UPDATE: At first I was concerned about this poll and the language involved. Now from comments I’m seeing a number of people whom aren’t worried and see an opportunity to voice their opinion. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide if they wish to participate. – Anthony
Wow, just wow. Who would think we’d see this sort of language and lack of sound judgment from a science museum? In the Now playing at a museum near you, the “Day After Tomorrow Map” thread, something interesting was discovered.
Once you click the “count me out” button, you enter a netherworld of governmental lists. The London Science Museum might want to think about redoing this web feature. The images are below, here’s the link.
Okay…now look what happens when you click “COUNT ME OUT”. Yellow highlighter mine.
Not only is this insulting and threatening to the reader, it virtually ensures that all responses logged by the London Science Museum are “COUNT ME IN” if you originally chose to vote otherwise.
Future presentation of results to the government: “The results show overwhelmingly that people agree with us. Hardly anyone chose COUNT ME OUT.
Even with the caveat the list*, how many people would trust it? I wouldn’t. I doubt many people even get to the caveat. The main statement is just too worrisome.
Perhaps the “COUNT ME OUT” respondents get a visit from these chaps? 😉
To be fair, respondents get a similar message if they choose to be counted in.
However, one wonders how many people will respond at all once they see that language.
The Science Museum really ought to pull this feature or redo language in it in my opinion.
h/t to alert WUWT reader coddbotherer
UPDATE: 10/24 @11:30PM
It appears some robovoting hit this poll. Robert Phelan’s letter pretty well sums up my thinking on this issue.
Sirs:
By now you must be aware that your on-line Prove It poll was seriously compromised. I voted “count-me-out” once under my own name, but after the individual who corrupted your poll revealed himself, I tested your polling system with two consecutive “count-me-in” votes, which were both apparently accepted.
Leaving aside my distaste for your support of politicized, Lysenko-style “science”, as both a social scientist and computer systems consultant I respect data and am appalled by the shoddy manner in which your organization collected it. A few suggestions:
1. State clearly the purpose of your poll and exactly which data will be used for that purpose.
2. You stated that you would pass the results to the government:
a. if the results had fairly resulted in a “count-me-out” majority, would those results have been passed on?
b. it would be helpful top explain what you would do with the comments you requested from the “count-me-outs”;
c. since the results were to be passed, presumably, to the UK government, foreigners such as myself should have been excluded from the voting. Checking the IP location of voters should be easy.
3. No one, either inside the UK or outside received the follow up e-mail. The explanation provided about ensuring one vote per person, frankly, makes no sense.
4. Maintaining a confidential list of voter names, e-mail addresses and IP’s to verify non-duplication would be easy. Making the voting a two-step process, where the voter had to respond to a follow-on e-mail would be even more secure.
5. Maintaining a list of non-acceptable names for screening: Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Mickey Mouse all claimed to have voted no, as did Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen.
7. Create a display page where interested persons can view the names who have voted. Given the politicized nature of the topic, a unified alphabetical list would be appropriate.
8. Test the security of your poll before putting it on-line. Find a good hacker and pay him only if he succeeds in breaking into your system.
If you people can’t even run an on-line poll, why should anyone consider your opinions on climate? If this poll was so important that you needed two ministers of HMG to introduce it, why didn’t you get it done right?
I intend my suggestions to be helpful; if you find them so then I would be glad to be of further assistance. I am bitterly opposed to the position you have taken on “AGW” but I would not allow that to interfere with my professionalism.
Oh, one last suggestion. Don’t even try to salvage the results of this poll. Wipe them, make the changes I’ve suggested and start again.
Robert E. Phelan
Adjunct Instructor of Sociology
Business Systems and Automation Consultant
A commenter on our site, “lihard” has seemingly confessed to adding a thousand votes via a script. There was a period of about 15 minutes where the count jumped about 1000 votes. It appears “lihard” was at fault as he pre-announced it here in comments. Of course there was little anyone could do about it. I speak for myself and the moderation staff in saying we strongly object and are offended by his ballot stuffing and want to make clear that it is not condoned in any way. Whether or not the poll was put together with apparently no security in place does not justify any kind of dishonest activity.
However, since that burst (if indeed he, lihard, did one) the vote count has steadily risen, I believe those to be valid. If the Science Museum has any logs, they should be able to filter those ~1000 in question out. I hope they do.
I don’t condone ballot stuffing in any form. Unfortunately it can happen when polls like this one don’t appear to have the most basic simplistic security. The interesting thing here is that if anybody wanting to stuff the poll, no matter what side of the argument they are on, could easily have done so. No special skills are needed to boost the counter…just keep clicking the submit button. Any kid can do it.
Perhaps the Science Museum didn’t think of security for cyberspace like they do for their exhibits. The internet is a harsh place and prone to such things. The lack of due diligence for security is as troubling as the language they used which originally caught my attention.
The polls we do here at WUWT don’t suffer from these problems, as they have anti-ballot stuffing security built in courtesy of WordPress. I hope that the Science Museum will upgrade their poll security if they choose to continue with it. Also for the record, you’ll find me logged once in poll, shortly after posting this story on 11/23 approximately 9:30-10AM PST, with my full name and email address given. If anyone from the Science Museum (or the UK government) wishes to contact me, they can use that email address. – Anthony
I counted out, with my real address.
Don’t spam them, bros! We are strong enough to play fair, and it gives them an excuse to reject the ‘survey’, by saying it was hijacked.
I also have not received a confirmation e-mail. If I don’t after a day or so, I will send my comments (which I have saved) to the museum director and the curator of the exhibition, on the assumption that my e-mail did not get through.
I encourage everyone else to do likewise….
369 in, 1954 out. When will there be 2000…?
Presently 360-1961.
A couple of comments on some of the above posts.
I do not see anything which limits the voting to people in the UK. Why should it – we are told this is an international problem which requires internaltional co-operation. Would be a bit rich to ignore the views of people we’d expect to co-operate with.
On commenting and voting, it is possible to leave a comment without necessarily voting – see the link “tell us what you think” to the bottom right of the home page.
I made various comments about the state of the science, and not accepting models as substitute for good empirical science. I adding that nobody would have their child vaccinated against swine flu on the evidence that somebody said the outcome had been demonstrated by a computer model.
Also note this comment at the top of the page “about this project”:
“The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.”
I asked them to cite the scientific literature that they found most compelling in reaching that conclusion (not articles reporting model results).
Anyway, I think an overall count-me-out will be ignored on some excuse like having been hikjacked by a concerted no campaign. I voted count-me-out.
I am out.
looks like they might have to wonder why there are more out than in.
Here is what I wrote..
Of those ‘challenging’ AGW theory.
Very few of us ‘deny’ that the climate changes and has ‘warmed’ in recent times.
Most of us know that climate change happens !!!
The world temperatures have been falling for 11 years now. This is Climate change in action !!! . It warmed, and now it is cooling.
Here is an analogy.. A volcano erupts on a ‘regular basis’…
We ‘know’ this because we can sample the strata laid down by the volcano over very long periods of time, and find that it erupts cyclically over that long period.
But along comes the IPVC (International Policy on Volcano Change) and the AVW (Anthropogenic Volcano Warming) who tell us that next time the Volcano
erupts, it will be ‘our fault’ and will be ‘unprecedented’… we are doomed.
Billions, nay, Trillions are spent showing us ‘the error of our ways’ and how we are ‘causing’ the eruption… and when ‘deniers’ point out that the volcano is not ‘unprecedented’ and ‘how can we possibly have caused the volcano to erupt in the past’ (look at the record) not our fault, as it has erupted many times before (without ‘our help) We are accused of ‘denying’ the facts when we say past evidence shows it is a ‘natural’ volcano eruption, was then, is now!
Well the Climate over the past 12,000 years of the current interglacial, has (at least 11 times), been as warm (or warmer) than ‘now’ (up to 2 deg.C warmer)… and we have had cold periods, up to 2 deg.C cooler than now. That is a 4 degree overall ‘change’, sometimes in as little as a decade.
AGW is only talking about less than 1 deg.C OVER 150 years… (and they ‘choose’ the end of the last cold period to start from !)
All the World temp. has done over the past 150 years, is to get back (almost) to where it was before the last LIA (little ice age) happened
These periods are cyclic, and evidently not caused by ‘us’ nor Co2. They were/are NATURAL, And the whole point is this….
Whatever mechanism nature itself ‘uses’ to have made these ‘swings’ has not gone away ‘just for us’ in this time period.
I align myself with the comments of Kevin Marshall (17:30:32)
This barefaced exercise in political eco-fascist advocacy is an affront to the superb heritage of british science, of which the Science Museum is the ultimate curator (plus 386/2021 suggests they have shot themselves in the foot). This ‘Prove It’ campaign should be removed with immediate effect and replaced with an apology. For educational purposes, climate change can be presented by the Museum in a factual and balanced way, in the true tradition of scientific professionalism. I consider that the reputation and dignity of this once great institution has been irrevocably tainted by it’s ill-judged partisan foray into a crumbling quagmire.
I Counted me In as Josef Jughashvili. hehehe
hehehe
michel (13:36:32) :
Mr Green Genes (11:44:23)
There are many reasons to be concerned about civil liberties in the UK, real reasons, and some of the things you mention are among them, though there are more, some more serious than the ones you allude to, and no, I and many of my acquaintance are not at all happy about recent trends. You did not mention, for instance, the very disturbing arrest of Damien Green. I do not take the same attitude either to all the items on your list; some are more alarming than others.
Fair enough. As I said, it was a bit of a rant (memo to self, remember to drink the wine after you post, not before and during!) and I apologise if it appeared to be aimed at you personally.
You are probably right in everything you say, but, as someone who has had his identity stolen from a government database, I am somewhat paranoid, particularly over data demanded by the government which has no relevance. My simple question is “why do they want this, except for some nefarious purpose?”.
Anyway, back to the topic, I will be dropping by to register as an “out” shortly, since my paranoia levels are lower in daylight!!
I have to say I am astonished but pleased to have set off this show of disapproval for the Science Museum’s Prove It poll. I admit that I wasn’t very keen on voting but I’ve got caught up in the excitement and have now done so.
But I wanted to go a step further and add a comment. Thinking about what I wanted to say has focussed my attention on the direct evidence for the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I can’t recall ever having seen anything written about how one tests its effectiveness in the laboratory. All that I have seen presumes CO2 is potent and then tries to infer its potency from the temperature record, which plainly presumes the consequent. What would people posting here suggest I read (ideally in the peer reviewed literature)?
Just got myself counted out ( hope i wasn;t boxing).
Score now 393 in vs 2077 out.
A graph of these results vs time might be a pretty thing to see. How do you represent a sledge hammer on a graph?
After counting me out, I posted this:
Science has long ago established that our climate changes. Our climate is dynamic: this is a well known truth. There are four broad competing, but not mutually exclusive, explanations for our planet’s climate dynamics:
(a) Solar and related processes. This includes irradiance, matter, electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
(b) The internal oscillations of the climate system itself.
(c) Humanity’s re-engineering of the planet, especially since the 17th Century.
(d) Humanity’s production of various substances such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.
The weight of direct observational evidence is in favour of (a). There are literally 1,000s of papers published in the highest quality peer reviewed scientific journals that corroborate this category of explanations. See for example:
See the websites of:
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta
http://www.cdejager.com/about
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Here is a small sample of peer-reviewed published science corroborating the hypothesis that the Sun is largely responsible for our planet’s climate dynamics.
Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. Effect of solar variability on the Earth’s climate patterns. Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.076; published online 3 March 2007.
Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J. and Yung, Y., 2006. Is solar variability reflected in the Nile river ? Journal of Geophysical Research v. 111 D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462 published 11 November 2006.
Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J., Jiang, X., Noone, D. C., Waple, A. M. and Yung, Y. L., 2004. The pattern of northern hemisphere surface air temperature during prolonged periods of low solar output. Geophysical Research Letters, v 31, L12201, doi:10.1029/2004GL019955, 2004.
Salby, M. L. and Callaghan, P. F., 2006. “Evidence of the solar cycle in the tropical troposphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D21113, doi:10.1029/2006JD007133, 2006.
Morner, Nils-Axel, 1987. Short-term paleoclimatic changes: observational data and a novel causation model, Chapter 14 in Rampino Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA .
Morner, Nils-Axel, 1995. Sea level and climate – the decadal-to-century signals, chapter 36 of Finkle, Charles W. Jnr 1995. Journal of Coastal research Special Issue No. 17: Holocene Cycles: climate, sea levels and sedimentation, A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80th Birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge pps 261-268.
Kuroda, Y. 2003. Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900 1999. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(4), 1175, doi:10.1029/2002GL016584.
Kuroda, Y., Coughlin, K. and Arakawa, O. 2007. Possible modulation of the connection between the Pacific and Indian Ocean variability by the solar cycle, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L03710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027827.
Kuroda, Y., and Kodera, K., 2005. Solar Cycle modulation of the Southern Annual Mode, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L13802, doi:10.1029/2005GL022516, 2005.
Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps 445-466.
Labitzke, K., 2006. Solar Variation and Stratospheric Response. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 247-260.
Kodera, K., and Y. Kuroda, 2003. Regional and hemispheric circulation patterns in the northern winter, or the NAO and the AO, Geophyical Research Letters, 30, 1934, doi:10.1029/2003GL017290, 2003.
Kodera, K., and Y. Kuroda, 2002. Dynamical response to the solar cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D24), 4749, doi:10.1029/2002JD002224,
Feynman, J., 1982. Geomagnetic and solar wind cycles, 1900-1975 Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 87, pps. 6153-6162. 1 Aug. 1982.
Feynman, J., 2007. Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.077.
Feynman, J. and Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. Climate stability and the development of agricultural societies, Climatic Change Vol 84, Nos 3-4. doi10.1007/s10584-007-9248-1.
Bengtsson, L., 2007. On the response of the climate system to solar forcing. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer.
Bochnicek, J., Hedjda, P., Bucha, V. and Pycha, J., 1999. Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather. Annales Geophysicae 17, 925-932.
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M. N., Showers, W., Hoffman, S., Lotti B, R., Hajdas, I., and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science 294 No. 5549, pps 2130-2136; doi:10.1126/science.1065680, 2001.
Bonev, B. P., Penev, K. M., and Sello, S., 2004. “Long-term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century”. The Astrophysical Journal 605, L81-L84, 2004 April 10.
Bronnimann, S., Ewen, T., Griesser, T. and Jenne, R., 2007. Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th Century. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 305-317.
Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2005: Empirical Mode Decomposition of Climate Variability in Hilbert-Huang Transform: Introduction and Applications; edited by N. Huang and S. Shen; World Scientific Publishing.
Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2004a. 11-year solar cycle in the stratosphere extracted by the empirical mode decomposition method. Advances in Space Research 34, 323-329.
Coughlin, K. and Kung, Ka Kit, 2004b. Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal of Geophysics Research, 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.
Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2001. QBO signal found at the extratropical surface through northern annular modes. Geophysics Research Letters, 28, 4563-4566.
Currie, R. G. 1987. Examples and Implications of 18.6 and 11 year Terms in World Weather records, Chapter 22 in Rampino, Michael R., Sanders, John E., Newman, Walter S., and Konigsson, L. K., Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Essays in honour of the 70th Birthday of Rhodes W Fairbridge. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA .
Currie, R. G. 1995. Variance contribution of Mn and Sc signals to Nile River Data over a 30 8 Year bandwidth” Ch. 3 in Finkl, Charles W., (Editor) Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 17, Holocene Cycles: Climate, Sea Levels, and Sedimentation. A Jubilee Volume in Celebration of the 80th Birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. Coastal Education and Research Foundation.
Da Silva, R. R., and Avissar, R., 2006. The impacts of the Luni Solar Oscillation on the Artic Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L22703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023418,2005.
Duhau, Silvia, 2006. Solar Activity, Earth’s rotation rate and climate variations in the secular and semi secular time scales, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Vol. 31 pp 99 to 108.
Perry, Charles A. 1995. USA Association between Solar-Irradiance Variations and Hydroclimatology of Selected Regions of the USA Proceedings of the 6th International Meeting on Statistical Climatology, 19-23 June, 1995, Galway, Ireland.
See http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/homepage.galway.html
Soon, W. W.-H., 2005. Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature for the past 130 years, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429.
Yndestad, H., 2006. “The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Journal of Marine Science, vol 63, pps 401-420.
Cerveny, R. S. and Shaffer, J. A., 2001. The Moon and El Nino, Geophysical Research Letters vol 28, No. 1. pps 25-28.
Lambeck and Cazenave (1976), “Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climatic Change” published in 1976 in the Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society Vol 26 Issue No 3 pps 555 to 573, reported that there is an established relationship between the Earth’s decadal variable rotation and climate dynamics. As LoD shortens, (i.e. the Earth rotates faster) the planet warms; in contrast, as LoD lengthens, the planet cools. There is a time lag of most likely six years between the change in the Earth’s rotation and global temperature changes. Their paper is available here: http://rses.anu.edu.au/people/lambeck_k/pdf/37.pdf Stott, Peter A., Jones Gareth S., and Mitchell, John F B., “Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?” Journal of Climate Vol 16 pps 4079 to 4093 15 December 2003. It is to be noted that the methodology used by Stott et al has two key shortcomings in the way it takes the role of the Sun in climate change into account. One is that although it contains a more accurate measure of the several elements of solar output, specifically allowing for greater variation in ultraviolet than total radiation, it does not contain measures of all of the elements of solar output. The other is that although the interaction between solar output and climate is known to be non linear, the methodology only allows for linear relationships. In addition, although the climate models used by Stott et al are more complex than those of the IPCC, they are still highly simplified and subject to many of the critiques made by Professor Leroux in his recent book, Global Warming Myth or Reality: The Erring Ways of Climatology Springer Praxis Books in Environmental Science. 2005.
Lockwood, M., Stamper, R., and Wild, M. “A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years”, Nature 399, 437 – 439 (03 June 1999); doi:10.1038/20867
Meehl et al. (2003) “Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the twentieth century”, Journal of Climate, 16, 426-444. See http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar.pdf
Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Schussler, M., and Mursula, K., “Solar activity, cosmic rays and the Earth’s temperature: a millennium scale comparison” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 110, pps 1 to 23, 2005. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A., “Solar Irradiance Variations: From Current Measurements to Long Term Estimates” Invited Review. Solar Physics, Vol 224 pps 197 to 208. 2004. Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Schussler, M., and Beer, J., “Unusual activity of the Sun during the recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years” Nature Vol 431 pps 1084 to 1087, 28 October 2004. (See also in the same issue a highlighted summary article in Nature’s News and Views “Spots from Rings” by Paula J Reimer Nature Vol 431 pps 1047 to 1048 28 October 2004. Solanki, S., and Krivova, S. K., Solar Variabilty and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850”. Advances in Space Research Vol 24 pps 361 to 364 2004. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A., “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 108(A5), 1200 doi: 10.1029/2002JA009753, 21 May 2003. Solanki, S., Usoskin, I. G., Schussler, M. Mursular, K., and Alanko, K., “Millenium Scale Sunspot Representation: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s.” Physical Review Letters Vol 91, 211101, November 2003. Solanki, S., and Krivova, N. A. “Solar Total and Sprectral Irridance: Modelling and a Possible Impact on Climate” I Wilson, A. (ed) Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth’s Environment. ESA SP 535. European Space Agency 275 2003. A Power Point presentation of the findings of Solanki and co workers can be found at http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/abstract104.html
Willson, Richard C., and Mordvinov, Alexander V., “Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 – 23” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 30, No. 5, 119, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038, 2003.
See the publications at http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm_print.htm . Scafetta, N., and West, B.J., “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32 L18713, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023849. 28 September 2005. Scafetta, N., Grigolini, Imholt, T., Roberts, J., and West, B. J., “Solar turbulence in earth’s global and regional temperature anomalies” Physical Review E 69, 026303. 26 February 2004.
