Grand solar minimum and global warming

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

Personally I like you enthusiasm but your predictions are predicated on realistic temperature trends.

Out of curiosity, have you perused any of the skeptic blogs? They reason things out in the same fashion as you do and I think you may find them very interesting and a source of a lot of information. Check out 'Watts up with that' and read todays article on Nuuk, and tell me if you like it.

Did you get a chance to read the article Matthew? Watts Up With Nuuk? | Watts Up With That?

"So, it seems clear, that at least for Nuuk, Greenland, their GISS assigned temperature trend is artificial in the scheme of things. Given that Nuuk is at an airport, and that it has gone through steady growth, the adjustment applied by GISS is in my opinion, inverted."

"The Stevenson Screen appears to be elevated so that it does not get covered with snow, which of course is a big problem in places like this. I’m hoping readers can help crowdsource additional photos and/or verification of the weather station placement."


Makes a good point about Nuuk greenland and which I don't understand how they can afford to allow this station to be messed up being that there is so little in the way of reporting stations within greenland, which makes one station very important as one station has to make a estimate over a large percentage of land. One screw up like this can hurt it bad throughout the globe, and in fact being on cement causes much more warming then grass, snow, so it can also throw the temperature off, but that would mean moving all temperature stations out of cemented area's. The surface temperature data would become worthless on cements ability to warm the surface layer over the other two, but I read hansens report on this too and overall he said it was small. In which if data is majorly thrown through a loop when your talking about a vast area I'd think would hurt it.

"This is odd, especially for an airport where aviation safety is of prime importance. I just couldn’t imagine they’d leave a faulty sensor in place for two months.

When I switched the Weather Underground page to display days, rather than the month summary, I was surprised to find that there was apparently no faulty temperature sensor at all, and that the temperature data and METAR reports were fully intact. Here’s January 2nd, 2008 from Weather Underground, which showed up as having missing temperature in the monthly WU report for January, but as you can see there’s daily data:"

Yes you would think a airport to have good data...It would appear that the program fucked up. Which begs the question; why not fix it and make the data accurate and add a few manless stations within 30 miles either side...In which we can do to make sure that this data is accurate. It is not like some man needs to be at them like 50 years ago...We have computer run programs...We could put hundreds of these on green land and ice land and throughout the arctic.


"Note that in the example above, temperature and dewpoint are clearly delineated by slashes. Also, when a minus temperature occurs, such as -10 degrees Fahrenheit, it was reported as “-10″, not with an “M”."

"These had to do with missing “M’s” (for minus temperatures) in the coded reports, causing cold temperatures like -25°C becoming warm temperatures of +25°C, which can really screw up monthly average temperatures with one single bad report."

I understand why they have to use the airports data, but it is bad. Being that it has a warm bias from hell.

The only thing that can even start to give us a good idea is satellite, which covers the whole surface of the earth. No pavement...We could check it against 3-4 other satellites and have a solid network. The surface network is not good enough data set for what we can do today in into the future. The bad news is the surface data set is all we have to understand what trends our planet is having.
 
Last edited:
No question a lot of the surface data sucks, but satellite not so much...

Here is the latest ENSO numbers within 3.4

September 20


Niño 4= -1.4ºC
Niño 3.4= -1.5ºC
Niño 3 =-1.5ºC
Niño 1+2= -1.9ºC

This Week

Niño 4= -1.4ºC
Niño 3.4= -1.8ºC
Niño 3= -1.3ºC
Niño 1+2= -1.5ºC


http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/a ... ts-web.pdf

La nina and nino's are judged mostly based on 3.4, so a -1.5 to -1.8c decrease o -.3c is huge. This is a big effin nina. In fact it is the same size as 2008, which bottomed at near -1.8c in January 2008...

I don't think the giss will score a record year this year, but maybe 2 or 3rd because of this beast. Lets say that the temperature is good then it shows real warming over the last 10 years being that 1998 didn't get strong until some time 1999. Which is even more impressive when the nino in 3.4 is one c warmer then one we had earlier this year. But of course this data might be flawed up the ass to.

It is either this data is full of shit or the global temperature has raised against the odds of
1# A weaker nino 1.8c compared to 2.8c...The oceans note 1998 as there hottest year for most months.
2# Much lower solar output being that we are within the lowest solar minimum and max since 1910-12 period.
3# Nina not getting strong until 1999...Only weak in 1998. So no real cooling effects. This year has to deal with the beast.
4# More years of decrease in overall solar output since 1950s.

