New Solar Cycle Prediction

NASA ^ | May 29, 2009 | Dr. Tony Phillips

[2ndClassCitizen]

Thank you, sometimes I am a little dense.

[melstew]

I have seen the video—in full and read Singer’s book and probably 5 other skeptic book. Have you read the IPCC report, the Weathermakers, Field Notes of a Catastrophy, the NAS, NOAA, or NASA views?

The scientists on both sides (note I am not including Gore) believe warming causes co2 release. That’s the point about positive feedback loops. The question is did they historically feed off of each other at some point, and if so will emitted GHGs start the process. The overwhelming majority of scientists say yes—but there is no definitive proof.

My point was, and is, your evidence (high temperatures and low sunspots in 2007 and 2008) contravenes your theory (low sunspot activity in 2007 and 2008 will cause low temperatures). That’s illogical. I am sorry if you can’t understand that.

[melstew]

NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

[melstew]

I read the Chilling Stars, I familiar with Milankovitch cycles, but beyond that your post makes little sense. Something about virgins, volcano gods and pouring beer on yourself?

[melstew]

You are wrong. I don’t put graet faith in the models and will nt defend them, but they do not say what you assert. They do not predict a linear rise in temperatures. According to the models, ocean oscillations, solar variation, sulfur levels from volcanos will all have a year to year impact. If anything, the relative warmth of 2008, despite La Nina and low sun spots supports the “AGW idiots.” AGW idiots 1 Justa hairy ape 0

[Talisker]

Thank you, sometimes I am a little dense.

Sometimes you're a little too serious - I was making fun of scientists who try to hide plain answers.

[A.Hun]

It depends on what you mean by linear...in the IPCC's projections of 2001, the only scenario that did not show a steady increase in temperatures was the one that allowed for zero increase in CO2. All had ranges associated with the temperature rise, but none showed a temp decrease short term or otherwise.

IPCC conclusions

As CO2 has continued to increase, but temperatures have remained lower than 1998, their models are worthless...and the models are the scare tactic of the AGW argument.

Beyond that, AGW has no merit whatsoever...CO2 is such a tiny concentration of the atmosphere that its overall impact is neglible. 380ppm sounds real scary, until you realize it is .00038 concentration. That is .038 of 1%.

When you consider that man made CO2 is only 14% of all CO2, our impact is even smaller (.0000532 concentration-.00532 of 1%). The only reason CO2 is considered a "threat" is Hansen's chart tying temp rise to CO2 rise (later to be proven to be exaggerated). AGW has been a hoax from the start.

As for the sunspot argument, there is a closer tie to sunspot activity and earth's temperature than CO2 and earth's temperatures. Although we have had higher temperatures the last two decades with high CO2 levels, they came on the heels of an extremely active sun. The strongest sunspot cycles in recent history occurred in the last 60 or so years.

NOAA Sunspots

Of course, it could be something else controlling the climate....

[Talisker]

The scientists on both sides... believe warming causes co2 release. The overwhelming majority of scientists say yes—but there is no definitive proof.

What a brazen lie. The two side are divided precisely over this issue, and there is overwhelmig evidence - data - that CO2 levels are either completely separate from warming (in that they can rise during cooling phases), or are even themselves driven BY warming (which makes logical sense because it acknowleges the effects of both oceanic heating and biological growth, rather than the absurd opposite). In addition, the only overwhelming number of actual climate scientists are the ones completely against the unjustified, data-lacking, speculation-only pseudoscience that claims CO2 to cause warming.

Your "feedback loop" concept isn't unique but rather ubiquitous in science, but your "questions" about it's applications in AGW are entirely frivolous. You aren't making nice between the two sides, you're trying to validate the side that's supporting the biggest fraud in science history by declaring it viable without proof, and by implying connections for which you provide no data and spurious "logic", while slamming everyone's criticisms with contemptuous disdain for their rationality.

And one more thing - 2007 & 2008 temperatures followed a years long dropping trend - not warming. Any claims to the contrary involve massaged and questionable spot data, specifically extracted from the trend analysis, to help claims of the opposite of what all scientists see happening, but that a politically driven subgroup is trying frantically to cover up and deny - the utter lack of AGW.

[WHBates]

"Of course, it could be something else controlling the climate...."

That's it, I refuse to mail another letter until the postal rates decline, at some point we have got to realize that we must all do our part to stop this out of control situation and stop the AWG.

[melstew]

Wow. Calling me liar because the facts got in your way of your absurd little argument. Seems like you are really open to questioning your views. You don’t deserve the time—but here’s the link to one of many consensus scientists acknowledging warming proceeds CO2.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Only an utter buffoon would suggest that warming and co2 are definitely not interrelated. You have outed yourself as a kook.

My point here was never that agw is or is not occurring. Only that the evidence you cite is inconsistent with your conclusions. You are no better than Al Gore. You hear what you want to hear, and twist facts to a desired end. You are what you despise. Very sad indeed.

[justa-hairyape]

I don’t put graet faith in the models and will nt defend them, but they do not say what you assert. They do not predict a linear rise in temperatures.

If the models are not based on the fact that higher CO2 levels will always result in higher temperatures, why did none of the models predict a drop in temperature after the sun entered its minima phase ?

According to the models, ocean oscillations, solar variation, sulfur levels from volcanos will all have a year to year impact. If anything, the relative warmth of 2008, despite La Nina and low sun spots supports the “AGW idiots.”

No it does not. All our predictions have been correct. All the model predictions have been in error. So when the AGW crowd states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused the El Nino warmth in 1998, they are wrong. It did not. We now have proven that.

[justa-hairyape]

My point was, and is, your evidence (high temperatures and low sunspots in 2007 and 2008) contravenes your theory (low sunspot activity in 2007 and 2008 will cause low temperatures). That’s illogical. I am sorry if you can’t understand that.

It only appears illogical to you because of your apparent limited understanding of how small changes in energy work their way through the Earths massive fluid and atmospheric systems. Your comment that we should be colder (after coming off a warm peak) demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the subject. In basic terms, there is a delay. It takes time to cool or warm the worlds oceans from changes in emissions from the sun. Combine that delay factor with being at a high peak (initial conditions) and the resulting current small drop in temperature is perfectly explained. At any rate - Watch what happens this winter in the Northern Hemisphere. If we are right, your argument will look ridiculous by then.

[PA Engineer]

Wow. Calling me liar because the facts got in your way of your absurd little argument

No need to call you a liar. Your own words do that. A few of your past posts for everyone to read:

Are Volcanoes Melting Arctic?

June 30, 2008 9:35:01 PM EDT · 27 of 62

melstew to null and void

Absolutely amazing the lengths that people will go to hide from reality. Of course volcanos are causing the Arctic to melt. Isn’t it obvious? It couldn’t be the millions of tons of carbon. And the carbon and other GHG increases in the atmosphere? Obviously caused by Leperchaun dust. And, the increased rate of class 5 hurricanes is caused by super big dragon flies from the Bermuda Triangle. You’re implication that AGW is a vast left wing conspiracy reminds me of Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy. You’re not Hillary are you?

Wake up and face reality. It appears that we are changing the climate. As long as dopes keep denying it, it gives guys like Al Gore a platform. Pathetic.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies

Of course there is this wonderful gem of yours:

Gore calls for quick action on warming

May 5, 2008 4:04:29 PM EDT · 41 of 85

melstew to boomop1

I know I am going to get blasted for this—so let me first point out that: (1) Free Republic is my favorite website; and (2) I believe in the Republican party and spend countless hours to support conservative candidates. Less government is the best government. The media is liberal, and from Pelosi to Carville, and from MCauliffe to Harry Reid, they make my skin crawl. But, I believe my party is missing the boat on Climate Change. I went to an event for a group called PennFutures in Philly on Saturday—where Al Gore gave the same speech he gave in Columbus. I actually met the guy afterwords, and we spoke for a minute. There were indeed points in which he was off base—like the New Orleans comment—but the balance of his presentation made a strange amount of sense. He spoke of the end of oil, the climate change consensus, and the stress which increasing population has on the environment. His point was to conserve and to look at renewables. Now I remember Al Gore from 2000, and I remember what he did and what he said, and I will never be an Al Gore fan—but unfortunately he has gained the high ground on this issue, and unless our representatives stop burying their heads in the sand we are going to lose politically and perhaps pay a far greater price than that.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies

This is a good one:

Google steps up eco-activism, will help flood Capitol switchboard

March 31, 2008 6:26:51 PM EDT · 12 of 37

melstew to trumandogz

The possibility of anthropogenic climate change is enough to concern any reasonable person who does not restrict his/her reading to Exxon/Heritage Foundation’s talking points. Just because climate change plays right into the hands of global socialists—doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Sure the likely effects have been exaggerated (or disregarded) by those with an agenda. But, you don’t raise greehouse gas in the atmosphere by 40%, watch temperatures increase by 1.5 degrees in a century, and bury your head in the sand. Google is well within its rights to support a cause it believes in—and unlike Exxon, it is not doing so for personal gain. Good job Google.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies

I think everyone should enjoy your posting history. The only thing that is striking in your argumentative style is ad hominem attacks. Have you really read any of the books you claim? Do you have even a smidgen of understanding of why "boundary theory" is important to the veracity of your beliefs? Why do you feel the need to attack everyone who disagrees with you without offering a single logical counter claim?

Seems like you are really open to questioning your views.

This sure sounds like projection based on your posting history.

[C210N]

The AGW proponents have stopped their past few years of cooling denial and they are now stating that the cooling should have been greater ?

Sounds like the recent CNN-like economic good-news stories that we're headed to recovery since the # of 1st time unemployment applications is less than expected, or that some big companies loss is less than anticipated.

Well, learning just a little bit more about Maunder Minimums, if we should enter one, we can look forward to perhaps a new batch of Stradivarius-quality violins. On the minus side, we could have the same level of economic activity as existed during Antonio Stradivari's day.

[patriciaruth]

during the Maunder Minimum there was very little sun spot activity, which coincided with the start of the little ice age.

Incorrect.

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the peak of the Little Ice Age which is variously dated, but in The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan is dated from 1300 to 1850 AD. The Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 AD was only one of many "minimums" that occured during the Little Age Ice.

Brian Fagan in his tedious review of historical documents during the Little Ice Age, never proposed much of a theory as to why the climate change had occured, but did note that increased rain as well as cooler weather was a hallmark in Europe. The rain left the fields too muddy to plant in Spring and beat down the heavy heads of the cereal grain crops in late summer before they could be harvested. He documents a lot of famine and a lot of disease and then finally the Dutch and then the English after a couple centuries starting to wise up and change their agricultural crops and farming methods to accomodate the changed climate.

For a good theory on why the decreased solar activity leads to not just cooling but more rain, I recommend The Chilling Stars (2nd ed) by Henrik Svensmark.

He gives evidence that decreased solar activity causes decreased magnetic field protection causes more cosmic rays (charged particles from old supernovae) penetrating Earth's atmosphere causing more bombarded atoms in our atmosphere to be ionized causing these more charged atoms to attract water molecules (like seeding a cloud) and thus form low lying cloud cover which reflects heat back into space and cools the Earth while also producing more rain.

[patriciaruth]

LOL!

I love your postage rates compared to global warming graph!!

But I think they will significantly diverge in the next few years...

[patriciaruth]

There is an interesting book, Secrets of the Ice Ages by Robert Johnson, that discusses the effects of salinity in the oceans of the world in conveyer currents and in removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

His main focus is the role of the Mediterranean Sea in buffering climate change.

According to him the North Atlantic Ocean is the saltiest ocean in the world, due to the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and the Mediterranean Sea. In the Carribean Sea, water evaporated is blown west and much deposited in the Pacific Ocean. In the Mediterranean Sea, much of the water evaporated into the atmosphere is blown East and deposited in lands that drain into the Indian Ocean. Thus the Mediterranean Sea is very salty, even saltier than the North Atlantic, and made more so by damming major rivers like the Nile.

This increased salt load is why the conveyer currents work. The salty water in the Carribean is carried north in the “Gulf Stream” where it cools and sinks because the salt makes it heavier. The salty Mediterranean water flows out into the Atlantic with less salty Atlantic water inflowing in a deep current to take its place. At the levels of salinity now, some of the outflow of the Mediterranean goes north to the North Sea, and thus increases the saltiness of the fingers of Gulf currents there, prolonging their life span in face of glacial melt mix attempt to dilute them and shut them down.

This author believes that the increased CO2 in the salty water from our present atmospheric levels then plunges down into the deep ocean when this heavy salty water cools and from there follows the deep ocean current down to Antartica where the upwelling of deeper cold water has less CO2 at present. This he says is currently moderating the CO2 rise.

He has more information and caveats in his book, and it is an interesting read.

[Talisker]

...absurd little argument... You don’t deserve the time... utter buffoon... kook... no better than Al Gore... twist facts... are what you despise... Very sad...

Wipe the spit off of your lips and take a breath. Beside your filthy mouth, you've deliberately misrepresented my position while slandering me. That makes you a bald-face liar for the second time.

Then go read this: CO2 Rises AFTER Warming

Your phrase "consensus science" says it all - you belong to a collectivist political mindset that believes truth can be established by consensus, and that people who demand facts rather than opinions, and data rather than summaries, and call people on lies, should be slandered and shouted down, rather than respectfully answered.

Your scornful shrieking in the face of being caught in your indefensible lies sums you up perfectly - and your rape of science.

[Talisker]

There is an interesting book, Secrets of the Ice Ages by Robert Johnson...

Fascinating theory, it provides a structural explanation for the differentiation in salinity that otherwise would just be averaged. And then justifies some sort of C02 pump from the hypersaline current. Wow, thanks.

[justa-hairyape]

If one moves closer to the equator, an Ice Age can obviously be survivable. It is actually much safer to be near the sun during a low activity phase. Recent discoveries on nearby star systems has demonstrated that these big hot balls of plasma can give out some rather large belches when they get active. The problem now of course is that we have peaked in population. Blooming right before an Ice Age is not good timing, to say the least.