put his spin on global warming.this is a great thing, it will help keep global warning at a manageable level. Total tosh. But let's not forget the 97% of alarmist scientists and their shyte models have been dead wrong for 17 years. You'd need to be brain damaged to follow the warmist circus, or paid...

http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af158/DorkKnight/GrampaSimpson-ColumnA-B.gif

Got to say at this point it's all so smacking hilarious.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 11:04am: Yeah, it is funny and shows the desperation some feel to discredit AGW. But global temperatures have been climbing all the time. Even if we do go into a “little ice age” (doubt it) emissions are still growing (might accelerate as more fuel burned to heat houses and workplaces etc) and the oceans are still acidifying. To Adelaideans this week the thought of an iceage has its attractions LOL! And if you read the story the sun heats up to a point then cools down, only this time its a little early. Its one thing all the global warming alarmist always leave out of the equation is that the heat that the sun puts off changes the temperature of our planet. The fact that the sun has been warming for quite some time just shows the carbon had nothing to do with it.

Especially as the solar maxima  means we get 1% more heat from the sun. I am afraid it really IS carbon and other GHGs heating the globe.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming.

So you'd think. Unfortunately:
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif
and it ain't getting any cooler.

We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif
Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect.

Quote:

and it ain't getting any cooler.

I hope you're wrong.

A few observations -
1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years.
2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's.
3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult.
4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly.
5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside.
Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!   

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:

Quote: and it ain't getting any cooler. I hope you're wrong.

Me too. Unfortunately, as far as I know:[list bull-blackball]

the vast majority of the best qualified say the planet continues to warm and

not one organisation of reputable scientists on the planet disagrees with them.

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. So you'd think. Unfortunately: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif and it ain't getting any cooler. We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect.

The current interglacial being longer than the others due to burning of fossil fuels by humans?
You absolutely sure you want to run with that?

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:

A few observations - 1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years. 2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's. 3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult. 4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly. 5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside. Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!

The question is whether we've affected the balance to an extreme that may not be survivable. Human beings have survived ice ages. Could we survive:

Quote:

Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..."

Could those conditions be survived by anything that we might recognise as life? I really don't want to be a member of the species that sterilises a planet.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. So you'd think. Unfortunately: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif and it ain't getting any cooler. We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect. The current interglacial being longer than the others due to burning of fossil fuels by humans? You absolutely sure you want to run with that?

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect.

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 5:54pm: # wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. So you'd think. Unfortunately: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif and it ain't getting any cooler. We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect. The current interglacial being longer than the others due to burning of fossil fuels by humans? You absolutely sure you want to run with that? # wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect.

Interesting strategy...leading with your chin with your pants around your ankles...
You do know how to read a graph don't you?
You do know it was longer well before any industrialisation?...much, much, much longer.

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:23pm: A few observations - 1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years. 2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's. 3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult. 4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly. 5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside. Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!    The question is whether we've affected the balance to an extreme that may not be survivable. Human beings have survived ice ages. Could we survive: Quote: Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." Could those conditions be survived by anything that we might recognise as life? I really don't want to be a member of the species that sterilises a planet.

Well, let me put it this way, outside of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", life as we now know it (the modern Economic era) would cease to exist!

It's the End Times & we're doomed.

Save the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. So you'd think. Unfortunately: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif and it ain't getting any cooler. We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect.

it's funny how a lot of dumb as dogshit people are now experts on climate science without even passing yr 9 science at high school ;D

the global warming is about how man made influences are affecting the planet ... EARTH ...this story is about the SUN ... at best this will ward of global warming for a few years, but it does not in any way negate the arguments proving global warming

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

# wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. So you'd think. Unfortunately: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif and it ain't getting any cooler. We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect. it's funny how a lot of dumb as dogshit people are now experts on climate science without even passing yr 9 science at high school ;D

Hi Nail,
the fact is that George Carlin is right -
we'll be just another failed extinct species after we wreck
the planet to make it inhospitable for ourselves -

then many new species will develop & the world will cleanse itself.

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect.

Can you substantiate that claim?

I http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/dancing/mario-jackson-dance-smiley-emoticon.gif vote liberal and yehhhhhhhhhh go me for some  reason ...  :o

Ice Age? Sorry, but the mechanism is totally different. It's related to orbital changes - the Milankovich cycle etc.

