Home > Climate Change > >Who are the real Climate Deniers now?

>Who are the real Climate Deniers now?

>So who really are the Climate Deniers? Those of us who believe that the link between CO2 and climate, as represented by the Climate Faithful and in climate models, is hokum? Or those people who believe we’re heading for doom and gloom?

No warming since 1998:

Of course, the Climate Faithful would show a different graph – conveniently starting at a low point when the world was nearly at its coolest in the 20th century:

But two can play that game. Why not start in 1998?

The Climate Faithful are also keen to hide from you the fact that no computer model predicted the cooling since 1998. That really would be An Inconvenient Truth.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation shows cooling seas


This actually my favourite comment about the PDO index and it’s typical of those being made by Warmists who are making comment on the situation:

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: “The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.”

Soooo…the climate models that have been wildly wrong so far, that did not model the PDO cooling (how could they when CO2 is their primary forcing?) are somehow going to be right in 2015?

These people are lunatics.

Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation shows cooling seas

From the Britain’s major promoter of Climate Hysteria, the BBC:

The Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

…The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

A ‘new’ computer model? Fantastic! Will it be as good as the old ones? Oh, wait…

2015 in one model. 2020 in another.

These people are lunatics.

Sea ice doing fine, thank you very much:

Don’t expect to hear this reported on the your evening newscast, but according to new data, sea ice levels in the Southern Hemisphere are at 25-year highs.

“On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years,” Steve McIntyre wrote on Climateaudit.org on May 4. “Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982.”

That data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) suggests the effects of global warming aren’t as dire as some media reports would have you believe…According to the NSIDC data, sea ice had declined in 2007 to record lows, but showed a rebound in 2008, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.

Sunspot activity indicates we’re in for a cool time:

All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

…That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

No warming since 1998. PDO shows a cooling Pacific Ocean. Ditto for the Atlantic. Ice cover has rebounded to huge levels. Solar activity indicates things are going to cool down.

So who are the real Climate Deniers now?

(Nothing Follows)

Advertisements
Categories: Climate Change
  1. May 13, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    >Yep, more of the usual idiocy. Some simple points for your simple mind:1. 10 years is not a long enough period over which to measure climate change.2. Nevertheless, temperatures over the past 10 years have neither been flat nor declined. Check the data.3. Oceanic oscillations cannot explain the secular upward trend in temperatures, by definition.4. Solar minimum is not unusual, it happens every 11 years, and its effect on climate is barely discernible.5. The Arctic sea ice minimum extent last year shattered all previous records, far outstripping even the most pessimistic predictions up until then.You cannot understand this simple science. Your writing is full of basic misconceptions. Give it up.

  2. May 13, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    >It’s almost over anonymous. Sorry mate.

  3. May 13, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    >Fudgie,Your lot use one day as proof of warming yet 10 years is not enough to measure change?Your lot truly are lunatics.

  4. May 13, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    >Provide a link, please, to where a scientist has used data from one day and claimed it as proof of global warming.

  5. May 14, 2008 at 2:34 am

    >Okay, honest question for you: I recall reading recently that at least one of the major Antarctic ice sheets is sliding into the sea at an alarmingly high rate. Is it possible that this is why, at least in part, there is so much sea ice this April?

  6. May 14, 2008 at 2:53 am

    >warhorse,Honest answer to an honest question.Antarctica is a huge land mass that is covered in ice. Ice mass has been increasing not only recently but for many, many decades. This increase creates ice shelves that jut out into the ocean for tens of miles. Over time they get so big and heavy that they break off such as Larson B did recently. Have a look at what the Antarctic Peninsula is. Antarctica is still increasing its ice cover to record levels.The Arctic is represented differently by the Climate Faithful. Records only go back to the 70s, which is pretty much the coldest period of the 20th century, so any comparison with them looks bad. However, if you read the literature including what was reported in newspapers of the day in the 1920s you find that huge melts of Arctic sea ice was entirely normal. In fact, they made a lot of dire predictions about the consequences. Sound familiar?What’s also widely under-reported is that Arctic sea ice cover increased massively during the last Arctic winter and is now at huge levels. Given the melt appeared to have been caused by anomalous warm ocean currents and that the world’s oceans are being shown to be in a cooling phase it’s not clear that the Arctic will have a repeat performance this year.

  7. May 14, 2008 at 4:04 am

    >Jack, you can be sure that if the Arctic ice continues to grow, those that commune at the altar of the church of Global Warming will just claim that, of course, that’s just more proof of looming climate catastrophe.They take it either way it comes.Silly dopes.— Krumhorn

  8. May 14, 2008 at 11:26 am

    >It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that increasing ice mass could not cause the loss of large areas of ice in collapse events. In fact, the collapse of Larsen B may have been unprecedented in the Holocene.The 1970s were not the coldest period of the 20th century. There were no huge melts of arctic ice in the 1920s. Arctic sea ice this year is not at huge levels.Is Jack Lacton simply painfully ignorant or does he know he’s talking absolute nonsense?

  9. May 14, 2008 at 11:55 am

    >Jesus wept, Fudgie, you really don’t get it do you?Go and look at the NYT archives and see what was being reported in the 20s…

  10. May 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    >Ahh, now I see.. the climate alarmists only have half a brain… people with full brains see things differently

  11. May 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    >Give us links to back up your claims, fucky. No evidence means no argument.

  12. May 14, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    >….Just a guess, buddy, but the ice will likely decline from January and into the summer. Why pick a chart that only shows a few months.Try this one instead.http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpgWhy do I always get the feeling that you global warming husters are nothing so much as 3-card monty sharks?–Krumhorn

  13. May 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    >…Try this–Krumhorn

  14. May 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    >Oooh, you’ve worked out how to make links! Well done. But you clearly don’t understand the graph you’ve posted, or perhaps you don’t know what you’re arguing for, because it very nicely shows, as my graph also did, that the current ice coverage is below the 1979-2000 mean.

  15. May 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    >I understand the graph fully well. If it’s your point that the Arctic ice recovery this winter was still below the mean….well…duh! It was only my purpose to call you on your dishonesty in splashing up some image showing plunging ice levels from winter into summer…as if that was somehow significant. I offered a 365 time scale to put your hysteria in perspective.Yes, the mean northern ice is slightly below the mean since 1979. So what? In 2008, during the winter, the ice made a very nice recovery almost back to the mean. The ice has often been much further below the mean than it is today. And in this last decade , it has been well-above the mean.This graph shows the deviation from the mean in more detail. You looselugnut libs want to get all squirrely about this, but secular changes happen in any system. The move back to the mean this winter was pretty dramatic. And how could that possibly have happened with yet increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere?I thought that wasn’t supposed to happen.Here is a graph from 1900. Normally, a graph in this shape would look alarming until your read the caveats from Cryosphere about the data sets.Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care.What they are trying nicely to say to the dim bulbs who try to make so much of secular patterns is that satellite data…or indeed, any good data… doesn’t go back very far so it’s hard to get a long term accurate view.Similarly, the temperature record, as Jack has frequently discussed, is fraught with inaccuracies, fudge-factors and proxies that can’t possibly be compared to temperature records today that are accurate to a tenth of a degree.Snarky moonbats can try to achieve their social agendas through bogus science, but increasingly, people are catching on. And, obviously, the climate isn’t co-operating very well, is it?– Krumhorn

  16. May 15, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    >You don’t understand the graphs we’re looking at. Mine showed three curves, all of which (obviously) declined during the summer. One was the 1979-2000 mean ice coverage, one was the 2007 record low, and one was the 2008 measurements. It showed that 2008 has been well below the mean in terms of ice coverage, clearly proving wrong the claim that in 2008, ice coverage is now at huge levels.You claim that ‘in this last decade, it has been well-above the mean’, but your graph shows that in fact exactly the opposite is true. Ice coverage has been below the mean for all of the last decade except for three brief periods between 2001 and 2003.You claim that secular changes happen in any system, which is so vague as to be meaningless. Presuming you mean a closed system, it’s complete nonsense.The move back to the mean this winter was pretty dramatic. And how could that possibly have happened with yet increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere? – why should increasing CO2 stop the weather? Interannual fluctuations are hardly going to stop, are they? Do you know the difference between climate and weather?None of your claims, or those of Lacton, are supported by the available evidence.

  17. May 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    >Fudgie,Are you comfortable relying on information that starts just after a cold point in 20th century temperature as a comparison point?

  18. May 16, 2008 at 9:05 am

    >If you’re referring to the 1970s, then as I already showed you, the temperature then was close to the average for the 20th century. Did you understand that?

  19. May 16, 2008 at 10:27 am

    >Knock. Knock. Knock.Earth to Fudgie.The records only go back to the 1970s and those beforehand are not valid as a comparison, as they come from a different method.

  20. May 16, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    >Fucky! Can you hear me, fucky? Accurate direct-measurement temperature records go back to the 1880s. Got that? Temperature records show that 1970s temperatures were about average for the 20th century.Still with me? Hello? Helloooo?Oh well.

  21. August 29, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    >Proof that anyone can put together a legitmate looking web site, but at the end of the day it still has the same tired old denialist hooey.- Why are so many “skeptical” scientists retired and/or submit work for conservative/libertarian “think tanks”?- Why do so many “skeptical” scientists spend so much time being pundits/armchair critics versus doing peer reviewed research that is published in legitimate journals?- Why do “skeptics” like to produce “petitions” that are not verified or are puffed up with non scientists ot TV weatherman?- Why do “skeptics” like to dispute AGW by routinely using logical fallacies, i.e. cooling since 1998?- Why is John Coleman relevant other than he can claim to have created the idea for the Weather Channel (he was ousted 19-months later)?

  22. August 29, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    >Proof that anyone can put together a legitmate looking web site, but at the end of the day it still has the same tired old denialist hooey.- Why are so many “skeptical” scientists retired and/or submit work for conservative/libertarian “think tanks”?- Why do so many “skeptical” scientists spend so much time being pundits/armchair critics versus doing peer reviewed research that is published in legitimate journals?- Why do “skeptics” like to produce “petitions” that are not verified or are puffed up with non scientists ot TV weatherman?- Why do “skeptics” like to dispute AGW by routinely using logical fallacies, i.e. cooling since 1998?- Why is John Coleman relevant other than he can claim to have created the idea for the Weather Channel (he was ousted 19-months later)?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: