Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 08:55:17

Quick review
Back in the early 2000s, the world was graced with warmer weather all over. In the midst of a string of hot summers, The UK set several high temp records, including an all time national high of 38.5C in summer 2003. The US had a bumper crop year in 2004 at the end of an epic hot growing season. Hot, hot , hot all over everyone agreed.
The skeptic community hadn't yet formed. Groups that didn't agree about the cause of the warming still agreed the world was warming. AGWers were happy, and were quite a benign lot, at least compared to today.
But already, admist the hot years, change was in the breeze.
Around 2003-2004 a group called international astronomical union were predicting the world would start to cool around 2006-7. This predictiopn was based off the idea that changes in the solar magnetic aspect were the major influence on Earth's changing climate, not man made global warming.
At first, no one heard this of course. The world was warming, and that was that.
But as early as 2005 perhaps, changes were becoming apparent. 2005 was marked as arguable the most significant hurricane year ever recorded. Many records were broken. AGWer's said it was due to AGW. No-one else had a significant voice in the media at the time. So most just believed the AGWers.
By 2006 though, things were shaping up. The 1st thing that happened was it was apparent the suns magnetic field WAS collapsing just as the IAU had predicted 3 years earlier, and exactly unlike what NASA was predicting ( another highly active solar cycle ).It wasn't just like the normal 10 year schwabe cycle. It was much more significant, a 100 or even 200 year cycle minimum.
Also, around the world, a few signifcant cool events had bucked the trend of hot,hot,hot slighty.
The skeptic community became co-ordinated and united around solar magnetic cycles as causal to the Earth's cliamte change.
Straight away the AGWers eyed up skeptics and denounced them as naysayers. As waves of brainwashed AGWers came out schools all over america and europe and hit net forums, the skeptic masses realised that AGW wasn't just a error in science, but had been a calculated disinfomation program sent down from a higher power.
So who was right? Skeptics or AGWers?
Move on another 5 years, and the AGW-skeptic scene is pretty much what it was in 2006, just alot bigger as both sides swell their ranks, each blowing out millions of posts arguing with the other side.
But now, unlike then we have results.
Thru 2006-2011 a series progressively harder winters hit europe, asia and america. The skeptic community found itself awash with as many cold weather news events as the AGWers had had warm weather events 5 years earlier. In the UK, the long hot summers of 30C+ had vanished, the mild winters with only dozen nights of frosts had been replaced by hard winters, cuminating so far in a 320 year record cold December2010. But it won't stop there because the sun is still in the midst of a magnetic collapse.
Where-ever in the world you care to study, the weather had gotten colder.

The seemingly impossible had happened. The climate skeptics were right.
But you wouldn't know it looking at the climate web forums. As Tanada once said,' no amount of cold weather for any duration will stop my belief in AGW '. Belief doesn't depend on what happens in reality, it depends on brainwashing thru the mass media.

For me, the excitement of experiment is over. The anticipation of testing the 2003 hypothesis of the skeptics has now subsided, and I now tend to look back on events of 2006-11 for evidence rather than look forward to future years data. Winter 2010-11 was the 4th cold year in a row for Europe, Asia and America. 1 or maybe 2 could be called as 'one offs', but not 3, and certainly not 4.

The AGWers, as to be expected, are having none of it though. Even though none of the dire AGW predictions made in the 1980s like coastlines being submerged by AGW induced rising sea levels had happened. They've been trained to only look at 'the now', 'this is it!' mentality is dominant, runnaway global warming has just arrived, and we're all going to start burning anytime now. Never mind that it been just arriving for the last 20 years ( or 2.5 years if you stick with PeakOilEnvirinments take ).
Fresh waves of ADHD ritalin AGW kids get dumped out of AGW schools on the forums every year. So the work of skeptics doesn't get any easier.
None of them are capable of rational arguement. AGWer debate towards skeptics is just adhomiens and obfuscation. e.g. for solar influence on climate, AGWer ignore the focus of skeptic interest, the magnetic aspect of the sun and it's influence, instead propagate the myth that our theory is based on the Total Solar Irradience. Numerous attempts by skeptics to correct this error in their understanding don't have any effect. Because for AGWers, they aren't doing it out of error, they are doing it to obfuscate.

I'll be spending less time on the forum now. My interests move slightly away from climate, and towards seeing what the long term geopolictical plan is for the packs of brainwashed AGW kids. Climate-wise the 100% UAH satellite temperature vs solar-cycle co-relation, with large el-nino peaks adjacent la-nina troughs coinciding with solar-cycle minimum is my main interest.
2011-12 should be comprised of the 2nd trough in the SC23-24 transition la-nina:el-nino:la-nina wave.
Image
No sign of significant global warming.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby dolanbaker » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 11:36:37

Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 12:38:12

User avatar
mos6507
permanently banned
 
Posts: 9499
Joined: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Boston Suburbs

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby eXpat » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 13:16:14

meemoe_uk wrote:I'll be spending less time on the forum now.