Lets compare the years

This year right now
anomg.10.4.2010.gif


This years el nino near its peak
anomg.2.11.2010.gif


Compare it to early 1998 super nino!!!
anomnight.1.20.1998.gif


1998 didn't have anything besides maybe a weak to borderline moderate nina by the later part of the year to knock its record up.

The start of the nina, which started in 1998 and compare it todays.

anomnight.10.6.1998.gif


Lets compare it to the record year 2005...At this time the first signs of a nino of 2006 was taking place within the eastern Pacific...One of the favorable factors that are better then 2010 is a postive PDO within the gulf of Alaska.

anomnight.10.8.2005.gif
 
Last edited:
Comparing 1998 bolded is the tropics from 20 north to 20 south around the earth...

1998 1 1.134
1998 2 1.314
1998 5 0.972
1998 9 0.365

To 2010
2010 2 1.015
2010 5 0.850
2010 9 0.260
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
This shows that the land has overall warmed to the point that even a super nino can be over taken by much less and with lower temperature over the second half the year. So overall surface temperature has warmed based on data...How much, At least .15c since 1998 and the fact that we're also within the solar min from hell could be hiding a good .2-.5c more. The arctic and subtropics between 30-60 north warm at a rate of twice that of the tropics, so most of the warming is happening with or out the tropics...Just that when you have ENSO it can help push the planet to a record in nino and cool it down in nina.

Anyways this is so based on satellite data, but the surface data might not be good.
 
Last edited:
The problem with predictions, at present, are the factors that we don't know. Such as feedbacks from clouds, and what kind of feedback will we get from a differant atmospheric circulation pattern.

Thus far, the predictions of the climate scientists have been far too conservative. The Arctic Sea Ice melt, and the melting of the permafrost have both, by far, exceeded the predictions of the climatologists. The precipitation events of the past couple of years have been an unpleasant surprise, with the predicted affect on food crops in various nations, but coming much sooner than it was thought possible only a decade ago.




The problem the alarmists have is they have no handle on anything. They have ignored water vapor because it is too difficult to model. That's why they focus on CO2 because it is easy. Unfortunately for them it also doesn't seem to do what they were hoping.

You just cannot help yourself, you have to lie. You know damned well that water vapor is factored in on all the models. And that it is a feedback effect from the CO2. Remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, and you have a snowball earth.
 
I would love to see a real analysis done on all of the methodologies they have been using. A forensic accountant needs to go through everything with a fine toothed comb and then criminal indictments need to go out. This is fraud on a grand scale.

This is almost humorous.

The melting pole, the incredible heat wave in Russia, the hottest year on record in Japan, Australia, the U.S., Portugal,etc...

And all you can do is attack scientists for it?

It's pathetic really.




Once again proving how completely removed from reality you are you present a list of things that were supposedly caused by GW.

So sad for you even your own side says nope.

World Climate Report The Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 Part II

So much for the Russian heat wave.

The ice levels are higher now than two years ago and overall there is more ice worldwide than in 1980.

Record heat but only with altered temperature readings.:lol::lol::lol: You're a riot man! Stephen Colbert would absolutely love you! You are the veritable definition of truthiness!:lol::lol:

What a dumb fuck you are getting to be. Why the Russians only lost about 40% of their grain crop. No big deal. Nothing at all to see in Pakistan, either.

Watts is a liar and always has been.

Dr. Hansen is and will continue to be one of the most respected scientists in the world.
 
Rapid change of atmospheric circulation patterns, creating sudden heat wave and drouths in one place, record flooding in others. But global warming has nothing at all to do with it.

The alpine glaciers and the ice caps are rapidly melting, but global warming has nothing to do with it.

The TSI and sunspots are on a low, we have moved into the part of the Milankovic Cycles where we should be starting to see a slow decline in global temperatures, like that of the little ice age, but what we are seeing is a rapid increase in global temperatures. The GHGs that we have added to the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with that. Nothing at all. Exxon and Enron told us so, and they are so much more trustworthy than a bunch of scientists.
 
I used to believe that the solar grand minimum would cause a global cooling, which it should, but it appears that we have a warmer planet then it was in the late 90's. Global warming explains why.



really now genius?????!!!!!!!!!!!!



Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way - RT



they're sure going to wishing for a "warmer planet" in Europe this winter!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

Don't know what you're laughing about. Cold winters in Europe could easily be caused by Greenland melt water changing the flow of the Gulf Stream. How about thinking before you post foolishness?
 
