Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham

[Little Fish]

everyone must see the change in storm activity and the rise in intensity? How can you not see it?

I don't see it, nor does the data show it. how many more times will this nonsense be repeated.

"I've blogged on this for two years and been met with nothing but insults and jokes"

did you ever present any data to show what you believe about storm activity?

when you say "been met with nothing but insults and jokes", you are in fact stating a falsehood.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=242505&st=135#entry4683051

Edited March 23, 2013 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

It is still cherry picking. In 1996, that 1995 was the hottest year for the 1900s. They were right, if you lived in a city. But, ifg you lived in the country it was one of the coldest years. 'Last time I checked there was a lot more country than city. As I keep saying climate change equals stickig it to americans.

1998 was the hottest year on record up to that time, based on GLOBAL averages. 2005 was hotter. 2008 was hotter than that and 2010 was hotter than that.

One could avoid cherry-picking by making sure that one is using all available data. For example, a regression model that uses ALL mean annual temps for the 20th century. A sixth-degree polynomial would probably work for want of a better model and could include the seven-year hiatus from 1998 to 2004. That way EVERYTHING is included in the model. And there is no cherry-picking.

Or you could use various types of smoothing on your dataset to bring out the over-all trends. Again, you use ALL available data.

But with temperature records, the list is not all that long. You could just look at any comprehensive list of global temps and see the trends without doing any proceesing. It doesn't take a genious to see that there are a lot more negative anomalies in the first half of the 20th century than in the latter half.

Doug

[danielost]

Like I said nice try. But, I

1998 was the hottest year on record up to that time, based on GLOBAL averages. 2005 was hotter. 2008 was hotter than that and 2010 was hotter than that.

One could avoid cherry-picking by making sure that one is using all available data. For example, a regression model that uses ALL mean annual temps for the 20th century. A sixth-degree polynomial would probably work for want of a better model and could include the seven-year hiatus from 1998 to 2004. That way EVERYTHING is included in the model. And there is no cherry-picking.

Or you could use various types of smoothing on your dataset to bring out the over-all trends. Again, you use ALL available data.

But with temperature records, the list is not all that long. You could just look at any comprehensive list of global temps and see the trends without doing any proceesing. It doesn't take a genious to see that there are a lot more negative anomalies in the first half of the 20th century than in the latter half.

Doug

1998 was the hottest year on record up to that time, based on GLOBAL averages. 2005 was hotter. 2008 was hotter than that and 2010 was hotter than that.

One could avoid cherry-picking by making sure that one is using all available data. For example, a regression model that uses ALL mean annual temps for the 20th century. A sixth-degree polynomial would probably work for want of a better model and could include the seven-year hiatus from 1998 to 2004. That way EVERYTHING is included in the model. And there is no cherry-picking.

Or you could use various types of smoothing on your dataset to bring out the over-all trends. Again, you use ALL available data.

But with temperature records, the list is not all that long. You could just look at any comprehensive list of global temps and see the trends without doing any proceesing. It doesn't take a genious to see that there are a lot more negative anomalies in the first half of the 20th century than in the latter half.

Doug

1998 was the hottest year on record up to that time, based on GLOBAL averages. 2005 was hotter. 2008 was hotter than that and 2010 was hotter than that.

One could avoid cherry-picking by making sure that one is using all available data. For example, a regression model that uses ALL mean annual temps for the 20th century. A sixth-degree polynomial would probably work for want of a better model and could include the seven-year hiatus from 1998 to 2004. That way EVERYTHING is included in the model. And there is no cherry-picking.

Or you could use various types of smoothing on your dataset to bring out the over-all trends. Again, you use ALL available data.

But with temperature records, the list is not all that long. You could just look at any comprehensive list of global temps and see the trends without doing any proceesing. It doesn't take a genious to see that there are a lot more negative anomalies in the first half of the 20th century than in the latter half.

Doug

1998, 2005, 2008, and 2010,; have one thing in common solar maximus. Solar max hit in 2001, ad 2012. Further solar max hung around for a couple of years. Meaning that in 2005 we were getting extra radiation from the sun. Solar max is an eleven year cycle. Furthr there is a seventy year cycle which also hit max in 2001. We are now near the middle of its down word cycle. It will keep getting cooler for about twenty vfive years.

[Guest]

why do you ignore the questions below. they are germane to the fact that global temperatures have not risen for 16 years.

your responses are only valid replies to the assertion "there is no global warming" which was never made and different to the assertion that was made and supported by the facts that "there has been no global warming for 16 years".

I don't expect you'll ever respond to these questions, other than throwing your insults around.

explain what this means to you:

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

here is another question for you -

what period of time with a zero global temperature trend is required to create a discrepancy with model projections?

