Forget global warming – it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

By David Rose

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read the rest at UK’s Daily Mail.

108 Responses to Forget global warming – it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

  1. Rob N. Hood March 6, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    IKR- and to whom are you addressing as “poor reliable”?

  2. David H February 29, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    So sorry to see the four of you finished. I just happened on the site last night while researching the hoax. Very good discussion other than poor reliable? There really should be milions posting instead of just five. You framed a very good argument. Best to you.

  3. Rob N. Hood February 26, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    I’m even starting to miss Joe… no I didn’t really say that!!??

  4. Rob N. Hood February 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    You could nail me by discussing this further, and being a little more specific… then again maybe not.

  5. Rob N. Hood February 25, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    No tortured logic at all. Simply a well known trait of the Right, clearly identifiable here. And as I’ve pointed out before it is a valuable strength for a group to have, thus citing Germany, and yet it is also a self-destructive trait too, again using Germany as the most obvious, but by no means only, example. This is about as simple and straight forward as logic gets. If you really believe otherwise then I just feel sory for you.

  6. Rob N. Hood February 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    waiting…. no guts no glory

  7. Rob N. Hood February 20, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    What? You “lying to yourself” and cannot answer a simple question? Don’t care to explain yourself, which should take any time at all…? If I am so incoherant, why would I ask for further humiliation…??

  8. Rob N. Hood February 19, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    Really? Please state exactly what you don’t get, and I will try to explain, even though it is a short and simple post. Seriously, Neil… what don’t you get?

  9. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    I know- logic and reason can be taxing. Even Joe is 100% behind you, like a good right-wing soldier, as always. Course it also took several countries to beat down Germany, twice. There’s nuthin’ like solidarity…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

      Huh? Now that is either completely incoherant, or it is the most tortured logic I’ve ever heard. Not shure I’ll ever be shure which.

  10. Joe February 15, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    Neil. Agreed.

  11. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    No of course it didn’t. Neil again you are trying to compare apples and oranges to simply disagree with whatever I post. You generalized waaay to much, and in a right-wing way insult an entire generation, practically, but then just to spite my reply to your nonsense you are suddenly aware of all sorts of wondrous things that occurred…. you are an odd duck. Sooo hard for you people to find common ground isn’t it? It shows weakness for you doesn’t it? Sad is what it is.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm #

      I’m done on this thread. Moving on. There are more stories posted here. And, no I’m not blowing you off, well maybe a little, but the conversation is drifting out of relevence for me. We could go on forever without resolving anything.

  12. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

    Uhh, so do like my response- make sense- seem logical- all that?

  13. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    I really don’t know why I even bother to answer that type of inane question. I also sometimes wonder who is baiting whom…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

      Hey, you reap what you sow.

  14. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    The drug aspect of the 60’s (which you could extrapolate to today’s similar demographic re: mind-altering substances, not to mention the legal ones) was only a relatively minor feature of the times. You are over-generalizing, to say the least, and focusing on something you personally apparently don’t approve of, and dismissing an entire era that was rich in many significant ways. It just makes me very sad that you can to that. Sad for humanity, and our (in)ability to look beyond superficial differences and focus on what’s important. Tolerance vs. intolerance. Equality vs. prejudice. Peace vs. war. Love vs. hate. Sharing vs. greed. These are some of the themes that some people of the 60’s were championing, for everyone. That desire for a better world still exists in many people. I’m not saying they invented these themes, of course not. They are a part of humanity and always have been. This is an endeavor that will never end. All those, and more, dark negative aspects to humanity ebb and flow with time. They are with us today, and there are poeple across the world seeking to overcome that which suppresses, oppresses, abuses, maims, and kills. None of the above aspirations for a better world occurred because of drugs.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

      A relatively minor feature of the times? You’re not serious are you? It just influanced everything from philosiphy, art, music, fashion, and just about everything else. Good and evil have been with us from the beginning of time. What changed in the sixties was a notion that if we just stop the fighting, and the hatred that evil would just magically disappear. And that is litterally a pipe dream. Drugs make you stupid even when you believe they make you smarter, or elevate you to a higher plane of conciousness. And that is not a philosophical view, that is real life experience.

  15. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    Neil= fuddy duddy and narrow-minded historian. Joe= misinterpreter of the English language. Beyond the France and slave labor thing- which I never said; I also did not assume ANYTHING about your loyalty to your employees etc. (althiugh you again assume much about me based on NOTHING). I merely asked a question- pretty simple one at that. Why is that such a problem for you Joe? I KNOW you wouldn’t ship jobs overseas, because 1. I do assume that you aren’t a mulitnational corporation and thus not of that level of sick and cruel mentality, and 2. It doesn’t make sense to do so re: your business for many other reasons. It is you my knee-jerk adversary who assumes the worst woth limited facts. It is you who cannot function withour wallowing in hysporcrisy with every other post. So the other question then is why do the bigger companies ship jobs elsewhere- if you, Joe, are so contented not to?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2012 at 8:39 am #

      Are you trying to say that they were not stoned, and tripping on acid?

  16. Joe February 14, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Mr. Hood, France has slave labor? I must admit I have never in my lifetime met a person with your mindset. You have no actual knowledge for which you speak. I’m in France every other year and let me tell you about an entitlement society, go to France, you will see it. Greece as well. Your posts are bordering on fiction with no facts behind it. You had a hard time bringing up France as an alleged example didn’t you? Could tell be your reluctant statement.

