|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Jan 2, 2009 19:52:22 GMT
I found the information here -- climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun-2/ -- to be worth a read. The author of the post, Earl Happ, makes the case that the La Nina just begun will not survive into spring, and he uses solar cycle research in support of his argument. I've only read the post once, probably not enough to take it in completely. I'll be curious what others here think about it! Interesting, for sure. Maybe you should post it to the LaNina thread? Or maybe you already did.
|
|
|
Post by william on Jan 2, 2009 23:38:07 GMT
Steve McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit is interesting and science based. It is interesting to compare the data and analysis that is presented at McIntyre's site to Realclimate. www.climateaudit.org/?p=4731www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687Comment: The solar magnetic cycle’s effect on planetary temperature will increase when the current set of solar coronal holes dissipate. The coronal holes create a solar wind burst which removes cloud forming ions. (See blue graph at this link. The blue graph Ak is a measurement of changes in the earth's magnetic field.) www.solen.info/solar/
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jan 11, 2009 4:58:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 13, 2009 4:57:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 14, 2009 21:05:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cyberzombie on Jan 14, 2009 21:16:06 GMT
From the link: I read no further. BOTH sides have cherry pickers. BOTH sides have denialists (of the other viewpoint). NEITHER side has the 'overwhelming agreement...among climate scientists'.
And as he is a linguist/historian rather than a scientist - and came off as arrogant - I stopped reading.
|
|
|
Post by bob9000 on Jan 14, 2009 21:45:54 GMT
I agree cyberzombie. The guy came across as the sole arbiter of truth in the world, and acted as if he soared above normal human bias. I used to be an AGW supporter. I researched it, tried to understand all of 'the science' as best I could, and came away thinking that AGW wasn't true after all. To the best of my ability I think I have comprehended the relevant information. I actually don't care whether it's true or not. I live in New Zealand, surrounded by ocean, and so temps will remain mostly the same for us no matter what happens. Even the IPCC's most out-there worst case "I'm-gonna-sing-the-doom-song-now" scenario only had us warming by about one degree in a hundred years. So, AGW holds no fears for me. I don't "deny" it because I don't want to or because I'm "anti-science", I've just made a conclusion based on the data at hand. That's all. Oh, and in the interest of providing links, I don't know whether anyones linked to this yet, but www.climate-resistance.org/ has some great articles, with brilliant writing.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Jan 14, 2009 21:49:40 GMT
Actually, it's a not-so-rare hole/head article, penned by a "linguist and historian by training," speaking of things he knows nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 14, 2009 21:55:22 GMT
It's interesting that how the guy came across even factors into the validity of what he is saying.
It's not unlikely that someone who is making a very accurate point will sound like that.
Where it hits the nail on the head is when it pins down ideology as the cause. It's not that deniers all work for "big oil" as some people stupidly conjecture. It's an ideology which brings many people to oppose global warming a priori. They don't like the consequences of global warming being true on their worldview and so they try to construct a framework by which it isn't.
The whole global cooling silliness in the past few years is the cumulation of a lot of this style of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jan 15, 2009 5:12:44 GMT
It's interesting that how the guy came across even factors into the validity of what he is saying. It's not unlikely that someone who is making a very accurate point will sound like that. Where it hits the nail on the head is when it pins down ideology as the cause. It's not that deniers all work for "big oil" as some people stupidly conjecture. It's an ideology which brings many people to oppose global warming a priori. They don't like the consequences of global warming being true on their worldview and so they try to construct a framework by which it isn't. The whole global cooling silliness in the past few years is the cumulation of a lot of this style of thinking. Give me a break. Calling skeptics "deniers" says all we need to know about where the true ideologists reside.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 15, 2009 10:33:17 GMT
From the link: I read no further. BOTH sides have cherry pickers. BOTH sides have denialists (of the other viewpoint). NEITHER side has the 'overwhelming agreement...among climate scientists'. And as he is a linguist/historian rather than a scientist - and came off as arrogant - I stopped reading. One interesting thing about people in life & in debates is the way they behave. when someone abandons the course of reason, turns from the path of rational expression & begins to label, they give themselves away. It is common human practice to see that others are like ourselves, that if we have certain feelings or attitudes, others must as well. So when someone drops from reasoned discourse into labels, pay close attention - they are telling you the things that they themselves do, indulge in & use for their actions. There is plenty of evidence even just here on SC24 of those who will address as best they can ALL the points made in the threads & others who only bother with the ones they think easiest to give their PoV on & even some who easily drop into placing labels on their opponents - & yes, trying to be subtle by not actively pointing the finger still counts as labelling - learn to watch not just what someone says but what they don't say & what they imply by what they do & don't say. They will tell you, plainly & up front, without realising they are doing it, just what their modus may be, how they like to behave & what tactics they prefer to use against others. Of course, it's also possible you ARE doing those things for which you get castigated, but if so you should be self-aware enough to see it & easily able to discriminate between accurate comment & labelling. You'd think a linguisitcs guy would be a little more knowledgeable about his craft. Oh, and another screaming sign to watch out for to be able to pick out the sane from the nutters? Nutters LOVE to speak in generalities. Sweeping statements about how 'everyone says...' or 'nobody will listen...' etc. are big pointers to someone who is either a few sandwiches short of a picnic, a public servant or a propagandist. The first category is by far the least harmful. Propagandists turn this tactic into an artform. Think about how many times we have been assured that 'all scientists' agree...' 'there is consensus...' 'only on the outer fringe...' 'any respectable researcher...' Those who deal in propaganda always use such statements even when promoting patent untruths - they know that a majority of street folk will accept what they say as authoritative & so swing the public 'opinion' over to the view they are trying to hoodwink said public with. It's dirty, underhand & a sure-fire pointer to such scumbags. Humans are funny cattle indeed, but if you keep an open eye, they are predictable at least in part - behaviour patterns & body language are two areas with which they have most diffculty.
