How to count the mistakes and lies in this advertisement?
You could get some practice in by counting the mistakes and lies in the IPCC advertisement for carbon tax
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html.
Don’t you even notice your double standards and bias? I guess not RC.
Lets start with the fact that global temperatures do not "primarily follow the sun's magnetic cycle of 22 years". They have been increasing since the 1850's.
Really RC! do you get ALL your arguments from “Sceptical Science” ? Don’t you know that paper and all the others, you and they cite, have been rebutted and debunked on Climate Realist, here check it out:
http://climaterealists.com/
Just look at the last sentence and the link “In fact, direct measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent decades while global temperatures have been rising.” This is what the Russians in Project Astrometria are saying, the Sun’s century long warming has been over for some time and we are in a cooling period and have been for some time. The “apparent” global temperature rising is statistical “lies”. The selective removal of data stations, those which didn’t help the Global Warmers’ theory, made the remaining average World temperature shoot up from 1990
Do you think NASA are “lying” when that say this? (My bolding added)
February 5, 2010: For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers.
It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.
"The sun," explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC,
"is a variable star."
Over longer periods of decades to centuries,
solar activity waxes and wanes with a complex rhythm that researchers are still sorting out. The most famous "beat" is the 11-year sunspot cycle, described in many texts as a regular, clockwork process. In fact,
it seems to have a mind of its own.
"It's not even 11 years," says Guhathakurtha. "The cycle ranges in length from 9 to 12 years.
Some cycles are intense, with many sunspots and solar flares; others are mild, with relatively little solar activity. In the 17th century, during a period called the 'Maunder Minimum,' the cycle appeared to stop altogether for about 70 years and no one knows why."
"The depth of the solar minimum in 2008-2009 really took us by surprise," says sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "
It highlights how far we still have to go to successfully forecast solar activity."
Enter the Solar Dynamics Observatory—"SDO" for short—slated to launch on Feb. 9, 2010, from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
"'Solar constant' is an oxymoron," says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. "Satellite data show that the sun's total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount”
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth's reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
"Add it all up and you get a lot of energy," says Lean.
"How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
Seems like NASA are coming around, slowly, to Piers Corbyn’s ideas, I would say as DA. If you could take 4 minutes to look at Piers Corbyn's World Climate Forecast for the next 100 years, which is in total agreement with the Project Astrometria scientists prediction for a cooling climate, you may just realise, it’s NOT him making mistakes and lying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakA4-qAuWE&feature=related
He comes across as a genuine and honest scientist and if you look at his office he is not exactly making his fortune out of this, unlike many on the AGW side. It's a bit like David and Goliath with the same result
I posted this to you earlier and you never answered it, care to now?
His success rate in these extreme weather predictions (not “wet in winter” as you say) has been confirmed by the University of Sunderland, over many years, and WeatherNet just recently in 2009. So, are you saying that these bodies are not competent or worthy in some way?
BTW:That’s 22 papers you cite in your post! Am I supposed to read them or weigh them?
I thought we agreed a citation war was pointless? It’s not about the numbers, on each side, but about evidence, right?
I’ve only read thirty odd of the “500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html I don’t need more work, I just need EVIDENCE and from were I stand the science isn’t settled.
I wonder how many of the scientists involved with the IPCC reports actually support it? Maybe, they just need to pay it "lip service" to get the funding for their research?
"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that "motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their "green" credentials in defence of their statements”
He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_ipcc_should_leave_science.html
More from NASA on the Sunspot Cycles and a less active Sun
The Sunspot Cycle (Updated 2010/04/01)
“the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2010/04/01)
“Both methods give larger than average amplitude to Cycle 24 while its delayed start and low minimum strongly suggest a much smaller cycle”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
Yes, it seems very close to what PC has been saying all the time! or do you think NASA are telling lies RC?
Which is just wrong Haig. (The last bit about the IPCCC)
Really DD!, so you agree with the previous part, you just take issue with the last IPCC bit? Then, what was the answer the IPCC gave? Can you give a link?
You are citing a vague and rambling article, that does not state who, what,when and where.
Seems clear enough to me DD, all the answers are on the site.
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact1&fsize=0
And that still suffers from the exact same issue of sample bias and lack of blinding, a single data point means very little.
What are the total number of events, how are they determined, what does a blinded study show.
You still haven’t given your view on the OP .. remember Project Astrometria? You said previously, you hadn’t got a dog in this fight, have you been to the Dog Pound? Anyway, apply your critical thinking to these DD:
More to solar cycle than sunspots; sun also bombards Earth with high-speed streams of wind
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090917131556.htm
http://www.sciencecodex.com/more_to...bombards_earth_with_highspeed_streams_of_wind
Gleissberg cycle of solar activity over the last 7000 years April 2008
“Long-term variations of solar activity significantly affect terrestrial phenomena. Studies have shown cyclic components in solar activity and geophysical phenomena”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=e65077bb3047c58ac82a29ec6785b240
POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE DE VRIES, GLEISSBERG AND HALE CYCLES IN THE SUN’S BARYCENTRIC MOTION
“the dominant periodicities that are seen in the long-term level of solar activity i.e. the de Vries (210 years), Gleissberg (90 years), and Hale (22.3 years) cycles,”
http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/625.pdf
LONG-PERIOD CYCLES OF THE SUN’S ACTIVITY RECORDED IN
DIRECT SOLAR DATA AND PROXIES
Summarising results of our analysis we can conclude that:
(1) Two basic modes of long-term solar variability – the cycles of Gleissberg and Suess – really exist at least within the last millennium, and probably during a longerperiod (up to 10 000 last years). They are manifested in direct and proxy indicators of different parameters of solar activity (sunspots, heliospheric solar modulation, aurorae). It indicates that Gleissberg and Suess cycles are the fundamental features of SA.
(2) The century-type solar variation – the Gleissberg cycle has not a single 80–90-year periodicity (as it was considered till now) but has a wide frequency band (50–140 years) and a complex character. More likely it consists of two oscillation modes – 50–80-years periodicity and 90–140-years periodicity. The Suess cycle is 160–260 years and the cycle is more stable and less complex, as Schove (1983) suggested.
(3) Global northern hemisphere climate has appreciable variability in the Gleissberg and Suess bands at least during the last 1000 years. It confirms an assumption that climate is modulated by SA during the corresponding time interval.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/LongPeriod.pdf
You do know that there is a correlation beyween summer deaths by drowning and the sale of ice cream don't you?
Nope, must have missed that one but I did read about this correlation between global temperature and the number of reporting stations:
The Graph of Temperature vs. Number of Stations
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
The point of the graph above is that a change in the raw mean occurred coincidental with the big loss of stations in the early 1990s. This creates a problem of confounding. After the early 1990s the gridded series started behaving differently, i.e. going upwards so that the 1990s becomes the warmest decade, etc. Maybe the anomaly series are fully corrected for the problem of station closure and the shift in the 1990s was climatic. Or maybe the anomaly series are not fully corrected for the problem of station closure, implying not all the shift in the 1990s data was climatic.
b)The number of reporting stations as a function of time, NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
The number of reporting stations as a function of time, Center for Climatic Research,University of Delaware
http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/Global2_Ts_2009/air_temp_stat_num.pdf
http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/index.shtml
In 2007 McKitrick was co-author on a paper in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics arguing that "Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming".[6]
Mckitrick has said, "I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent.
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
Conclusion:
There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.
Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.
Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some free parameter.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
Ocean Conveyor Belt Confounds Climate Science
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman 04/08/2010
"This shows the weakness of the science behind climate change. The predictions of future climate change are based on current understanding of how climate works—the theory. And the theory is based on observations of climate behavior in the past—the data. Except that the data regarding fluctuations in the MOC were spotty and incomplete. Now, with better data it looks like the theory is wrong. This in turn, means that all existing models are based on incorrect assumptions and may also have been calibrated using erroneous historical data. Yet predictions of future disaster generated by these models form the heart of the climate change alarmists' case for radical socioeconomic change. And those of us skeptical of climate science's prognostications are considered the foolish ones"
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-conveyor-belt-confounds-climate-science
Solar Physicist Predicts Ice Age. What happened to global warming?
"There has been only 2 cycles since 1749 longer than the cycle 23, the cycle 4(1784-1798) just before the Dalton minimum and the cycle 6 (1810-1823 or the second of the Dalton cycles). The cycle 9 (1843-1856) had about the same length as we have now achieved (12.5 years). It began the series of 5 Jovian (Jupiter) cycles and a cool climate in 1856-1913 (the Damon minimum)"
(snip)
"That's 300 years of cold, in case you missed it! The Maunder minimum was the bottom of the Little Ice Age from which all IPCC temperature charts begin. That is because it was coldest then and makes the warming look worse. Had they started their charts during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) we would be wondering why it is still so cool. Like when are we going to get to the good stuff."
And then we get the punch line:
"THE CYCLE 24 HAS NOW GONE CLEARLY BELOW DALTON LEVEL."
This is pretty strong evidence. Had you been reading these reports for a few years you would have seen that Timo has been very conservative in his predictions. His earlier predictions were much less severe but trust me, you would be a lot happier with global warming than you will be with a Maunder type solar event. You can take that to the bank. The only thing that makes me grin about this is that it will end the man made global warming scam once and for all. Unless they can convince politicians that we did that too.
http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New...dicts-Ice-Age-What-happened-to-global-warming
All to show the science on AGW isn't settled and Project Astrometria with it's view of another "Maunder Minimum" LIA just starting, is a real possibility.