What he's talking about is another Maunder Minimum. That's possible. In fact the solar activity has been extremely low over the past 10 years at least.

... So why all the record high temperatures?

In the absence of the enormous emissions of CO2, we should have seen a cool spell. We didn't.

- but denialists shouldn't be concerned about this. The evidence for a prolonged period of solar activity is nothing like 95-99%. It isn't even 50%.

muso wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:55am:

Ice Age? Sorry, but the mechanism is totally different. It's related to orbital changes - the Milankovich cycle etc. What he's talking about is another Maunder Minimum. That's possible. In fact the solar activity has been extremely low over the past 10 years at least. ... So why all the record high temperatures? In the absence of the enormous emissions of CO2, we should have seen a cool spell. We didn't. - but denialists shouldn't be concerned about this. The evidence for a prolonged period of solar activity is nothing like 95-99%. It isn't even 50%.

A good read:

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

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 10:16pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 9:42pm: # wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: That's good news - it might help to ward off global warming. So you'd think. Unfortunately: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif and it ain't getting any cooler. We should probably be heading into the next ice age, but: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Interglacials.gif Notice that the current interglacial seems longer than the others? Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect. it's funny how a lot of dumb as dogshit people are now experts on climate science without even passing yr 9 science at high school ;D

Hi Nail,
the fact is that George Carlin is right -
we'll be just another failed extinct species after we wreck
the planet to make it inhospitable for ourselves -

then many new species will develop & the world will cleanse itself.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 9:35pm:

Save the planet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Bobby. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 7:45am:

muso wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 6:55am: Ice Age? Sorry, but the mechanism is totally different. It's related to orbital changes - the Milankovich cycle etc. What he's talking about is another Maunder Minimum. That's possible. In fact the solar activity has been extremely low over the past 10 years at least. ... So why all the record high temperatures? In the absence of the enormous emissions of CO2, we should have seen a cool spell. We didn't. - but denialists shouldn't be concerned about this. The evidence for a prolonged period of solar activity is nothing like 95-99%. It isn't even 50%. A good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Yes Bobby it is a good read but as noted in the article it has a number of significant, in fact fatal, problems.  Note also that 3 of the most highly knowledgeable proponents of this theory and those best scientifically qualified (Note to #) to understand what they mean (Imbrie, Berger and Loutre) have 180 degrees views on what they in fact mean in practice. Imbrie having a cooling from 6000K years ago and continuing for another 23K. While Berger and Loutre putting us in a current warm climate that lasts for another 50K years. So if these guys can't agree on what they mean you can hardly say that they say other than what people tell you they are saying...a bit like reading sheep's entrails, so bang, smack in cultist central.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 7:45am: muso wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 6:55am: Ice Age? Sorry, but the mechanism is totally different. It's related to orbital changes - the Milankovich cycle etc. What he's talking about is another Maunder Minimum. That's possible. In fact the solar activity has been extremely low over the past 10 years at least. ... So why all the record high temperatures? In the absence of the enormous emissions of CO2, we should have seen a cool spell. We didn't. - but denialists shouldn't be concerned about this. The evidence for a prolonged period of solar activity is nothing like 95-99%. It isn't even 50%. A good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles Yes Bobby it is a good read but as noted in the article it has a number of significant, in fact fatal, problems.  Note also that 3 of the most highly knowledgeable proponents of this theory and those best scientifically qualified (Note to #) to understand what they mean (Imbrie, Berger and Loutre) have 180 degrees views on what they in fact mean in practice. Imbrie having a cooling from 6000K years ago and continuing for another 23K. While Berger and Loutre putting us in a current warm climate that lasts for another 50K years. So if these guys can't agree on what they mean you can hardly say that they say other than what people tell you they are saying...a bit like reading sheep's entrails, so bang, smack in cultist central.

