|
December 22, 2008
I Was Misinformed
Tom, over at Talk Polywell, and I have been having a discussion about Global Warming and how the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) may be affecting trends. And what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has to say about all this. Now shouldn't it be the Scientific Panel on Climate Change? Or some such? Of course not. Science is incidental because the IPCC is all about taxation and regulation. Science is in the back seat and will please keep quiet unless called on. So here is what I had to say to Tom: Tom, You are correct. The PDO - discovered in 1997 - has yet to make it in to an official IPCC report. I was misinformed. If you follow this from 20 May 2008 it may explain why I got it wrong. I will give a few pertinent quotes. You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.What they mean by "so much backfill" is that the Official Consensus Climate Folks were making shit up. Which - you know - is considered moderately unscientific. Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.Every one knows their predictions are impeccable. And if they make a minor mistake in the future they will correct the past to show how really good they are. They have to. There are a lot of governments depending on them. According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.Now it is that last bit which I bolded which may have confused me. What he said was not in any IPCC report. He was just speaking to some news agency which doesn't count. So officially the gravy train is still on the tracks. Whew. Close one. The IPCC needs to muzzle that guy before he emits further embarrassment. So we have a notch in the hockey stick. The rise in temps is not as smooth as we have been led to believe. And you know even in a 30 year smoothed average an 8 year bump should be visible. Now what do you call a model that leaves out known facts and has poor predictive value? Garbage. I like this bit from the UK Telegraph. If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.But of course for a century ahead they will be right on the mark, because you can depend on the errors to average out. Lucky for them, huh? Watts Up With That in April of 2008 had some nice graphs and comments on what the PDO stuff might mean. From the PDO data itself, it is just too soon to be able to tell whether the current cool phase is just one of the shorter cycles, or whether it is the beginning of a longer term cycle like we saw back in the 1950's and 1960's. It is tempting, when looking at the warming rate cycles, to believe that we've just come out of a 60-66 year "Kerr" climate cycle, and are on the cusp of a cool phase like we see for the 1950's and 1960's.Things are so quiet on the solar front that a bulletin has been issued. Of course that was on 14 Dec 2008. No matter. A week later and things are still quiet. Today's sunspot number? Zero. This is rather unusual since for the past few cycles (excepting this one) the sunspots from the previous cycle overlapped (although at different latitudes) the sunspots from the current cycle. Now some of the solar boys - based on various theories predicted the strongest solar cycle ever in August of 2006. But you know there is always a contrarian in the bunch. A denier. Some one who just will not go along with the consensus. A renegade. An evil person who is to be despised and denigrated by all right thinking people who are in the majority and therefore unassailable. How can the majority be wrong? But another group, led by Leif Svalgaard of ETK, a consulting firm in Houston, Texas, US, contends that the upcoming solar cycle will not be very strong because the magnetic fields at the poles are currently weak. That group is calling for the weakest solar cycle in 100 years.Say isn't he from Texas? Don't they have a lot of oil there? Well obviously he is in cahoots with the oil companies in a plot to destroy the earth for profit. Don't you just hate that? Unfortunately Leif appears to have a better handle on the subject than the consensus. How can that be? It goes against reason. It goes against belief. And worst of all it weakens the case for taxing the heat, the street, and your feet. And what was I blogging about in May of 2007? Something called the solar conveyor belt. "Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second--walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."And cycle 24 aint doin so hot either. ...the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots. For example, the temperature anomaly was - 0.4 K in 1890 when the cycle was 11.7 years, but + 0.25 K in 1989 when the cycle was 9.8 years. Some critics of the theory of man-induced global warming have seized on this discovery to criticize the greenhouse gas theory.You can read more of my thoughts on the solar slow down at the Power and Control link. Of course the folks at Real Climate and Master NASA Scientist Hansen plus Climate Science Nobel Winner Al Gore - those bastions of the consensus - have dug out some heretofore missing epi-cycles to prove all this solar stuff is errant nonsense. And thankfully for all of us the Great Oz has spoken. And not just one Oz. A whole consensus of them. Which is a lot. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.22.08 at 08:36 AM
Comments
Simon, you are obviously extremely well educated on this issue. I commend your straight forward logical thinking. But....now that Obambi is coming to town, Kirk · December 22, 2008 01:16 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2008
November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Going Whole Hog On Alternative Energy Will Increase CO2 Emissions
I Was Misinformed Mr. Simon You're A Genius The Deniers List Can You Buy Happiness? Going Green Johnny Bunko - Or How To Find Real Happiness The Recycling Gris Gris Wind Is Not All It Is Cracked Up To Be Vanderleun Is On A Roll
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It is amazing how many people -- how many allegedly well-educated people trained in the sciences -- are unaware about the influence of the Sun on the climate of earth.