Feynman makes it clear that comparison of hypothesis to nature is the gold standard. Warmists are so tied to computer modeling that this step seems irrelevant.
Actually the bigger story is what is headlining right now at WUWT: the criminal acts of Peter Gleick.
The Warmists have always admitted they assigned an arbitrary amount of forcing to CO2 to make their computer models work. This exposes their figure that CO2 is 40 times greater than solar forcings as a ridiculous “wild assed guess.”. It would be laughable if these issues weren’t so important in putting a sane energy policy in place.
This critique of AR-5 is just another nail in the coffin of AGW or human-caused climate change. The theory of AGW is, however, a much like a vampire – difficult to kill. The fight will continue, but we skeptics are winning.
Allow me to quote the conclusion of one of the papers this doofus cites to support his claim that solar activity is driving current warming:
“Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the correlations. During the last 30 years the total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
In other words, whatever the general effect of solar activity on temperature, solar activity has not actually been rising lately so it makes a poor explanation for current global warming.
Misinterpreting your own citations? Sounds like the author of the blog post is guilty of some frauds of omission himself.
There has been no statistically significant warming in over 10 years now.
In fact,solar activity is down…historically down. A level not seen since the 18th century and maybe longer. Plan to be very cold in the near future.
But..But..But, dont’cha know that Wretched Madcow on MSNBC says that Global(cough)Warming means–really–ANYthing unusual in the–ya know–waether.
Can’t make this poo-poo up.
I do wish it was written in a more temperate manner. Oftentimes people can’t hear what you’re saying but for your tone.
Feynman makes it clear that comparison of hypothesis to nature is the gold standard.
This is key. What falsifiable predictions have climastrologists made that have been borne out experimentally? Are there any? Any at all?
Warmists are so tied to computer modeling that this step seems irrelevant.
Jurassic Park was produced with computer modeling. ‘Nuff said.
Occam.
“Jurassic Park was produced with computer modeling. ‘Nuff said.”
yeah, and it was really, really scary
Alex, the point is it hasn’t warmed for over a decade and the sun has been in quiescence. he pointed out that its cooling, not warming. so you got it ack basswards.
the first link is current
the second link though is a lot more interesting, as there are astronomy articles now wondering if the sun will skip solar cycle 25 as its so low (which is why no warming over that period).
the second graph is 1900 to 1999
and the first one when the page loads is 200 to present
its this low level that has many wondering if a new maunder minimum or grand minimum is starting
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
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.
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.
[snip]
‘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.
[snip]
‘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.’
A mini ice-age has caused record-low temperatures in Eastern Europe and rare heavy snow across the continent. Reports from hospitals and emergency agencies put the death toll over the past several days at more than 300 as of Monday.
Finland’s temperatures plummeted to 40 degrees below zero. The Netherlands saw its coldest weather in 15 years. Even Algeria in North Africa had snow and ice on the ground.
Let me see if my poor knuckle dragging T-Rex Empty Guy Box brainstem can get this…Winter, Cold…Spring, Warming, greenery sprouting.. Summer, Warmer, even Hot as Hades…Fall, Cooling, enchanted colors in the Great Smokys and Blue Ridge(oops, neo, and New England)… That it?
Looks like(gasp)Climate Change to me.
“solar activity has not actually been rising lately so it makes a poor explanation for current global warming.”
Wrong. If solar activity is steady, but above multidecadal norm (which is actually the case), it can completely explain recent warming. Your mistake is a rather common, but false assumption that all recieved heat immediately radiates away, which is not true. Such assumption is equivalent to equating Earth climate capacity to zero, which is ridiculous. Ocean can accumulate huge amount of heat without changing radiation balance. Radiation balance holds only on centennial time scale, not on decadal time scale. This time lag is estimated to be 800 years, the average time of ocean mixing.
I thought we weren’t supposed to look at the sun.
This explains the problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
Feynman makes it clear that comparison of hypothesis to nature is the gold standard. Warmists are so tied to computer modeling that this step seems irrelevant.
Actually the bigger story is what is headlining right now at WUWT: the criminal acts of Peter Gleick.
