|
Post by magellan on Dec 2, 2009 0:11:52 GMT
astromet, et al
Don't smile too much yet. Not long ago Danish scientist Friis-Christensen had it all together with a solar cycle length vs. temperature tie-in, but the media and climate activists beat that down to the point that at last his research bowed on bended knee to the gods of GW. The problem with the F-C "tie-in" is that it's clearly wrong. The link broke down in ~1975 and is spectacularly wrong now. The length of the most recent cycle, i.e. SC23, is at least 12 years. According to F-C, temperatures should be about ONE degeree lower than they currently are. The link broke down in ~1975 and is spectacularly wrong now. Will you ever use common courtesy and cite references when making such statements so we don't have to hunt it down? I'll say it's from IPCC. Nevertheless, it all depends on what data is used and how it is compiled isn't it? With solar deniers the issue is black or white; all or none, when the truth is there are multitudes of processes taking place in and out of sync. So, when you say "the link broke down in ~1975", all that means is you've (as a true skeptic) decided buy the IPCC/Lockwood/Lean storyline even if the data they used to make such conclusions is shown to be wrong. In this instance PMOD vs ACRIM as part of it. yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdfThen there is the issue of the surface station data. Now that the frauds have been exposed, one wonders how deep the corruption goes. With your undying loyalty to Jones (as any true skeptic would be ), it is doubtful you'll ever be persuaded the data is less than accurate no matter what the evidence.
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 2, 2009 0:46:46 GMT
Uh oh! Uh oh! You're denying the Hocky Puck, you ... you SKEPTIC YOU !!!!
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 2, 2009 0:47:15 GMT
I'm sorry. I mean Hockey STICK.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Dec 2, 2009 2:49:56 GMT
Excuse me if this has been opined previously. I just don't have time tonight to read the previous 7 pages.
Ok, so the solar / temp relationship broke down in, what, 1975 or so? How does that compare with the tree-ring / temp divergence? Is it worth speculating that there was a common cause for BOTH of their divergences with the instrument data? Like, perhaps, the analysis and conclusions being drawn from the instrument data are wrong, not the other two? From what I've read in the Harry file, I have no confidence in CRU's results.
|
|
|
Post by toughluck on Dec 10, 2009 4:56:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Dec 10, 2009 10:44:20 GMT
Perhaps, but with the publication of 10-years of emails between top climate scientists like Trenberth at NCAR and the lies they have told and published over nearly a decade show they made up data altered others, and censored true data to gain powerful influence on the political world on the myth of man-made global warming - then the brainwashing will stop.Wrong on pretty much every count. NO data has been made up and NO data has been altered. What is apparent from the CRU emails is that reconstructions have been 'doctored' in the end years to make them appear more like the observed temperature record. This was suspected by a number of people (including me) for a while. I challenged Michael Mann on this very issue around 5 years ago. Mann denied the practice took place. The only thing we can say for certain is that tree-ring reconstructions are unreliable - again this something many of us knew anyway. I've long held that the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth, and the other planets in our solar system, There's no evidence for this. We have the deepest minimum in a century, high GCR count and .... the prospect of the second warmest year on record in 2010. Nope, no data made up, fiddled with, adjusted, CRU'd at all... wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 11, 2009 0:04:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Dec 11, 2009 0:26:27 GMT
We had satellites in 1940??
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 11, 2009 0:27:53 GMT
it tells exactly the same story Here we go again......
|
|
|
Post by dusty09 on Dec 15, 2009 22:17:05 GMT
Leaving aside the political element at the end of this link (Forecast issued on the 2nd December); climaterealists.com/attachments/database/WA09No97ClimateGate6Dec15PiersCorbyn.pdf1.) Can anyone shed any light on what solar particle and magnetic affects they are talking about, how do you measure them. 2.) What is a SWIP and how can you possibly predict it? 3.) Would any folks living either in North America, around the Mediteranean, Indian Ocean or Queensland Aus care to report back on how accurate this prediction is?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 16, 2009 5:18:11 GMT
Leaving aside the political element at the end of this link (Forecast issued on the 2nd December); climaterealists.com/attachments/database/WA09No97ClimateGate6Dec15PiersCorbyn.pdf1.) Can anyone shed any light on what solar particle and magnetic affects they are talking about, how do you measure them. 2.) What is a SWIP and how can you possibly predict it? 3.) Would any folks living either in North America, around the Mediteranean, Indian Ocean or Queensland Aus care to report back on how accurate this prediction is? 1) No idea 2) SWIP: Solar Weather Impact Period ?? 3) In SE Queensland this afternoon, we're about normal temp (for a change - it's been above average here for months). Weather is always a little "unsettled" at this time of year but it's a near perfect day thus far. Storms can develop, often with little warning from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), but no signs so far today. There is a cyclone (Laurence) off the coast of Western Australia but it's thousands of kilometers from here. Nothing dramatic here at the moment .... and nothing dramatic predicted by the Bureau for the next few days. Mind you, if I had the job of issuing weather bulletins here, I would likely add "Chance of a thunderstorm" to every day's forecast. (at this time of year).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 16, 2009 12:00:14 GMT
We had satellites in 1940?? The only satellite in 1940 was the GLC Imagination
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2009 17:34:51 GMT
There's no evidence for this. We have the deepest minimum in a century, high GCR count and .... the prospect of the second warmest year on record in 2010. Oh, how scarey -- 2010 COULD be the second warmest year on record. It's 2009 right now. 2010 is still 2 weeks away. I've been following Global Warming for years now and while I believe "Global Climate Change" is a better name, and stopping "Global Climate Change" is a good idea, I've been watching failed predictions of rising global temperatures for a really long time and haven't seen them in about 10 years. I firmly believe in man-made CO2 is messing with the climate, but if some of the "predictions" don't start coming true, I'm going to switch from "Yes, but 'Global Warming' is the wrong name." to "The entire thing is a hoax." I was saying well before SC23 ended that the sun had really stirred things up and that we'd know better when SC24 rolled around because of regression to the mean -- SC24 was more likely to be weaker because SC22 and SC23 were so strong (just as a statistical statement -- no underlying Physics). Here we are in a deep minimum (I'm excited because the SSN is over 30 ...) and all the "predictions" of the "stupid GCR-loving skeptics" are happening just as expected -- no new record high years in a decade -- and now there's this "prediction"? No, GCR Denialists need to start being called "Denialists". Science is based on the ability of an hypothesis to be tested and falsified (among other things). We're in a deep minimum, GCR counts have changed as a result, the weather has responded as predicted. That's SCIENCE. Now learn to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 16, 2009 19:09:35 GMT
No, GCR Denialists need to start being called "Denialists". Science is based on the ability of an hypothesis to be tested and falsified (among other things). We're in a deep minimum, GCR counts have changed as a result, the weather has responded as predicted. That's SCIENCE. Now learn to deal with it
In what way has the "weather responded as predicted"?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 16, 2009 19:26:18 GMT
"In what way has the "weather responded as predicted"?" I guess it hasn't warmed in 10 years despite all that nasty and increasing GHG CO2 and the last time GCR's flux was unusually high in the '70's we were told an ice age was coming. EDIT: hah, stupid cider, what I meant to say was that the last time GCR flux was relatively high for an extended period of time we were warned of an imminent ice-age.
|
|