    Finally, do I ship jobs overseas? No, I would never even think about it. My employees live here and are paid a decent wage. Man, you have a problem with reality and you assume the worst with limited facts. Suggest that you travel. I know you will say, ” I cannot afford it.” Neither could I when I began my ventures, but I did it as well as you, if you put your mind towards it. It’s called saving your money. Funny, most people don’t think like that anymore do they? Something that American’s have to learn once again? Called no free ride and accountibility? There is no “Silver Platter,” and never will be. It is always up to you and personal responsibility, isn’t it? If your answer is no, you definitely have a serious problem. I will be in Ireland in May scoping out options. That is for boiled/baked cabbage and deep fried bacon with two eggs on top, once over easy with blood pudding, smoked salmon and hard salami, potatos and their excellent bread for breakfast! Excellent, but a heart attack on a plate!
    Recommend that you get out of your box. The world is huge and is before you, but I sense you are stuck as I was in a small room with the children crying, diapers need changing etc. Been there done that. Life goes on. Go for it I say! Really not hard, that is if you simply “Do it.” Is that a problem?

  17. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    In the past people like you Neil (apparently) simply dismissed the late 60’s movements as just “them dirty hippys”. Are you really a modern version of that kind of head in the sand fuddy duddy? An Archie Bunker? Also, do really believe we wouldn’t have child labor in this country if there weren’t laws against it? And do you understand why those laws actually have to even exist? Also, do you remember hearing about that very bloody war this country went thru to end slavery? Do you remember why that was?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 14, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

      I dismiss the late 60’s movement because they were a bunch of people who were stoned, and tripping on acid being used as political pawns by socialists. I have nothing against peace, and love man.

  18. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Whatever… Syria for one. Greece was recently. France too I believe. “Today” was used as a figure of speech- which I’m sure you realize but choose to make us of it otherwise. There’s been LOTS of rioting AND demonstrating. More really since the late 60’s. OWS is another example, not of RIOTS per se but pertinent anyway, obviously. To try and refute this is absurd Neil. Try harder won’t you?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 14, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

      Oh, I heard about riots in those places, but I’m pretty shure they aren’t about wages. Syria is about political upheaval, not wages. Greece and France are about a bunch of freeloaders who don’t want the gravy train to end. And OWS? Come on man, you have to have a job to complain about wages! You’re just plain wrong.

  19. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    P.S. there is “slave” labor going on in places. What planet have you been living on?

  20. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Neil, I’m not stupid. I understand what you (an even Joe) are saying but you fail to see the bigger picture, as usual. Those workers will INEVITABLY want better pay, etc. as anyone would. No one knows how long that may take, in each instance, but there are riots in countries about this VERY issue TODAY. You people possess that sickening American Smugness, and cannot imagine anything beyond your own noses. For example- Joe, please tell us why YOU DON’T ship jobs overseas. Please reply, this should be an educational exercise for us all:

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

      Where are they having riots over wages today? I did an internet search and only found three stories, the latest one being from 10′. One was from 09′, and the other from 07′. I’m not seeing anything online. Can you give me some links to what you’re talking about?

  21. Joe February 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    Thank you Neil, needed that. It is apparent the Mr. Hood does not know that the IT people from India or other countries that come here etc. are highly paid in America. (Average salary per my friend from Seattle is $120,000 on up per year! Their wage here is more than 100 times than they would make in India. Believe America should start waking up when it comes to educating our children and what’s instore for them in the future? I assume you agree?

  22. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    Poor rigid and pessimistic Joe. Everything cycles. I thought you were a wise and deep man… was I wrong about that too? Pssst- dirty little secret alert: They all (corporate big boys) love foreigners because they pay them crap. But those same people will get tired of that and they already are, as they should.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

      I don’t think you quite understand something, and it may just be a point of view thing. Now, you say the corporate big boys love foreigners because they pay them crap. well, from our perspective it is a pittence, but if you look at it from a foreigner’s perspective you might see it a little differently. The people you are talking about were not forced into those jobs with crappy pay. They were offered the job at that wage and they accepted it. And, what you call crap may be more money than those workers were ever paid before, in fact, some of them probably made a lot less, and some made nothing at all before being hired.
      You seem to look at it as if it is some kind of slave labor scheme, when in fact it is probably a step up in the world for, if not all, most of them. If I didn’t know better, I’d say your view on this may be a bit ethnocentric.

  23. Joe February 12, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    On health care, “the answer is pretty simple” unless you are catholic. Houston, Obama has a problem. Oh, I forgot, his staff is now going after the 18-26 year old women to off-set the catholic loss in votes. How convenient. Typical politician. Whatever it takes to get a vote. 35 million catholics, 35 million 18-26 year old women. zero sum gain.

    Show me stats as to how we are more competitive. Our workers are the best absent IT and technology. Met a gentlemen from Seattle from Microsoft retired at 56. According to him, They are bringing in people from India in droves to the seattle area and are building schools for them because they have no real competition. No american can compete in IT for which they bring from India. What does that tell you about our educational society? They usually wish to be a history major, socialogy, psychology et al. They should be more industry specific for which America is lacking. Our students/children take the easy way out. Not India, Pakistan, China et al. Times are a changin.

  24. Rob N. Hood February 12, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    The Asian Giants are short on power,water, and natural resources.. In their spurt to glory they didn’t count on workers demanding more money for their labor.. Now the worm is turning, we because of the added cost of shipping (i.e. Oil) we are becoming more competitive..and manufacturing is starting to come back.. (e.g. Sears Kit Homes!). Add to that the speculation that the dollar will cease to be the world currency and that to keep us going we will be required to make the stuff we consume here. Now, if we could only figure out health care…! (pssst, the answer is pretty simple)

  25. Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    ;-)

  26. Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    So you didn’t puke?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

      Almost!

  27. Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    Ahh, you guys made me blush. It’s a Kumbaya moment…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

      I was just kidding around I hope you know.

      • Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

        ….so was I

  28. Joe February 7, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

    Thanks Neil. I appreciate that. I was not picking on you and you know what I mean I assume.. Simply have a hard time with BS for RNH. I vent quite often when confronted by a neophyte.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 7, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

      Don’t sweat it Joe. I didn’t think you were picking on me. RNH is here to educate us, and prod us forward onto a path of enlightenment (sorry I just threw up a little). So, don’t mind him so much, I think he truly believes that he’s doing the lord’s work here and trying to save us from ourselves (sorry I just had an explosive projectile vomit there). He is persistant though, you gotta give him that.

  29. Rob N. Hood February 7, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    That said- only you (Joe) can bring out the best or the worst in yourself. (See?! I’m a fount of assistance and wisdom!)

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

      http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10341078-was-january-warmest-on-record-in-us-the-answer-is
      Hard as it may be to believe if you live in the Northeast or upper Midwest, last January was not the warmest on record across the lower 48 states, federal recordkeepers announced Tuesday.
      It was warm — but only the fourth warmest since records began in 1895 and nowhere near the record set in 2006, the National Climatic Data Center reported.
      ——————————————————————————–
      The average temperature last month was 36.3 degrees Fahrenheit — 5.5 degrees above the 1901-2000 average. The record is 39.7 degrees, followed by 37.2 in 1990 and 1953.
      As for snow cover, last month was the third smallest for a January in 40 years that those records have been kept.
      Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at the center, told msnbc.com that he wasn’t surprised last month didn’t set a warmth record given that there were “a couple of cold outbreaks” during that time.
      But a few data points did jump out at him: Minnesota saw a record warm December-January that was 10.1 degrees above average.

      *************************************************************
      So, it was record warm in MN, but not the country. I guess that makes you both right, and wrong at the same time. Does this prove or disprove AGW? I’d say it doesn’t prove or disprove a thing, which I think was my point all along. But I’m sure you won’t see it that way.

  30. Rob N. Hood February 7, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    And misguided Joe, I am actually trying to bring out the BEST in you all, not the worst. But I know you see things in a VERY (upside down) different way, and will never come to understand that. Neil seems to be catching on, and tempering his statements with some degree of reasoning, etc. I commend him for that.

  31. Joe February 7, 2012 at 12:36 am #

    Neil, like your posts! I read the same article above. Hood is good at getting under your skin isn’t he? He brings out the worse of us and I’m guilty as charged. Must put my shield back up and sword drawn? Have in the past, but have not unloaded lately. As to RNH, question to him is “What do you define as “honesty”? (This will be a barnburner, Neil and interesting response from this Hood fellow). Keep it up Neil we are both alleged denier’s of a natural occurance called climate change a/k/a Global warming. Correct me if I’m wrong. Finally, I’m not in the science community but friends of mine are, one from NASA, name not to be published, and they all say it is B.S. and yes, Hood, they have PHD’s and know what they are discussiing. Not a neophyte like you with posts and blasts with political quotes and agendas that follow thereafter. Await your normal caustic difference of opinion that I assume will be forthcoming shortly? Waiting.

  32. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Is Neil arrogant for what he posts and expects us all to go along with, i.e. agree with him? You can certainly disagree with me on anything, but you cannot escape the “truthiness” about it. You can deny it, pretend it’s BS, etc. Nobody likes being corrected, but sometimes we all need to eat a little humble pie. And it’s harder for some than others to do.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

      It is specifically why I come here. I can’t argue about this stuff at work because I am usually with a customer, and I’m not going to get into arguments of any kind with a customer. That’s an easy way to become unemployed. I don’t argue about this stuff with my family either because my family is effed up and fractured enough already. I know this could cause a major problem with at least two of my sisters because they are very, very Liberal, and are very much believers of AGW.
      I don’t care if I sound arrogant, maybe I am a little, but I am here to argue what I believe. Not to be social, not to compromise, not to placate the opposition, and not to make friends.
      If you got something to refute what I say I welcome it. But we get the drive-by’s like Renewable Guy, and that Bill guy on a previous post who just post all this crap about 97% percent of scientists say…, or This study says,… or these scientists say, and all of it can be logically shot full of holes. They post it like it is the last word on the subject, and they don’t question it. I do. And that’s what I do here, I question the orthodoxy of the AGW religion. And I get pounded for it, I know I’m going to get pounded for it, but I have fun doing it. I meant what I said about competition. It really does spur me to dig deeper into things.
      So, I don’t expect everyone to go along with me, I don’t want everyone to go along with me. What would be the fun of that?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

        Take for instance the story above. It claims that for the last 15 years there has been no warming. And everyone goes nuts about it. ‘Here is graph of HADCRUT3 data for the last 15 years.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

        The trend is a tiny bit of warming about 0.02 degrees C. Certainly not as much as the computer models predicted, this is a slight warming trend…. from 15 years ago. Now is this a significant warming trend? I would say no. Because the uncertainty, or error range is probably a little more than 0.02 degrees C. So my opinion is that given the context of what models were predicting, and the uncertainty/error allowance, this writer has every right to say that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. Because there really has not. Ok technically a smidge, but it’s nothing in the signal to noise ratio, and it is nothing compared to what was projected by computer models 15 years ago.
        But we get the rebuttle from Renewable Guy with a story, with a letter, in it from HADLEY saying Mr. Rose didn’t use all the information we gave him, and we explained that our models are robust, and we’re always updating them and blah, 30 years, and blah, blah. And none of it changes anything. So what if he didn’t use everything they told him? What journalist uses everything? Besides, he used a lot of it he just happened to not agree with it. And it was an opinion piece. And I agree with him.
        So why is there such an uproar from HADLEY?

      • Rob N. Hood February 7, 2012 at 7:59 am #

        Exactly, Neil, so we agree. I’m glad you, finally, clarified your statement/s. You implied I was hiding something and even said that you don’t trust me. That is your right of course, but all I was asking for is your rational reasoning behind all that. There really is none, and you are honorable enough, after some prodding, to admit it. Kudos for you, sincerely.

  33. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    Well the Right has been condescending for DECADES. And it ain’t condescension if it’s the truth. And the school I attended is in Russia, of course, comrade. Neil didn’t answer my question- where’s the beef? What’s the trick, if indeed I do have one which I do not as illustrated by my honesty as indicated above? Am I THAT good that you cannot discern my DEEP purpose?? You guys don’t like honesty? You have to dismiss it somehow? Why is that? I thought the Right was all about honesty, truth, and the blah blah blah…?

    Wow, so many questions, sorry about that. You guys hardly ever answer any of them, although conversely and incongruently (per Neil) I usually do, or try to anyway, even if I may come off as (gasp) arrogant!! It sure is a good thing you guys never seem arrogant… cough cough.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

      I never said that you definately had an angle, or trick up your sleeve, I said I can’t help but think you do. If you do I don’t know what it is, if you don’t then I’m wrong. It’s a chance I’m willing to take.

  34. Joe February 5, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    RNH is condescending isn’t he Neil? Normal for a liberal when truth prevails. Have nothing else to deliver. Have noticed this left wing liberal trend for years when coevered with facts or a difference of opinion. Man, what school do they attend?

  35. Rob N. Hood February 5, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    Neil Neil Neil… where is the trick, the sleeve, or anything to be paranoid about? And again, talking big about a poster who may not even be interested anymore about this site may or may not have anything to do with your preception of cornering him etc. I perceived the opposite, more or less. So there you are. I could say the same about you at times, and I’m sure I have. But you weren’t a newbie, etc. And your modus operandi (e.g. data dumping via “scientific activists”) is different how? No different. You are once again caught being hypocritical.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

      Whatever.

  36. Rob N. Hood February 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    sorry- typos

  37. Rob N. Hood February 5, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Wow, Neil. Kinda harsh aren’t you? Some agreement is intersting and an good thing no matter what. It is what it is. I wasn’t trying to be your buddy or whatever… And to Dis RG like that is pretty lame Neil. He had you on the ropes life never before. I am much too lazy and busy too delve too deep in all this. He is doing what I should have ben doing. All I am here for is to point out hypocrisy, illogic, and plain old biases. And either I am just imagining it, I think you guys (Hal escluded, sorry Hal) have polished your posts up a bit. Which is a good thing. “Competition” is a good thing right? The Right lives and dies by it- so you really shouldn’t be so sensitive and irked by it. That’s what sites like this really are for. Otherwise it’s just an echo camber circle jerk.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

      Well, all I can say about that is that I don’t trust you. And I can’t help thinking that you have some kind of angle, or trick up your sleeve. And as far as renewable guy goes, where is he? All he did was post a bunch of stuff from scientific activists, and said without equivocation that they were good and true and would not listen to anything to counter it. He thinks the oceans are acidifying because he has been trapped by that false premise fearmongering dished out by those activists, and when presented with a logical argument about why it should not be called acidification, he bails. I don’t see how that can be construed as having me “on the ropes”. No, it was more like he pressed, I pressed back, he went away. No, he came here expecting to just trumpet the AGW, and deniers are stupid theme, and was surprised to meet some resistance to it.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

        BTW I would like it if RG came back. You are right about the competition point.

  38. Joe February 4, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    I like high CO2. Makes our plants grow strong. Better veggies anyone?

  39. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 4, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Did Renewable Guy bail? I suppose he has no answers to my questions. But if he’s gone we’ll never know, but I do have some speculations. Perhaps he has succumbed to global warming? Maybe he took a swim in the ocean and was dissolved? Perhaps he has become a climate refugee? Or perhaps his head just exploded from cognative dissonance due to the fact that oceans absorb CO2 when cooling, and release CO2 as they warm? Or perhaps he is just too unfamiliar with critical thinking to come up with a cogent response? I for one would like to know. Come back Renewable Guy!!!!

