Many of our readers have noted on the way Andrew Bolt throws graphs into his climate change posts, without necessarily explaining anything about what the graph is purported to show. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what they are supposed to show; sometimes they seem to display the opposite of what he is talking about. Sometimes we get links to the source; sometimes we don’t.
There’s a vigorous academic debate going on about one of the graphs Bolt made use of in a post yesterday:
In fact, says distinguished climatologist Professor Roger Pielke Sr, none of that seems true.
To give Bolt credit, he links to one part of that debate – a post at the site of one of Bolt’s favourite climate commentary sources, Anthony Watts (and it is apparently Watts who added the “FLAT” to the original graph). Watts was reposting content from a blog post by Roger Pielke in which he alleged the RealClimate blog had spread “misinformation”. But there’s no sign of him updating his post to include the other side – RealClimate has responded with a strong and detailed rebuttal of Pielke’s claims. There’s more coverage at Deltoid as well. In essence, these sites argue that Pielke’s claim (and Watts’s even stronger assertion that the graph since 2006 is “FLAT”) is wrong in two ways – (i) such a short-term interval is not a reliable observation period for drawing conclusions about climate change, and (ii) even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
Of course, even if Andrew Bolt’s readers followed the link he provided in this case, they wouldn’t be exposed to the argument over methods and interpretation. It’s ironic that he claims to want open debate on these issues, and that he implies it’s those on the other side of the argument who skew their presentation of the evidence.
(NB: It’s also worth noting that in a later update to the same post, Bolt claims that the Mann “hockey stick” has been debunked.)
UPDATE: The debate continues with a new post by Pielke.
57 Comments
Even then though, even if the last three years WERE flat (apparently the trend line is flattER, but not flat) it’s still pretty obvious where the trend is heading over the whole series, isn’t it?
Not to Bolt and his pals, apparently.
This is one of the things I find most disturbing about these folks – this ability to look straight at clear evidence – and just not see it! To see something else that simply isn’t there, but that does agree with the ideological position.
Scary.
I know it might be a bit late for them but here is supporting evidence, a study by a medical specialist, that smoking doesn’t harm you. Maybe I should alert the HS. Unfortunately no graphs in this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZOir7O6DP0
…have noted on the way…
Forgot to take our grammer tablets, did we?
Cheers
Yep flat, just like the earth…
grammer??
Yeah, grammer!!
Not spelling, damnit!
Tobias says:
In essence, these sites argue that Pielke’s claim (and Watts’s even stronger assertion that the graph since 2006 is “FLAT”) is wrong in two ways –
(i) such a short-term interval is not a reliable observation period for drawing conclusions about climate change,
umm I looked that the chart and it basically looks flat from 2006, Tobias. You sure you’re not looking at some other chart on a different website in error?
Please take another look and then come back here and tell us it’s flat for that period.
and (ii) even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
Not if you’re using an annual moving average trendline it wouldn’t be.
Tobias are you basically innumerate or are you relying on your readership to be.
It all depends on the trendline one uses. A five year trendline would show a warming however a one year trendline would show its flat lined since 2006 and you actually by now be pointing down.
Could you please correct the post and apologize for the errors.
You don’t need to be so inaccurate as the science is on our side.
Grammer used to play front row for Randwick, didnt’ he?
Hahaha. I saw this at Deltoid this morning and literally fell off my chair: “short term” suddenly got shorter!
In short (pun very much intended), why expose your readers to any opinion that runs contrary to your own, I mean this is polemicism you know, not journalism or anything.
If one draws a line from 2006 to 2008 (which is a case of cherry-picking), the line would be flat. If one draws a line from 2006 to 2008, however, one would find that the line in fact rises.
So, how do we account for the flatness of the line from 2006 to 2008? Well, that period was a strong El Nino, a fact that climate scientists take into account, but which denialists do not.
Tee, would you please apologize for your ignorance or your denialism? Either one will do.
tee, despite quoting it you seem to have missed the part where I said “these sites argue that …” I don’t believe I have misrepresented what the RealClimate or Deltoid posts say, and you certainly haven’t argued that I’ve done so.
Marek, I’ve always preferred grammer pie (my Nan used to make a great one) to tablet form. But I’ll stop eating it long enough to proof-read my post next time.
UPDATE: The debate continues with a new post by Pielke.
Tobias – Nice post showing the relative arguments from both sides of the debate. As for bolt and graphs I think we all know he has issues. Take for example this one:
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/solar_thumb.jpg
in the post: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sun_accused/
which shows the correlation between solar flares and temperature lagged 30 years. It clearly shows that over the last 150 years the relation has been effectively broken in comparison to records for the previous 700 years.
Bolt clearly does not understand some of the graphs he presents. Or the consequences of them.
” I don’t believe I have misrepresented what the RealClimate or Deltoid posts say, and you certainly haven’t argued that I’ve done so.
I never said you misrepresented those two august scientific sites, Tob. What I did say is something altogether different.
Let’s go through it again.
1. is the short term trend up or down.
2. if you fit a one year moving average, what would occur directionally?
I assume you are supportive the two highly scientific sites you quoted, right?
What I meant to say was: If one draws a line from 2006 to 2009, as shown in the diagram, one would find that the line slightly rises. I also should have said “La Nina” instead of “El Nino”.
Climate scientists recognize the unusual warming effects of El Nino events and the unusual cooling effects of La Nina events. There was an unusual El Nino event in 1998, and an unusual La Nina in 2007.
Bolt, just like his equivalents in the US, exploit public ignorance of the El Nino and La Nina events by picking points on the graph that give the impression of dropping temperatures. This enables Bolt to say two things – that from 1998 to the present, temperatures have dropped, and that from 2006 to 2008, temperatures have remained relatively flat. These statements are grossly misleading. 1998 had the highest temperatures on record, in fact two degrees above 1997 or 1999 temperatures, so by choosing 1998 levels, you can make a falling line on the graph. And by using what tee calls a “one year moving average”, one can also find a flat or falling line around the La Nina period of 2006-2007.
Talk of “the short term trend” or “a one year moving average” is either ignorant or disingenuous. It ignores the El Nino and La Nina events, and also ignores the fact that climate scientists regard global warming as a long term trend, observable from the 1970s to the present. The one or two year cooling caused by the recent La Nina event does not negate the fact that global warming has been occurring since the 1970s.
AMEN! those who want to argue that the earth is cooling based on data since 2002 (or whichever year is in vogue with them these days – it’s hard to keep track cause it seems to change all the time), or that sea levels are plateuaing based on 2 year data should come back after witnessing these pheonomena after 30+ years. It’s more than disingenuous or ignorant: it’s total lunacy!
Silkworm.
Please stop being ignorant. I asked Tob a simple couple of questions that have to do with observable statistical inference.
It’s not primarily anything to do with the science.
He first avoided the questions with a couple of useless strawmen statements and now remains silent is pretty telling.
You’re not a climate scientist so please either quote them directly in terms of what happened or stop wasting pixels with worthless explanations.
Let Tobias answer the questions and don’t confuse the poor guy.
Confessions:
I’m not arguing what a best fit trendline over a data set as according to climate scientists 30 years is.
Again, Tobias is the one that needs to tell me what his eyes see on those charts.
tee @ 17: your ‘arguments’ simply do not make sense. My feeling is you have misunderstood the entire premise of TZ’s post, even with his clarification solely for your benefit. If i were you, i’d take my cue from the fact that the post is apparently crystal clear to all other commenters, except you.
tee
The two years 2006-8 are hardly a serious sample period. You can argue the moon is made of potato bake by peering at selected sections of noisy data on a plot, but all your arguments are but fanciful smoke-and-mirrors baloney in the face of a least-squares regression line using data for >25 years. Unless, that is, by some mirakel of majik you can see what sea levels are doing between now and 2020.
Tee, I have pointed out the flaws in the denialist argument, but you are not a big enough man (or woman?) to admit to them. Until you can demonstrate you have a grasp of the science of climate change (and not Bolt’s politically motivated bullshit), don’t bother posting here. Ignorant people are welcome here if they show a willingness to learn, but denialists can crawl back into their holes and die.
Silkworm:
I’m not sure it’s your blog to be making demand of anyone. Frankly it’s laughable that you would be discussing anything about someone pushing politically motivated bullshit as you seem constipated from the junk you peddle.
Ignorant people are welcome here if they show a willingness to learn, but denialists can crawl back into their holes and die.
Quick, get the toggles, Silkworm’s heart just stopped beating. Lol
Fracture:
Unless, that is, by some mirakel of majik you can see what sea levels are doing between now and 2020.
Umm I’ll take a stab and guess. It will continue rising at the same rate it has been since the advent of the interglacial.. You think they’ll fall?
I already said that I’ll go with the science and say 30 years is a reasonable period of time to figure out a trend. You obviously missed this. However that doesn’t have anything to do with what i asked, fracture, which means you’re thinking too hard.
Tobs implies he sees an uptrend in those years and I want him to tell me if that is what he sees or what his lying eyes are telling him.
here are the questions again for Tob’s benefit:
Let’s go through it again.
1. is the short term trend up or down.
2. if you fit a one year moving average, what would occur directionally?
confessions
tee @ 17: your ‘arguments’ simply do not make sense.
Which statements, Confess?
I’m simply asking Tobs a couple of questions, that’s all.
My feeling is you have misunderstood the entire premise of TZ’s post, even with his clarification solely for your benefit. If i were you, i’d take my cue from the fact that the post is apparently crystal clear to all other commenters, except you.
I haven’t missed a beat. All I’ve seen is Tobs skirting those questions, that’s all.
Let me clarify.
I’m fully comfortable with the IPCC most likely scenario for a 2% rise in temps over the next 91 years or so. However unlike Tobias, worm and Fracture I’m not hugely concerned that even an unmitigated world would cause the earth to explode or in this case to drown.
Me thinks some of you are far too scared and running for high land expecting this to happen at any time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VXa82AuwHU
Don’t be scared, worm.
They told to be “reary reary” scared of terrorists too.
“short term trend” … “one year moving average” … I have already pointed out the idiocy of these arguments, but you keep returning to them, like a dog returning to it’s own vomit.
Give it up, tee. We all know what your game is.
I already said that I’ll go with the science and say 30 years is a reasonable period of time to figure out a trend. You obviously missed this. However that doesn’t have anything to do with what i asked, fracture, which means you’re thinking too hard.
tee(dious): I missed nothing in your post, largely because your post was full of it (nothing, that is). But for a minute while I wait my turn to have my toenails clipped by your peers at the Andrew Bolt Skool for making sh!t up allow me to think hard, for you evidently lack such a capacity. If you’re so keen to “go with the science”, what part of the following is beyond your ability to understand:
1) climate trends = 30+years of data;
2) climate trends (up, down, level, sideways, launching into a new dimension, whatever) do not prevent or annul short-term phenomena;
3) short-term phenomena are often called “weather”.
So, once again for the benefit of the simple (if not simple-minded) souls visiting here, no reasonable person willing to “go with the science” could see anything in what Tobias wrote that conflicted with what the graph shows.
Oh, wait, I missed something. What’s this notice say? “Don’t feed the trolls”. …
Fracture:
I’m not a troll, you are, you pathetic dunce.
Let’s go though it again shall we? Try and keep or you may end up in remedial classes for dimwits.
This is what Tobs said:
(i) such a short-term interval is not a reliable observation period for drawing conclusions about climate change, and (ii) even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
Focus on the last bit, fracture which is what my questions were about.
even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
Is the 2006-08 positive even by just eye balling it? Yes or no? Yes or no, you pathetic troll?
For that matter, the short term trend from 2004 to 2008 is actually flatish too.
Now if you can’t find it in yourself to answer in the affirmative I suggest you head to the back of the class and try coloring books.
Give it up, tee. We all know what your game is.
yep, agreed. another LOOK OVER THERE!!1! troll with nothing to contribute except contrary rubbish for the sake of being contrary.
I’m constantly amazed that these people continue to persist with very transparent (yet tiresome) tactics.
tee, authors and commenters at both of the sites I linked to have stated that the regression methods they used still show a positive trend, even when restricting the data to the period since 2006. I noted this, and observed that Andrew Bolt simply throws in the graph without explanation and without indicating to his readers that its interpretation is being heavily debated at other sites. If you want to take issue with what those other sites said about the positive trend, you should take it up at those sites.
For what it’s worth, my own position is that argument (i) that you quoted above, that the time interval from 2006 to present is too short to draw conclusions, makes argument (ii) irrelevant.
Sorry, Tob, you’re wrong and you won’t admit you are.
(i) such a short-term interval is not a reliable observation period for drawing conclusions about climate change, and (ii) even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
The trend in that period is not positive, Tob. Perhaps in you haste to slap Bolt across the head you made an obvious error. It wouldn’t change things if you simply fessed up to this obvious silly mistake and moved on.
Confess:
You’re comment is basically dribbling unintelligent abuse. It’s not my fault that Tobias isn’t big enough to accept his error and move on.
Tobias,
Could you please remove my comments from moderation. There’s really no reason to behave like that.
tee, you really are being silly. I’ll say this one last time – if you read what I actually wrote, I stated that “these sites argue that Pielke’s claim (and Watts’s even stronger assertion that the graph since 2006 is “FLAT”) is wrong in two ways …”. Do you disagree with my description of what those sites have argued? If not, then I don’t see what problem you can possibly have with what I wrote.
And every comments from every user (except for the site’s authors) enter moderation and must be approved before they appear on the site. Your comments are no exception to that rule.
Tob:
Now you’re trying to change the topic of the argument. Lol.
I’m not talking about what Bolt and Watts said. I waiting for you to apologize for the obvious error you made. Is it too hard?
I can’t believe you’re still denying the obvious. What is it with you and admitting to a silly mistake?
You haven’t pointed out any mistake, tee. All you have demonstrated is that you have trouble with reading comprehension.
Tob, you really can’t admit your mistake can you? Is it an ego thing perhaps?
This what you said:
(i) such a short-term interval is not a reliable observation period for drawing conclusions about climate change,
Fair enough, as most people would accept what scientists say in that short term movements are noisy.
However this is what you also said:
and (ii) even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
Now that was a specific reference to the very short term data that was being discussed which was 2006 to 2008.
You accuse me or difficulties with reading comp, right?
So lets try to make this a yes/no thing.
Are the data points between the years 2006- 2008 pointing down or not?
Yes or no, Tob? Are they pointing down or not?
Thanks in advance.
(ps Please try to give it your best shot. Sit down, take a deep breath and push down, or if the idea of admitting a mistake induces a panic attack take deep slow breaths for several minutes and sit in comfortable position)
tee: Once again (and for the last time), I refer you to the part of what I wrote immediately before the two statements you keep quoting:
Read it, attempt to understand it, and then perhaps you’ll realise that I didn’t say what you think I said.
Read it, attempt to understand it, and then perhaps you’ll realise that I didn’t say what you think I said.
Yea, you’re right, tob, you didn’t say
even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
at all, that’s just my eyes playing tricks on me. LOL
Short answer, tee: yes. Your eyes are lying to you. Regression analysis shows that the trend is still positive. And even if it was not, a couple of flat, or even regressive years, does not of itself end a multiple decade trend.
Come back in 2030 or so, if that trend actually does goes down, and then you can say “I told you so”. Until then, your complete and utter ignorance of the most basic foundations of statistics are only embarrassing yourself.
Tob:
What do you think this chart is saying?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uah_jun09.png
Let me try.
tee writes:
Yea, you’re right, tob, you didn’t say
even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
at all, that’s just my eyes playing tricks on me. LOL
Those of us who learnt English as a first language can see that tee is indulging in a rather stupid form of cherry picking, since TZ actually wrote:
tee, I suggest you follow the links and read the actual posts that TZ is referring to (there’s lots of juicy comments for you to get your teeth into) rather than continuing your asinine trolling here.
Going to answer, Tob, or has leftie’s kitten got your tongue.
Regression analysis shows that the trend is still positive.
You mean like the recently discredited Rhamstorf et al 2007 paper where he used all sort of smoothing nonsense to come up with a result that best showed things have become worse since the IPCC.
Here: He even discredits himself.
