To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here;
At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed.
An excellent article. Take time to check out the link on the side about “Lysenkoism” (sp?). It illustrates a great parallel between today’s warmists and a soviet scientist who created an invalid theory that starved millions, but made Stalin happy because it accorded with doctrine.
Which is why they stopped referring to it, by and large, as “global warming” a couple of years ago and – instead – went for the more general (and therefore more easily applicable) “global climate change.”
This means both warming (which isn’t happening) *and* cooling can be attributed to human activity and, therefore, the Al Gore types of the world are justified in trying to limit how much toilet paper and energy we use.
It really is a grand little scheme.
“It really is a grand little scheme” Amy P.
No! it’s not a grand scheme! The only people that are confused by these retarded fools are other retarded fools. Who cares about hysterical nonsense created by criminal, so called Scientists.
They will go away when we vote for honest science, or NO science.
JMHO
overwhelming scientific evidence, so how do we shut the al gores of the world up so we can have some real scientific discussions?
What’s amusing about the article is the comments. Notably how many prefer to wave around “thousands” of papers based on statistics of temperature proxies rather than look at direct physical evidence. These dolts need to be reminded that the Sun IS the temperature, with ocean and atmosphere serving as buffers.
In looking at the current sunspot cycle record at solen.info/solar/ it looks like the three month rolling average will be giving us what NASA has said will be a double peak in sunspot cycle # 24. This increase in sunspot activity will make their prediction of a peak in June/July come true. it does not negate the fact that the first peak was in Febuary of 2012 nor that this cycle is similar to cycle #14, a cool cycle.
Warming, cooling what’s the difference? The Science Is Settled! Now shut up and get back to work paying your carbon tax, y’damn uppity peons.
And lets not forget the clearcutting of forests, now increasingly shipped from America, to power the EU’s woodstove, oops! I mean biomass, power generators. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22630815
There has been a noticeable change the climate science debate. Yes, there is still the recycled hysterics from the usual suspects but there is also signs that scientists are trying to distance themselves from the alarmist fringe and the most damaging social, economic and political policies. Sure they are doing it with a we knew it all along attitude but so what. Encouraging this moderation rather than gloating is a small price to pay compared to embarrassing them and driving them back to the alarmists.
For those who doubt the facts, I urge you to go to the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa and look at the Viking artifacts that predate the Inuit. These artifacts were found in the high Arctic on the Islands and coasts. The Vikings gave Greenland it name and they called it Green because it was not covered with ice and they even grew grapes there. The Viking exploration of our Arctic and colonization lasted from around 800ad to around 1400ad. They had to withdraw because they were subsistence farmers and could no longer grow crops to sustain themselves. They did not adapt to the advancing ice age and become strictly hunters like the present day Inuit.
Roughly 8 years ago NASA research stated that sun spot activity was waning and that if that trend continued, it would signal a cooling trend in Earth’s climate – this was corroborated by leading astro-physics observers at leading observatories. This as not only an admission that science sees the sun as the primary engine of climate change but also a confirmation that real science was in conflict with climate warming GHG theorists. Now NASA has admitted CO2 has actually a cooling effect on the climate.
Yet we still have political hacks pushing climate warming alarmist legislation on us. Time to confrontational with the warmist fear mongers – and if you’re waiting for the MSM to do it, dream on. They have a vested interest in spreading alarm and fear mongering.
I wuz wrong. Its not the sun after all.
The true source of global warming is found at the center of the globe.
It’s getting hot in here: Earth’s core is 1,000 degrees warmer than experts thought
I wuz wrong. Its not the sun after all.
The true source of global warming is found at the center of the globe.
It’s getting hot in here: Earth’s core is 1,000 degrees warmer than experts thought
Although it’s still far from the “millions of degrees” to which noted scientist Al Gore referred.
Yes,the article on “Lysenkoism” is an essential read.
We are experiencing exactly the same phenomenon as Russia did in the 1930’s,due to the same type of mindset of our current political leaders as those who ruled Russia way back then.
It’s all about controlling US,nothing more. I am going to send links to the two articles to my MP and the Minister of AGW,whoever that is,and demand they start questioning the AGW/CC narrative.
And the same to the Provincial Minister.
Maybe if someone in our BC Provincial government will read these articles,assuming they CAN read, we might get that fucking 7 cents per liter carbon tax removed.
Er the author should be more careful in his statements. There hasn’t been any change in temps for about 15 years, neither increase nor decrease. Indeed, if sunspot activity does decline and cooling doesn’t happen, it would imply a warming force possibly CO2. A warming force we should be very thankful for Ice Ages are deadly.
No! it’s not a grand scheme!
Yes, it is (that was sarcasm in my original post, by the way). What’s Al Gore’s personal wealth again? More than you or I. They managed to convince a not insignificant number of people the world has a fever while, in the process, making millions in various “green” ventures and subsidies.