  40. Rob N. Hood February 3, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    Given our disagreement/s are not that far apart Neil, tis true. I think I clarified it above pretty thoroughly.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 4, 2012 at 11:38 am #

      Well there is a lot we are not even close on, and one is political ideaology. Those are pretty far apart. Another is that you are unconvinced about AGW, and I am convinced it is a scam. I really don’t think it matters a great deal if we find some common ground on a couple of things, because there is a lot of ground leftover that is not common. Our views are very far apart, and anything we have in common is not enough for us to come to any accord. IMO.

  41. Joe February 2, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    The inconvenient truth is climate constantly changes and humans will never control it. Don’t need 50 paras of alleged science assumptions. Look out the window daily and see the temp gauge. Is it always the same? Would love to have winter as it is today. No more shoveling. That said, look at Alaska at 80 below. Climate change at it’s finest.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 3, 2012 at 6:24 am #

      Joe I agree. But I don’t think it’s 80 below in Alaska. The report of 80 below was from a weather station that was only rated for , I think 20 below, anyway the reading was not correct. The closest station to the one that failed was -63 deg. F. Still really effing cold though.

  42. Eric February 2, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    This is my first foray onto this site, and I am not, by any means, a scientist. That said…

    Regarding ocean acidification… There are articles on the fact that many reefs contain organisms that require large CO2 values in order to photosynthesize. This would argue that the oceans have means to sop up the increased CO2 over time not only through reefs, but also through plant roots. Add to that various other organisms (both macroscopic and microscopic) that rely on CO2 synthesis for energy production. The following article is fascinating on how various organisms (including Man) have adapted processes to speed up the hydration and dehydration of CO2 to aid in their energy cycles and points to powerful processes that should just really be starting to kick in, especially if the recent studies on shell thickness increases in crustaceans are considered. Most importantly, the stipulation that

    “The rate at which carbon dioxide is used by rapidly photosynthesizing organisms is fast enough that organisms can deplete the carbon dioxide in the surrounding seawater faster than it can be replaced by diffusion and other transport mechanisms through the seawater”

    http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-10/rhf/index.php
    http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/4/chemistry
    http://www.drsfostersmith.com/pic/article.cfm?dept_id=&aid=765
    http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/ocean-acidification-causing-some-shells-to-grow-thicker.html

    Regarding CO2 levels increasing heat trapped in the lower atmosphere… It seems that is not the case at all. Nasa data sets for a period of 11 YEARS shows that the Earth sheds heat much earlier, and far longer, than climate models expected. Thus, the data in the models is skewed towards predicting far more warming than is actually occurring. A significant quote from the article follows. In short, increased levels of CO2 are NOT increasing heat levels in the US.

    “The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted”
    http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

    Now, regarding the flaunted sea level rises… Once would expect sea level rise during an inter-glacial period as glaciers recede and land mass springs back up. But it seems that this effect has stopped, as a recent study shows no net increase in sea level since 1930. If anything, sea levels are dropping, not something that the models predicted. So much so that Nasa recently copped to fudging the data with an artificial 3mm rise in land mass each year.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/11/global-sea-level-still-dropping/
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-nasa-satellites-pothole-road-higher.html

    Combine that with the news that East Anglia University is also saying that there’s been no net worming of the Earth in 15 YEARS, I fail to see why we’re all so worried about all this.

    The forming Solar Minimus, combined with expected increases in cosmic rays from the reduced magnetic shield provided by the sun, and expected increases in cosmic rays from the upcoming galactic alignment, together with experimental evidence that cosmic rays cause high atmosphere cloud formation and thus increase radiative cooling, seem to negate any more discussion about planetary warming.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 11, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

      Thank you Eric, that is excellent. I am not a scientist either, but I am a proud denier of anthropogenic global warming. In fact that is what the AGWD means. BSD is short for male bovine excrement detector. From your post I can see that you also are an AGWD/BSD, and I am glad to see you here. Welcome!
      Oh, and a little tip, if you post more than two links in your comments your post will be relegated to “awaiting moderation”. Dan also has the site wired to look for keywords like stu-pid, and mo-ron, and id-iot, (hyphens added to defeat described effect), and will be edited after “awaiting moderation”. I’m only telling you this because Dan is a busy man, and sometimes it may take a while for him to get around to moderating the posts.

  43. Rob N. Hood February 1, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    ‘Unofficially”, we all know the weather is doing some pretty odd things, changing you might say. Maybe. Right? Right. Oh argumentative one…

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

      Have I ever said the climate does not change? No I haven’t. I have always said the climate has been changing since there was one. And it will continue to change until our sun turns into a red giant and sweeps it away. And weather always does odd things. I remember, it was 79′, 80′, or 81′ we had an ice storm that shut down the entire metro area. It was crazy odd, and that was 30 years ago or so. Can you point to any time in history that has not had odd weather? I remember one summer in 95′ or 96′ where we had the weirdest looking clouds I have ever seen. There were some really odd colors for clouds, green, and purple, and pink, and silver, and it was all roiling like a witch’s kettle. It was crazy odd too. But tell yourself it’s a trace gas, measured in parts per million by volume, that’s causing all the odd weather. It couldn’t be anything else could it?
      But have your fun, the next cool summer we have I’ll enjoy using it to say AGW is a scam!