In hindsight, the averaging period of 11 years that we used in the 2007 Science paper was too short to determine a robust climate trend. The 2-sigma error of an 11-year trend is about +/- 0.2 ºC, i.e. as large as the trend itself. Therefore, an 11-year trend is still strongly affected by interannual variability (i.e. weather).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/langswitch_lang/wp#comment-127955
In other words his “non-linear” trendline was a crock of shit.
And even if it was not, a couple of flat, or even regressive years, does not of itself end a multiple decade trend.
tell that to Tobs as he’s the one who made the comment that it was within the trend.
Come back in 2030 or so, if that trend actually does goes down, and then you can say “I told you so”.
Why would I do that? Although 8 years a trend doesn’t make, I would have to say that the IPCC lower estimate of 2 degs or less over the next 100 years actually looks good.
I’m not panicked about the IPCC estimates, you guys are. I actually think they’re pretty good and show benign warming and allow time to adapt.
Until then, your complete and utter ignorance of the most basic foundations of statistics are only embarrassing yourself.
I think you need to discuss it with Tob as he’s the one who raised the issue:
even if it was, the trend in that period is still positive.
Not me
No, tee, I had never heard of Professor Rahmstorf before you misspelled his name at us.
But this may help your ignorance of statistics, and this might address some concerns you show to the specific data.
{Juvenile name-calling removed – Toby}:
No point changing the subject with useless links that don’t directly address the points I raised.
Actually I’m not ignorant of statistics, {Juvenile name-calling removed – Toby}, you are and it seems most of the innumerates who can’t address the issues I raised directly.
Zoot:
Love the shades man. They must be Rayban’s right?
Actually English is my first language, Zoot. It seems the reason you have a serious problem is that comprehension has never been your real strong point. That goes for {Juvenile name-calling removed – Toby} too.
Here’s the thing, Zoot. {Juvenile name-calling removed – Toby}, and Tog are linking to Realclimate, which is basically nothing more than a catastrophist site. There are far better places to go for a long-range climate forecast than reading what those deadenders have to say. But yes, that’s a personal opinion.
Without even blinking, {Juvenile name-calling removed – Toby} links to a site, which has the following to say:
Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice.
So er, short-term observations become “climate” or “weather” depending on who is doing the reporting. LOL…. So er if Realclicmate says things have got worse since the last (IPCC report), that of course is ” climate”. If someone else says things have remained stagnant with reasonable evidence too, over the same period that of course is “weather” and just noise.
You’re truly are incoherent.
As I said the-progressing-faster crap originally came from the since discredited Rahmstorf study.
You can believe in catastrophes while I’ll continue to believe that the lower range estimate of the IPCC has more credibility.
In this case the science from the IPCC is on my side while in this case you’re simply acting out fantasies.
Tob, this also applies you to. You don’t want to stand behind what you said and avoid doing so by obfuscating.
If you think short term weather patterns are basically noise, do you disagree with the Realclimate link then, which argues things have got worse over a short period of time…. that is since the last IPCC report came out?
tee:
Despite pointing it out several times you don’t seem capable of recognising that I was reporting what others have said about the sea level data, not making my own assertion, so I’m not responding to anything more you have to say about it.
As for the UAH temperature graph you posted, I see that the monthly mean temperature at present is close to the mean for the entire measurement period (1979-2009) – which looks to be about the eighth time that has happened since 1998, although each time it only seems to have lasted a few months at most before the monthly temperature has gone above the overall mean again. If you fit a linear regression model to that data set, it looks to me like the slope would be positive, although I have no idea whether it would be statistically significant.
Tob:
The point of the exercise was to make you admit an obvious mistake in your assertion. Unsurprisingly you didn’t, Tob.
Since the IPCC report there have been “studies” pointing to impending doom or to put it another way, “things have got worse”. The IPCC report came out in 2006 (I think) are those short term ” projections” more valid than those that are sceptical? If so why?
Any argument about climate change based on data since 2006, whether it says it’s more or less of a problem than was thought in 2006, is equally flawed. But I’m not sure which specific studies you’re referring to – for instance, the first issue raised in the RealClimate link I provided is that data from 1993 to the present shows changes that are outside the interval estimate in the 1990 projections. If longer-term trends are outside (whether above or below) the range forecast by earlier efforts at modeling, that is notable.
Tob:
The gold standard for any current climate analysis and projection is the last IPCC report that combines the wisdom of countless scientists. Anything that projects out away from the IPCC upper limits is basically hysterical catastrophism.
Notably you make excuses for that sort of junk science which is itself notable.
That’s not a good look for someone suggesting other people are sceptics when all your doing is sneaking in underneath the other extremist tail of a distribution chart which of course means you would see everyone else as denialists.
tee, your incoherent ranting and wilful misinterpretation of what I say might have been amusing for a little while, but I’m really not inclined to devote a chunk of my life to engaging with you. Since you’re not going to bother responding to what I actually say and will instead wage an ongoing battle against some straw-man caricature of what I said, I won’t be responding to your comments any more.
Tob:
You would have to be the first blogger to troll his own thread. Congratulations as that must be some sort of record.
Ignoring and then mocking my reasonable questions won’t get you off the hook that easily as people can read through the comments and see what you’ve done.
How true tee, how true.
Zoot:
You’re winging this aren’t you? You have absolutely no idea what this about?
tee: It is quite obvious. Your level of debate has been quite ill founded. You ask if someone is going to comment about the graph and the supposed “flatness” in the period 2006-2008. Even though you link a reference that states that an 11 year smoothing is too narrow.
Besides the self pwning you achieved through that comment if you take time to look at the graph and compare the 60 day trend (which is way too short to make much sense out of anyway) you will note that there was only brief peaks and a 2-3 month period when the line was above the 20 gridline. At the start of 2008 the line was below the gridline for a month or so and has not been below since.
So are you stating you are picking out a particular date in each year to compare this flatness??? As a lot of commetators do – It hasn’t warmed since 1998 comes to mind.
And please refrain from the name calling and personal abuse. It does not add to your argument. In fact it makes the rest of your argument look silly.
dam buster: tobias has made it quite clear (not that he needed to) that every other commenter on this thread understands the issue and the premise of his post. everyone that is except tee.
the only conclusion is either tee is exceptionally illiterate, or s/he is a troll. either way, continually responding to the mindless ranting will only encourage more mindless ranting, and drive you mad with having to issue constant clarifications as your comments are continually twisted and turned into different meanings. tobias is right: not responding is the best approach.
Great posts tee!
There’s a few angles that I don’t think have been brought up yet.
The first is how much of the graph trend is natural(therefore null) due to ;”The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2004102817775
The Critical Importance of Solar Cycles – by Stephen Wilde
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3651&linkbox=true
A real no brainer to work out that the most,if not ALL of the upward trend is of natural origin,So in fact the devation of the last 6?yrs near the top of the graph is the beginning of the next trend as the Sun goes into its next phase(maunder minimum) for 20?,30?,40?,60,or even 100 yrs WILL with absolute certainty keep that trend going.
Any betts?
Solar Physicist Predicts Ice Age. What happened to global warming?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3693&linkbox=true
———–
(1)
NASA Says Climate Shifting to Cooler Temperatures
The allegedly warming earth is in for about 30 years of cooling according to NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
______________________________
(2)
New Peer-Reviewed Study Says Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id=#update
______________________________
(3)
We’re Getting Colder, Not Warmer
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/were_getting_co.html
______________________________
(4)
Widescale Global Cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
______________________________
(5)
The Coming of a New Ice Age
By Gerald E. Marsh Sunday, February 24, 2008
Yet another dissenter of the church of global warming. Gerald Marsh is a retired physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration.
______________________________
(6)
Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling in 6-9 Years – August 25, 2006. Created
Moscow – Researchers with the Russian Academy of Sciences warned Wednesday that the Earth could be headed for a 60-year cooldown, the news agency Interfax reported.
Scientists based at the academy’s Pulkovskaya Observatory in St Petersburg, Russia, said they expected a gradual decrease in global temperatures in 2012-15, followed by a more dramatic, 60-year period of cold to come in 2055-60.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, chief researcher at the observatory, said the predictions were based on solar cycles, and that after the 60-year glimpse of the Ice Ages warmer weather could be expected
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/nature/news/article_1225169.php/Russian_scientists_predict_new_Ice_Age_in_50_years
______________________________
(7)
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico states that “In about ten years the Earth will enter a “little ice age” which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity,” according to a report in the major Mexican newspaper Milenio Diario.
______________________________
(8)
With 30 years of cooling,Look out agriculture. The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing season and more threats of frost-induced crop devastation, among other things.
______________________________
(9)
The Science of Global Warming in Perspective
News Flash: Twenty Year Cool-Down
Mainstream media ignores it
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
______________________________
(10)
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age – Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest
Excerpt: Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago — and it signaled a solar event known as a “Maunder Minimum,” along with the start of what we now call the “Little Ice Age.” Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a “stethoscope for the sun,” Tapping says, if the pattern doesn’t change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather. […] In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to “stock up on fur coats.” Sorokhtin, who calls man’s contribution to climate change “a drop in the bucket,” predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond. Observational data seems to support the claims — or doesn’t contradict it, at least. […] Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding “excellent correlations” between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn’t exist between CO2 and past climate changes.
_____________________________
(11)
Harmful Man Induced Climate Change (Global Warming) Refuted
“Our Global Climate Is Now Actually Now Cooling”
“The record cold of the decades of the 1890’s, 1940’s, 1970’s, 1980’s and most recently the bitter northern hemisphere winters of 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 argue against the occurrence of harmful man induced climate change (global warming). Also Winter 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 in Siberian Russia, as well as Winter 2004 in Antarctica were the coldest in recorded history. And let’s not forget that January 2004 in Boston, MA was the coldest January in 111 years. Grand Forks, ND set it’s all time record low of -44 deg. below zero F, Fosston, MN also at -50 deg. below zero F and Saskatchewan, Canada saw minimum temperatures fall to -62 deg. below zero F, all in Winter 2003-2004.”
“Satellite based systems that measure the complete land, ocean, atmosphere interface show a definite cooling trend between 1979-2004 of -0.5 deg, F.
Radiosonde balloon launches show no temperature change between 1960-2004. Antarctica has been cooling at the rate of 1.4 deg. F per every ten years for the past 20 years. Also between 1895 and 2004 January average temperature in Florida has fallen approximately 1 deg. F. Also glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are expanding. How can that possibly be if harmful man induced climate change (global warming) is occurring???”
The Heartland Institute: Instant Expert’s Guide to Global Warming 1,000 Year Climate History Accurate “Thermometers” in Space – NASA
“Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Ni?o. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.” ?
_____________________________
(12)
Global Cooling is Here! “63 new snowfall records”
“Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades”
By Professor Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_cooling_is_here_evidence_for_predicting_global_cooling_for_the_next_
_____________________________
(13)
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
Global Warming on other planets.
The correlation of both HOT and COLD temperatures on Earth and Mars,Would the recent heavy snow falls here on Earth and the recent snowing of the Mars ice caps suggest’s the Sun plays a much larger role than the “negligible”role the IPCC.say.
_____________________________
(14)
CO2 and methane continuing to rise Yet, temps are going DOWN,Exactly
the OPPOSITE tipping point to what was proposed !!
The world hasn’t warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf
_____________________________
(15)
Arctic permafrost regions have been through much higher temps in the past
and have not caused any thing like a tipping point.
_____________________________
(16)
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=50&c=1
From astrophysicist Piers Corbyn +44(0)7958713320 or office above
18 June 2009 For immediate release
“World cooling has set in and it will stay
colder for at least 100 years predicts
scientist in forecast breakthrough”
- Climate Change alarm has no merit
- Politicians called to “Practice what you preach on
accountability”
I really don’t have time to look at all of this, but I will note that the NASA article on solar activity relies heavily on tree core analysis, of the sort which we are told is unreliable when it comes to measuring past temperatures and CO2 levels. And even then, they make the point that “Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980—apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle—while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.”
And that’s just the only one I looked at.
Good to see you back and taking an interest, chugg. You still don’t understand what you’re arguing about, but 10 out of 10 for enthusiasm!
… hang on, you’re quoting Bolt? As an authority?? Here???
Was the first draft of this screed written in crayon?