|
|
|
Post by questioneverything on Jan 15, 2009 23:23:53 GMT
This isn't a climate link but might be an interesting website that will allow you to view a website almost since its inception with a few errors but it is pretty nice to see the way things were. It can also be used to see what some people have done or said that they claim not to have done or said............. Just enter in the web address for any website and see what you can find. Should be helpful for people looking to see what has been changed or modified. www.archive.org/index.phpOf course if everyone starts looking at the same websites at the same time they might have some server problems. :-)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 16, 2009 1:11:20 GMT
Give me a break. Calling skeptics "deniers" says all we need to know about where the true ideologists reside. Sometimes it fits. I would describe many creationists as deniers. If ideology forces rejection of a conclusion apriori followed by an attempt to justify the rejection in whatever way possible, then that's pretty much denial. just look at Avery's latest claim that global tempeature has dropped 0.6C in the past 2 years (see www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/cnn-is-spun-right-round-baby-right-round/). If he was a real skeptic and wasn't simply denying then why would he need to use employ such an incorrect claim?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 16, 2009 1:16:26 GMT
One interesting thing about people in life & in debates is the way they behave. when someone abandons the course of reason, turns from the path of rational expression & begins to label, they give themselves away. "Alarmist" James Hansen is the "New Lysensko" not labels? hmm
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 16, 2009 10:43:42 GMT
Give me a break. Calling skeptics "deniers" says all we need to know about where the true ideologists reside. Sometimes it fits. I would describe many creationists as deniers. If ideology forces rejection of a conclusion apriori followed by an attempt to justify the rejection in whatever way possible, then that's pretty much denial. just look at Avery's latest claim that global tempeature has dropped 0.6C in the past 2 years (see www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/cnn-is-spun-right-round-baby-right-round/). If he was a real skeptic and wasn't simply denying then why would he need to use employ such an incorrect claim? Well, he's obviously a little late. Let's look at the big drop he's probably talking about v/s the current drop Since 2007... Hadley...currently .2C lower, maximum drop (ending 2008) about .65C GISS...currently .4C lower, maximum drop (ending 2008) about .7C RSS...currently .4C lower, maximum drop (ending about may 2008) about .65C UAH...currently .4C lower, maximum drop (ending about may 2008) about .75C Clearly his assertion was wrong but...that's a heck of a drop. Of course, his assertion will probably become the truth again by summer since the La Nina has already started again. I should point out this is EXACTLY the conditions expected from a change in the PDO just as the warming was exactly the sort of conditions expected from the previous PDO state. Alarmists love to make the assertion that 10 years doesn't mean global warming is wrong. There's just one tiny problem, there are other theories on what caused the warming. Guess what one actually works??? The theory that natural forcings (like the PDO and the sun) predicted that temperatures would be driven generally up along with the strong El Nino activity while the PDO was in warming mode and that after about 20 years it would level off and begin to drop. Working backward we see the PDO continuing to function for over 100 years. The theory that CO2 forcings are the major driving force might have worked until 1998 or possibly 2001. Now temperatures are dropping and since there's another La Nina forming it's doubtful temperatures will rise again within the year. Working backward temperatures should fall but instead...we find they go back up again. Physics is of no help either. If we look at the physics of CO2 based forcing it appears there should be only trivial amounts of warming for even doubling or tripling of CO2 levels. Worse still, CO2 increases still mirror temperatures, not the other way around. El Nino years have higher increases while strong La Nina years have very low increases. We can probably verify that in many years it wasn't even possible that man was the biggest producer of CO2. The only people that seem to be in denial are the ones that assume CO2 provides the dominant forcing of the climate now.
|
|