Page 3 of 5

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:23 pm
by rj40
MSimon wrote:You will love Real Climate.
BTW Leading Climate Scientist James Hansen has called coal trains Auschwitz Trains. That is a pretty good argument don't you think?

If you want to look at evidence for the other side. May I suggest "Climate Audit" - by the guys who debunked Mann's Hockey Stick. And "Watts Up" by Anthony Watts who looks into the problems with the surface measurement stations. From those places you can find links to both pro and conn sites.
M Simon
I agree with you on the Coal trains = Auschwitz trains comparison. Horrible. Not even an argument and he manages to denigrate the victims of the holocaust at the same time.

Thanks for the links, I am going through them. Lots of interesting ideas.

Re: Pretty powerful for a trace gas.

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:56 pm
by Roger
They had dairy farms on Greenland. In the same time The Inuit crossed the Canadian Artic, and Maize hortaculture achieved lattitudes of the Iriquoian peoples.
What caused _that_ warm period?
Was the MWP a local Eastern European effect ?

A guess.

Right now a thermohaline down wells north west of the UK. This keeps the UK in fog and moderate temps compared to the more southerly Maine. If that thermohaline decided to downwell elsewhere, the UK would likely cool 5+ degrees within decades.

I wonder if when there was Greenland wheat, what were the conditions in the UK ? In other words, did that thermohalene keep Greenland warm 500-1000 yrs ago, and then did the downwell move from Greenland to the UK... could this have been a local effect in the middle of the Little Ice Age ? ... ture7.html

Here is a map circa 1770, showing a east ward current in the Gulf Stream: ... folger.gif

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:05 am
by Helius
Thanks for the reading material; intresting stuff. I'll have to get back to it along with the material Simon posted.

I see two indicators from Jared Diamond's books that climate warming was more extensive than Europe alone. One is the westward movement across the Canadian Arctic of the Eskimos. The Norse were already present on Greenland when the Eskimos first arrived. The Inuit could hunt a wider range of marine game, and could field more men than the Greenland Norse. Inuit people's arrival was a contributor to the Norse's demise.

In Guns Germs and Steel Diamond points out that the Iriquois arrived in Central New York, bringing with them their maise horticulture, and Matrilinerar societies. Corn was a warm climate grass originally from Central America. It is rare that specific crops cross lattitudes; They usually migrate east - west.

These are 2 indicators that the warm period wasn't an Alantic - European phenomenon, but effected the whole northern hemesphere at least....

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:11 am
by Roger
Within global effects there are local variations.

2005 saw a lot of Atlantic Hurricanes, 2006 saw nearly none, they were in the Pacific.

We can assume during the Younger Dryas the thermohalines stalled.

Another interesting point is that among Models that point to global warming, a few point towards a cooling rebound after x amount of warming. AS the Warming melts ice, the fresh water flow shuts off the thermohalines, the cool fresh melt water vs the warmer salty water.

So yeah, we might see a cooling trend.

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:46 am
by MSimon
Roger wrote:Within global effects there are local variations.

2005 saw a lot of Atlantic Hurricanes, 2006 saw nearly none, they were in the Pacific.

We can assume during the Younger Dryas the thermohalines stalled.

Another interesting point is that among Models that point to global warming, a few point towards a cooling rebound after x amount of warming. AS the Warming melts ice, the fresh water flow shuts off the thermohalines, the cool fresh melt water vs the warmer salty water.

So yeah, we might see a cooling trend.
The problem with that theory is that this year Arctic and Antarctic ice is at its greatest extent since we have had good measurements (about '72).

So far no evidence of a shut off of thermohalines.

In any case the CO2 amplifier has been shown to actually be a negative feedback. The models have yet to be revised and run with this new data. So you really can't say anything about what they say since they are wrong in a major way.

We really need to prepare for a cooling period. Between the ethanol boondoggle and a slight cooling grain crops are in short supply. It will get worse.

BTW the ethanol boondoggle is actually causing a CO2 increase due to cutting down the rain forests. It was at minimum supposed to be carbon neutral. Hah. Not to mention starving the third world. A tank full of ethanol (as grain) could feed a man for a year. ... -scam.html

Let me leave you with the final line of the piece - for your enjoyment:
The fall of the Soviet Union has taught these idiots nothing. You can just hear the voices in their head. "We are smarter than the stupid Soviets. We have Degrees from Harvard."
It is rather long, but I go into why command and control solutions are rarely the answer.