      • renewable guy February 1, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

        I don’t think you are qualified to falsify AGW just yet. Wood for trees just isn’t going to get you there. You have to prove co2 is not what the 97% of peer reviewed scientists say it is. Dangerous at higher levels of concentration. 4*C is considered highly disruptive to civilization itself. We are based on quite a fixed infrastructure, and continuously high emissions of co2 will disrupt many things, requiring enormous adaptation on our part.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

          Ok. You’re right, I’m not qualified to prove or falsify anything one way or the other. All I can do is tell you what my opinion is, what other’s opinions are that I agree with, and what my unscientific observations are, that’s it. I have stated umpteen million times that I am not a scientist. I do have an AAS degree in heating and air conditioning technology and because of that I have a better understanding of heat and energy, and the various processes of cooling than probably most people do. Obviously less than, say an engineer or a scientist, but more than your average Joe. What is your degree in?
          And this “97% of peer reviewed scientists say” thing is a joke! Do you know how many scientists participated in that study? I bet you think there were 100’s maybe 1000’s? Nope. Try 79. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself. Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3)

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 1, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

            There were 3000 scientists who participated in the online survey (I don’t know how anyone can call it a “study”) 79 of them were climatologists.
            http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
            Peter Doran gave an interview on January 19th, 2009 to a University of Illinois at Chicago news program called Research News. Here is an exerpt:
            “Because the general public is still about 50% convinced that global warming is an issue that’s real, let alone do we have to do something about it. And so the public needs convincing, and also, there are still people in government that need convincing. As recently as December there was a senate minority report put forward that said exactly the opposite of what our paper said, and was trying to convince people in the senate that scientists don’t agree on global warming. So there is a still a battle, if you will, to be fought here, and I hope our paper pushes the numbers towards more people believing that global warming is a reality. I think if people don’t believe that scientists agree then they can use that as an excuse for inaction, and that’s a dangerous thing.”
            You can listen to the interview here: https://blackboard.uic.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/web/news/podcasts/PdCst55-Jan19%2709-Doran.mp3
            Yeah no bias there. Right?
            Do you know how many questions there were on this voluntary online survey? 10? 15? 20? Nope try 2. That 97% figure is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 3, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

          Chirp!

      • Rob N. Hood February 2, 2012 at 8:24 am #

        What I MEANT was that it is CHANGING. Your casual dismissal misses that emphasis. And you will continue to dismiss that KEY factor because that is the very basis for your denial. You may be right that the change is nothing more than “normal” fluctuation, and while possibly uncomfortable and incovenient, nothing beyond that is at stake. But if you’re WRONG, there’s hell to pay for EVERYONE, pretty much- except for the cave people in New Guinea perhaps.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 2, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

          I don’t see where the disagreement is. I was assuming that you meant that the changing, and odd weather was a result of AGW, and I was disagreeing with that assumption. I do not disagree that the climate changes, or that the weather seems odd. I just don’t think that in and of itself it really means anything. And I thought you were implying that I don’t think that anything is changing. So I’m sorry I made that assumption.

  44. renewable guy January 31, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2012/01/heat-records-demolish-cold-records-for.html

    Heat Records Demolish Cold Records for 13th Consecutive Month;
    January Ending With Incredible Ratio of 27.5 to 1 in Contiguous U.S.

    ##################################################

    I was wondering what the rest of the US was doing. I wonder what is was for the world. 13 straight months of high records exceeding low records.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 31, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

      And this proves what? You ask any climatologist and they will tell you that any trend they want to look at has to be at least 30 years. This is just a spit in the bucket. Besides as I pointed out before to RNH, us critics are constantly warned not to confuse weather with climate. So it’s ok for you to do it? Not.
      Besides it’s been very cold in Alaska, Russia, and Europe. Better there than here I say!
      And as I also reminded RNH above, the official numbers are not going to be out by the 7th, so what you posted is unofficial and we have yet to see if that is the case. But it would not surprise me. Although, I gotta say that I am enjoying the heck out of it. Lower heating bills, less stress on my vehicle, this is great!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 5, 2012 at 12:53 am #

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095509/Snow-Rome-1st-time-26-YEARS-36c-temperatures-eastern-Europe.html
      “Snow fell in Rome today for the first time in 26 years as freezing temperatures took the death toll across Europe to more than 150.

      The Italian capital is usually blessed by a moderate climate but the snowfall prompted authorities stop visitors from entering the Colosseum, the Roman Forum and the Palatine Hill, the former home of Rome’s ancient emperors.
      The last substantial snowfalls in Rome were in 1985 and 1986, though there have been other cases of lighter snow since then, including in 2010. The director of the Colosseum, Rossella Rea, said the sites were closed out of fears that visitors could slip on ice..

      Snow began falling in the late morning Friday, leaving a light dusting on trees and cars and forming slush on the roads. It wasn’t clear if there would be any significant accumulation on the ground.

      The north of the country has also been gripped by snow and ice that is disrupting train travel.Temperatures plunged as low as minus 22 Celsius (minus 7 Fahrenheit), in Trepalle, a village in the Italian Alps.