The Warmists have always admitted they assigned an arbitrary amount of forcing to CO2 to make their computer models work. This exposes their figure that CO2 is 40 times greater than solar forcings as a ridiculous “wild assed guess.”. It would be laughable if these issues weren’t so important in putting a sane energy policy in place.
This critique of AR-5 is just another nail in the coffin of AGW or human-caused climate change. The theory of AGW is, however, a much like a vampire – difficult to kill. The fight will continue, but we skeptics are winning.
Allow me to quote the conclusion of one of the papers this doofus cites to support his claim that solar activity is driving current warming:
“Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the correlations. During the last 30 years the total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
In other words, whatever the general effect of solar activity on temperature, solar activity has not actually been rising lately so it makes a poor explanation for current global warming.
Misinterpreting your own citations? Sounds like the author of the blog post is guilty of some frauds of omission himself.
There has been no statistically significant warming in over 10 years now.
In fact,solar activity is down…historically down. A level not seen since the 18th century and maybe longer. Plan to be very cold in the near future.
But..But..But, dont’cha know that Wretched Madcow on MSNBC says that Global(cough)Warming means–really–ANYthing unusual in the–ya know–waether.
Can’t make this poo-poo up.
I do wish it was written in a more temperate manner. Oftentimes people can’t hear what you’re saying but for your tone.
Feynman makes it clear that comparison of hypothesis to nature is the gold standard.
This is key. What falsifiable predictions have climastrologists made that have been borne out experimentally? Are there any? Any at all?
Warmists are so tied to computer modeling that this step seems irrelevant.
Jurassic Park was produced with computer modeling. ‘Nuff said.
Occam.
“Jurassic Park was produced with computer modeling. ‘Nuff said.”
yeah, and it was really, really scary
Alex, the point is it hasn’t warmed for over a decade and the sun has been in quiescence. he pointed out that its cooling, not warming. so you got it ack basswards.
http://wm7d.net/hamradio/solar/
http://wm7d.net/hamradio/solar/historical.shtml
the first link is current
the second link though is a lot more interesting, as there are astronomy articles now wondering if the sun will skip solar cycle 25 as its so low (which is why no warming over that period).
the second graph is 1900 to 1999
and the first one when the page loads is 200 to present
its this low level that has many wondering if a new maunder minimum or grand minimum is starting
Jan 29 2012..
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)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
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.
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.
[snip]
‘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.
[snip]
‘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.’
Deadly freeze, heavy snow keep slamming Europe Feb 6, 2012
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-06/europe-weather-snow-cold/52992316/1
A mini ice-age has caused record-low temperatures in Eastern Europe and rare heavy snow across the continent. Reports from hospitals and emergency agencies put the death toll over the past several days at more than 300 as of Monday.
Finland’s temperatures plummeted to 40 degrees below zero. The Netherlands saw its coldest weather in 15 years. Even Algeria in North Africa had snow and ice on the ground.
Europe’s Danube freezes over, cold snap toll at 460
http://news.yahoo.com/europes-main-waterway-ices-deeper-chill-feared-155038639.html
Let me see if my poor knuckle dragging T-Rex Empty Guy Box brainstem can get this…Winter, Cold…Spring, Warming, greenery sprouting.. Summer, Warmer, even Hot as Hades…Fall, Cooling, enchanted colors in the Great Smokys and Blue Ridge(oops, neo, and New England)… That it?
Looks like(gasp)Climate Change to me.
“solar activity has not actually been rising lately so it makes a poor explanation for current global warming.”
Wrong. If solar activity is steady, but above multidecadal norm (which is actually the case), it can completely explain recent warming. Your mistake is a rather common, but false assumption that all recieved heat immediately radiates away, which is not true. Such assumption is equivalent to equating Earth climate capacity to zero, which is ridiculous. Ocean can accumulate huge amount of heat without changing radiation balance. Radiation balance holds only on centennial time scale, not on decadal time scale. This time lag is estimated to be 800 years, the average time of ocean mixing.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
This is more of my style.
holmes, I read the Lindzen piece earlier today. Good stuff.
Yes, a brilliant takedown.