Don't be put off - it's scientific theory which can be argued.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:53am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 9:19am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 7:45am: muso wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 6:55am: Ice Age? Sorry, but the mechanism is totally different. It's related to orbital changes - the Milankovich cycle etc. What he's talking about is another Maunder Minimum. That's possible. In fact the solar activity has been extremely low over the past 10 years at least. ... So why all the record high temperatures? In the absence of the enormous emissions of CO2, we should have seen a cool spell. We didn't. - but denialists shouldn't be concerned about this. The evidence for a prolonged period of solar activity is nothing like 95-99%. It isn't even 50%. A good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles Yes Bobby it is a good read but as noted in the article it has a number of significant, in fact fatal, problems.  Note also that 3 of the most highly knowledgeable proponents of this theory and those best scientifically qualified (Note to #) to understand what they mean (Imbrie, Berger and Loutre) have 180 degrees views on what they in fact mean in practice. Imbrie having a cooling from 6000K years ago and continuing for another 23K. While Berger and Loutre putting us in a current warm climate that lasts for another 50K years. So if these guys can't agree on what they mean you can hardly say that they say other than what people tell you they are saying...a bit like reading sheep's entrails, so bang, smack in cultist central. Don't be put off - it's scientific theory which can be argued.

Just noticed I wrote 6000k when should have been 6K or 6000...my apology.

forgiven

namaste

# wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:23pm: A few observations - 1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years. 2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's. 3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult. 4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly. 5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside. Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!    The question is whether we've affected the balance to an extreme that may not be survivable. Human beings have survived ice ages. Could we survive: Quote: Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." Could those conditions be survived by anything that we might recognise as life? I really don't want to be a member of the species that sterilises a planet.

Don't worry, you aren't, and won't be. Humanity will not and cannot 'sterilise the planet'..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

# wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 8:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:23pm: A few observations - 1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years. 2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's. 3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult. 4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly. 5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside. Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!    The question is whether we've affected the balance to an extreme that may not be survivable. Human beings have survived ice ages. Could we survive: Quote: Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." Could those conditions be survived by anything that we might recognise as life? I really don't want to be a member of the species that sterilises a planet. Don't worry, you aren't, and won't be. Humanity will not and cannot 'sterilise the planet'..

Definition time is it  :o :-? ;) ?!!   ;) :) :) 8-) 8-)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

# wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 8:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:23pm: A few observations - 1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years. 2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's. 3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult. 4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly. 5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside. Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!    The question is whether we've affected the balance to an extreme that may not be survivable. Human beings have survived ice ages. Could we survive: Quote: Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." Could those conditions be survived by anything that we might recognise as life? I really don't want to be a member of the species that sterilises a planet. Don't worry, you aren't, and won't be. Humanity will not and cannot 'sterilise the planet'..

Can you substantiate those assertions?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 1:08am:

# wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Denialists will assure you that human activities couldn't possibly have that effect. Can you substantiate that claim?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390092495/20#20

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:15pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 10:52am: ;D ;D ;D LOL I saw that this morning too funny Rupe trying to put his spin on global warming.this is a great thing, it will help keep global warning at a manageable level. Total tosh. But let's not forget the 97% of alarmist scientists and their shyte models have been dead wrong for 17 years. You'd need to be brain damaged to follow the warmist circus, or paid... and your model is right is it ?  ;D LOL

What 'model'??? Skeptics don't use 'models', they use real world temperatures..

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:00pm: # wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 8:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 3:23pm: A few observations - 1) We are now at or past the average times pan, when the climate has shifted, over the last 450,000 years. 2) There may be a number of reasons for that, but one SHOULD consider that the cycle MAY be breaking and this could lead to a Venus style Planetary climate on the up side OR it MAY be that the Ice Age has only been delayed a little, possibly by our build up of GHG's. 3) Either way, humanity & many other species live within a "Goldilocks Climate Range" and WHEN (not if) the climate breaks out of the current "Goldilocks Climate Range" that we have enjoyed for some time now and that has seen our numbers flourish, our existence will become much more difficult. 4) When we do break out of the "Goldilocks Climate Range", our current Local & Global Economic structures will become totally redundant, as/and our Population levels will reduce quickly & significantly. 5) There is no validity to the assertion that a break out on the Climate up side will be any better than a break out on the Climate downside. Either way the future of humanity will come under great stress & either way our survival can not be guaranteed!    The question is whether we've affected the balance to an extreme that may not be survivable. Human beings have survived ice ages. Could we survive: Quote: Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." Could those conditions be survived by anything that we might recognise as life? I really don't want to be a member of the species that sterilises a planet. Don't worry, you aren't, and won't be. Humanity will not and cannot 'sterilise the planet'.. Definition time is it  :o :-? ;) ?!!   ;) :) :) 8-) 8-)

Yep, we have the technology to modify our life enough to avoid pretty much everything, if we want to.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 2:50pm:

... Skeptics don't use 'models', they use real world temperatures..

Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? How do you get "real world temperatures" before the event?

# wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 7:51pm:

Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen?

Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models.

lee wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 8:30pm:

# wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models.

True, but that is why he is asking Gizmo about "Skeptics don't use 'models', they use real world temperatures.." How can you make predictions with real world data?

lee wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 8:30pm:

# wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models.

And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 10:56pm:

lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow.

Ah yes, I see what you mean.. Like cherry picking data like the last 17 years or other short terms in the record as this shows with the blue lines and ignoring the overall trend... I get it now! ::)
http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Skeptics_v_Realists_001.jpg

Setanta wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 11:18pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Ah yes, I see what you mean.. Like cherry picking data like the last 17 years or other short terms in the record as this shows with the blue lines and ignoring the overall trend... I get it now! ::) http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Skeptics_v_Realists_001.jpg

No not shorter terms, longer ones that better reflect historic climate variability and even using data from before widespread or in fact any fossil fuel usage. Climate shifts take place over long timescales. You want a more realistic view of climate you know try this one...

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2014 at 11:04am: Yeah, it is funny and shows the desperation some feel to discredit AGW. But global temperatures have been climbing all the time. Even if we do go into a “little ice age” (doubt it) emissions are still growing (might accelerate as more fuel burned to heat houses and workplaces etc) and the oceans are still acidifying. To Adelaideans this week the thought of an iceage has its attractions LOL! And if you read the story the sun heats up to a point then cools down, only this time its a little early. Its one thing all the global warming alarmist always leave out of the equation is that the heat that the sun puts off changes the temperature of our planet. The fact that the sun has been warming for quite some time just shows the carbon had nothing to do with it.

Actually its the exact opposite. The Sun has been low, yet the temperatures have climbed.

This is very bad for deniers, because it adds more evidence to AGW.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:16am:

Setanta wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 11:18pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Ah yes, I see what you mean.. Like cherry picking data like the last 17 years or other short terms in the record as this shows with the blue lines and ignoring the overall trend... I get it now! ::) http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Skeptics_v_Realists_001.jpg No not shorter terms, longer ones that better reflect historic climate variability and even using data from before widespread or in fact any fossil fuel usage. Climate shifts take place over long timescales. You want a more realistic view of climate you know try this one... http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Your point? Don't you see the end of the graph at 0? Co2 still rising and if it followed the trend of the other highs and lows the temp and co2 should be falling, they aren't.

'Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." '

Can you explain this I'm lost.

Water is a stable compound - freeze it, boil it; it stays water. If you separate it, eg electrolysis, it quickly forms - water. From what I have seen the only mechanism, whilst it is in this fleeting separated state, is for the H2 to be emitted to space.

How in a "bubble" is that achieved?

If it remains around earth as water vapour it will increase the radiation to space, cooling the earth.

Setanta wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:43am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:16am: Setanta wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 11:18pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Ah yes, I see what you mean.. Like cherry picking data like the last 17 years or other short terms in the record as this shows with the blue lines and ignoring the overall trend... I get it now! ::) http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Skeptics_v_Realists_001.jpg No not shorter terms, longer ones that better reflect historic climate variability and even using data from before widespread or in fact any fossil fuel usage. Climate shifts take place over long timescales. You want a more realistic view of climate you know try this one... http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif Your point? Don't you see the end of the graph at 0? Co2 still rising and if it followed the trend of the other highs and lows the temp and co2 should be falling, they aren't.

It's called natural variability...and yes your point? CO2 for the most part of the data collected and represented by the graph lagged temperature rise by on average about 600 years (underling the need to use adequate timescales for climate) meaning for the most part of that 450K years temperature increase was in front of CO2 rise and CO2 was still rising when temperature had been on the way down for hundreds of years and vice versa. So you're comfortable with the effect preceding it's "causation".
So if you now proceed to the x axis (the one on the bottom) you will note that for over 10K years the temperature has been reasonably stable and going slightly down as CO2 has been increasing.
So back to your statement "...temp and CO2 should be falling, they aren't "  Your right CO2 going gangbusters  (but still within the realms of natural variability) and temperature going down over that 10K year span of time. Or should I congratulate you for disproving the hypothesis that CO2 drives global temperature increase.

