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


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.

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



But is the experiment repeatable?

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

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


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!

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

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

Quote:

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?

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


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

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


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.