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:37 pm
by Roger
Memo to MSimon, northwest passage is clearing.

Satellite imagery has shown that the Arctic ice cap is thinning and already is nearly 30 percent smaller than it was 25 years ago. In the winter of 2004-05, the Arctic's perennial ice, which usually survives the summer, shrank by 280,000 square miles, the size of Turkey. This past August, a crack opened in the ice pack from the Russian Arctic to the North Pole, an event never seen before.

Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia who is also on board, sees the open water passing under the bow in more ominous terms.

"The reputable shipping companies would not come here" until the risks of icebergs are low, he acknowledges. "But my worry is the tramp steamer with a single hull under a Liberian flag and Philippine crew. You dangle a 4,000-mile shortcut in front of them -- that means time and money. There will always be someone who rolls the dice. ... 73_pf.html



"this year Arctic and Antarctic ice is at its greatest extent since we have had good measurements (about '72). "

Must be some good shit.

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:23 pm
by JoeStrout
Roger wrote:"this year Arctic and Antarctic ice is at its greatest extent since we have had good measurements (about '72). "

Must be some good shit.
Yeah, I think I'd like to get some of whatever he's taking too. :) Simon, if you have a citation for that ice claim, I'd love to see it. All the references I could find say the opposite: ... h_999.html ... php?id=756 ... g_rapidly/ ... the_Arctic

...and of course these are just stories found on the web; what I've read in science journals tells the same tale, but is harder to locate and cite in the amount of time this silly thread deserves.

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:54 am
by MSimon ... a-ice.html

Arctic Ice has returned. Not so thick though. ... A1CCAC9B7/

Record antarctic Ice returns.

Now gentlemen if you will go back and read carefully you will note I put an AND between the two word arctic and antarctic. To be clearer I should have said plus.

Also note the latest "scientific" predictions from the warmist camp says it is going to start warming real soon now - maybe in 5 years could even be less.

So expect more ice for the next few years.

Now what were the warmist predictions for 2007? Hottest year ever. That didn't pan out. Nor did that prediction for 2006, or 2005. So how good could the models be? Well not as good as the predictors predicted.

Now here is a guy who actually predicts a little ice age based on solar activity:

And here is a popular article on the subject: ... 48062.html

Well it is driving the temp down. So what is the latest on what scientists are asking funding for?
Sun Stays Sluggish as Weathermen Fight for Anti-Ice Age Funding
Every day, scientists hoping to see an increase in solar activity train their instruments at the sun as it crosses the sky. This is no idle academic pursuit: A lull in solar action could potentially drive the planet’s temperature down, or even prompt a mini Ice Age.
The scientist have moved on (you know it is serious when they are asking for cooling funds) and you guys are still stuck in the warming phase. That is so 20th century.

Jeez the sun drives climate. That is so totally unexpected. Who would have guessed? Wasn't the consensus that CO2 was doing it?

Oh. Well. It was good for a funding ramp up. But if you guys are right about CO2 we are going to have to burn a heck of a lot more to make up for lower solar output.

With cooling and solar the new paradigm expect lots of papers in the coming years debunking the CO2 non-sense. The worm has turned.

Let me add that the whole CO2 non-sense was predicated on the fact that the water vapor/cloud models were so notoriously bad that even the modelers had to admit they didn't even know the sign let alone the magnitude. Big hole in their Ohhh Zone there.

Here is a guy who said last August that the climate "scientists" got the feedback wrong and explains why. Latest satellite data confirms his diagnosis.

Positive Feedback: Have We Been Fooling Ourselves? by Roy Spencer

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:15 am
by MSimon
The the climate "scientists" wanted it to be CO2 so bad that they ignored the holes in their own arguments. And shouted down every one who pointed at the holes. Bad idea. They are going to be shown for the fools they are. By nature. And you know. Nature is a bitch.
I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.
o Source: The Book of Lies by Aleister Crowley

That is as good an explanation of the pitfalls in science as I have ever found.

The #1 thing that keeps a real scientist honest is that he continually asks - am I fooling myself? What are the contrary arguments? What weight do they have? What is the evidence?

We are about to go into a period of wide spread famine due to cooler temps. And we are unprepared because we refused to look at the holes in the arguments. Think about that gentlemen the next time you contemplate stampeding the public with "consensus".