      Snow in Rome came as the death toll across Europe reached 150. Temperatures have plummeted as low as -36c in parts of Ukraine and Siberia.
      In Serbia, at least 11,000 villagers are stranded in their homes by heavy snow and blizzards which have hit remote areas that cannot be reached due to icy, snow-clogged roads.
      The worst weather is near Serbia’s southwestern town of Sijenica, where it has been freezing cold or snowing for 26 days, and diesel fuel supplies used by snowploughs are running low.”

  45. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 31, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    A correction, most of the temperature charts we see are graduated in 0.1 deg. C. Not 0.01. But if you pull back the scale to a larger graduation the effect is still obvious.
    But I think the overall point I want to make is that since 1986 there has been an increase of atmospheric CO2 of around 40 ppmv, yet the temperature fluctuations are still up and down. How is the temperature affected by anthropogenic CO2? Where is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any effect whatsoever? If you want to look at trends it gets very convoluted because you can trend anything, up, flat, or down depending on the time you begin the trend line. But if the theory of human induced warming is true, would we not see an upward trend in global temperatures from any point starting from when it is claimed that anthropogenic CO2 began having an effect? But we don’t, and the reason is that there are more influences on global temperature than the CO2 level, and CO2 has a very, very small effect overall.
    Now, no one is arguing about what the role of CO2 in our atmosphere is. If it were not for CO2 and other so called “GHG’s” in our atmosphere there would be no life here on Mother Earth. At least no human life.
    But if you look closely at a graph of global temp anomalies from, lets say 1960, you will notice that all of the temperature variations have never went above or below 1 degree C. from 0, or what is being referred to as normal temperature. It is all much ado about nothing.
    This is exactly why I am very skeptical of alarmist claims, if you look at the temperature variations at a scale of 0.1 deg. C. it is wild looking and it is easy to think OMG! This bad, this is really, really bad! But push the scale out and it is chirp, chirp, chirp, as in crickets!
    Granted there is a lot of CO2 being anthropogenically added to the atmosphere, but where is the catastrophic effect? Warmists will say things like “snow is going to be a thing of the past in the next coming years”, and then they get record snow falls in the UK. And things like “the oceans are rising at an alarming rate” but are they? The last time I checked they have actually gone down a smidge. This winter has been pretty warm relatively, but do you remember last summer? It was fairly cool.
    I think we are still in the era of climatology infancy, and all this arguing back and forth is all nonsense as no one can prove anything one way or the other.
    A point about temperature trends. If you look here, this is a plot of HADCRU3 variance-adjusted global mean temps with a linear plot line added, from 1982, 30 years ago, to present: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1982/magnitude/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1982/trend

  46. Rob N. Hood January 31, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    Temperatures in the 50s and 60s across much of the Northeast and Great Lakes region on Tuesday added to the drama over whether this month will go down as the warmest January on record in the continental U.S. The warm spell has also generated plenty of chatter and even a spring of sorts — folks walking around in shorts and flowers blooming early.

    Weather.com expected at least a dozen cities on Tuesday would set or approach records for a Jan. 31, with temperatures up to 20 degrees above average. “With the very warm air mass, several more record highs are anticipated on Wednesday as we kick off the month of February,” weather.com meteorologist Tim Ballisty wrote.

    eh?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 31, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

      So? It’s mild here but look at Alaska and Asia, and Europe.
      http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2024
      I don’t think this is a smoking gun. And it is officially too soon to tell:
      http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10270725-its-been-a-warm-january-but-warmest
      “Deke Arndt, chief of the National Climatic Data Center’s monitoring service, told msnbc.com that he can’t rule out a record. “It’s too early for us to call shots” on just where January 2012 will end up, he said, “but it has been quite warm so far and we expect it to finish in the top 15 or 20, based on records dating back to 1895. The official report for January comes out on Feb. 7.”
      So we’ll know on the 7th. But remember us sceptics are always cautioned not to confuse weather with climate, I’ll caution you to do the same.

  47. Joe January 31, 2012 at 12:36 am #

    Agree. Climate change (a/ka “Global Warming”) is a daily occurance and a nuisance some times, eh?

  48. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 30, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    I don’t really know what to make of this. I have looked and looked but I can’t find the original data that their talking about. So I moved on and found something that is really eye opening, to me anyway. I just looked at a graph that’s interactive, as in you can look at various data sets and plot them on the same graph. Something really struck me about the scale of the graph I came up with. It has CO2 levels at the top so the scale is graduated in 50’s. It occured to me that all the charts and graphs we look at depicting temperature are all graphed at a scale of .01’s, which give us big spikes and troughs, and we argue about which is the warmest year and so on and so forth. But it’s all meaningless if you pull back and look at it at a larger scale, let’s say 50, it is a flat line. My chart is CO2 Mauna Loa, and HADCRUT3 from 1986 to present, and it is obvious to me that there is no correllation of CO2 levels and global temperatures because if you look at the chart CO2 goes up and up but global temperature remains flat. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1986/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986
    Nothing to see here folks!

    • Rob N. Hood January 31, 2012 at 7:58 am #

      And yet you love to discredit computer models… hmmm.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

        Uh, that is a graph of measurments from Mouna Loa, and surface temperature readings from the Hadley CRU. This is not a computer simulated projection of future temps. It is a record of recorded temps, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In other words this is not a computer model. It is a graph of past recordings. If computer models were apples, this would be an orange.