If you ask a meaningless question do not expect to get a meaningful answer.

The trend is a warming one - simple.

The models have not been contradicted because the statistically valid analysis of the data shows that warming is taking place and has never ceased.

Only your ignorance of valid statistical analysis allow you to claim otherwise.

You are selecting your questions to support your logical fallacy and inadequate statistical analysis without acknowledging that central fallacy - which is another form of cherry picking.

Your questions are answered by the data - which shows continued warming.

Let me ask you a question, do you understand what standard deviation is and why in statistical analysis we do everything to minimize the standard error ?

Br Cornelius

Edited March 23, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

Like I said nice try. But, I

1998, 2005, 2008, and 2010,; have one thing in common solar maximus. Solar max hit in 2001, ad 2012. Further solar max hung around for a couple of years. Meaning that in 2005 we were getting extra radiation from the sun. Solar max is an eleven year cycle. Furthr there is a seventy year cycle which also hit max in 2001. We are now near the middle of its down word cycle. It will keep getting cooler for about twenty vfive years.

And yet the data shows we are not getting cooler - but in fact we are continuing to warm, and more importantly - continuing to accumulate energy within the planetary system. You contention is not supported by the evidence.

[Doug1029]

1998, 2005, 2008, and 2010,; have one thing in common solar maximus. Solar max hit in 2001, ad 2012. Further solar max hung around for a couple of years. Meaning that in 2005 we were getting extra radiation from the sun. Solar max is an eleven year cycle. Furthr there is a seventy year cycle which also hit max in 2001. We are now near the middle of its down word cycle. It will keep getting cooler for about twenty vfive years.

Solar Cycle as determined from average daily sunspot counts:

1996: 8.1

1997: 20.0

1998: 59.4

1999: 86.2

2000: 110.5

2001: 102.5

2002: 96.2

2003: 58.8

2004: 37.4

2005: 27.6

2006: 14.1

2007: 7.1

2008: 2.8

2009: 3.0

2010: 16.5

As can be seen, the solar maximum was in 2000. 2008 had a low of 2.8 sunspots per day, but the actual solar minimum occurred in August 2009 which had a sunspot count of 0.0. Facts, Daniel. Facts.

August 2009 was the last solar minimum. This cycle will probably be one of those two-humped cycles with two maxima. The first one, we are in right now. The second one will probably hit in late 2013 or early 2014. Since 1848, solar cycles have run between nine and 14 years in length, so the "cycle" is not a true cycle - it has a variable period.

Solar activity is only one thing influencing climate. There are a lot of things that influence climate. CO2 pollution is another. The weather we get will be influenced by both. At any rate, we're not going to be seeing a decline in solar activity until next year. And it will likely be three or four years after that before the decline is enough to notice in the climate records.

In the meantime, how do YOU account for global temperature records being set during a solar MINIMUM (2008)?

Doug

[danielost]

And yet the data shows we are not getting cooler - but in fact we are continuing to warm, and more importantly - continuing to accumulate energy within the planetary system. You contention is not supported by the evidence.

I guess you didn't read about the snow in london. This winter is going go for nother month give or take.

[danielost]

Solar Cycle as determined from average daily sunspot counts:

1996: 8.1

1997: 20.0

1998: 59.4

1999: 86.2

2000: 110.5

2001: 102.5

2002: 96.2

2003: 58.8

2004: 37.4

2005: 27.6

2006: 14.1

2007: 7.1

2008: 2.8

2009: 3.0

2010: 16.5

As can be seen, the solar maximum was in 2000. 2008 had a low of 2.8 sunspots per day, but the actual solar minimum occurred in August 2009 which had a sunspot count of 0.0. Facts, Daniel. Facts.

August 2009 was the last solar minimum. This cycle will probably be one of those two-humped cycles with two maxima. The first one, we are in right now. The second one will probably hit in late 2013 or early 2014. Since 1848, solar cycles have run between nine and 14 years in length, so the "cycle" is not a true cycle - it has a variable period.

Solar activity is only one thing influencing climate. There are a lot of things that influence climate. CO2 pollution is another. The weather we get will be influenced by both. At any rate, we're not going to be seeing a decline in solar activity until next year. And it will likely be three or four years after that before the decline is enough to notice in the climate records.

In the meantime, how do YOU account for global temperature records being set during a solar MINIMUM (2008)?

Doug

Max was in 2001 and 2012. The 2001 lasted until 2003. Nasa said they didn't know if it was ever head for minimum. Besides you didn't look at the 70 year cycle which also hit in 2001.

[Little Fish]

cornelius uttered

"If you ask a meaningless question do not expect to get a meaningful answer."

if i ask a meaningful question i expect to get a meaningful answer.

"The trend is a warming one - simple."

there has been no global warming for 16 years.

you do not state "the trend over the last 16 years is a warming one" because that would be a lie. instead you state ambiguously "the trend" in the hope that no one saw the pea switch cups.

"The models have not been contradicted because the statistically valid analysis of the data shows that warming is taking place and has never ceased."

you do not show "the statistical valid analysis" as the scientific method requires.

"Only your ignorance of valid statistical analysis allow you to claim otherwise."

since no "valid statistical analysis" has been shown, the whole world is ignorant of it.

"You are selecting your questions to support your logical fallacy and inadequate statistical analysis without acknowledging that central fallacy - which is another form of cherry picking.

appealing to incoherence will not help you, only the nurse can do that now.

"Your questions are answered by the data - which shows continued warming."

the data shows no warming over the last 16 years.

"Let me ask you a question, do you understand what standard deviation is and why in statistical analysis we do everything to minimize the standard error ?"

asking me a question does not answer the two questions i gave you which i stated you would not answer.

"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

[AsteroidX]

Mass animal die offs. Tornadoes in Bangladesh, plus many more signs our environment is off tilt. The new news is One of our inner planets has just changed from its normal 88 day rotation of the sun to a current orbit of 44 days (rumor) and other inner planets have "sped" up. All signs point to an environment that is in a huge flux despite whatever model or stats you want to use from years ago.

Look at your current data and weather patterns. We are now beginning the glacial melt season. Lets see how far back those get this year. Then you can throw some new stats at the proverbial pile if crap called the environment.

Oh and welcome to the radiation age and Bayou Corn. Wonderful things for our environment that are just going to add to the pleasant experience of living here.

Stats are worth so so when you can walk outside and see the changes. Tree die offs.

Magnetosphere weakening with a extreme pull from the Galactic equinox on our sun. Your data is going to be meaningless as we go through this multi year event and enter the plane the sun is pointing at the equinox in our 365 day rotation and start to get some of that plasma ejections they have been recording. But hey those might actually be good for our Magnetosphere as we need the activity to keep it strong.

[Doug1029]

Max was in 2001 and 2012. The 2001 lasted until 2003. Nasa said they didn't know if it was ever head for minimum. Besides you didn't look at the 70 year cycle which also hit in 2001.

The largest monthly average daily sunspot count was 170.1 in August 2000. The average for 2000 was 119.5.

In 2001 the largest monthly average daily sunspot count was 150.7 in September. The average for 2001 was 110.9.

It was one of those two-humped cycles with maxima in August 2000 and September 2001. The August 2000 peak was higher.

Since 1930, the peaks are:

1937: 114.4

1947: 151.5

1957: 189.9

1968: 105.9

1979: 155.3

1989: 157.8

2000: 119.5

I downloaded my dataset in January 2011, so I don't have the last two years.

I note that 1957 had the highest high and that they taper off both directions from there. The 2000/2001 high occurs at the low-point of the 70-year cycle.

If the link between temps and solar activity is a positive one, we are going to be seeing increasing solar activity for awhile. And that means climbing temps. Little Fish notwithstanding, the "17-year pause" lasted seven years and ended in 2004. Temps have been edging up since then.

To Little Fish: Look at the data sets. You even posted the HadCrut3. Look at it! Temps resumed climbing again in 2005. The Met Office is generalizing and, indeed, temps are not rising as fast as they were in the 1990s, but since 2004 the trend has been up.

Doug

Edited March 23, 2013 by Doug1029

[danielost]

The 70 year cycle was at its peak in 2001. If I could copy and paste I would put in links. There is also a third cycle I don't know wherre we are in it. One more at a thjousand years again I don't know where we are in it.

The, same people were blaming the demise of the mega faina in north america on man too. Now it is a comet.