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 11:03am:

'Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." ' Can you explain this I'm lost. Water is a stable compound - freeze it, boil it; it stays water. If you separate it, eg electrolysis, it quickly forms - water. From what I have seen the only mechanism, whilst it is in this fleeting separated state, is for the H2 to be emitted to space. How in a "bubble" is that achieved? If it remains around earth as water vapour it will increase the radiation to space, cooling the earth.

Isn't water vapour a greenhouse gas?

Why would water vapour "increase the radiation to space"? Are you confusing water vapour and clouds? Are clouds water vapour?

lee wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 8:30pm:

# wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models.

If we're to manage risk, don't we need to predict? Are you admitting that Conservatives can't manage risk?

namnugenot wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 10:56pm:

lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow.

Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them.

'Are clouds water vapour?'

'Clouds form when the invisible water vapour in the air condenses into visible water droplets or ice crystals.'

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/clouds/what-are-clouds

So condensed water vapour. More water vapour more can condense.

'The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 1:59pm:

lee wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 11:03am: 'Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..." ' Can you explain this I'm lost. Water is a stable compound - freeze it, boil it; it stays water. If you separate it, eg electrolysis, it quickly forms - water. From what I have seen the only mechanism, whilst it is in this fleeting separated state, is for the H2 to be emitted to space. How in a "bubble" is that achieved? If it remains around earth as water vapour it will increase the radiation to space, cooling the earth. Isn't water vapour a greenhouse gas? Why would water vapour "increase the radiation to space"? Are you confusing water vapour and clouds? Are clouds water vapour?

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:26pm:

'Are clouds water vapour?' 'Clouds form when the invisible water vapour in the air condenses into visible water droplets or ice crystals.' http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/clouds/what-are-clouds So condensed water vapour. More water vapour more can condense. 'The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth.' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

So you confused water vapour with water droplets?

At 250 Celsius, would droplets form?

Unless you actually want your posts to be difficult to interpret, you'd best learn how to use the 'Quote' button.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:07pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them.

So start with the hypothesis and then choose the data set that does not disprove the end result...then state it cant be questioned...unfortunately that is a scenario that would have us all walking around thinking the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:48pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:07pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them. So start with the hypothesis and then choose the data set that does not disprove the end result...then state it cant be questioned...unfortunately that is a scenario that would have us all walking around thinking the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

Who said "it cant be questioned"?

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:43pm:

At 250 Celsius, would droplets form?

I would expect all the water to have formed into water droplets well before 250C.

'Water is a stable compound - freeze it, boil it; it stays water. If you separate it, eg electrolysis, it quickly forms - water. From what I have seen the only mechanism, whilst it is in this fleeting separated state, is for the H2 to be emitted to space.

How in a "bubble" is that achieved? '

Now can you explain that part?

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:43pm: At 250 Celsius, would droplets form? I would expect all the water to have formed into water droplets well before 250C. Now can you explain that part?

How could I possibly explain your expectation?

I rely on the knowledge that Carl Sagan (who, on the dynamics of planetary atmospheres,  was probably the best mind this planet has ever produced) warned of the risk and Stephen Hawking (who is probably the best mind alive on this planet) repeated the warning. I don't claim to understand. I certainly don't claim to know better.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:07pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them.

Didn't Climategate pretty much prove that??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:43pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:07pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them. Didn't Climategate pretty much prove that??

Climategate ?     All that proved that some people send hissy-fit emails.

meanwhile, the temperature rises.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:43pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:07pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them. Didn't Climategate pretty much prove that??

Not to my knowledge.

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 7:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:43pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:07pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them. Didn't Climategate pretty much prove that?? Not to my knowledge.

Very selective that knowledge.

"Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming
5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'
Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'
Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'"

namnugenot wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:23pm:

# wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 7:58pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:43pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:07pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them. Didn't Climategate pretty much prove that?? Not to my knowledge. Very selective that knowledge. "Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming 5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message' Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering' Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'"

Source?

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:26pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:23pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 7:58pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:43pm: # wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 2:07pm: namnugenot wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 10:56pm: lee wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 8:30pm: # wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 7:51pm: Wouldn't you need the data in advance, if you're going to predict what might happen? Data in advance is not data- It is projection, prognostication, prediction but not data. Like Climate Models. And here's the thing...what you chose as a data set influences that projection and you may get what appear to be perfectly reasonable prognostications and predictions based on that restricted data. You hear words like unprecedented and unparalleled quite a lot but it's really a shabby deception, a bit of theatre and flimflam. The 1950's are chosen because that's what pushes their barrow. Of course, of course. The vast majority of the best qualified are engaged in a grand conspiracy for their own shabby ends. Not only that, but every organisation of reputable scientists on the planet is in it with them. Didn't Climategate pretty much prove that?? Not to my knowledge. Very selective that knowledge. "Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming 5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message' Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering' Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'" Source?

http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/

namnugenot wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 8:21am:

... http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/

Didn't resolve for me.

Anyway, nobody but hard-line denialists take "climategate" seriously. The issue has been comprehensively investigated and no wrongdoing found.

http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f%21OpenDocument
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
Of course, the crazies insist it's all part of the conspiracy.  ::)

Just to tie it all together: Q&A: 'Climategate'

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:20am:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 8:21am: ... http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/ Didn't resolve for me. Anyway, nobody but hard-line denialists take "climategate" seriously. The issue has been comprehensively investigated and no wrongdoing found. http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f%21OpenDocument http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf Of course, the crazies insist it's all part of the conspiracy.  ::) Just to tie it all together: Q&A: 'Climategate'

Why am I unsurprised...

And you added a collection of dead and blind links as well as ones where they conducted their own investigations into themselves or appointed those who were to do so and "Reports" of such searching rigor as the one this quote was taken from... "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took.... It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU.”
But there were also plenty of references to the method employed...
misusing privileged information
serious deviation from accepted practices
we concluded that the University did not adequately review the allegation in either its inquiry or investigation processes....
and so on and so forth...

namnugenot wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 6:28pm:

# wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 10:20am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 8:21am: ... http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/ Didn't resolve for me. Anyway, nobody but hard-line denialists take "climategate" seriously. The issue has been comprehensively investigated and no wrongdoing found. http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f%21OpenDocument http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf Of course, the crazies insist it's all part of the conspiracy.  ::) Just to tie it all together: Q&A: 'Climategate' Why am I unsurprised... And you added a collection of dead and blind links as well as ones where they conducted their own investigations into themselves or appointed those who were to do so and "Reports" of such searching rigor as the one this quote was taken from... "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took.... It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU.” But there were also plenty of references to the method employed... misusing privileged information serious deviation from accepted practices we concluded that the University did not adequately review the allegation in either its inquiry or investigation processes.... and so on and so forth...

The links all worked the last time I used them. Mind you, that was about three years ago. I guess you could call any dead links pay-back for you dead non-link.

As I said, outside the denyosphere, "climategate" is resolved. Within the denysophere, it's proof of the grand conspiracy.

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 7:34pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 6:28pm: # wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 10:20am: namnugenot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 8:21am: ... http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/ Didn't resolve for me. Anyway, nobody but hard-line denialists take "climategate" seriously. The issue has been comprehensively investigated and no wrongdoing found. http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f%21OpenDocument http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf Of course, the crazies insist it's all part of the conspiracy.  ::) Just to tie it all together: Q&A: 'Climategate' Why am I unsurprised... And you added a collection of dead and blind links as well as ones where they conducted their own investigations into themselves or appointed those who were to do so and "Reports" of such searching rigor as the one this quote was taken from... "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took.... It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU.” But there were also plenty of references to the method employed... misusing privileged information serious deviation from accepted practices we concluded that the University did not adequately review the allegation in either its inquiry or investigation processes.... and so on and so forth... The links all worked the last time I used them. Mind you, that was about three years ago. I guess you could call any dead links pay-back for you dead non-link. As I said, outside the denyosphere, "climategate" is resolved. Within the denysophere, it's proof of the grand conspiracy.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Sorry about that. There that should work.
Your just cranky because your mountain of evidence is shrinking away. No matter how hard you pray for the apocalypse. Time is not on your side.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

namnugenot wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:14pm:

... your mountain of evidence is shrinking away. ...

Not my evidence. I wouldn't know what to do with climate data.

Link to any body of reputable scientists that supports your fantasy and you might convince someone other than yourself.