        • renewable guy January 31, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

          Drop down to 280 ppm and that’s where this all started around 1850. All that difference up to 392 is human contributions in the atmosphere. 40% to 50% of what we emitted goes into the oceans contributing to ocean acidification.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD January 31, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

            Really? Can you prove that? The last time I looked the oceans are still alkali, not acidic. Seawater is limited to a Ph range of 7.5-8.4. Right now it is in the Ph range of 7.9-8.3, this is hardly indicative of acidification. I don’t know how anyone can claim that the ocean’s are acidifying, it would have to drop below Ph 7 for anyone to make that claim, and as far as anyone knows it has never been below Ph 7.5. You can say there is a reduction of alkalinity (-0.1Ph.), but you can not say it is anywhere near being acidic.
            Also, you have failed to grasp what I’m talking about. Ok, here’s another visual, I drpped the time line back to 1850 even thought CO2 measurements from Mouna Loa only go back to 1960, but the effect is the same. CO2 rises and temps are flat:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850
            So, by comparison, if you graph the HADCRU3 data back to 1960 like I did here:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960
            It looks like a lot of variations yet if you look at the scale it is graduated in 0.1 deg. C, and you can see that the global mean temperature from 1960 to now has never gone above or below 0.7 deg. C from 0. Zero being what is called normal. And, dare I say, that is all whithin the noise range of natural variabilty and there are no articles, or blogs, or websites with Republicans who agree with you, or scientists with impeccable credentials and peer-reviewed peer-reviews that will change the fact that it is all about nothing.

          • renewable guy February 1, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

            Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH and increase in acidity of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid.

            As the amount of carbon has risen in the atmosphere there has been a corresponding rise of carbon going into the ocean. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[2] representing an increase of approaching 30% in “acidity” (H+ ion concentration) in the world’s oceans.[3][4][5]

            #################################################

            I have “contributing to ocean acidification”, meaning the ocean is becoming more acidic. That is a correct way to state this.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 2, 2012 at 7:06 am #

            I totally disagree.
            http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/acidbase/ph.html
            “The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. It measures the acidity or basicity of a solution. A pH of 7 means it is a neutral solution. Pure water has a pH of 7. A pH of less than 7 means the solution is acidic. A pH of more than 7 means the solution is basic. The less pH, the more acidic the solution is. The more pH, the more basic the solution is.”

            It is innaccurate to refer to any solution with a PH level over 7 as acidic. A value of 7 is nuetral. A value less than 7 is acidic, and a value over 7 is basic, or alkali. This is silly.
            How about a simple question? Is the ocean, that currently has a pH level in the range of 7.9-8.3 an alkali solution, or an acidic solution? If the pH level drops to 7.1 pH it would still be considered basic. If it drops to 7, it would be considered nuetral, and if it drops to 6.9 it then would be acidic. I don’t understand why you can’t see the logic of this. If you increase the pH of an acidic solution, would you say you increased the alkalinity of that solution? No, you wouldn’t. An acid is an acid, a base is a base, I don’t care what your source says, it is innacurate.

            Here is something else to ponder. When the ocean is cool it dissolves CO2, when the ocean warms it releases CO2. So, by claiming that the ocean is becoming more acidic, you are saying that the oceans are cooling. But if the oceans are warming, then there is no reason to be concerned about “acidification” because CO2 would begin to exit the ocean, and thus raise the alkalinity. So, which is it? Warming, or cooling?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

            Chirp?!?!?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

            Chirp, chirp, chirp???

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

            And another point just occured to me. When a solution reaches a pH of 7 it is nuetral. It is neither acid, nor base. How can you call something acidifying if it has not even reached a nuetral state? The ocean’s normal pH level is between 7.5-8.4 which means that the current pH level of the ocean 7.9-8.3 is still well inside it’s nominal parameters for pH level! If it ever drops below 7.5, well then I would think that there might be a problem. But I would not call it acidification. I would call it nuetralization because it would be moving closer to nuetral state. If it drops below 7, then you can call it acidification. Until then I would appreciate it if you would STFU.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 4, 2012 at 6:14 am #

            Sorry, I get a little worked up over this particular issue because it is something that I predicted would be the next big issue after we had the revelations of climategate. It really is a non issue because the percieved dangers of this are just that, percieved. The pH level of the oceans, as far as anyone knows, has never been below 7.5, and a slight reduction in alkalinity of the oceans at this point is no indication that it is going to dip below 7.5. The only thing that indicates that is, take a guess,………. computer models. The only reason they say it’s acidification is because that sounds scarier than reduction of akilinity, or nuetralization. So, any scientist or researcher that uses the term acidification is not engaged in pure research, they are engaged in activism to scare people into action, and they are using an appeal to fear fallicy argument.

  49. renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/30/414478/daily-mail-warming-human-emissions-dwarf-any-solar-changes/

    The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

    ################################

    The sun would be considered a natural variation. AGW would overwhelm the natural variation of the sun and continued warming will ensue.

    If you choose to read the article I provided, you will notice that David Rose ignored what was said by officials at the MET. He proceeded with the version he wanted to print. If you wish to believe this version, then it is not the mainstream science foundation of knowledge. It is a story written for various other reasons that isn’t based in historical evidence and experience.

  50. Rob N. Hood January 30, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Either way we need to be energy CONSERVATIVE. Or not- let’s party like Mayans!

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes