New Little Ice Age

[Navy1960]

Now he appears to be doing the same with hurricane activity, and the new work is not without its detractors.

“The paper comes to very erroneous conclusions because of using improper data and illogical techniques,” said Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center.

In his criticism, Landsea notes that the paper begins by saying that Atlantic tropical activity has “reached anomalous levels over the past decade.”

This ignores recent work by Landsea and a number of other hurricane scientists who found that storm counts in the early 1900s — in an era without satellites and fewer seaborne observers — likely missed three or four storms a year. The addition of these storms to the historical record, he said, causes the long-term trend over the last century to disappear.

“This isn't a small quibble,” he said. “It's the difference between a massive trend with doubling in the last 100 years, versus no trend.”
Scientists say hurricane activity at a 1,000-year high | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Even one of the IPCC’s lead authors sniffed a problem:

‘This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,’ Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in an e-mail. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist.’

Well, yes. But then the invention of data that does not exist and the obliteration of data that does exist has been precisely how the man-made global warming scam has been perpetrated right from the get-go. The most egregious example of this was the piece of ‘research’ that underpinned the entire IPCC/Kyoto shebang from 2001 when it was published -- the so-called ‘hockey stick’ curve, which purported to show a vertiginous and unprecedented rise in global temperature in the 20th century

The Spectator

ust when you think it couldn’t get any more bizarre in Mann-world, out comes a new paper in Nature hawking hurricane frequency by proxy analysis. I guess Dr. Mann missed seeing the work of National Hurricane Center’s lead scientist, Chris Landsea which we highlighted a couple of days ago on WUWT: NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools, wider reporting. Greenhouse warming not involved.

Mann is using “overwash” silt and sand as his new proxy. Chris Landsea disagrees in the Houston Chronicle interview saying: “The paper comes to very erroneous conclusions because of using improper data and illogical techniques,”

Mann hockey-sticks hurricanes: Hurricanes in the Atlantic are more frequent than at any time in the last 1,000 years « Watts Up With That?

Please tell me your not still touting Dr. Mann's "hockeystick" as the bible for the marketing theory known as man made global warming. The fact's are this theory has been debunked so badly that the IPCC will not even use data on it that is less than 120 years old. and who knows what the new IPCC report will hold, perhaps evidence of alien life in our TV sets making us all have to run to turn to 3D TVs or risk being taken over by the TV people. Man made Global warming is a wonderful way to create a need for a market where none existed, and once done to serve that market. Need an example, you need look no further than G.E.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Note added 1/5/2008:
Some authors [15] suggest that the percentage of warming attributable to CO2 is not 5%, but is closer to 26%. It is easy to show why the 26% estimate (and estimates similar to it) are almost certainly wrong. We know that the total warming from greenhouse gases is 33K. If 26% of this was from CO2, then doubling CO2 would raise temperatures by 0.26*33 or 8.6K. Since the 26% estimate is based on total radiation absorbed, and not the amount of warming, we would have to add secondary feedback effects to this figure. This would double or even triple the value, giving us a predicted temperature increase of up to 25° C, or a predicted global average temperature of 40°C (104°F). Balmy!

Whether the exact number is 5% or 9%, because our estimate is based on the percentage of warming, not percentage of radiation absorbed, that is attributable to CO2, feedbacks in the estimate here are automatically taken into account. However, because of the large uncertainty about the actual value, the estimate from Fig. 3 (which derives an estimate from extrapolation of current trends) is probably more accurate.

However, we can also check the plausibility of the IPCC's result by asking the following question: What number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?

Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking. Even a 5 degree projection predicts current-day temperatures of 41°C (106°F). These results clearly cannot be reconciled with observations.

Totally and completely wrong, and very easy to falsify. Were this correct, the times when the earth had very little CO2 in the atmosphere would have been little differant from any other time, for, after all, the water vapor accounts for most of the warming, right? Wrong.

These were the times of the 'snowball Earth'. For the CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor, while the primary absorber of heat, is a feedback effect of the CO2.

The Snowball Earth

The Snowball Earth

Many lines of evidence support a theory that the entire Earth was ice-covered for long periods 600-700 million years ago. Each glacial period lasted for millions of years and ended violently under extreme greenhouse conditions. These climate shocks triggered the evolution of multicellular animal life, and challenge long-held assumptions regarding the limits of global change.

by Paul F. Hoffman and Daniel P. Schrag

August 8, 1999

 

[Old Rocks]

Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
The “hockey stick” graph is a reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past thousand years. It showed a sharp rise starting about a century ago. Global warming deniers and doubters have long attacked the graph asserting that we were as warm if not warmer hundreds of years ago. But a 2006 National Academy of Sciences report largely reaffirmed the analysis.

A new peer-reviewed study (2008) by climatologists and earth scientists Michael Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, Sonya Miller, Scott Rutherford, and Fenbiao Ni now extends the reconstruction back nearly 2000 years:

Here is link to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.” The Supplemental Material is here (warning, big PDF). I have also taken some of the PDF figures and turn them into JPEGs. For the first ever, I believe, the authors did a multi-proxy reconstruction of the Southern Hemisphere for the past 1500 years (see figure at end).

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorr...ast-2000-years/
RoBairJan 28 2009, 01:01 AM


QUOTE
........ the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.


Headline Zone > 'Hockey Stick' Redux...still valid.....

"Array of evidence"
The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

 

[FactFinder]

...except they have the problems of data verification and cherry picking data to suit their desired results as demonstrated earlier in the thread.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except the National Academy of Sciences finds that they are more credible than their detractors.

 

[edthecynic]

This is interesting reading for those of us who believe the sun rather than man decides the climate.

LANDSCHEIDT - New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

Abstract:

Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system.

Well, since calculating backwards is considered acceptable by the deniers, lets do it for this 83 year cycle. Since the cold phase of about 41 years will max at 2030 then the beginning of that cold phase was around 1989. So we should be seeing evidence of this cooling trend starting at 1989 and gradually increasing to a max projected as 2030.

However something possibly unnatural seems to have overpowered this natural cycle as the data shows a continued warming trend through the entire cooling trend projected to have begun around 1989.

 

[Fatality]

the new little ice age will last for one winter season, bundle up

 

[FactFinder]

 

[Fatality]

they have a new name for the "little ice age" they are calling it "Winter!" can you belive that, who ever heard of "Winter?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

Except there has been no warming since 1998. Go figure.

 

[edthecynic]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

Except there has been no warming since 1998. Go figure.

Then how do you "figure" that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the 150 year history of direct instrument measurement????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Now, Dog, perhaps were you to investigate the issue, rather than just engaging in mindless name calling, you might have something intelligent to say.

Except there has been no warming since 1998. Go figure.

Then how do you "figure" that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the 150 year history of direct instrument measurement????

Because they use "adjusted" temperatures? Go figure.

 

[edthecynic]

Except there has been no warming since 1998. Go figure.

Then how do you "figure" that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the 150 year history of direct instrument measurement????

Because they use "adjusted" temperatures? Go figure.

No, because you can't admit you've been had. They use the exact same "adjusted" numbers the deniers use to say there has been no warming since 1998. The only difference is the deniers know you will parrot their lies without ever checking their numbers. Which you, in fact, did! LOL

 

[editec]

This is interesting reading for those of us who believe the sun rather than man decides the climate.

You say the above as though BOTH cannot effect the world's climate.

Of course what the Sun does effect the climate.

that does't mean that mankind's activities canot ALSO effect the climate.

This Hobsian choice, this delusion some of you seem to have that every problem or event has but one cause is simply dumb as hell, folks.

 

[code1211]

Factfinder, the post concerning the temps for this year was from Roy Spencer. He has been one of the critics of global warming data. Yet he states that the past three months have shown a very strong upturn tempertures on the global scale.

His criticism of the data could relate to the fact that it is changed post collection by Dr. Hansen and crowd.

Stating that temperatures have increased during the last 3 months is simply reading and commenting on the unaltered data. Reading the unaltered data from the past is what caused the criticism of the altered data presented by the Dr. Hansens of the world.

 

[code1211]

Then how do you "figure" that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the 150 year history of direct instrument measurement????

Because they use "adjusted" temperatures? Go figure.

No, because you can't admit you've been had. They use the exact same "adjusted" numbers the deniers use to say there has been no warming since 1998. The only difference is the deniers know you will parrot their lies without ever checking their numbers. Which you, in fact, did! LOL

1998 is clearly an outlier, but was touted as the proof of global warming by a very vocal group of Alarmists.

The trend line, ignoring 1998, was up from the late 70's forward until about 2001 when it plateaued and then showed a slight decrease until very recently.

The last several months have been showing an increase again. Not in Indiana. Around here it's been freakishly cold. About 20 degrees off the normal highs. SUCKS!

The increase of CO2 has been constant to increasing.

 

[code1211]

This is interesting reading for those of us who believe the sun rather than man decides the climate.

You say the above as though BOTH cannot effect the world's climate.

Of course what the Sun does effect the climate.

that does't mean that mankind's activities canot ALSO effect the climate.

This Hobsian choice, this delusion some of you seem to have that every problem or event has but one cause is simply dumb as hell, folks.

Expanding that choice to two causes doesn't seem to me to be much more open minded. Saying that both the Sun and CO2 are at the beginning of the causal chain first raises CO2 to a point far above any reasonable calculation of the stuff's effect and ignors all of the other causers and the mutlitude inter reactions that they have.

Continental drift and the resulting changes in the flow of ocean currents is thought to have intiated the cycle of Ice Ages that we now exist within. CO2 and TSI had absolutely nothing to do with this change in our environment as their cycles remained constant. Arguably, I think the advent of the Ice Age Cycle has been the biggest weather driven changer of the globe and the terrestrial life in the last million years around here.

Not as glitzy as a a diesel smoke cloud, but still, you just gotta be impressed by something that covers and uncovers half of the globe with ice.

 

[FactFinder]

Then how do you "figure" that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the 150 year history of direct instrument measurement????

Because they use "adjusted" temperatures? Go figure.

No, because you can't admit you've been had. They use the exact same "adjusted" numbers the deniers use to say there has been no warming since 1998. The only difference is the deniers know you will parrot their lies without ever checking their numbers. Which you, in fact, did! LOL

The statement backed by the numbers is that the warming has been declining from its peak of 1998.

Whadda ya think u r some kinda spinmeister?

 

[edthecynic]

Because they use "adjusted" temperatures? Go figure.

No, because you can't admit you've been had. They use the exact same "adjusted" numbers the deniers use to say there has been no warming since 1998. The only difference is the deniers know you will parrot their lies without ever checking their numbers. Which you, in fact, did! LOL

1998 is clearly an outlier, but was touted as the proof of global warming by a very vocal group of Alarmists.

The trend line, ignoring 1998, was up from the late 70's forward until about 2001 when it plateaued and then showed a slight decrease until very recently.

The last several months have been showing an increase again. Not in Indiana. Around here it's been freakishly cold. About 20 degrees off the normal highs. SUCKS!

The increase of CO2 has been constant to increasing.

BALONEY!

Every year since 2001 has been WARMER than 2001.

 

[edthecynic]

Because they use "adjusted" temperatures? Go figure.

No, because you can't admit you've been had. They use the exact same "adjusted" numbers the deniers use to say there has been no warming since 1998. The only difference is the deniers know you will parrot their lies without ever checking their numbers. Which you, in fact, did! LOL

The statement backed by the numbers is that the warming has been declining from its peak of 1998.

Whadda ya think u r some kinda spinmeister?

BALONEY!
There are no such "numbers." Even LimpBoy's own "climatologist," Dr Roy Spencer, reports a DECADAL TREND of +0.13 °C globally for 1999 to 2008.

Whadda ya think u r some kinda prevaricator?