See the proceedings of the international scientific conference, Solar Variability and Earth’s Climate, in June/July 2005 in Rome, published in the Journal of the Astronomical Society of Italy, Memorie Della Societa Astronomica Italiana Vol 76 n. 4 2005. The papers can be found on the website http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/index.html. See especially Brekke, P., “Closing Remarks on the Sun influence on climate change”; Georgieva, K., Bianchi, C., Kirov, B. “Once again about global warming and solar activity”; and Ponyavin. D. I., Barliava, T. V., Zolotova, N. V. “Hypersenstivity of climate response to solar output during the last 60 years”. Labitzke, Karin “On the Solar Cycle QBO Relationship: A Summary” Journal of Atmospheric, Solar and Terrestrial Physics Special Issue Vol 67 pps 45 to 54 2005; Labitzke, Karin, Kunze, Marcus and Bronnimann, Stefan, “Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region 20 years later” Meteor. Z TBA; Coughlin, Katie and Kung, K., K., “Eleven year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere” Journal of Geophysics Research Vol 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873, November 2004; Cordero, Eugene C., and Nathan, Terrence R., “A new pathway for communicating the 11 year solar cycle signal to the QBO” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32, L18805, doi:10.1029/2005GL023696. September 2005. R. Abarca del Rio, D. Gambis, D. Salstein, P. Nelson, and A. Dai, “Solar activity and earth rotation variability” Journal of Geodynamics Vol 36 pps 423 to 443. 2003; doi:10.1016/S0264-3707(03)00060-7. C. J. Butler, and D. J. Johnston, conclude: “Our data strongly support the contention that solar variability has been the principal cause of temperature changes over the past two centuries”. “The Link between the Solar Dynamo and Climate – the Evidence from long mean Air Temperature Series from Northern Ireland” Irish Astronomical Journal, Vol 21: pps 251 to 254; 1994. USGS website : http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/
Scafetta, N., Grigolini, Imholt, T., Roberts, J., and West, B. J., “Solar turbulence in earth’s global and regional temperature anomalies” Physical Review E 69, 026303. 26 February 2004. See also http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm_print.htm . Scafetta, N., and West, B.J., “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite” Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32 L18713, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023849. 28 September 2005.
White, W. B., Lean, J., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D., “Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 102, pps 3255 to 3266, 1997. Reid, G. C., Solar total irradiance variations and the global sea surface temperature record”. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 96 pps 2835 to 2844, 1991. Harrison, R. G., “The global atmospheric electrical circuit and climate” Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 25, Numbers 5-6, November 2004, pp. 441-484(44) DOI: 10.1007/s10712-004-5439-8. see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506077. Barkin, Yu. V., and Ferrandiz, J. M., “Tidal Elastic Energy in Planetary Systems and its Dynamic Role”, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Vol 23, No. 4, pps 369 to 384, August 2004.
Yasuda, I. (2009), ‘The 18.6-year period moon-tidal cycle in Pacific Decadal Oscillation reconstructed from tree-rings in western North America’, Geophysical Research. Letters, 36, L05605, doi:10.1029/2008GL036880.
Good access to the published science about (b) can be found within:
Bengtsson, L., 2007. On the response of the climate system to solar forcing. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer. Delworth, T.L., and Knutson, T.R., 2000. Simulation of early 20th century global warming. Science 287, 2246 2250. Tsonis A A , K Swanson & S Kravisov 2007 . A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 34 L13705; doi:10:1029/GL030288.
Good access to the published science about (c) can be found at:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com
In relation to (d) there are published model simulations and speculative papers but no actual direct observational evidence.
The hypothesis is actively promoted by a political committee of the United Nations. Because it has been heavily promoted by politicians and others for ideological purposes it now dominates discussions which principally take place in a political, ideological and even semi-religious context. As a result, the entire debate about our planet’s climate dynamics is dominated by political and ideological, not scientific, considerations. In this environment, scientific institutions, such as the Science Museum have a special responsibility to present science free of politics, ideology and religious considerations. Regrettably, the Science Museum is not presenting the science of our planet’s climate dynamics; it is presenting political and ideological propaganda dressed up in science. It is presenting pseudo-science of the worst type. Why would a reputable scientific agency do this? Please, in the name of science cancel this absurdity and replace it with a scientific account of our planet’s climate dynamics. Please contact me directly for assistance to do this.
24/10/2009 at 1350hrs (UK time) the tally stands at 405 IN and 2122 OUT
It looks as if the Science Museum website poll is receiving many more “out” than “in” votes.
