Right, that does it!
I'm going to shoot every hybrid and electric car owner to save the planet! And also to get the slowpokes out of the passing lane.
German researchers say they have found solid evidence that a past "solar minimum" period of prolonged low solar activity – of the sort which some hefty physicists believe will commence within a few years – significantly cooled the climate. The research flies counter to theories offered by carbon-alarmist climate scientists, who …
I'm going to shoot every hybrid and electric car owner to save the planet! And also to get the slowpokes out of the passing lane.
will get some snow here where I live in the UK and get a chance to get my sledge out!
Note, sledge of wooden construction bought for me when I was 10, has seen snow 5 times in the last 37 year's.
Can't wait, bring it on.
..............North Norway (in a town whose local nickname is "Snow hole" which will give you the general picture) I was looking forward to global warming and here's Lewis is doing his level best to destroy my dreams of growing grapes up here. I wish people would make their minds - I don't know whether to migrate south or stay where I am!
Time to bury a few refrigerators, squirt a few old cans of CFC unfriendly air fresheners, make the dog fart more and burn all that coal I've got stashed.
I wouldn't burn your coal yet. If we do get another global cooling period, wolrd energy consumption is going to be horrifying.
All the more reason we should be building nuclear power stations as fast as we can and stockpiling fuel. Britain cannot *afford* the fuel costs we'd have if we saw another period like in the 17th/18th centuries if we're subsisting off oil and gas.
IIRC, only about 10% of global energy is used for heating/cooling. The biggest users are industry and transport and they will increase in line with economic growth regardless of the global temperature. The second biggest "user" is lost energy due to inefficient production and distribution.
Nuclear power is almost certainly necessary, but it's not as simple as saying that we'll need more nuclear power if global temperature goes down. In some of the fastest growing areas (parts of China and Brazil for example) far more energy is spent on cooling than on heating.
What does their weight have to do with it?
You realise that GFZ sucks up a fair slurp of the european climate gravy train? And that this study relies on proxies for past climate? And that it uses standard long-term computational models?
By any one of those three measures it is "not real science" according to official climate sceptic rules.
Or are those rules set to one side when there's an opportunity to misinterpret the results as somehow supporting your scepticism?
Same applies to non sceptics. You can't claim proxies are accurate, and then say that a correlation between solar activity and those proxies should not be taken seriously. It may not be causation, but it might be.
Svensmark and others are beginning to show that there are a number of possible ways in which the Sun can significantly influence climate without the total solar irradiance needing to vary too much. Nothing is certain, but the science *is* interesting.
I have to say that it's strange that all this climate science is being done, and that the majority of those doing it have simply ruled out significant solar effects. It seems so.... unscientific.
"By any one of those three measures it is "not real science" according to official climate sceptic rules."
Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with 'official climate sceptic rules' a little better, instead of clinging to the same strawman AGW-supporters endlessly drag out and dance around in these discussions. Most AGW-sceptics are sceptical about the A part of AGW. I.e. how significant a part of climate change human activity is. For pity's sake, the most reliable study showing an increase in average global temperature was funded by the Koch brothers - those oil tycoons that many AGW-supporters love to pillory (and who are often accused of being enemies of the AGW Truth). That study showed an average rise of about 1.7C since around the start of the 20th Century. Few AGW sceptics say that hasn't happened. What we say is we are unconvinced that it is primarily a result of human activity.
And if it is not primarily due to that, then all the predictions of what will happen next based on that theory, are written on the wind.
The wilful determination, after all these years, of pro-AGW people to repeatedly in every discussion on AGW, continue to to insist that sceptics think the climate can never change, despite endless corrections by *actual* sceptics is beyond moronic. Global temperatures have risen very slightly over the past century according to the latest study. That study was actually funded by people regularly accused of being anti-AGW. We sceptics generally think this rise is small (it's probably even a good thing, generally), that it is unlikely to enter some catastrophic feedback look and that the cause is not primarily human activity. Understand? Good. Now next time try and resist the compulsive urge of all pro-AGW people to point at sceptics and say: "they think the climate never changes, ha ha ha." Okay?
You can't claim proxies are accurate, and then say that a correlation between solar activity and those proxies should not be taken seriously.
Nobody has done.
Most AGW-sceptics are sceptical about the A part of AGW. I.e. how significant a part of climate change human activity is.
And most relevant scientists agree that the A part is significant so most AGW sceptics are most probably wrong.
"And most relevant scientists agree that the A part is significant so most AGW sceptics are most probably wrong"
Yes... but the models that these scientists use as the basis for considering the A in AGW to be significant all minimise the effect of solar output, while this new study may show a mechanism by which even a small change in solar output could have larger climate effects. So the existing models should be updated with the new data.
Personally I think that most of the warming in the last century is human caused, but I can't look past the fact that pretty much 100% of the heat energy on Earth comes from the sun, so it's naive to believe that 100% of the change is coming from human factors and 0% from the sun, just as it is naive to believe the opposite. Updating the models will allow us to get a better handle on what the balance is. (and by the way, the article mentions dramatic temperature changes over short time periods, does not mention specifics. Is it half a degree, 1 degree, 5 degrees? Over how many years? I bet they would be in the research paper so why not put them in the article?)
