From Australia’s Canberra Times:
NSW Treasurer Michael Costa is understood to be among a small group of Australian politicians and other opinion-shapers to embrace this notion.
It is wise to be sceptical of many Russian scientists and all politicians, so I have given this ”solar forcing” explanation of global warming little credence until I attended a forum at the Academy of Science earlier this year and heard it from a scientist of undoubted integrity and expertise in this area. A former head of CSIRO’s division of space science, Dr Ken McCracken was awarded the Australia Prize the precursor of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize in 1995. Now in his 80s, officially retired and raising cattle in the ACT hinterland, he is still very active in his research field of solar physics.
McCracken is adamantly not a climate change sceptic, agreeing that rising fossil-fuel emissions will be a long-term cause of rising global temperatures.
But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ”soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.
”The reduced ‘forcing’ might compensate, or over-compensate, for the effects of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases,” he said. ”It is likely that there will be a cessation of around 20 years in the increase in world temperature, or possibly a decrease by 0.1 [degrees] or more.”
I put this to Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis for the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, whose overarching judgment is that the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions is an increasingly dominant factor on global temperature to the extent that it will not be slowed by lower solar activity.
After an email conversation, Jones said he and McCracken are in general agreement but differ on emphasis and one key judgment. ”Natural solar variability is potentially important, but the climate history and physics tell us that the probability of this factor sufficiently cooling the planet to offset the enhanced greenhouse effect is distinctly remote,” Jones wrote.
The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought, raising the urgency of calls from climate scientists for political action to reduce emissions. Yet any uncertainty over the sun’s influence creates a lever that climate sceptics and developing nations will seize upon to stall such action.
If McCracken is wrong and temperatures continue to climb during a decade or two of low solar activity, the need for emissions reductions will be dramatically reinforced.
However, if temperatures do not rise over this period, steeling the political will for such action by all nations will be much more difficult.
The dilemma for the science sector is a classic: how to communicate uncertainty.
As McCracken rightly observed in 2005, a lull in temperature rises would provide a wonderful opportunity for political and technological effort to gain the initiative in the fight against climate change by turning global emissions around and thus hopefully avoid worst-case warming scenarios when the sun’s fires stoke up again mid-century.
But he also noted the risk that mainstream climate science, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, would be seen by its critics and others to have been ill-informed at best or misleading at worst, diminishing its credibility and eroding political commitment to emission reductions.
McCracken believes science should be upfront. ”I believe that we must state firmly that a cooling is possible in the near future, but that the warming would then resume 10-20 years hence,” he said via email. ”It will be very hard to argue for public trust if we say nothing about the possibility, and then try to argue our way out after it happens. Using an Aussie rules analogy, that would be like giving the climate sceptics a free kick 10m in front of goal.”
Australia is definitely entering a footy finals period, and the Earth may be entering a period where human-induced global warming slows temporarily. Many scientists will not be comfortable to consider this possibility, and even less comfortable that journalists canvas it, because in good faith they want nothing to deflect efforts to combat global warming.
However, I have always aimed to tell readers what they deserve to know, not what they may want to hear or what governments, scientists or interest groups would prefer they were told. This has earned me brickbats and bouquets over the years, as it should do, and as I expect it will on this occasion.
Simon Grose is Canberra correspondent for Science Media.
www.sciencemedia.com.au
You have to marvel at these AGW believers. Anything can happen to our climate and nothing disproves the AGW dogma — even 20 years of cooling. Now that is a true testament to faith. McCracken wants to innoculate the AGW conviction from falsifiabilty by having the scientific community acknowledge the possibility of an intermediate cooling period — but that warming will come back again in perhaps 20 years. What a racket.
If we are headed for cooling, one logically has to wonder what portion of the roughly 0.6 – 0.8 C of 20th century warming was caused by the upswing in this very same cycle. And as AW has demonstrated at surfacestations, surely a significant of portion of this warming is also a result of poor station siting / UHI and related factors. That leaves little room for a prominent role of CO2.
In fact, if one dissects the lower troposphere temperature record from 1979-2007, once can discern very little background trend from ’79 – 97. And again, very little trend from ’98-07. What one does see is an interesting temperature “step” starting in 1998, a step for sure but one that remains essentially flat after ’98. This hardly looks like the fingerprint of CO2.
OT, Anthony, are you planning a post on this:
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=678
a new paper on sun spots.
REPLY: I published on it back on June 2nd:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Everybody else is just catching up. – Anthony
“He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought…”
Any clues as to what this refers to?
“The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought, raising the urgency of calls from climate scientists for political action to reduce emissions.”
Say what? Where is this recent data that “indicates global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought”??
Global cooling, BUT……
AGW theory will end up in Nature’s court, with a jury of open-minded scientists, and found guilty. Sentenced to the death penalty.
This is just ridiculous. Human GHG’s driving the climate warmer, yet nature will cool it. So WHO”S driving it?
I haven’t seen any climate licenses being issued to anybody.
My memory is weird. I remembered the graph you posted with the step change in October of 2005, but, the paper on the sunspots I didn’t remember at all!!
From Icecap.us:
Leif Svalgard noted on Solar Cylce 24 forum relative to this paper that “There was a tiny pore on Aug 22nd, 2008. Bill Livingston measured its magnetic field and tells me today that it was 1931 Gauss. You may verify for yourself that that falls straight on his projected line. BTW, he has many other data points now between the last data shown on the plot and this latest one, and they also confirm the trend.
McCracken certainly is a man of faith. CO2 causes the apocalypse, but the sun does too, and sometimes the sun can stop the apocalypse as long as it wants. If the apocalypse is stopped long enough, an even worse apocalypse will develop: the apocalypse of refusing to stop the apocalypse for an apocalyptically long time. Kill me. Also, how stupid is this Dr. David Jones? It doesn’t matter how many different global temperature datasets you look at. The world’s warming trend has come to a screeching halt at least and at most is significantly cooling(as long as you put it on a sneaky graph). He says data indicates the temperature is rising faster than ever. What data Dr. Jones? Or should I say, WTF?