[Little Fish]

The 70 year cycle was at its peak in 2001. If I could copy and paste I would put in links. There is also a third cycle I don't know wherre we are in it. One more at a thjousand years again I don't know where we are in it.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I saw that India is to build hundreds more power stations that will pump out more CO2 in one week than UK pumps out in one year. UK also has only 48 hours gas stored at any one time and is to deliberately make non "green" power stations unviable, with electricity prices being artificially doubled from were they are now in order to punish them for their heresy against the green crap heads. Fine, not a problem for me, but UK/US and other "green" places, keep your madness to yourselves, please. Here's an idea, why don't you start learning how to light a fire by the old means, and how to catch and skin your own food, with a flint knife of course. And be careful about which fungi you pick. Have a nice (dark and distopian) day now

As for me, well

[Guest]

Little Fish, when you do a bit of study on stats we can re-engage and we might actually discuss something meaningful.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

I saw that India is to build hundreds more power stations that will pump out more CO2 in one week than UK pumps out in one year. UK also has only 48 hours gas stored at any one time and is to deliberately make non "green" power stations unviable, with electricity prices being artificially doubled from were they are now in order to punish them for their heresy against the green crap heads. Fine, not a problem for me, but UK/US and other "green" places, keep your madness to yourselves, please. Here's an idea, why don't you start learning how to light a fire by the old means, and how to catch and skin your own food, with a flint knife of course. And be careful about which fungi you pick. Have a nice (dark and distopian) day now

As for me, well

Which all ignores the basic raw fact that all fossil fuels have tripled in price in the last 7years (causing the credit crunch to begin) and that the real reason that our electricity has doubled in price is not some conspiracy against fossil fuels - it a supply crunch issue with a limited number of suppliers able to dictate the price which they charge to the rest of us for the fuel used to create electricity. All supplies of gas and oil plateaued in 2008 in a market of rising demand - which by basic economic theory dictates that prices will rise. When easily extracted fossil fuels go into decline this price rise will accelerate. This can only get much worse for everyone unless we divest of our dependence on fossil fuels. Incentiveising that divestment is the only sensible strategic policy that any reasonable government can take.

I prefer to look logically at the underlying drivers of our current complex of crisis rather than resorting to convenient conspiracy theories which offer a place to blame and a reason to park our reasoning faculties.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 24, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

http://bourabai.naro...heidt/new-e.htm

That noted astrologer and amateur climatologist with many accreditations to his name (not).

Your actually using an astrologers opinion as evidence, not even an astronomer

Its easy to publish a paper if you never have to parse it past anyone with the skill to judge its validity. That's what peer review is all about (but that all part of the conspiracy isn't it ).

You have excelled yourself this time Little Fish.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 24, 2013 by Guest

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Which all ignores the basic raw fact that all fossil fuels have tripled in price in the last 7years (causing the credit crunch to begin) and that the real reason that our electricity has doubled in price is not some conspiracy against fossil fuels - it a supply crunch issue with a limited number of suppliers able to dictate the price which they charge to the rest of us for the fuel used to create electricity. All supplies of gas and oil plateaued in 2008 in a market of rising demand - which by basic economic theory dictates that prices will rise. When easily extracted fossil fuels go into decline this price rise will accelerate. This can only get much worse for everyone unless we divest of our dependence on fossil fuels. Incentiveising that divestment is the only sensible strategic policy that any reasonable government can take.

I prefer to look logically at the underlying drivers of our current complex of crisis rather than resorting to convenient conspiracy theories which offer a place to blame and a reason to park our reasoning faculties.

Br Cornelius

For your post

[Frank Merton]

The more I look at this subject, the more doubtful I become that there is going to be any shortage of petroleum for quite a while -- half a century or more. New suppies seem to be coming out of the woodwork. The story for natural gas seems even more that way.

It appears that the natural gas that we've been tapping in the past is stuff that had come naturally out of massive reservoirs of the stuff, and now we have technologies to tap the original reservoirs, and, further, that its all mixed in with other petrochemicals. Prices, at least in a few lucky countries, including all of North America, are going to stay where they are.

It seems to me that if people are really persuaded that these things have got to stop being used, then the thing to do is find ways to make solar power much cheaper and to get electric cars competitive. Depending on natural exhaustion isn't going to do it.

[Guest]

For your post

Don't like facts do you - prefer CT to explain everything.

Which bit of my analysis was factually incorrect, be precise here.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

The more I look at this subject, the more doubtful I become that there is going to be any shortage of petroleum for quite a while -- half a century or more. New suppies seem to be coming out of the woodwork. The story for natural gas seems even more that way.

It appears that the natural gas that we've been tapping in the past is stuff that had come naturally out of massive reservoirs of the stuff, and now we have technologies to tap the original reservoirs, and, further, that its all mixed in with other petrochemicals. Prices, at least in a few lucky countries, including all of North America, are going to stay where they are.

It seems to me that if people are really persuaded that these things have got to stop being used, then the thing to do is find ways to make solar power much cheaper and to get electric cars competitive. Depending on natural exhaustion isn't going to do it.

At least half of all fossil fuels are available - but those are the expensive one's to extract. We will never run out of fossil fuel - just the cheap stuff.

Look at that miracle which is fracking, it costs many 10's to 100's of times that of conventional gas to extract the same amount of gas/oil - which will mean that the oil/price will rise. Most of the fracking operations are barely breaking even because they are having to sell their product at the same price as conventional gas which mean that they are barely breaking even. The only people who have made money out of fracking are the ponzy sellers of options and drilling rigs. The largest fracking company in the world went into administration a few years ago.

Having lots of fossil fuels will not mean that the likes of you and I will be able to buy it in the near future. There is already a crisis of fuel poverty in Europe and America and soon many people will have to make the difficult decision of whether to drive to work or heat their homes.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

The 70 year cycle was at its peak in 2001. If I could copy and paste I would put in links. There is also a third cycle I don't know wherre we are in it. One more at a thjousand years again I don't know where we are in it.

I'm sure you could copy and paste something. Then I would immediately compare that with the actual record and see if they got it right. There is no substitute for doing your own work.

There are lots of natural cycles. That 70-year thing sounds like it might be linked to the NAO. I've been intrigued by a 3.5-year period and a seven-year period in shortleaf pine ring thicknesses that I think is linked to the Chandler wobble. That's an insignificant wobble in the earth's rotation that shifts the pole by about 150 feet in a double loop over the seven years of the full cycle. Over time, it damps out, only to be renewed by the next major earthquake. It's hard to see how it could be affecting tree growth, but there it is.

You might be referring to the Bond Cycle. That's a 1500-year climatic cycle, especially evident in the ebb and flow of glaciers. I believe we are at the high-point in the Bond Cycle at the moment.

Any climate signal is full of lumps and bumps and wiggles. You can calculate the effect of long-term cycles with the Fourier equation, then subtract the cycle out of the climate signal. If you find another long-term cycle in the residuals from your first operation, you can subtract it out in the same way. Keep doing that until you have removed every cause of climate change you can think of, except CO2 and temps. Then subtract out CO2 and see if the results are statistically significant. If the answer is yes, then CO2 is affecting climate. Do the same with temps. Again, if the results are significant, temps are driving the climate signal. That's how you "prove" these processes. It all seems complicated and even suspicious if you don't understand it, but it is pretty straight-foreward stuff if you have the background. When you have taken out every source of variation you can think of, you will still have a line full of lumps and bumps and wiggles. That line is the unexplained variation in your climate signal.

Climate signals can be all sorts of things, from tree ring thicknesses to 16O/18O ratios in sea shells, to the same ratios in wood, to carbon content of sediment cores, etc. etc. You can even use the instrumental temperature records.

The, same people were blaming the demise of the mega faina in north america on man too. Now it is a comet.

The doings of paleo-Indians in the extinction of North American megafauna have not been erased by the comet theory. Assuming the comet theory is the correct one, the impact occurred in an ecosystem already under stress by human activities. The two cannot be divorced.

The North American extinctions were spread over about 2000 years with the last mammoth holdouts in California's Channel Islands. This doesn't square very well with the comet impact idea. There are other issues to consider; just because the popular press is intrigued by impact theories doesn't mean they're the whole story.

The extinctions of megafauna occurred at different times in different places. It was 70,000 BP in Australia and only a few hundred years ago on many Pacific islands.

For some really interesting reading on this subject, read "Quaternary Extinctions."

Doug

[Frank Merton]

I think you have your economics a little mixed up; the price of natural gas in the US collapsed because of the fracking revolution. Before then it had been in excess of ten dollars per, now its around three dollars per.

To be sure, the operations are not making any money at those prices -- that is what happens when something is in surplus, not when it is running out. However, this price pressure is having two effects. First, it is forcing even more efficiency on the drillers, and second it is generating immense activity to find new uses.

The way we read things, the US will convert its entire truck fleet to natural gas within a decade, utillity vehicles before that, that all heating will be natural gas within a couple years, and a huge resurgence in the US chemical industry is under way. New electric power from natural gas has completely pushed out plans for more nuclear plants and coal plants are being close all over the place. Even natural gas automobiles will begin to become common. This sort of thing does not happen unless there is confidence in long term low prices.

[Frank Merton]

The government here seems persuaded that the planet is warming enough to push sea levels up to become a huge problem for Vietnam, especially in the delta and Nha Trang, but even HCMC is at risk. There is little a country like Vietnam can do except urge others, and make plans to move populations inland. To me that these are happening indicates that there must be damn good scientific evidence of warming -- the causes aren't really relevant except that if it is CO2, and this seems to be the case, then we should be acting now.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Don't like facts do you - prefer CT to explain everything.

Which bit of my analysis was factually incorrect, be precise here.

Br Cornelius

wrong reply, so again