Yeeessssssssssssssssss!! Please! :-D [smilie=5bouncy.gif] [smilie=adios.gif] [smilie=new_bdaysmile.gif]
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw

You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand
User avatar
eXpat
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3801
Joined: Thu 08 Jun 2006, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby dolanbaker » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 14:36:09


The theory that the world will be cooler in 2030 is gaining ground!

Here is a bit of original research! http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 14:49:36

dolanbaker wrote:Here is a bit of original research! http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm


Hmm... "The page cannot be found"



My point exactly.
User avatar
mos6507
permanently banned
 
Posts: 9499
Joined: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Boston Suburbs

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby dolanbaker » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 15:43:11

mos6507 wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:Here is a bit of original research! http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm


Hmm... "The page cannot be found"



My point exactly.


Works OK here! Here is part of the first page.

New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?

by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt

Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany

Abstract:

Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

1. Introduction

The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined “best estimate projections” of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes “storylines” to speculate about warming as high as 5.8° C till 2100. The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby scas » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 16:04:26

The sun is the only possible source of climate change. Any changes on the planets surface or composition of the atmosphere has no possible effect on anything at all. The emeritus professor Fred Singer has confirmed these findings over and over. Just google Climate Change Scam and see how the world has been taken in. I went to the book store and theres over 50 books about climate change and a couple by skeptics, but I only looked at the skeptical ones. I saw James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren there, but didn't want to look at his hogwash. He is known as the worlds eminent climate scientist, but I call him the eminent idiot. The internet is the best source of information, but only certain sites. Stay away from NASA, IPCC, US military, NOAA, The National Research Council - their agenda is to scam and take over the world. I know it seems that climate change is a recent thing perhaps starting as early as 1988 with the IPCCs formation, but these "scientists" have been trying to scam us since the days of Arrhenius. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels...those are natural events. I wouldn't worry about it sea level has changed in the past yet we are here today.
I'll be spending less time on the forum now. My interests move slightly away from climate change, and towards seeing what the long term geopolitical plan is for the packs of brainwashed anti-science kids. Sorry I didn't have time to properly format paragraphs, I am simply too busy researching my thesis on Climate Fraud.
scas
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 05:39:52

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 16:26:56

scas wrote:The internet is the best source of information, but only certain sites. Stay away from NASA, IPCC, US military, NOAA, The National Research Council - their agenda is to scam and take over the world. I know it seems that climate change is a recent thing perhaps starting as early as 1988 with the IPCCs formation, but these "scientists" have been trying to scam us since the days of Arrhenius.


If meteorologists aren't convinced, how can you expect the general public to be? Anyhow in that accuweather link it sure looks like temps are going down to me. The meteorologist says we might be in the steepest decline of temps within our lifetime.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby scas » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 16:29:45

Sixstrings wrote:If meteorologists aren't convinced, how can you expect the general public to be? Anyhow in that accuweather link it sure looks like temps are going down to me. The meteorologist says we might be in the steepest decline of temps within our lifetime.

Head to your local book store and buy some texts by actual scientists. Only you can educate yourself, and only if you choose to. Take some time to educate yourself on the spin campaigns that have been so successful too. Perhaps you may choose not to because you feel a comfort in your ambiguity. After all, who wants the stress certainty brings?

It's turns out climate science isn't meteorology. You also haven't taken a consensus poll of all meteorologists, not that it would prove anything. I've studied meteorology extensively during my years as a pilot, and climate science as an amateur. They're different.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 01 Feb 2011, 18:56:09, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: It is not necessary to requote yourself.
scas
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 05:39:52

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 16:48:37

Isn't it funny how Six is as instantly won-over by AGW denialist quackery as V-M is by ancient astronaut quackery, and yet both of them are convinced they are doing their due diligence to separate fact from fiction. You'd think maybe they might actually be starting with their preferred conclusion and then looking for any fringe crackpottery (like obscure russian links from the land of Uri Geller and abiotic oil theory) to back it up? :P
User avatar
mos6507
permanently banned
 
Posts: 9499
Joined: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Boston Suburbs

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 17:00:09

mos6507 wrote:Isn't it funny how Six is as instantly won-over by AGW denialist quackery as V-M is by ancient astronaut quackery, and yet both of them are convinced they are doing their due diligence to separate fact from fiction. You'd think maybe they might actually be starting with their preferred conclusion and then looking for any fringe crackpottery (like obscure russian links from the land of Uri Geller and abiotic oil theory) to back it up? :P


Mos, they don't have ancient alien astronauts on the Weather Channel -- that's History Channel. :lol:

Can we talk about the accuweather link? The guy in that vid is a PhD meteorologist. So let's cut all the hot air, is it frickin getting colder or warmer? If you say it's getting warmer, then please somebody debunk the accuweather meteorologist.

If you say that it's getting colder, but this a "cold-before-hothouse" state then let's move the discussion there.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 17:05:40

User avatar
Ludi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 18586
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby dissident » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 18:20:24

Image

From the link in a previous post.

Look at the time axis, the great "correlation" stops around 1990. That would be 20 years go.
The graph is from one of the fraudulent Danish papers that fudged the data. See article by Damon and Laut (PDF).
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby scas » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 18:41:30



What are you trying to prove? Don't you know how a real scientist interprets this?

I see warming, then cooling, then more warming, then more cooling, then more warming. There are some minor distortions from small changes in earths land and atmosphere, you can see this in the small jaggies. We can only conclude that there will be more cooling. After all temperature changes are driven by the sun. These findings are confirmed by my solar cycle chart and by my favorite maverick scientists who don't follow the sheeple and their so called concensus.
Last edited by scas on Fri 28 Jan 2011, 18:46:21, edited 1 time in total.
scas
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 05:39:52

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby dissident » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 18:44:22

From this I can only conclude that there will be more cooling.


Indeed, we have been cooling since 1998. Starting this year we will be cooling from 2010.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 19:12:06

scas wrote:What are you trying to prove?



Absolutely nothing. The fairies told me to post this graph. :)
User avatar
Ludi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 18586
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 19:18:36

scas wrote:I see warming, then cooling, then more warming, then more cooling, then more warming. There are some minor distortions from small changes in earths land and atmosphere, you can see this in the small jaggies. We can only conclude that there will be more cooling. After all temperature changes are driven by the sun. These findings are confirmed by my solar cycle chart and by my favorite maverick scientists who don't follow the sheeple and their so called concensus.


Oh I see what you're doing.. you guys think if you all go AGW denier on us then we'll flip sides just to keep arguing with you. :lol:

Though couched in satire, I think I get what you're trying to say. The problem with that long term chart is the proxy methods for measuring data (I still need to see those ice core charts, can't make up my mind until I can look at those).

Even the Accuweather meteorologist seemed to suggest there's controversy over tree ring proxies. He said that's why he likes satellite data, it's more accurate with no room for human error and / or interpretation.

Bottom line, I'm glad so much money has been spent on climate change research. A lot of high tech stuff has come online the last few years, like the Argo undersea robotic network. And also satellite measurements -- there's no heat island effect in space, after all. So why can't we be patient FOR JUST A FEW MORE YEARS and let all this cool new tech do its stuff. By the time we finally know the definitive answer on AGW, peak oil's going to solve our emissions problem anyway.

But if the cornies are right and we overcome peak oil, then another decade of solid satellite data and all this other research going on (like Argo) will finally give us a definitive answer on the AGW doom timeline.

EDIT: the other problem I have with the long term chart is that it suggests the temp has been rising from a "normal" state, when in fact there is no normal only cycles -- we've been coming out of the little ice age for a hundred years, warming all that time, and nature IS going to pull us back down to another cooling cycle. At least be glad about that, even if Lovelock is right at least we're at the top end of natural warming and the planet will be fighting toward the other direction -- cooling.

But I still want to see those ice core charts, I want to be CONVINCED that it really is hotter now than the medieval warm period. I want to see the little ice age on the chart and compare that to the MWP and where we are now. If it really is hotter now then I can lean toward AGW doom.

But even then recent data has priority -- if the satellites show we're cooling, then that's good news. Maybe better regulations in recent decades are doing some good. Is that not possible?
User avatar
Sixstrings
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 19:38:38

Sixstrings wrote: in fact there is no normal only cycles



100% correct, but we can see (or some of us can see) that AGW is outside of or in addition to "natural cycles" (of course AGW is entirely "natural" too - the natural result of pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the air).

However, as civilized humans we're mainly concerned about how to continue to live as civilized humans - a way of life dependent on stable climate (the Little Ice Age caused massive famine in a relatively unpopulous civilized world). If we're fine with not being able to practice agriculture, maybe we shouldn't be so worried about AGW. If we're fine with humans only being able to survive as hunter-gatherers in the Arctic circle, maybe we shouldn't be so worried about AGW.
User avatar
Ludi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 18586
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: review of Skeptic test = complete, move on!

Unread postby Lore » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 19:50:00

Why should we believe TV meteorologists anymore then petroleum geologists? Actually, even less so.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: onlooker and 14 guests