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
Is there a credible climate model on which to base a credible paper?
Flowers4Stalin (21:54:53) Fully endorsed, Flowers. You write everything I want to say in regard this bloke and his story, thank you.
And, yes, you should say WTF.
I like how global warming is going to stop just long enough for the solar minimum, or whatever we are entering into, to pass. Then it will be back to business as usual. How absurd! I thought we were more powerful than nature. What happened to the runaway warming GHGs were going to cause? Where’s my 3.5 degrees C rise in temperatures hmm? And if nature is strong enough to cancel out man’s warming, then she is also strong enough to override it. And where, oh where, is the evidence that for years seemingly nature has been just behind mankind as the leading cause of global warming. I want to see the mathematics. I want somebody to explain to me how man’s signal and nature’s signal are so similar that until one made a clear deviation there was no telling which was different, and with man’s activity being clearer and more well understood that it just somehow HAD TO BE us and not natural forces.
I’m beginning to think that AGW contortioning should to be an Olympic sport. Certainly there are enough competitors across the globe. And, hey, even at age 80 you can still compete with the young whippersnappers!
”Natural solar variability is potentially important, but the climate history and physics tell us that the probability of this factor sufficiently cooling the planet to offset the enhanced greenhouse effect is distinctly remote,” Jones wrote.
Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis for the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre.
Okay, somebody remember that this guy said this. So if the Sun does stay as it is, and temperatures do drop, we can all say we told you so – right before they start congratulating themselves on all the new “green” technology developed that will undoubtedly attribute to the cooling of global temperatures – if they don’t first manipulate the data to correct for it.
OT, Icecap has an abstract and review of the Livingston, et al., paper as well, which are lighter reading.
Maybe its a Maunder after all. ‘Interesting times’ is looking positively anorexic as our forecast.
38 days without a sunspot – the recent activity which saw “proto-spots” around 21 August has not been officially registered as a spot number.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
This ranks us at 15 for the longest run of consecutive spotless days at
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Period
”I believe that we must state firmly that a cooling is possible in the near future, but that the warming would then resume 10-20 years hence,” he said via email. ”It will be very hard to argue for public trust if we say nothing about the possibility, and then try to argue our way out after it happens. Using an Aussie rules analogy, that would be like giving the climate sceptics a free kick 10m in front of goal.”
Again, this is so absurd it’s laughable. Cooling is a possibility? I thought the solar activity causing cooling was at best “remote.” And if that is so, what is causing the “possible” cooling? You know, I don’t think that I can give much credibility to the idea that cooling is a possibility because I’ve also never seen a credible paper published that had a climate model showing THAT!
But there you go. There is the whole strategy. Get out ahead of it and say something like “we were expecting this, so it doesn’t change anything.” It reminds me of when I was a teenager. I was always saying “I know that” to my parents; they could never tell me anything I didn’t already know. And if I already “knew” it, that meant their opinions and judgments on the subject did not matter because I was right NO MATTER WHAT. Yep, that’s exactly what this reminds me of.
I believe this is a fine example of cognitive dissonance.
Or, to put it in the vernacular, cover your ears and sing, “la-la-la” as loud as possible and you won’t hear anything disagreeable.
Like I’ve noted before, the climate will likely cool for several decades, but AGW proponents will say it’s masking the warming. Then when warming again resumes, about the time the coming ice age prophets of doom are dancing about the maypole, the AGW theory will be resurrected. And so it goes…
If you compare actual temperature change to a projection Hansen included in a 1981 paper, the increase up to 2000 is near the upper range of his projection.
Perhaps claims that temperatures were rising faster than expected were based on an an analysis done around 1998 just after the super el nino, when temperatures may have been near the upper range of projections (i.e. above the expected average, but not above the expected range)
Hansen has claimed that if solar activity stopped dead – i.e. repeat of Maunder minimum, then co2 warming would be offset for 7 years. Uncertainties quoted in IPCC state that the solar influence may be 2 to 3 times as much as high as the average figure quoted. So unless Hansen figured the 7 years on the upper possible range for solar sensitivity, then maybe a 20 year pause in global warming is just barely possible if solar activity comes to a dead stop.
But I’d be willing to bet its very very unlikely.
“Global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought” and “I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this”. Is the Australia where Dr David Jones lives on a different planet, one where climate models have a physical basis and some validity?
I don’t really want to comment on the various opinions, but I would like to say that Ken McCracken is a good friend of ours and is a fine scientist with a long record of outstanding research, so ad-hom comments and attacks are misplaced.
Yes folks, the global cooling is going to go away, just like the global warming went away!
The questions is before or after the next ice age!
One really harsh winter with global temps back to 1970s levels will end this fraud. The patience of the general public is far from infinite. People are already skeptical of carbon indulgences. A few inches of snow in Malibu and even the Hollywood crowd will turn.
Hopefully CAGW adherents will CONTINUE to deny that ANY cooling is happening. The more they shape charts to hide recent trends, the better. The more ground readings are proven to be adjusted upwards on average, the sooner people will doubt. More CAGW shrill rudeness and threats against skeptics will also help in finishing this. In other words, more of the same. The warmists have proven themselves too emotionally, professionally and financially invested to ever admit the possibility that the CAGW theory is flawed.
When enough people see that the seas have not risen, that polar bears are safe, that they have been propagandized for years… they’ll start looking for statues to topple. If CAGW measures have led to starvation, freezing deaths, ruinous costs, power outages and widespread privation, statues alone won’t do.
Someone will have to take the blame. Gore is too well connected, and isn’t a scientist. I’m betting on Hansen… when he called for jailing anyone who disagreed with him, he volunteered for this role. When the pendulum swings back, it will take a few victims.
The anger is already out there. I’m reminded of the old Chinese proverb, “If you don’t change the road you’re on, you’ll get to where you’re going.”
@ Michael Hauber (23:20:08) :
Hansen has claimed that if solar activity stopped dead – i.e. repeat of Maunder minimum, then co2 warming would be offset for 7 years.