For all the United Kingdom citizens, here’s a petition addressed to Downing Street to have your voice heard.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/
Here’s my contribution on why wanting to be counted out:
There is no evidence for human influence, since all the CRU Data is contaminated and biased to fit in the pre-set hypothesis of global warming. But there is no warming, the is cooling for at least 5 years, despite increasing CO2. The UK Met Office,Hadley, CRU and all the other alarmists deny. Their “corrections” of temperature data are simply pathetic. The alarmists phantasize about ice-loss in the arctic, but the arctic ice is building up for two years, as is the Antarctic for decades. There are many more reasons not to believe the warming crap, just visit e.g. wattsupwiththat.com.
There’s more (and yet less). Check out http://www.mad.co.uk/Main/News/Disciplines/Design/Articles/c03123d569b646f9bf2054ad5dce21e1/Exhibit-at-Science-Museum-focuses-on-climate-change.html.
I thought this statement was most telling: “‘Rather than using arguments about recycling or not, we were trying to get a broader vision of climate change,’ says Rogers.” Evidently the entire exhibit is bogus, not just the website.
What kind of museum did they say it was again?
I counted out, full name and e-mail and reasons in a nutshell.
# 410 counted in so far
# 2247 counted out
It will be interesting to see if the pro AGW blogs will be able to raise the numbers for in.
Brilliant :-))
# 415 counted in so far
# 2343 counted out…
Please keep up the good work and spread the word.
The For-Against ratio seems to be inching toward 1:6… gone horribly wrong indeed. I would still urge “our side” to avoid “vandalism” and “ballot-stuffing” – using names like Mickey Mouse or Joseph Stalin simply discredit us.
This foray by the Science Museum into Lysenkoist Science is a disturbing development. They need to be made to re-evaluate what they are trying to pass off as science, themselves, and their opinion of the level of public intelligence.
And thank you, Richard Mackey, for that reading list.
I really hope that the site is not being spammed.
At 16.12 BST the count was 416 in, 2401 out. Since the votes are going up steadily in the ratio of between 5:1 to 6:1, I guess that this is a genuine response – perhaps a statistician could give a view.
I have alerted my local MP.
Unfortunately we have a serious problem in the UK because all 3 main political parties have bought into CAGW and we run the risk of running out of electrical power around 2015. Indeed David Cameron (Conservative opposition leader) was careful to insist that he was a true AGW believer at a seminar held recently with Black Swan guru, Nicholas Taleb. Taleb declared himself “super-green” whilst not necessarily believing in the “anthropogenic thing” and Cameron jumped in to insist that he was of the faith.
Regards
S
The Times says 0bama isn’t going to Copenhagen. Some of the comments are interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece
I have read the comments (as usual) with interest and some amusement. Of course, hypochondriacs do get ill sometimes and, I guess, paranoiacs might get a 2:00am knock on the door. But I agree with the comment that the “Powers that Be” have better things to do than to follow up on those whom they consider to be just irritating cranks. Start mixing in death threats with the comments and it will be different! And you don’t need to fill in a “count me out” vote in this pathetic “poll” from the Science Museum, (who should be thoroughly ashamed for having traduced the very idea of “science”). The security services / police will certainly keep tabs on those who regularly visit Jihadist and child porn sites and, personally, I’m glad they do so. If they want to list people who regularly visit WUWT and CA and a dozen more Climate / political sites then I will have been on that list for long enough, anyway.
As it happens I’m on holiday in Romania and spent an absolutely fascinating couple of hours going round the Museum for the December 1989 revolution against Ceausescu and Communism in Timisoara. The heros who laid down their lives for freedom weren’t scaredy cats when the time came to be counted. OK, there is a difference between Al Gore or Prince Charles (and the whole silly gang of them) and Ceausescu.
But never forget how many of the eco-fascists who have tirelessly promoted the AGW hoax have the same mind set and many of the same objectives as the old supporters of Ceausescu, (although Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Che were always more ‘popular’ in the West).
The price of Liberty may well be eternal Vigilence. But sooner or later you may well also have to “be counted”.
Entering false details in this silly poll will help only those who seek to rubbish the result.
The Times has an article on this at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
which contains the following quote-of-the-week:
he [Ed Miliband, Climate Change Secretary] said that it was also vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. “If Martin Luther King had come along and said ‘I have a nightmare’ people would not have followed him.”
Heh, the Watts effect in action:
* 420 counted in so far
* 2503 counted out so far
420 vs. 2507 and growing.
423 vs.2545 >6:1 against