Newsbytes from The Global Warming Policy Foundation and Dr. Benny Peiser
The idea that China is to blame for the global temperature standstill does not stand up. It is a fact that in a world where CO2 is increasing year by year, the world’s temperature has not increased. The cause remains a mystery and nobody knows how long it will continue. It might seem an obvious thing to say but the credibility of global warming science rests on the fact that global warming has to resume. If it doesn’t happen fairly soon, then some of our assumptions about the science will need rethinking. –- GWPF, David Whitehouse, 14 July 2011
The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change. —The Local, 13 July 2011
The worst drought to hit the Horn of Africa in more than 60 years is likely the result of strong seasonal weather phenomenon in the region, scientists say. The United Nations’ humanitarian news agency IRIN notes that global climate change isn’t the likely culprit. —UPI, 13 July 2011
The GWPF apologises to all members and others trying to access our website late Tuesday 12 and all day Wednesday 13 July. The website was experiencing problems and was therefore offline. These have now been resolved.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 15, 2011 at 1:42 am
BTW, in case you’d like to play with it, the parameters I used in my model were:
w1 = 2*pi/20 rad/year
zeta1 = 0.032
sigma1 = 35 SSN/sqrt(year)
w2 = 2*pi/23.6 rad/year
zeta2 = 0.026
sigma2 = 39 SSN/sqrt(year)
Oops… the units on the sigma’s should be SSN/sqrt(year^-1), i.e., Sun Spot number per square root of frequency in reciprocal of years.
Bart says: July 15, 2011 at 9:06 am
…….
What you are suggesting it would be OK for an electronic circuit, or an oscillating system exposed to the wide band noise, but I disagree that it is OK for the planetary system, where even if such noise existed it would be negligible (we still have to apply Newton & Kepler laws).
Sunspot cycle has been successfully synthesised before by number of authors: Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, Ray Tomes. Timo Niroma, Jose , etc, correlations found by Tattershall, Sharp, Willson etc, so it is well trodden path. I use two equation one for the cycles periodicity and the second one for the amplitude envelope. I have no inclination to do any tweaks, since it will ruin the simplicity and elegance achieved, particularly when applied to the Sun’s magnetic field, as a precursor to the actual sunspot cycle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Good luck.
Its the PDO, and a weak sun. Get over it. C02, as in the mid 20th century, effects are weak.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 15, 2011 at 11:48 am
“What you are suggesting it would be OK for an electronic circuit, or an oscillating system exposed to the wide band noise, but I disagree that it is OK for the planetary system, where even if such noise existed it would be negligible (we still have to apply Newton & Kepler laws).”
The Sun itself is a mechanism with various energy storage states and feedback dynamics creating oscillatory modes with particular natural frequencies. And, plenty of internally generated thermal noise to drive them.
Great review! This is exactly the type of article that needs to be shared around the internet. Shame on the Google for not ranking this blog post higher!
Unfortunately, the article by Dr. Whitehouse linked to in the post does not contain the language quoted; perhaps that language was deleted when the post was revised.
There is need to emphasize that if the warming trend of the past few centuries does resume, which is quite possible as far as I know, CAGW will be in no way validated.
Mods,
is a generic spam posting, fishing for clicks on the linked name.
Keerect.
Here’s a sample graph of what that might look like.
Note that a point-to-point comparison of 2000 to 2100 shows a 0.1K rise, or 0.001K/annum!
😉
Al Seletta asked
1. Why are scientists reporting temperature in celsius?
I think it just has to do with where you come from and what you are used to.
As long as you know and remember that in absolute terms,
1 degree C is exactly the same as 1 degree K,
it does not really make a difference, does it?
So, for example, in my tables
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I report (the change over time) in degrees C per annum which is exactly the same as K per annum.
Henry@BrianH
According to your sample graph,
between 1910 and 2090 temperature would have risen by 1.05 degrees C.
That is 0.013 degree C (or K) per annum
That does not compare at all that badly with the estimate of 0.012 that I am getting for the past 4 decades.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Nice graph, that sample graph.
Sorry Brian
I made a miscount with my years in previous post.
Let us take it between say 1910 (bottom of oscillation) to 2060 (top). That is fair.
That is 150 years.
Then we have a difference of 1.3 degrees
That is 0.009 degrees C annum.
Still a bit below my estimate of 0.012, but it is still close.
Oops again. I am sure my calculator is not working properly.
From 1910 to 2060 is 1.47 degrees C difference
which is as good as 0.01 degrees C annum
nicola scafetta says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 am
“The temperature standstill since 2000 is easily explained by a natural 60-year cycle in the temperature of likely astronomical origin not reproduced by the computer models
as extensively proven in my paper:
N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015”
Reread your old posting on WUWT on this as well as your abstract and it reminded me of some of the Iben Browning material though I believe his mechanism was volcanic eruptions due to orbital influences though his prediction back in the 1980’s was also for cooling. Though he was predicting about 3 degrees F if I recall, much more significant than “stable to cooling”. Have you looked at any of his work?
Let’s all play the soot blame game shall we? The Himalyan glaciers are melting mostly due to soot. Arctic melt and soot…………………………..
Good night all.