That sounds almost like a biblical reference …
IPCC spokepersons have attributed the apparent 8 year cooling to three things. 1, natural variability in the climate system, 2, volcanic activity, & 3, reduced solar ouput. Well, as I humbly understand it all, natural variability in the climate system is what the “sceptics” have been saying for 30 years, there has been no significant volcanic activity over the last 10-15 years, unless you include the Cheiten eruption in Chile which shouldn’t affect things for a year or so, & as for reduced solar output – a power source the IPCC has been denouncing & belittling in potency for 20 years, this really does take the whole incompetence & mendacity to new peaks! On another point, AR4 gave total radiative forcing at 1.66w/m², a little over 1% of the total greenhouse effect of about 149w/m², really scary, hey?
McCracken is responding to a definite groundshift here in Australia. AGW scepticism is getting a foothold in the mainstream media here so the self preserving strategies will begin to roll. Australian 60 Minutes did a sceptic piece a few weeks ago and some major newspapers are coming out as sceptics also. The tipping point they are suddenly worried about is the one where the MSM drops them like a hot potato. They are already uncomfortable with even gentle questioning – so how will they cope when journalists start calling them liars. Matty, Perth
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model
that shows this,” Jones wrote.Fixed it.
This August will a shock cooling number for the SH and to a lesser extent the NH. Looks like the Warming Believers are manning the barricades in preparation.
Yes phillip B you are very correct
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
600 and 400 MB
BTW its still just “normal” and I’m a very strong skeptic. I may go up or down but its still “normal” in the context of 1000 year climatic variations.
Here are some stats from a weather station in southern NSW. This station is located in a tiny and very remote hydro town and is located on a small hill and well removed from any man based influence. Being hill top it is also less subject to temperature inversion and other ground effects. The temperature in brackets shows the deviation from the long term average. As can be seen, the monthly extremes are not all that extreme but the deviations from the long term average is not insignificant.
Cabramurra, NSW (Australia)
July
Average max 2.8C (-1.3)
Average min -1.5C (-0.7)
Lowest max -1.1C
Lowest Min -4.6C
August 1-27
Average max 2.2C (-2.8)
Average min -2.2C (-1.8)
Lowest max -1.3C
Lowest Min -4.9C
Thanks, Anthony, Grose has an excellent explication of the question. This accentuates just how important it is to absolutely nail down the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Until that piece of evidence is known far better than we do now, we are really just floundering around in a dark space.
If we are cooling, as I believe, for twenty to a hundred years, the small effect of CO2 for warming, and its large effect for fertilizing crops will be life-saving, until we start to rewarm, at which time it might be useful to mitigate its warming effect. If we are cooling, then, it is redundant to say that present carbon abatement schemes are counterproductive. But if CO2 does have a monotonic and increasing effect, even if small, on temperature, then sooner or later we may have to abate the menace. Timings of all these policy propositions depend exquisitely on knowing what the sensitivity is of climate to CO2. Any endeavour directed otherwise is a waste of time and money.
So quit quibbling everyone, and get busy with settling the science.
=============================================
So natural variability causes cooling, but not warming. Eh?
The sun can cool the planet, but not warm it? What?
Even if the AGW hypothesis is correct, which it may well be, the cavalier and bullying attitude of its supporters is seriously undermining science – all science. They are providing textbook examples to support the post-modern criticism of science – that “knowledge” is socially determined, and facts are just convenient constructions to support the approved theory of the dominant clique.
The longer they go on this way, with no predictive power but simply a series of post-hoc emendations, the more science suffers. I believe Karl Popper used Marxism as an example of a theory that was unfalsifiable due to the constant apologia of its supporters. He might as well have used AGW.
The faith these “scientists” have in the accuracy of the temperature record and the climate models is scary. Of course, I have no faith in a “scientist” who “points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought”.
They put faith in Mann and his hockey stick (no need to check the work). They put faith in the SST record (no need to check the careless guesses). They put faith in all of Hansen’s “adjustments” to the temperature record (no need to know how or why). They put faith in climate models with an abysmal track record.
I guess being a climate “scientist” is really a just a matter of faith.
The AP is reporting this, Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record.
“It’s an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level,” said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.
Check out the weekly temp anomalies for Australia. Large cool anomalies for both min and max across almost all of Oz. The prior 2 weeks have been very similar. Hence my prediction for a shock SH temperature number.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=minanom&area=nat&period=week&time=latest
From Benny Peiser’s CCNet 124/2008 26 Aug. Item 7 Lomborg vs Tickell by Stephen Ashworth. I read this:
“In his recent book on human evolution, for example, Professor Stephen Oppenheimer suggests that human-induced warming is already counteracting a return to ice-age conditions. The simplistic assumption would be that if 4 deg of anthropogenic global warming coincided with 4 deg of natural cooling over say a century or so, the two would simply cancel each other out, though of course the story might be more complex than that.”
This really bothers me because the positive feedbacks invoked in CO2 forced global warming are really temperature driven (increased humidity etc) so if there is no increase in temperature due to the effect of natural cooling forces then there can’t be any positive feedback can there? If this is so then CO2 driven warming won’t work very well in canceling natural cooling will it?
Leif Svalgaard (00:28:31) :
Leif, could you perhaps prevail on Ken to amplify his remarks? I, too, dislike the ad hom, and quite impolite coments of some. However, there are some good points about what has been claimed in the IPCC, and this “apparent” retreat. The comments in the lead article, in a way were so general, that I find it easy to understand why some would “take the bit in their mouths” and run towards the mud-slinging. I also think, even more importantly, that a more detailed, insightful respone by Ken could lead to a much better discussion and understanding of several issues. A couple of examples: 1.) a discussion on whether this or what it would take to increase the accepted solar sensitivity, and 2.) how does this natural variance impact the IPCC claim of detecting the antropogenic induced warming starting about 1950, if at all, and why for either case. Thanks.
KuhnKat (21:53:54) :
Leif mentioned that here in a thread I can’t readily find. He might not have mentioned the 1931, but did state things were still on the straight line decline.
