posted January 29, 2012 02:25 PM            

The rest of us always knew their Man Made Global Warming obsession was a hoax, a scam and the biggest crock of crap to ever come down the pike!

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid. ‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

posted January 29, 2012 11:36 PM            

I had to divide the last post into 2 posts because it wouldn't post up.

I also used "con't" at the bottom of the first section and "con't" at the top of the second section.

posted July 19, 2012 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Yeah right. You wish global warming were true, and you weren't just spamming GU with unscientific nonsense about the climate.

---

See, this is what I mean about you, AG. You get all sorts of GOOD info and you reject it. I offered a present to you for listening to Rush, and you reject it.
You are closed minded.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 19, 2012 01:02 PM            

Your offer isn't legitimate. Rush is NOT and has never been a source of good information. There is no intellectual benefit from listening to him. That's not a close-minded view. That's a RATIONAL view. If you were to survey all the brightest minds in the world, I don't think you'd find a SINGLE one that would say that they listen to Rush. Why? Because there's no benefit.

Second, this isn't "good" information. We can all rest assured that it's not good information, because the scientific community doesn't embrace it.

quote:

---

AG only believes scientific data if it's from the few scientists of the NOAA or IPCC.

---

posted July 19, 2012 01:38 PM            

Also, I've already pointed out that legitimate scientists love to debate this stuff. If there were credible voices within the community that disagreed with good reason, they would surely gain momentum. Instead, we get new articles every day regarding the consequences of the warming that has happened. Even if the warming weren't to be manmade, it sure seems like Conservatives would love to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and also disregard the effects of the measured warming.

You have tunnel-vision thinking that this is some sort of leftist conspiracy. It's not. The same sh!t is happening in Australia:

Scientists reject LNP school move

A BODY representing nearly 70,000 Australian scientists has criticised a Queensland Liberal National Party resolution calling for mainstream climate science to be cut from the state's school curriculum.

LNP delegates at the party's state conference passed a motion yesterday calling on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to stop the teaching of ''environmental propaganda material, in particular post-normal science about climate change''.

The mover of the motion, Noosa LNP member Richard Pearson, attacked ''false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools''.

''Few people understand that the so-called science of climate change is really what can be defined as post-normal science,'' he said, arguing it went beyond traditional understanding of science. The motion was passed with overwhelming support.

Advertisement Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive of Science & Technology Australia, called the resolution ''extremely harmful''. The central principles of climate science - including that man-made greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere and have warmed the planet - were backed by all the world's major scientific academies. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/scientists-reject-lnp-school-move-20120713-221or.html

All the world's major academies...the same as I've been telling you. This is not something that's rigged. That article is dated July 14, 2012 by the way. It's as recent as anything.

I would rather disagree to disagree, or agree to agree. There is a conspiracy going on here. It's just undetermined who understands it, and who doesn't.

posted July 19, 2012 04:15 PM            

You love to go on about how it's a money scheme. Most money schemes are lauded by Conservatives. There's nothing a Conservative loves more than a money scheme. By that rationale, if it actually were a money scheme we'd see all kinds of Conservatives on board with it. It's really NOT a money scheme, though, and so we don't. We see partisan nonsense that manmade global warming is some insidious conspiracy.

posted July 20, 2012 12:06 PM            

You're still wrong about the one degree, and you're further wrong about volcanos.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

posted July 27, 2012 08:32 AM            

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your list of 31,000 American scientists, liberally sprinkled with PhDs who claim man made global warming is the real deal.

Yep, I'm still waiting acoustic and you're still ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading acoustic because there's a mere handful of scientists you could quote..and their scientific careers are in tatters due to their colossal fraud, misrepresentations and forged data.

But, I'll ask you again acoustic.

posted July 27, 2012 10:37 AM            

Anyone can research the consensus and find the truth...except for you apparently.

posted July 29, 2012 11:02 AM            

On the other hand, you acoustic have failed to come up with a similar list of those who back you hairbrained crackpot theory.

posted July 30, 2012 12:47 PM            

How many years have you been attempting this tactic on this argument? I've addressed the bogus nature of your list several times. Don't try to deny it. You know we've gone over this.

Beyond that, multiple studies have been done to prove the consensus, NONE of which you've ever posted. There was Oreskes 2004. Then there was Doran and Anderegg separately in 2010. THEN...someone came out with an answer to your bogus poll, and created their own called the Vision Prize. Every one of these studies have found the consensus to back manmade global warming, and the more the person is linked to the actual science, the more likely that they side with the consensus.

Every one of these entities endorse the manmade global warming concept:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

posted July 30, 2012 03:34 PM            

The supposition that they're not staffed by scientists is as stupid as the assertion that those medical groups in the other thread weren't run by doctors. There's no excuse for this poor logic.

What we've NEVER seen in this conversation is a list of scientific strongholds that reject manmade global warming. We haven't seen that list, because it doesn't exist.

The "list" you've tried to make out as holding some sort of scientific significance is not significant, and never was. Soliciting scientific opinions by providing flawed information will never amount to a real argument. Clearly, it's you who believes he can get away with something here.

That was a really poor attempt at putting the argument to me. You don't counter the relevant info I gave with unsupported claims against their scientific veracity. These institutions are looked to for their professionalism. They are not generally criticized for their poor work. Surely, you, do not have a rational means of challenging their work or their theories. People that think to themselves that they're going to educate themselves about the climate don't seek out your expert understanding of the subject.

posted July 31, 2012 09:16 AM            

Where's your list of REAL SCIENTISTS acoustic. 31,000 American scientists..with a liberal sprinkling of PhDs working in the climate sciences who say man made global warming is REAL...would be a good start.

Or, you can continue to do what you've been doing acoustic...ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading in attempts to deflect attention from the con artists and fraudsters running your man made global warming religion.

Too hot? It's global warming.
Too Cold? It's global warming.
Just right? It's global warming.
Too much rain? It's global warming.
Drought? It's global warming.
Normal rainfall? It's global warming.
Hurricanes? It's global warming.
No hurricanes? It's global warming.
Blizzards? It's global warming.
No snow? It's global warming.
Normal snowfall? It's global warming.
Irish Potato Famine? It was global warming.