Ok I don't like to be a jerk inside of a science thread, but anyone that thinks this is going to be any winter that is worst then any of the little ice age is a fucking idiot and should step away from the computer and has lot to learn.

So your telling me that there was NO little ice age and someway this year is going to be worst then 1300-1850 period? What is going to occur to allow that to happen? Toba or Yellowstone going off?
 
Last edited:
I used to believe that the solar grand minimum would cause a global cooling, which it should, but it appears that we have a warmer planet then it was in the late 90's. Global warming explains why.



really now genius?????!!!!!!!!!!!!



Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way - RT



they're sure going to wishing for a "warmer planet" in Europe this winter!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

Don't know what you're laughing about. Cold winters in Europe could easily be caused by Greenland melt water changing the flow of the Gulf Stream. How about thinking before you post foolishness?

Is there anything that Global Warming cannot be linked to?

Russian summer = Global Warming

Los Angeles heat = Global Warming

Cold Winter = Global Warming

Record snowfall last winter = Global Warming

Do you see why rational people doubt there's any science at all behind your claims?
 
really now genius?????!!!!!!!!!!!!



Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way - RT



they're sure going to wishing for a "warmer planet" in Europe this winter!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

Don't know what you're laughing about. Cold winters in Europe could easily be caused by Greenland melt water changing the flow of the Gulf Stream. How about thinking before you post foolishness?

Is there anything that Global Warming cannot be linked to?

Russian summer = Global Warming

Los Angeles heat = Global Warming

Cold Winter = Global Warming

Record snowfall last winter = Global Warming

Do you see why rational people doubt there's any science at all behind your claims?


It is not weather, but the avg of the climate that slowly warms is how you tell if you have the effects of "global warming", but the gulf stream is runned because of the density of the water and the amount of salt it is made up of. If you pour to much fresh water into the system you will screw it up, which case would cool off Europe and it would become much like northern parts of the Northeastern United states. Much colder climate without the air coming in from the gulf stream/north Atlantic current. Some theory's on the younger dyases of 8-9 thousand years ago hinted something like this occurring for the cool down, but it don't explain it being global either.
 
Last edited:
Don't know what you're laughing about. Cold winters in Europe could easily be caused by Greenland melt water changing the flow of the Gulf Stream. How about thinking before you post foolishness?

Is there anything that Global Warming cannot be linked to?

Russian summer = Global Warming

Los Angeles heat = Global Warming

Cold Winter = Global Warming

Record snowfall last winter = Global Warming

Do you see why rational people doubt there's any science at all behind your claims?


It is not weather, but the avg of the climate that slowly warms is how you tell if you have the effects of "global warming", but the gulf stream is runned because of the density of the water and the amount of salt it is made up of. If you pour to much fresh water into the system you will screw it up, which case would cool off Europe and it would become much like northern parts of the Northeastern United states. Much colder climate without the air coming in from the gulf stream/north Atlantic current. Some theory's on the younger dyases of 8-9 thousand years ago hinted something like this occurring for the cool down, but it don't explain it being global either.

Just so you know, I'm on record saying that there is more scientific evidence that Atlantis was a real place, that Mars and the Moon were each inhabited in antiquity and the Moon may well be a hollow artificial sphere than there is for "Global Warming"

You're not convincing me, mostly because what you allege should be able to be demonstrated in a Lab and you guys treat the lab like Dracula greeting the new dawn.
 
Is there anything that Global Warming cannot be linked to?

Russian summer = Global Warming

Los Angeles heat = Global Warming

Cold Winter = Global Warming

Record snowfall last winter = Global Warming

Do you see why rational people doubt there's any science at all behind your claims?


It is not weather, but the avg of the climate that slowly warms is how you tell if you have the effects of "global warming", but the gulf stream is runned because of the density of the water and the amount of salt it is made up of. If you pour to much fresh water into the system you will screw it up, which case would cool off Europe and it would become much like northern parts of the Northeastern United states. Much colder climate without the air coming in from the gulf stream/north Atlantic current. Some theory's on the younger dyases of 8-9 thousand years ago hinted something like this occurring for the cool down, but it don't explain it being global either.

Just so you know, I'm on record saying that there is more scientific evidence that Atlantis was a real place, that Mars and the Moon were each inhabited in antiquity and the Moon may well be a hollow artificial sphere than there is for "Global Warming"

You're not convincing me, mostly because what you allege should be able to be demonstrated in a Lab and you guys treat the lab like Dracula greeting the new dawn.



So you believe that the climate is stable and there was NO little ice age from 1350-1850, but there was. So explain to me why winters across Europe and north America aren't even a tenth as bad today as it was 200 years ago? The earth warmed and it is a fact...You can disbelieve that humans or the man on the moon causes it, but we've had global warming/warm period in 20th century.
 
Last edited:
It is not weather, but the avg of the climate that slowly warms is how you tell if you have the effects of "global warming", but the gulf stream is runned because of the density of the water and the amount of salt it is made up of. If you pour to much fresh water into the system you will screw it up, which case would cool off Europe and it would become much like northern parts of the Northeastern United states. Much colder climate without the air coming in from the gulf stream/north Atlantic current. Some theory's on the younger dyases of 8-9 thousand years ago hinted something like this occurring for the cool down, but it don't explain it being global either.

Just so you know, I'm on record saying that there is more scientific evidence that Atlantis was a real place, that Mars and the Moon were each inhabited in antiquity and the Moon may well be a hollow artificial sphere than there is for "Global Warming"

You're not convincing me, mostly because what you allege should be able to be demonstrated in a Lab and you guys treat the lab like Dracula greeting the new dawn.



So you believe that the climate is stable and there was NO little ice age from 1350-1850, but there was. So explain to me why winters across Europe and north America aren't even a tenth as bad today as it was 200 years ago? The earth warmed and it is a fact...You can disbelieve that humans are the man on the moon causes it, but we've had global warming/warm period in 20th century.

See, I never said that! How did you get that from what I posted?

By comparison, Earth's atmosphere is about the thickness of a coat of paint on a basketball, so it WOULD necessarily be subject to changes in ANY variable, including precession of the axis, solar output, variations in Earths magnetic field, water vapor, ocean currents, etc and so on and so on.

There are far too many variable for anyone to make the claim that changes in the deminimus trace element CO2 is THE reason for the "Warming" if it exists at all. That's why you never see the Warmers at any University testing their theory in a lab. They already tried and failed.

In response I get these lowbrow ridicule high school experiment posts that show someone adding 400,000PPM and watching the temp rise, that's not science and and that's not what the Warmers allege
 
This is almost humorous.

The melting pole, the incredible heat wave in Russia, the hottest year on record in Japan, Australia, the U.S., Portugal,etc...

And all you can do is attack scientists for it?

It's pathetic really.




Once again proving how completely removed from reality you are you present a list of things that were supposedly caused by GW.

So sad for you even your own side says nope.

World Climate Report The Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 Part II

So much for the Russian heat wave.

The ice levels are higher now than two years ago and overall there is more ice worldwide than in 1980.

Record heat but only with altered temperature readings.:lol::lol::lol: You're a riot man! Stephen Colbert would absolutely love you! You are the veritable definition of truthiness!:lol::lol:

What a dumb fuck you are getting to be. Why the Russians only lost about 40% of their grain crop. No big deal. Nothing at all to see in Pakistan, either.

Watts is a liar and always has been.

Dr. Hansen is and will continue to be one of the most respected scientists in the world.




Ooooohhh I must have stung you with that one!:lol::lol::lol: You know you can call me liar and use expletives all you want to. It just shows what a complete twit you are. The more you rant the better I feel! So rant away!:razz::razz:
 
The problem with predictions, at present, are the factors that we don't know. Such as feedbacks from clouds, and what kind of feedback will we get from a differant atmospheric circulation pattern.

Thus far, the predictions of the climate scientists have been far too conservative. The Arctic Sea Ice melt, and the melting of the permafrost have both, by far, exceeded the predictions of the climatologists. The precipitation events of the past couple of years have been an unpleasant surprise, with the predicted affect on food crops in various nations, but coming much sooner than it was thought possible only a decade ago.




The problem the alarmists have is they have no handle on anything. They have ignored water vapor because it is too difficult to model. That's why they focus on CO2 because it is easy. Unfortunately for them it also doesn't seem to do what they were hoping.

You just cannot help yourself, you have to lie. You know damned well that water vapor is factored in on all the models. And that it is a feedback effect from the CO2. Remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, and you have a snowball earth.





Sure they are olfraud. They have no idea what the real effect is so they just say it is a positive large feedback.. They have no idea what the real facts of the matter are. Now that there are actually people looking into the matter they are findiung that water vapor doesn't behave like they had believed.

Water Vapor

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.4410v2.pdf
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top