Everyone here here should prick up their ears when they hear “Livingston”. It’s looking more and more like the next few years will be well beyond interesting. Perhaps we should update that old Chinese curse to read “May you live in fascinating times.” 🙂
“It will be very hard to argue for public trust if we say nothing about the possibility, and then try to argue our way out after it happens.”
So what believer predicted all this back in 1998?
In an Aussie Rules analogy, I think the guys in the white coats just gave the Skeptics two fingers straight out!
When the sun was abnormally active, we were assured by AGW activists that this had no, or at best barely measureable affects on global temperatures.
On the other hand, when the sun backs down from the abnormally active phase, this is going to cause cooling for 10 to 20 years.
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
==============
Criminy. These guys actually believe that their models trump the real world.
I don’t really want to comment on the various opinions, but I would like to say that Ken McCracken is a good friend of ours and is a fine scientist with a long record of outstanding research, so ad-hom comments and attacks are misplaced.
Well Leif, that’s all well and good.
But then where did this come from?
“Global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought” and “I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this”
I think he’s a little too invested here.
“…if there is no increase in temperature due to the effect of natural cooling forces then there can’t be any positive feedback can there? If this is so then CO2 driven warming won’t work very well in canceling natural cooling will it?”
Very insightful…
To think that man has any control of this is situation is laughable…….God is in total control and can just wink and eyebrow and change everything instantly.
Incidentally, Stanford’s Wilcox Solar Observatory updated the chart of the strength of the magnetic field at the solar poles yesterday
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
They’re still the weakest observed since the series began more than 30 years ago.
The importance of this is that some “precursor” methods of forecasting the solar cycle use the strength of the solar polar field to predict the strength of sunspot activity – weak polar field = weak solar cycle, according to this model.
Heres my little take on this article.
Quote : “the already difficult relationship between scientists and politicians on this issue”
You would never know this from the general MSM.
AS regards the SH and Australia’s case. Yesterday the fabric of the Australian Parliament changed. The current government is now held to ransom by the Greens Party in the upper house of our two tiered Westminster style system.
The Government has tied themselves into a Emission Trading Scheme (Carbon Reduction – governments words) from 2010.
The economic realists and those economic editors in the Australian MSM are starting to wake up and realise what an economic disaster that this scheme will place on the country. This is why the MSM is starting to pickup om the opposing view.
pofarmer,
Those quotes are from Jones, not McCracken.
Wow, that’s very interesting and informative. I would have thought it was still warming, but the facts you presented seem to be very credible.
12yeartech.wordpress.com
I’m hoping that the burgeoning cooling effect won’t last for too long or we are all in real trouble. The economic damage (higher fuel costs in a recession, famines caused by using land for ‘biofuels’) caused by ‘green’ taxation will be exacerbated by ruined harvests, even higher food costs etc.
The AGW crowd has recently gone hyper since the warming has clearly stalled, and I am afraid that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in this regard. In the past couple of months I have seen more totally inflamatory statements, if not just outright lies, than at anytime in the past 20 years. More of the “there is no longer any disagreement” so you are retarded if you do not believe this. More “recent studies now show it is much worse, happening faster than anyone could ever have imagined.” More of the “we now have almost no time to act, we must have carbon taxes, etc.” More of the totally off the wall, screwball “studies” that predict imminent disaster for virtually all life on earth – disease, pestilence and the like. And the AGW crowd is just getting fired up. I predict, that if it actually does cool enough that some “too cold” problems occur, such as crop failures, their statements and studies will get even more radical.
John F. Pittman (05:35:12) :
could you perhaps prevail on Ken to amplify his remarks? I, too, dislike the ad hom, and quite impolite coments of some. However, there are some good points about what has been claimed in the IPCC, and this “apparent” retreat.
Pofarmer (06:12:35) :
Basil (06:52:20) :
pofarmer,
Those quotes are from Jones, not McCracken.
Generally, don’t confuse McCracken with Jones and the IPCC. Ken’s view is actually close to my own: there are small influences from the Sun and from CO2 and from Land Use and from volcanoes and from a myriad of other things. These small [barely detectable] sources are superposed on longer and larger variations, like Milankovic and ocean/atmosphere oscillations between ‘states’ or ‘modes’. What we don’t know is the climate sensitivity to all the ‘little’ causes and if there are any interplays between them. That the sun may be varying a bit now off where it has been for a while may actually give us clues to the relative importance of the sensitivities. As I read Ken, that is all he was trying to say.
The Arctic ice melt this year is actually worrying if I was an AGW proponent.
The reason is that most of the ice melted is first year ice – much thinner than the multi-year ice that was melted in prior years.
One would think that, given the same level of heat flow, that the first-year ice would have melted right away and we’d now be into the multi-year ice left over from last year and the melt area would now be MUCH greater than least year.
That appears not to be the case.
If we posit that first-year ice is 1/2 the thickness of multi-year ice, and that both melts started with the same area, then given a melt area 90% of last years, we have on first approximation a summer heat flow 90%*.5 = of 40% of last year’s.
A heat flow of 40% of last year’s is really a quite stunning change.
I don’t think the delta is that big, but there is a number there that is irreconcilable.
David Corcoran (00:54:25) :
“One really harsh winter with global temps back to 1970s levels will end this fraud.”
Test of your theory coming soon (in my opinion).
1970’s-style winter coming right up.
Slightly off topic – well quite a way off topic – but has anyone else had a look at this?
http://www.globalweathercycles.com/
“New research findings released in the peer reviewed book “Global Warming — Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found,” links seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles as the cause for all 2200 global warming events during the past half million years, including the earth’s current warming cycle. It also links the cycles to a natural 50 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 10,000 year period leading up to the peak of all recurring 116,000 year mega global warming cycles.”
Just wondering if anyone has had a peek at the e-book and can offer any insight.
—-
John Bunt (07:33:16) :
The AGW crowd has recently gone hyper since the warming has clearly stalled….
—-
The AGW Alarmist crowd is acting just like a Business that is “Going out of Business”.
We all have seen this. As the Business gets closer to the day they really close the doors they keep increasing their price reductions. First 10 percent off then 20, soon it is 40 and then 80 percent. Each price reduction is more extreme then the previous.
As each period gets cooler and as we get closer and closer to undeniable Global Cooling trends and statistics and the AGW Alarmist are making more and more extreme “It is the End of the World” statements.
I just love it.
Let the AGW “Going out of Business” statements begin.
Love and Kisses
Serenity now………….
Did anyone find “The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.”
Instead of waiting for a model to show you the way Jones, why not look at the empirical data.
IMO, when you rely on models alone, you rarely find truth only fear.
Leif:
As McCracken is a good friend of yours, it would be FANTASTIC if he joined this thread. I, for one, would love to hear from the horse’s mouth. Personally, I’ve lost all trust of the MSM on this matter. If he’s happily retired, I understand.
Best Regards,
I think that if fusion (ITER) works in the next twenty years, it will provide reliable safe and easily accessible to all energy and excess carbon will be history.
In addition in twenty years alternative energy sources can be developed to the same effect, without destroying the economic fabric of the west ( the east will be burning merrily) with hot air selling schemes that will only throw the third world into more poverty. The third world is mostly dictatorships who will happily sell their carbon credits selling the right to developement for their people.
Assuming that the serious scientists in the AGW side want an out, a hiatus of twenty or thirty years is enough . So the serious scientists on the AGW side should join the serious skeptics in saying to governments: hold your horses on carbon trading, it may not be needed and we still have time ahead of us.
Developing alternative energies and fusion are worthy goals and the money should go full force there instead of in buying hot air. This, regardless of whether CO2 is the culprit or not. The goal of saving the economies should be common.
@ Leif Svalgaard (00:28:31)
Thank you. The ad hominem’s are tiring to read no matter which side of the debate they’re coming from. I would like to think that the AGW dissenters have enough science behind us that ad hom comments are unnecessary, since they’re usually the last line of defense when all other arguments fail. I don’t believe the skeptic arguments have even been adequately addressed yet, much less failed to the point of resorting to personal taunting of people many of us have never heard of before now.
I don’t know much about him but remarks like his, cautious though they are, add to the growing chorus of dissent and they are much appreciated.
“Global temperatures are PROBABLY rising faster than previously thought” and “I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this”
Is that a scientific term: PROBABLY? The temp is rising or it is not. Prove it with science and/or a reference. With the AGW crowd good science is improbable.
http://improbable.com/
Those quotes are from Jones, not McCracken.
Misunderstood, I’ll read it again, thanks.
If UHI is responsible for say for 50 percent or more of the perceived increase in ground based temps from the early 1900`s, when did this effect end, UHI can only cause that perceived rise if significant urban development is continuously occurring around the measuring stations. Is significant urban development still occurring in the western hemisphere where the majority of the temp readings have been taken, if not when did it stop. I don`t believe there has been any large city expansion or massive land usage change in the western hemisphere (other than China) over the past 15 years or so. maybe the reason the temps leveled off from 1998 is because land change and urban development had already leveled off, if solar forcing as believed by AGW`s is so small what has caused this cooling, CO2 is still rising, PDO`s and La nina`s are still re-occurring as they have in the past, but temps have stopped rising.
A 0.4 degree C actual rise since 1900 and the sun at maximum levels, where is CO2 in all this. It`s all a load of rubbish.
”The reduced ‘forcing’ might compensate, or over-compensate, for the effects of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases,” he said. ”It is likely that there will be a cessation of around 20 years in the increase in world temperature, or possibly a decrease by 0.1 [degrees] or more.”
Haha, they obviously ignored the Maunder and Dalton Minimums in which the earth’s temperatures dropped by more than 0.1 degree. True. “… or more” was in their statement, but that’s to cover their asses. As I remember, during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, there were no sunspots for several decades or more and everyone nearly froze to death.
Mark:
““He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought…”
Any clues as to what this refers to?”
He can only be talking about Antarctic melting, because every other indicator says that global temperatures are rising slower than previously thought. So Jones is putting on the blinders, looking at the 2007 Arctic meltoff, and coming to the conclusion that temperatures are rising even faster than predicted. Every case of a warmer making a statement of that type that I have seen turns out to be related to the 2007 meltoff. Of course the fact that two Canadia research papers found that 2007 was mostly due to winds and currents in the Arctic are ignored.
Leif:
“Ken’s view is actually close to my own: ”
Do you also believe that the next 20 years will give us a flat and possibly down temperature trend?
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
Yes, but if he put his head of the the window and looked at the temperature data rather than a climate model ….
These people really do live in a cliamte model fantasy world. The model is the thing; if it don’t happen there, it don’t happen.
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,”….that says it all doesn’t it?
Mike Hodges (08:17:33) :
it would be FANTASTIC if he joined this thread. I, for one, would love to hear from the horse’s mouth. Personally, I’ve lost all trust of the MSM on this matter. If he’s happily retired, I understand.
Ken is probably [scientific term? either he is or he isn’t…] somewhat aghast over the publicity around his remarks and the abuse slinged his way. And I believe it is calving season in Australia soon…
Tilo Reber (09:40:29) :
Do you also believe that the next 20 years will give us a flat and possibly down temperature trend?
There are some indications [current ‘trend’, PDO, the Sun even, if you are into that, …] that it may be headed down, but I would not go so far as predicting it, so would just say that it would not surprise me.
Sometime ago in an interview in New Scientist they asked me a similar question, and my answer was that “IF solar activity is important, AND activity is going down, THEN …”, and that was misquoted, of course.
One of my AGW associates explained this. He’s not a true believer, just supports anything that promotes Socialism. He said “No scientist has talked about warming for years, the real problem is human induced catastrophic climate change and the economic and social disasters that follow.” He has zero technical background, but is an expert on all of this.
So we need massive government programs (and taxe) to prepare for the approaching disaster. Regulation and restriction of lifestyle.
Somehow, I think I’ve heard this before. Deja Moo?
Anecdote: I live in Toronto. Consider the following. Our city lies at latitude/longitude 43 40 79 24. We have had the snowiest winter, rainiest spring and rainiest summer in many years. I just saw some Maple Tree leaves start to turn colors. This before the end of August! This month is where we usually brace ourselves for the hottest spells; instead it has gotten cooler by many degrees and at night it is nearly at frost levels. These are not the so-called normals I grew up with here. Last year when I moved on October 2 it was over 30C. At this rate by earlier October we’ll have our first snowflakes. What a difference a year has made…….
John-X (07:49:22) :
I hope you’re right and that my theory is right. The sooner the alarmism stops, the better for everyone, especially the alarmists.
Interesting that AGW supporters like the correspondant & Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis for the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre are have having to concede that their previous assumptions (underpinned by dodgy climate models) are wrong and that there’s likely be a period of global cooling.
They and their ilk still have to prove via observable evidence that CO2 has any discernable impact on climate; if they can’t then the manmade climate scare is just that, a scare. They’re going to struggle because the world is cooling even though CO2 levels (albeit minute in the atmosphere) are going up – something the oh so clever (manipulated) models didn’t predict – Oh dear!
Great news that the planet is not warming up. 🙂
But if there’s so much cooling then how come 2008 is ‘set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850’ according to the UK Met Office. It’s still +0.281C above the 1961-1990 average. What if La Nina wears off and next year or 2010 reaches around +0.500C above average? Isn’t it a bit too soon for champagne? What about the declining Arctic Ice?
And snow in Malibu? Does that sound like normal climate conditions?
Neven,
Ever considered that the UK Met Office might be a bureaucracy in denial?
It has invested so heavily in AGW/climate change and being a leading light in the IPCC that its culture is quite possibly having difficulty in coming to terms with current climate reality
Neven, define “normal”. 🙂
Neven (11:24:04 ) Imagine a tilted hockey stick..no, no, bad image. Imagine a candy cane represents the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age, and the current temperature has stopped rising, is leveling, but has not yet fallen down an icy, slippery slope. Recent temperatures would be near record (since LIA) levels, but not nearly as high as the climate models predicted.
Other comments have addressed Arctic ice.
But if there’s so much cooling then how come 2008 is ’set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850′ according to the UK Met Office.
We’ve still got four months of data to go for 2008, that determination seems a little premature. Let’s see what August says first, eh?
To MarkW
There is a monograph, written by a Frenchman, on anthropogenic global warming during which he states the axiom: Computer models are not reality, Nature is reality.
“Scientists,” who believe in the efficacy of their computer models are not dealing with reality. This is an over-riding problem in the AGW controversy. Scientists should be dealing with scientific fact separate from politics and computer models.
Leif Svalgaard (10:19:04) When ever I see one of your posts in response to one of mine I get the biggest smile because of my utmost respect and admiration of your opinions.
I am a computer scientist and in my world everything must be 1, 0 or NULL. I frequent this blog because I simply can’t understand how AGW became the Null Hypothesis.
“…the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence, in the form of a hypothesis test, indicates otherwise — that is, when the researcher has a certain degree of confidence, usually 95% to 99%, that the data does not support the null hypothesis.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
With a 95% to 99% confidence interval there is a long way to go before the “consensus” changes.
Ed Scott (13:09:47) :
“Scientists,” who believe in the efficacy of their computer models are not dealing with reality.
I beg to differ a bit. A ‘model’ is an encoding of our knowledge of ‘reality’. Apart from the [perhaps useless] philosophical discussion of if there ‘is’ a reality in the first place, scientists [and you can omit the quotes] use models to describe reality as best they can. Often, the model is deliberately simplified to explore only a portion of reality. Often, the model is too simple because we don’t know the boundary conditions well enough, or do not have the computer power to handle reality with enough fidelity, but reality is always the sought after goal. The modelers do the best that can be done. Granted, that this is often not good enough, the proper criticism should be to suggest how the model can be improved.
neven: you write “What if La Nina wears off …”
The La Nina had max january 2008, and was in reality gone in may 2008. today there is most a neutral La Nina/El Nina situation.
So when it seems that we have 1) falling temperatures and 2) temperatures lower than last year, you can hardly anymore explain it with La Nina.
Its true that this years ice area in arctic is only a little larger than last year, dont forget that the ice this year was thinner to begin with. So the ice right now is not a “warming argument” compared to last year.
Neven: “And snow in Malibu? Does that sound like normal climate conditions?”
Obviously not 🙂 . But if it happens this winter, will you stop believing in CAGW? A 1,000 year long ice age isn’t enough to dissuade most true believers that I’ve spoken with. Non-falsifiable indeed.
However, the general public are not cultists. They won’t need snow in the tropics to turn. All they have to experience are temperatures called “normal” before alarmism was preached. They won’t need to be de-propagandized… the weather will do that for them day by day, hour by hour.
Lief:
I meant to type Dr. McCracken. Realized I forgot to fix before I submitted.
No disrespect intended.
Best Regards
“or do not have the computer power to handle reality with enough fidelity, but reality is always the sought after goal. The modelers do the best that can be done.” Leif
If the climate is proven to be chaotic, will we get some rest from those who try to predict it? I’ve heard “wolf” so often that I walk up to pet them.
Leif – I’m personally sorry your friend Ken McCracken feels unable to post here. I’m sorry, especially in the light of the frequent encouragements we have seen on these pages to encourage non-skeptics, or at least non-hardline skeptics, to contribute.
Al Gore, saying “the debate is over” and “there is consensus”, did real debate a monstrous disservice. Of course, stifled feelings build up and up. When I did a U-turn from the AGW position, I looked back with horror on my previous language. Then, I would probably have seen Watts Up as bad language and attacking too, though I seldom do now. Please do ask your friend again.
ENSO is a quite strong driver of short term global temperature variability (say roughly 6 months to 2 years). From what I’ve read there is usually a lag of 6 to 9 months between ENSO changes and temperature changes.
If true, then there should be a warming trend starting in the next month or two, as the La Nina peaked in February, and ENSO conditions have significantly warmed sinced then (and I’m guessing have now peaked somewhat short of an actual El Nino and are about to go down again). Based on the trend post the 1998/1999 la nina, a temperature increase of very roughly 0.2 may be on the cards.
And of course if this upward trend does happen in the next 6 months, it won’t be CO2 but ENSO changes. Current AGW theory is that CO2 would take closer to 10 years to warm the earth by 0.2 degrees.
In response to several posts I have seen around and about:
“Global temperatures” can only be influenced by external sources and change in albedo. The PDO and NAO can only redistribute the planet’s energy .
from Steven Hill (04:48:21) :
“The AP is reporting this, Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record.”
Actually, AP’s story is from the newest posting from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) which can be seen here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This is the forth update from NSIDC just this month, including two in two days {Aug 25 & 26}.
This thin fragile first year ice seems to have held on quite well, lasting this late into the melt season. Looking at the latest melt line being shown at NSIDC, it appears it may match last year’s melt in the next ten days, in view of the latest downtick in that line over the past couple of days {a total guesstimate on my part – it also may be total rubbish}.
tsk tsk — that should read fourth update, rather than forth update.
Is that senility I hear, running off with my typing/spelling skills?
Can anyone report on the average Arctic temp month by month this year compared to last year? Is there any data (or filled in data) that would help this discussion?
To Lief Svalgaard
I had thought, from your opening statement, that you were in disagreement with my statement that computer models were not reality. The computer model is an encoding of the limited knowledge of the complexities of Nature that the programmer possesses complete with the programmer’s innate bias. There is a reality, whether you agree philosophically or not, as in the reality of people in the Caribbean suffering the reality of Hurricane Gustav. The problem arises when the scientist (I eliminate the parentheses in deference to your wishes) builds a model, as best he can, and a scientific ignoramus such as Al Gore, adopts the program (erroneous as it might be) as reality and launches a dooms-day program to cause damage to the peoples of the world. Whether simple or complex there is no scientist, no programmer who can conceive a computer model that will emulate the reality of Nature. From your writing I believe that we are, in reality, somewhat in agreement in spite of possible philosophical differences.
“that should read fourth update, rather than forth update.”
That reminds me of the reverse Polish computer language called “Forth”. My favorite pun with it: “Go Forth and multiply”. Leon
Miss Skywalker said (16:08:16) :
“Al Gore, saying “the debate is over” and “there is consensus”, did real debate a monstrous disservice.”
I’m not sure I can agree with you Miss Skywalker. St Al of Gore’s word was rarely dissented from in non-scientific circles because all we heard was one side, his side. Then we heard “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”. To this corpulent non-scientist in London those phrases mean only one thing: “I don’t want you looking into this”, a distinct aroma of rat was in the air. For me the debate then started. And just think, without my involvement you would not know that a cricket ball swings more in humid air than in dry.
By the way, that’s a lovely fluffy ballgown you have on this evening Miss Skywalker (if, in fact, you are naked, you need ironing).
“By the way, that’s a lovely fluffy ballgown you have on this evening Miss Skywalker (if, in fact, you are naked, you need ironing).” FatBigot
Moderator,
Can we get away with stuff like this?
I did wonder whether to include that old and very poor joke, Mr Poet. On reflection I rather wish I hadn’t and I apologise to anyone if it caused offence (particularly Miss Skywalker).
[…] Former head of CSIRO’s division of space science says global cooling may be on the way. […]
@pamala grey (18.36)
this is from norwegian wetter service, its for svalbard and jan mayen at the edge of de arctic ice (atm)
http://www.yr.no/sted/Norge/Svalbard/Ny-Ålesund/statistikk.html
http://www.yr.no/sted/Norge/Jan_Mayen/Nordkapp/statistikk.html
in the left menu you can click on polaromradene for some other arctic and antactic data,
No offence taken Fat Bigot, I thought that was funny, and anyway you were correct, I too smelled a rat (but not with Al Gore, he had me rarin’ to go) and haven’t looked back since my U-turn from AGW.
But I do want to encourage other AGW people to see skeptics as courteous and open to debate – and it’s easy to forget that what looks normal and courteous to us now, may not look polite or open to someone who genuinely wants to do good science but only knows AGW people and is completely unaware of things like the useless models, the corruption of the peer review process, or even the truth of the Hockey Stick.
I did a primer explicitly for such people – I know what the U-turn was like. And I now have a little list of good (IMO) primers and skeptic connections for starters. I’d be really glad if Anthony could add this list, or something like it, to his website, so that newcomers here can get their bearings and don’t get lost or think we’re all rude like we see at certain other websites, naming no names…
statePoet1775 (20:25:06) :
“Can we get away with stuff like this?”
Apparently – we have an existence proof that you can get away with it, at least if you’re fat and a bigot. I like existence proofs, they’re the very best form of anecdotal evidence.
Other studies have shown how much people rely on stereotypes, excuse me while I go update one of mine. 🙂
FatBigot,
I was teasing you and the Moderator a bit. It was funny. In the US we can’t get away with politically incorrect speech or jokes. Thanks for the laugh.
Robert Wood (16:27:39) :
Perhaps, but what if they move clouds from warm areas to cool areas? Then overall radiational cooling increases. What if they affect the albedo? Are you suggesting that all oscillations, including ENSO, only redistribute energy?
My apologies for not including references to answer my questions.
Lucy,
I agree, and personally the way in which people talk about this stuff is very important to me. Not being a scientist, I tend to listen to how things are said, as I’m not particularly able to judge the detail and content. I used to believe AGW as presented in the media 100%. And I believed it all to be true right up until I started hearing people say “the debate is over”, and “anyone who disagrees is paid by oil companies”. I instantly dropped my belief, and became curious about what they were trying to shut up. For people like me, their strategy completely backfired.