One last VERY IMPORTANT thing - CONTROL. We have no control over solar output, at best we can (very roughly) predict possible future patterns based on past cycles. We CAN control CO2 emissions. And whether the planet is accelerating it's warming or turning to cooling, planet-wide energy usage will still accelerate, and the amount of fossil fuels is still finite. SO LETS START BUILDING MORE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS, NOW!
it's naive to believe that 100% of the change is coming from human factors and 0% from the sun
It would be beyond naive. That's why nobody within the scientific community believes this.
"And most relevant scientists agree that the A part is significant so most AGW sceptics are most probably wrong."
And in classic style, you shift ground. You've gone from blindly strawmanning that AGW-sceptics think the climate never changes to saying it doesn't matter because we're wrong about the causes anyway. Just drop the strawman part please, and at least that will be progress toward rational discussion rather than misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with which is never constructive.
"Yes... but the models that these scientists use as the basis for considering the A in AGW to be significant all minimise the effect of solar output"
No they don't. It's just a fact that the Sun's output doesn't vary much.
Hence why in this article the scientists are having to appeal to positive feedbacks to get the Sun to provide any punch.
"while this new study may show a mechanism by which even a small change in solar output could have larger climate effects. So the existing models should be updated with the new data."
*may show a mechanism* is not the same thing as actually having a mechanism based on physics that can be plugged into models.
"Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with 'official climate sceptic rules' a little better, instead of clinging to the same strawman AGW-supporters endlessly drag out and dance around in these discussions."
Your strawman is itself a strawman. You don't actually address any of the 3 points Some Beggar
made. As Some Beggar pointed out, if this study wasn't convenient for skeptics they would
1) accuse the scientists of just being part of a gravy train.
2) claim that the use of proxies for past climate was suspect.
3) claim that the use of models means it isn't science
You've gone from blindly strawmanning that AGW-sceptics think the climate never changes
Would you care to point to the post where I did any such thing?
"It would be beyond naive. That's why nobody within the scientific community believes this."
Erm..... It's called rhetoric
"*may show a mechanism* is not the same thing as actually having a mechanism based on physics that can be plugged into models."
Perfectly right, that's the beauty of models. I'm not expecting that the existing models all just be revised with the newly proposed feedback mechanisms for solar forcing, especially if this feedback mechanism isn't even properly understood.... but I WOULD expect someone to update a model with a few possible different variants of the newly described mechanism, run them all in parallel with the current model and see which of the the updated models is most accurate, and whether any of the updated models are more accurate than the current model.
Never mind science. As the Climategate emails show, climate science is more pantomime than drama. But there's a foolproof test for whether AGW is "real" or "made up". Let's start with a test: Do governments lie to us?
I think we can say a firm yes on the following few categories:
1) Their expenses claims
2) Reasons for going to war, WMD et al
3) Inflation figures
4) Unemployment figures
5) Growth forecasts
6) Referendums they've promised us
7) Public spending cuts
8) Relationships with Murdoch (or any other powerful type)
9) Their commitment to civil liberties
10) Comitments to control immigration
11) Stability of the financial sector
12) The end of boom and bust
13) Quality, cost, suitability of defence equipment
14) Their willingness and ability to kick undesirable aliens out of the country
15) that HS2 won't be a huge money pit that will never pay back
16) cash for honours, cash for questions, cash for access
etc etc, because I think you'll have got the gist of this.
Now, our governments of all hue for the past fifteen years have been committed believers and worshippers at the altar to AGW, and have crafted an inept energy policy in response, along with commitments on carbon emissions that will force the last remaining industry out of this country.
So what are the chances that the inveterate liars and thieves who repeatedly get elected have been proven to be dishonest, wrong and incompetent in respect of almost everything their inept and grasping fingers touch, but suddenly, on one particular topic, they are correct, well intentioned and trustworthy?
Almost by definition, if governent believes something, you can be sure that reality is in the opposite direction.
"Would you care to point to the post where I did any such thing?"
Certainly.This whole paragraph you wrote:
"You realise that GFZ sucks up a fair slurp of the european climate gravy train? And that this study relies on proxies for past climate? And that it uses standard long-term computational models?
By any one of those three measures it is "not real science" according to official climate sceptic rules."
Basically it makes an attack on the presumption that AGW-skeptics discount evidence showing that the climate has changed. Despite some of the most significant and reliable evidence that the climate has changed recently being funded by such hate-figures as the Koch Brothers. The entire paragraph falls apart as an attack when (or in your case if) you realize that AGW-skeptics don't claim (except a lunatic fringe which all groups have) that the climate isn't changing, but that we are skeptical about the causes of it. Your entire thing above sets up this strawman that AGW-skeptics are saying the climate never changes and are being proven wrong by this evidence that it does. When in fact, we don't argue that the climate never changes, we say we're not really convinced as to the cause which the above is irrelevant to.
"Basically it makes an attack on the presumption that AGW-skeptics discount evidence showing that the climate has changed."
No it makes an attack on the presumption that AGW-skeptics discount evidence based on proxies, models and government funded scientists.
Erm..... It's called rhetoric
Not unless they've added "preposterous straw man" to the definition of "rhetoric" while I wasn't looking.
This whole paragraph you wrote:
Nowhere in that paragraph do I say anything that remotely resembles what you accuse me of saying. Feel free to apologise or withdraw your comment whenever you grow some dignity.
I explained very clearly how what you wrote assumes that AGW-sceptics argue the climate does not change. I get very tired of being attacked by people pointing at evidence of the climate changing and saying 'ah ha - you are refuted' (in essence that is what your point was). One more time: AGW-sceptics are primarily sceptical about the causes of climate changes. Saying that the climate changes proves nothing to anyone.
You're either illiterate or a liar. I don't care which. If you're not going to concede that you were wrong and apologise then you're not worth talking to.
H4rm0ny, you missed a sub-set of the sceptics.
Those of us who are sceptical about the reasons that all the panic over the climate change has been fostered.
Follow the money.
Yes I trust Heartland to tell me the truth about the same as HADCRU - not at all.
Not in the least. I am as doubtful of the predictions about the coming solar minimum as I am of the coming meltdown, and for somewhat similar reasons - The use of proxies and that I'm not certain they have a sufficiently long data collection period vis-a-vie long cycle variations in solar sun spots.
That being said, they are at least on solid ground for having established the frequency of the short term solar cycle at 22 years (with min/max occurring twice per cycle for a complete migration of the solar magnetic poles). They've also got a somewhat longer baseline for observations. I don't recall having seen anything about Copernicus's weather observations, but his astronomy observations are pretty well documented. So I'd give them a slight edge on whether or not their longer term cycles are right.
I'm also a bit more comfortable in that they aren't predicting 'DOOM! DOOM! DOOM!' if we don't change our ways to comport with their political leanings.
You know, it's the funniest damn thing that warmists throw that out there like it's gospel fact, and then when you do a simple Google search on 'variation in solar output 1900 to current' you can quickly find the following website:
where low and behold, the "not much variation in solar output" looks an awful lot like the "alarming temperature rise" since 1970, plus includes the global ice age scare they were running back then.
The source you cite only goes up to 1980.
Lassen '91 contained an error.
Look up Lassen '99, which corrected the error and extended the data and reported a break down in the correlation.
But deniers are still referencing 1991. Why? It's all they've got. "not much variation in solar output" is simply true. To get around that denier sources have to BS.
It was funny if nothing else, like a tech oriented Richard Littlejohn, YOU CAN NOT MAKE IT UP.
But you can obfuscate anything into an anti climate change stance, that deserves some plaudits, it isn't like he wins them with journalistic integrity.
> a definite 200-year-long cool period which corresponds with the onset of the "Homeric Minimum"
Maybe we'd better all stop writing ancient greek prose, just in case.
I might be more impressed with Lewis' anti-climate change tirades if the Register site didn't have a rather obvious Statoil logo near the top of the page
It's called advertising and El Reg might have some say about what might appear, but generally the shots are called by the advertising agency. Probably Google. In which case you are see StatOil because Google knows your interests. So look to yourself before you look to El Reg.
Have a look at pharyngula or any atheist site - they are covered in adverts for prayer lines and miracle cures. All those references to god but no context checking engine in the advert spewing machine... Or maybe you have a point and all the atheist sites are a fake by god to test our faith!
Your joking. (Looks up) Your not!
That's it, all cred to Reg is gone. Sorry, it's not their fault, but I've seen countless magazines and sites cave in to the pressure of advertisers. It seems a one way street when they take over. One sided reviews, one sided opinions and articles no better than my dreams. :P
You see adverts? Have you not heard of Adblock Plus?
I only block useless, bandwidth hogging and irritating adverts. Which is still the majority. I don't want to hold back a lively hood from anyone. It's adblock for the majority, or I avoid the site all together. ;)
You get that when you use Google Ads to select advertisers.
No, the sites are Hellishly authentic, but God permits our testing just as he did with Job.
Things change, attitudes don't, move along. Nothing to see here. When they have glaciers in Australia's outback is when you should worry, until then stop running intencive computer models that heat up the planet!
Some years snow remains all year round near the top of Australia's highest mainland mountain (Mount Kosciuszko). A drop in average temperatures could see that snow remaining all year round *every* year, which would cause it to gradually build up and form a small glacier. Interestingly, this patch of snow lies on the side of a glacial cirque... so we know that a glacier *can* form here.
although that one doesn't go quite far enough back, you can see that on the left of the cycles, it's coming back up from a low.
If you have a strong opinion then go and place a bet. I reckon the odds you'd get on the Thames freezing in the next decade will be pretty long. Possibly even longer that the Thames running dry in the same period. ;-)
This would make a lot of crackpot astrologers right, I hope it doesn't go to their head.
News at 11: A big hot thing warms up things close to it. How warm they get depends on hot the big thing is, and how close the small things are.
Coming up next: Are we dumbing down science?
This just in. Man attacked for wielding device he calls a camera, this devil spawn sucks out the soul of all those captured and releases the inner red eyed satan.
Apparently not enough to get through to the Sun heats Earth denialists!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017