On Global Cooling = YIKES!!

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Aug 6, 2009
37,961
6,367
1,140
Not the middle of nowhere
Polar, West, Ian et. al..........a must read here..............geological evidence of abrupt climate change. This is a very historical analysis.......the kind of stuff the religion pretends is unimportant.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/looming-threat-of-global-cooling.pdf


New stuff from Don Easterbrook at Western Washington University..................in depth look at temperatures in Greenland over the last 15,000 years and it is astonishing to see the temps before MWP as compared to now. Were very well headed to extended cooling.....based upon readings of isotope oxygen records = real science.

The best is the "Mann" hockey stick graph vs. the "Reality" graph.
 
Last edited:
In which peer reviewed scientific journal was this article published in?

None, because his graphs are dead wrong. His whole hypothesis is screwball. There is no way that this would ever pass peer review.
 
Polar, West, Ian et. al..........a must read here..............geological evidence of abrupt climate change. This is a very historical analysis.......the kind of stuff the religion pretends is unimportant.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/looming-threat-of-global-cooling.pdf


New stuff from Don Easterbrook at Western Washington University..................in depth look at temperatures in Greenland over the last 15,000 years and it is astonishing to see the temps before MWP as compared to now. Were very well headed to extended cooling.....based upon readings of isotope oxygen records = real science.

The best is the "Mann" hockey stick graph vs. the "Reality" graph.
Deniers have been claiming global cooling since the 1970s, see Time Mag., but it keeps on getting warmer. All these natural cycles that have been predicting cooling have been trumped by something that must be outside these natural cycles. I wonder what this UNNATURAL overriding cause might be??????? :confused:
 
In which peer reviewed scientific journal was this article published in?

None, because his graphs are dead wrong. His whole hypothesis is screwball. There is no way that this would ever pass peer review.



geological analysis > computer models....................s0n. MWP has never been on the radar of the closed society of "real scientists". Why? Because it fcukks the whole model.:D:D:boobies:



Of course it wouldnt pass "peer review" in a closed society.
 
Last edited:
Polar, West, Ian et. al..........a must read here..............geological evidence of abrupt climate change. This is a very historical analysis.......the kind of stuff the religion pretends is unimportant.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/looming-threat-of-global-cooling.pdf


New stuff from Don Easterbrook at Western Washington University..................in depth look at temperatures in Greenland over the last 15,000 years and it is astonishing to see the temps before MWP as compared to now. Were very well headed to extended cooling.....based upon readings of isotope oxygen records = real science.

The best is the "Mann" hockey stick graph vs. the "Reality" graph.




That's a good overview. It also conforms to the predictions made by Corbyn and a number of others who's abilities i respect. What's fun is we are going to know for sure which side is correct in about 2 years. The last two winters here in the US have been the worst in 25 years and it is just going to stay that way.

World Climate Report » Coldest Back-to-Back U.S. Winters in a Quarter Century
 
I think many people will look at Easterbrook's paper and say it is biased, that it strains the historic data to paint a picture of his beliefs. and it does.

what many people dont see when looking at papers supporting AGW and alarmism is that the authors are straining historic data to paint a picture of their beliefs. and they do
 
I think many people will look at Easterbrook's paper and say it is biased, that it strains the historic data to paint a picture of his beliefs. and it does.

what many people dont see when looking at papers supporting AGW and alarmism is that the authors are straining historic data to paint a picture of their beliefs. and they do


And THATS the thing........anything scientific that is contrary to their model is rejected immediately and without consideration. In the world of science, "consensus" once stood for something.......it was the essence of science. Not anymore.
 
Polar, West, Ian et. al..........a must read here..............geological evidence of abrupt climate change. This is a very historical analysis.......the kind of stuff the religion pretends is unimportant.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/looming-threat-of-global-cooling.pdf


New stuff from Don Easterbrook at Western Washington University..................in depth look at temperatures in Greenland over the last 15,000 years and it is astonishing to see the temps before MWP as compared to now. Were very well headed to extended cooling.....based upon readings of isotope oxygen records = real science.

The best is the "Mann" hockey stick graph vs. the "Reality" graph.



As is amply demonstrated by the debates on thi sboard and elsewhere, data can be tortured to say anything that the torturer requires be said.

That said, the last graph in the attachment is the one that will tell the story. Did the warming plateau and will now start to receed again? Will the warming follow the predictions of the IPCC? For the former, we don't and can't know until some time passes. For the latter, we already know that they were wrong.

For my part, I like the warmer weather. I'm pulling for the continued warming trend.
 
In which peer reviewed scientific journal was this article published in?

None, because his graphs are dead wrong. His whole hypothesis is screwball. There is no way that this would ever pass peer review.


Several of the graphs have been published in peer reviewed sources.
 
By everybodies measurements, 2010 was the equal of 1998 for warmth. In spite of a cold winter in the US. So we have had another cold winter in the US. Now look at the drop off in temperatures for 1998 and 2010. Thus far, the 1998 dropoff was far deeper. The best we have managed to do so far for 2011 is a -0.01 for January, and a -0.02 for February. Hardly indictutive of a cooling trend. In fact, seems to predict a greater rise to come.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
 
By everybodies measurements, 2010 was the equal of 1998 for warmth. In spite of a cold winter in the US. So we have had another cold winter in the US. Now look at the drop off in temperatures for 1998 and 2010. Thus far, the 1998 dropoff was far deeper. The best we have managed to do so far for 2011 is a -0.01 for January, and a -0.02 for February. Hardly indictutive of a cooling trend. In fact, seems to predict a greater rise to come.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

is it comparable? 1998 was more of a spike. 2010 had more warm months. why dont you grab the monthly temps for both
 
Ian, learn to read a graph. The monthly temps are on the graph.

don't then. I thought it would be interesting to see the numbers. if you can read the numbers off this graph why are you having such a difficult time understanding the Woods Hole graph?
 

Forum List

Back
Top