“at least if you’re fat and a bigot.” Ric Werme
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Intolerant: refusal to accept differences: unwillingness or refusal to accept people
Well, I am fat and do have strong opinions but I’m willing to live and let live to quite an extreme. The problem is my countrymen think they know what is best for me.
Mr. FatBigot has not shown himself to be a bigot. I am always entertained by his posts. But you know the Brits have conditioned us to love them, the rascals.
Lucy,
Your site is quite impressive. I doff my non-existent hat to you. The people who post on this site are amazing (myself excluded).
Lucy’s site:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
This could be interesting. The moon seems to be a player in our climate/weather.
‘Research by Mr. Dilley shows a near 100 percent correlation between the PFM gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles. Global warming cycles began right on time with each PFM cycle during the past half million years, as did the current warming which began 100 years ago, and it will end right on time as the current gravitational cycle begins its cyclical decline.’
Posted on greenie watch august 26, 2008 third story down.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com
The moon correlation
icecap has it on their site. Blogosphere Aug 25, 2008
The release of the book “Global Warming- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found” culminates 19 years of research clearly linking gravitational cycles as the cause for fluctuations within the earth’s climate.
http://icecap.us/index.php
Lucy, I too found your site impressive. As you say, we can and must get the science right, and it can be communicated to non-scientists.
Yes, excellent site, Lucy. I enjoyed reading about your discovery and eventual acceptance of the skeptic, or climate realist side, from initial total belief in AGW. Many of us have followed similar paths. It’s funny how the knee-jerk AGWers have this desperate need to put us all in this box, saying we’re all simply motivated by politics, listen to Limbaugh, get our news from FOX, are creationists, and hate the environment, etc. etc. It can’t possibly be because we were actually curious to discover what the actual truth was, inconvenient or not.
Lucy Skywalker
I concur with your other admirers, that your website is an outstanding example of objective thinking and exposition. With your permission, I will use information from your website in future discussions of AGW = ACO2 (anthropogenic carbon dioxide). I don’t concern myself with global warming/climate change. Nature takes care of that without my help or hindrance.
A scientist is not necessarily defined as one who has a degree in a scientific pursuit from an institution of higher learning.
Ed Scott said:
“A scientist is not necessarily defined as one who has a degree in a scientific pursuit from an institution of higher learning.”
That is true. I have to laugh at the Alarmists’ constant appeal to authority arguments, when those same authorities, as shown in the Wegman Report to Congress, are the same small clique of back-scratching government employees who uncritically peer review each others’ work for the primary purpose of getting ever more grant money.
Here are three googled definitions of “scientist,” from the first one to the last one:
A person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject.
One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.
A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy.
To Leif Svalgaard,
If you have been following the progress of Hurricane Gustav, you will see the the application of computer models to only a small portion of reality. Real-time data is available and up to 14 computer models are constantly computing predicted wind velocities and directional movement of the hurricane and yet cannot predict, reliably, the wind velocity and direction of movement, a day in advance. Is it possible, given the same data, that an experienced meteorologist could produce results as accurate as the computer models? He might use a computer for computational purposes but not as a CYA device.
Ed Scott (15:49:04) :
Is it possible, given the same data, that an experienced meteorologist could produce results as accurate as the computer models?
I wouldn’t think so. He/she might from time to time do better [and those will be remembered]. but also from time to time to worse [and those will be forgotten]. For one thing, it is not possible for a human to hold all that data in ‘memory’ such as to be able to make use of it. I have followed weather modeling since the 1960s, when I also were constructing such models at the Danish Meteorological Institute where I worked [and studied]. There has been small [measured on a yearly basis], but steady, progress in the ‘skill score’. This leads me to believe that we will get to a point were models are useful. At least, the models are more ‘consistent’ than human forecasters [evil tongues might say more ‘consistently wrong’].
If there is anything wrong with models it is more in the area of misplaced confidence in them for reasons that have to do with personal or political agendas.
I agree with Leif. I would say any human thinking not involving imagination can be systematized and coded in a computer model.
Ed Scott (15:49:04) :
“Is it possible, given the same data, that an experienced meteorologist could produce results as accurate as the computer models?”
I don’t think so any longer, especially for hurricanes. Humans are still useful to judge differences between the models, assess the biases models have, know when they should be discounted, etc. We’re also better at figuring out where models go wrong. For example, the southerly jog in Gustav’s path was due to dry air getting pulled into the storm and the center relocating to convection to the south, it didn’t really move that way.
Hurricanes are inherently tough, tough things to forecast, but over the last several years have gotten quite a bit better at forecasting tracks. Intensity is a tougher thing to forecast and progress there has been slower.
I’ve watched a professional TV meteorologist prepare for a news segment, and there’s still a lot of work to do to interpret the model output and figure out some of the smaller scale things the models don’t handle well.
To Ric Worme,
I have been following Gustav on the NOAA website that provides a dynamic satellite picture of the Gulf area. At two o’clock yesterday, the 28th, Gustav was over Jamaica. There is a low proceeding NE from the vicinity of Vera Cruz. There is a wind loop from south Texas toward the Yucatan Peninsula and then to Florida. It seems to non-meteorologist-me that Gustav could be deflected to the east. I don’t see where the highs are located. What is the attraction of Gustav along the predicted path? Is the Texas-Florida loop an indicator of the counter-clockwise rotation of a lower-low?
To Leif Svalgaard,
I realize that I am giving the impression that I am anti-computer model. That is really not the case. I have used computer programs for computational purposes. I realize that my problem is an over-reaction to a reliance on computer models which are not capable, that is, computer models designed to prove a preconceived premise: Anthropogenic cause of global climate change. A previous email conveyed my feeling that we are on the same page and there is agreement with your assessments on the use of computer models.
[…] Former head of CSIRO’s division of space science says global cooling may be on the way. Read it very carefully — it is interesting. Read it in the light of the New Scientist quote […]
[…] 20 years in the increase in world temperature, or possibly a decrease by 0.1 [degrees] or more. Former head of CSIRO’s division of space science says global cooling may be on the way « Watts… __________________ Rather than commodifying and exploiting our ecological demise, we need to […]