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:56 am
by Roger
Lets follow Mr Simons links, just for giggles of course.
MSimon wrote: ... a-ice.html

Arctic Ice has returned. Not so thick though.

Arctic Ice Returns, Thin and Tentative

By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer

Arctic ice has reformed rapidly this winter after a record summer low, but it still covers less of the Arctic Ocean than it did in previous decades, NASA scientists announced today in an update of the states of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

March is the month where Arctic sea ice traditionally hits its highest extent after the Northern Hemisphere winter and Antarctic sea ice reaches its lowest extent. NASA satellites have monitored sea ice coverage over both poles for nearly 40 years.

Arctic sea ice reached a record low this past summer, with 23 percent less sea ice cover than the previous record low and 39 percent less than the average amount that has previously spanned the Arctic Ocean in the summer months.

This extraordinarily high melt opened the fabled Northwest Passage and spurred scientists' worries about whether the Arctic ice had reached a tipping point, where melting begins to spiral out of control.

NASA's satellite observations showed that while this winter's ice extent didn't dip below previous records, it was still well below the average amount seen in the past.

Antarctic sea ice has largely remained stable over the years of NASA's observations. The Antarctic has little long-term sea ice and a different climate and weather regime than the Arctic.

Ice ages

The area of ocean covered by sea ice isn't the only factor in the "health" of the Arctic ice.

Arctic sea ice comes in two types: older, thicker perennial ice that has survived at least one summer melt season and younger, thinner seasonal ice that forms in the winter and melts again in the summer.

Seasonal ice melts more easily because it is thin and salty, and so "it's flexible and crushable and more susceptible to winds and currents," said Seelye Martin of NASA's Cryospheric Sciences Program.

Colder temperatures in parts of the Arctic increased the amount of thin, seasonal ice that formed this winter. So while Arctic sea ice was dominated by multiyear, perennial ice in past decades , it is mostly now younger, newly-formed ice.

The amount of older, perennial sea ice has substantially decreased over the past few years, and "has reached an all-time minimum," Martin said. This low is in part due to the substantial 2007 summer melt, attributed in part to climate change. ... A1CCAC9B7/

Clipmark carries not a single citation in support

While the global warming hoaxsters continue to lie about Antarctic ice melting the latest satellite data shows record ice. Not only record ice but a third more ice than average for this time of the year. The Arctic is also doing well.

Contains cites of one person, Dr. Landscheidt.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt

March 10, 1927
6:15 PM

I checked out his golden section aspects and geocentric planetary node
aspects. After all, he's the one that came up with them.

The Intepretations are from Ruth Brummond's Rulebook of Planetary
Pictures. Originator of the use of Golden Section Aspects and
Geocentric Planetary Nodes in Astrology,Theodor Landscheidt used the
interpetations from Reinhold Ebertin's COSI(Combination of Stellar
Influences)for the Golden Section Aspects and Planetary Node Aspects
in his Planetary Node article. ... f?lnk=raot
The dear DR is an Astrologer...... I'm Aquarius, whats your sign.?

While Stanford has this:

.the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues. ... -warm.html
And here is a popular article on the subject: ... 48062.html
While an upswing in solar activity may cause a warming trend, it was discounted in the mid-1990s as the sole driver of current climate change. And for anyone hoping that a solar downswing might bail us out of our current dilemma: Solar influence on climate is slight compared to the impact of man-made greenhouse gases,
Jeez the sun drives climate. ... y-spencer/
Roy Spencer is spoofing you, its a joke.
Somewhere in an office about 600 miles southwest of here, former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer is laughing. The 50-year-old, white-haired PhD dreamed up the spoof site -- sort of the Onion meets the Weather Channel -- because he thinks people are overreacting to the threat of climate change.

Now a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Spencer says human activities have "likely" contributed to climate change, but he argues that "since we do not understand natural climate fluctuations, we don't really know how much, quantitatively, of the present warmth is man-made versus natural."

Spencer describes his Web site as "a spur-of-the moment effort that resulted from the increasing number of news stories that quoted people who blamed global warming for events such as tsunamis and the latest flood, drought or hurricane. . . .
adding that while he now earns a small amount of money writing for TCS Daily, a Web site funded in part by ExxonMobil, ... 01151.html
So Spencer states humans likely cause global warming

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:41 am
by MSimon

I'd like to make a little bet with you:

I will bet that according to satellite and ocean buoy data it never gets hotter than 1998 in the next 20 years.

Sure man has an effect on climate. How much? Current science believes that it is less than the models show. You know. That measurement thingy.

And if the modelers were so good. How come they didn't predict a 10 year stall in temps (I never heard about it - did you?). The last predictions I ever heard were 2005 - hotter than ever. 2006 - hotter than ever. 2007 - hotter than ever. Now with that egg on their faces they say that despite continuing CO2 rise we many not see a rise in temps for another 5 years. That would be 15 years with no rise. I don't recall seeing that in any reports on models. Did you?

Surely climate is more complicated than plasma physics and a very good plasma model gets a result within 10% or 20% of reality. So let me see 10% of 300K = 30K. Good enough for you?

And about that cloud/water vapor thingy. When do you suppose the modelers will find the correct sign? How much longer will it take to get the magnitude right?

At least with physics the shapes are simple and all the fundamental equations are known. Atmospheric science is not nearly in as good a shape. And yet they tell us they can get 1 part in 3,000 accuracy with runs that predict 100 years in advance?

How many bits of arithmetic are they using to prevent rounding errors? How do they set initial conditions to better than 1 part in 3,000? It strains credulity.

Roy Spencer was saying last year that the feedbacks had been misdiagnosed. He explained why. Confirmed this year by satellite data.

When we get some new model runs based on the new feedback estimates give me a shout.

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:56 am
by djolds1
TallDave wrote:Also, Mann's "hockey stick" says the Medieval Warm Period was signficantly colder than today and the last ten years are the warmest in the last seveal thousand. As Simon points out, people lived in Greenland during the MWP; there is evidence it was significantly warmer than today. There's also considerable evidence that 1934 was the warmest year in the modern historical record.
Its worse than that. IIRC, the Mann algorithms always produce an asymptotic curve, regardless of what data set you shove into them. Climate data, noise, it doesn't matter. Sometimes it curves positive, sometimes negative, but you always get the distinctive hockey stick shape. And IPCC reports have tried to preserve the "hockey stick" format even after Mann was disproved, plotting other findings in such a way as to create the trademark shape.


Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:12 pm
by TallDave
Roger wrote:Memo to MSimon, northwest passage is clearing.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm

Oh, wait, that was from... 1922. ... ergs-melt/

Here's 2008:

Ice between Canada and SW Greenland: highest level in 15 years. ... -15-years/

The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has recently set several all-time high records. The greatest extent of sea ice observed since satellite observations began in 1979 was observed during the Southern Hemisphere winter of 2007 and the greatest sea ice anomaly (departure from average), occurred during the summer of 2007-08, breaking the old record by more than an additional 500,000 square kilometers. While sea ice is not the same as the land ice that Rignot was studying, it is, nevertheless, a major part of the Antarctic cryosphere. So Pachauri will witness an icier ocean surrounding Antarctica for the time of year than at any time since satellite records began. ... _loss.html

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:13 am
by Roger
MSimon wrote: How come they didn't predict a 10 year stall in temps (I never heard about it - did you?).
Would that be a non linear effect?

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:51 am
by MSimon
Roger wrote:
MSimon wrote: How come they didn't predict a 10 year stall in temps (I never heard about it - did you?).
Would that be a non linear effect?

2005 - hottest year ever - didn't happen
2006 - hottest year ever - didn't happen
2007 - hottest year ever - didn't happen

Latest prediction - up to 5 years of stalled temps or cooling. BTW despite increasing human produced CO2 current years CO2 has fallen off the trend line. Attributed to ocean cooling.

CO2 trend line

So it is possible that atmospheric CO2 has little to do with man and more to do with climate - i.e. it is a response not a forcing.

All the above is why any IEC publicity I do will not in any way be connected to CO2. If the hysteria proves to be erroneous I do not want IEC tied to bogus "science".

Let me add that the sunspots have not returned (so far all we have are remnants of the last cycle). And some solar scientists are predicting a Dalton Minimum type ice age.

So far the solar guys have a better prediction record than the CO2 folks.

As I say. I'm sceptical of everything. CO2 could be a forcing, but the weight of evidence seems against it.

Usually when the hysteria gets the greatest a shift is about to take place. Now I don't want to discuss politics but you see the same thing in that arena. Hysteria peaks and then disillusion sets in.

Which is why even in my most hyperbolic promotion of IEC I always say that we will not know for sure until experiments are done. Although some times that is down in the "fine print". I'm much more careful these days. Esp. since we have funding.