Were I less concerned about logic, fact, genuine science and personal integrity, I might have hopped on board. The sale of Current TV to Al Jezeera would have set me up for a nice retirement at the tender age of 30.
This is the same sort of hysteria as the theory of evolution. All the studies say it’s so, but it doesn’t happen in the real world. There aren’t creatures in the process of turning into other species.
If it were true, why did it stop?
Stradivarious, did you happen to catch the recent article of how in just 5 years cockroaches learned not to touch the sweetened poisonous bait as internally their taste for glucose turned bitter. If you watch any program on whenever a geographical area becomes isolated you would see how the animal life begins to change as species die out or evolve to fill vacant niches.
“What’s Al Gore’s personal wealth again? More than you or I.”
Last article I read said he was currently worth 250 million bucks,up from the one or two million when he left Office.
I dunno about you, but that IS more than I’m worth.
Quite a bit more,actually.
This is the same sort of hysteria as the theory of evolution. All the studies say it’s so, but it doesn’t happen in the real world. There aren’t creatures in the process of turning into other species.
Yes there are.
If it were true, why did it stop?
It only stopped in your case. “Living fossil”. Please don’t sully AGW scepticism with anti-science garbage like ID.
Heh, They can’t answer the question so they frantically begin to build strawmen to knock down. Just like the AGW consensus fanatics.
I think you missed stradivarious’ point. There is as much ideological melodrama around the THEORY of Evolution as there is the myth of global warming.
One need only look at the weather to see what is going on. There is snow in the eastern provinces. Where is the warming? No warming has been detected in sixteen years and this article bolsters the idea that global warming is just a figment of some junk scientist’s imagination. Real scientists would be looking for answers. not making pronouncements they can’t back up.
and the computer models they use can’t predict yesterdays climate, so why do people think they are relivent to any predictions of future climate. What some ppl fail to grasp is “time frame”.
The difference is that Evolution is back up by mounds of evidence and does not rely so much on GIGO computer models like CAGW does. The only ‘drama’ SV talks of is the drama coming from angry creationists unhappy that the public school system does not indulge their beliefs.
LAS would you mind if I explained a few simple truths to you? First of all your ‘lots of evidence’ is better expressed as ‘lots of people agree with the interpretation offered’. There was ‘lots of evidence’ that the world was flat. The scientific community of medieval Europe all agreed. The earth was flat. One man said otherwise and eventually there was ‘lots of evidence’ that the world was spherical. Now since that time there has been a lot of other evidence that severely limits the interpretation that the world is flat but that is a tale for another day.
If you agree with the evolutionary point of view you are going to see ‘lots of evidence’ that the evolutionary point of view is correct. However that you agree with others does not mean that your belief is true since there are other explanations available. What’s more many people agree with the other interpretations. In and of itself interpretation of evidence is subjective and simply shows your bias but doesn’t confirm the truth. Now if you can demonstrate the auto-genesis of life then I will be the first to say that evolution is likely to be true. If you can not demonstrate the auto-genesis of life then your interpretation of the evidence will remain simply your interpretation of the evidence. In other words it is called the ‘Theory of Evolution’ for a reason. Its a THEORY. It remains a theory because science can not prove it to be a fact.
dave – selection pressure, founder effects can account for rather small changes in creature’s genomes, but not for the radical changes such as the assemblage of dozens and dozens of genes necessary for eyesight.
LAS – Darwin’s hypothesis of the origin of species – gradual evolution – died with the precise understanding of heredity and the understanding of the magnitude of change in genome required for, say the presence of eyesight in a creature afforded by the discovery of the precise structure of DNA and possible patterns of change in a genome. The only way evolution could survive, post Crick and Watson, was by the development of a plausible explanation of non-DNA based heredity by proponents of evolution.
The wildly emotional defense of evolution by its proponents smacks not of science but of the desperation evident in many AGW supporters, and other supporters of pseudo-scientific theories, such as Marxism and Keynesian economics.
From the Forbes article —
// The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. //
&
// The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. //
In the first excerpt, “has been attributed” are weasel words meant to hide the variety of plausible factors which have been offered. The extent & dates also are not agreed upon. As seen here
In the second excerpt, “reflects the end of the Little Ice Age” is virtually meaningless. Both drops AND increases require causes, the earth doesn’t “bounce back” or “recover” like some India rubber ball.
The difference is that Evolution is back up by mounds of evidence…
Except there’s no living evidence. Subjective interpretations only. Why did it stop? Just like there’s only subjective interpretations for AGW. Also, why has it stopped?
The comparison is very similar.
So after billions wasted, endless circular arguments from authority and propaganda, the glibbering climb down begins.
Our government funded experts insisted that linear trends dominate climate cycles and asinine policies proliferated .
The Un cult of secular anti humanists are exposed for all who chose to look.
Not wrong, just evil.
I believe the eco-tools are children from households awash in, “white liberal guilt syndrome” .
They hate themselves, their parents and all coloured people.
Evidence?
Actions;
the CAGW scam has caused massive damage to the worlds poor, food prices driven higher, reliable affordable electricity denied.
Refrigeration, sanitation, water treatment all impossible without affordable energy.
By their actions, save the planet,kill the poor.
All over delusions about plant food.
If the cold gets as bad as it was during the LIA, then Al Gore will finally be useful – as several months food for a starving family. Almost all politicians have drunk so deep of the CAGW koolaid that there’s no way they can go back and I suspect there will be some big time payback when it gets too cold to grow wheat in Canada. The modern equivalent to tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the rain gods during times of drought is to tax “carbon”. Look for higher and higher carbon taxes as it gets progressively colder and for moronic schemes to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to reduce “global warming” which was responsible for the worsening cold. I think that enough people are waking up now that they will believe what they see of their local climate rather than the computer models of the earths climate which have no resemblance to reality.
That’s when the hungry populace will go wild and I hope to still be around when the politicians blindly supporting CAGW and their crony capitalist friends are strung up from light standards. The greenies will get their wish, though, as the population of the earth will be drastically reduced if we enter another LIA.
but not for the radical changes such as the assemblage of dozens and dozens of genes necessary for eyesight.
It’s called ‘genome duplication’ and we see it all the time. New world monkeys can only see some colors because their color-vision genes weren’t duplicated. This is basic stuff you know.
Again, you missed the point and just cemented Stradivarious’ post- that the Theory of Evolution (which is not ironclad as you claim) evokes such anger whenever it is questioned that mirrors the current debate over global warming/cooling/change/hogwash. It is as though it has taken on a religious or cultish twist.
I’d stop worrying about creationists, by the way. There are bigger threats to students’ education than a Biblical account of how the world began.
The issue is not whether “climate denial” is right or wrong, but rather that the explanations pertaining to the greenhouse conjecture just simply don’t adhere to well known physics, and ignore the physics which explains the warming of the surface by non-radiative processes.
The IPCC (in its Glossary of Terms under “Greenhouse Effect”) refers to a “radiative forcing” effect which is by no means adequately explained in terms of physics. The concept of all radiation coming from a certain altitude is pure fiction. In fact the peak radiation comes from where water vapour is most prolific, somewhere around an altitude of 3Km. Radiative flux is quantified with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and it is nothing like a nice linear function declining with altitude. Quite a bit comes from the surface straight to space anyway. The altitude at which equal amounts of outward radiation come from above and below (including the surface) can be shown to be about 3.0Km to 3.5Km. The whole plot rotates around this pivoting altitude such that it has a less steep gradient in moist regions, and thus intersects the surface at a lower temperature.
Now, it is blatantly obvious that a planet’s atmosphere does indeed lead to the surface being hotter than it would have been if it only received the same amount of incident Solar radiation but had no atmosphere. Venus would receive only 10W/m^2 and would thus be far colder without an atmosphere. Uranus would receive nothing from the Sun, and would thus be colder than 3K. Even if it received all of the Solar radiation reaching its TOA (about 3W/m^2) it would be colder than 60K.
So it is very clear that the concept of energy budgets supposedly balancing energy and, in effect, instantaneously determining surface temperatures is fictitious. The energy required to maintain these surface temperatures has built up over the life of the planet from just a small amount of the daily dose of Solar radiation, most of which, but not quite all, was radiated back to Space.
It is not a day to day balancing act, and so all radiative forcing and all energy budgets, even for Earth, are totally irrelevant.
The Sun is not heating the atmosphere and outer crust from zero K each day. Thermal energy has built up over many years and is trapped by the gravity effect which keeps more of it closer to the surface than to the top of the troposphere. It does so by the spontaneous evolving process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat can and does flow up the very shallow thermal gradient which represents the thermodynamic equilibrium described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In doing so, flowing away from a new source of energy which is disturbing the thermodynamic equilibrium, it is merely acting with a propensity to restore the thermodynamic equilibrium, just as the Second Law says it will.
That is how some of the incident Solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere as night becomes day makes its way towards the surface, maintaining the thermal gradient determined by gravity (and reduced a little by inter-molecular radiation) so that the base of the troposphere is kept warm and thus “supports” surface temperatures. This is a non-radiative convection process which has nothing to do with radiative forcing.
Radiative models are simply not relevant.
New world monkeys can only see some colors because their color-vision genes weren’t duplicated.
While we’re ascribing reasons why something didn’t happen…
…the rain didn’t fall on the plain in Spain because of an incorrect amount of CO2 in the air…