It was more topical at the start of the year and none of the links I got then to annoy greenies now work. However, here is a current one:
Thanks for the links. I have been too busy this morning for more than a cursory glance at them so can only make a few isolated points based mostly on my not all too reliable memory.
but it certainly isn't now.
You can argue that the next cycle is 2 years delayed but it would be equally valid to argue that this is an overdue return to the longer term average. There was a minimum in 1965 and the 3 subsequent peaks all appear to be about 10 years apart, no eleven.
And I would question the agenda of anyone who would claim "the decade of gentle cooling since 1998". 1998 sticks out like a sore thumb unlike any cooling trend.
wonder if he is young enough to see how close his predictions come to reality before he dies. (but as he is predicting global cooling to 2030 it should be clear shortly (years rather than decades) whether he is on the right lines or not.
But is he right. He has a graph showing the Medieval Warm Period as 3 degrees C warmer than the present and the Little Ice Age on a par with the minimum in the last century (circa 1910 from another source).
He may be using the pre-adjustment figures from NASA. NASA seems to be able to change history, or at least the history of temperatures. The big change came in 2000, when they made adjustments that removed inconvenient figures like that, along with a rather warmer period in the 1930s than they recall now. This is the latest in the saga:
seems to be wholly about Merkin records. The changes could of course be justified. NASA has got things wrong in the past (hole in the O3 layer anyone) so they could be putting things right.
One part of that article particularly caught my eye:
"The story is that the world is heating up - fast. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct?"
The 20 year period is presumably the period up to 2030 that was predicted in the second of the links you previously provided.
As to my earlier comments do you know of any real evidence that the Little Ice Age was really no colder than the early years of the 20th century or that the Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than the present, let alone a massive 3 degrees hotter?
Well you obviously have the evidence as you keep telling me that I am wrong that it was warmer in the past. You fail to actually post it though.
So where is your evidence that it was warmer?
Well start with Wikipedia which was my first source:
For a more scholarly approach try:
Well it doesn't for me so try a google search for:
"how warm was the medieval warm period? - Crowley"
Well that ice core graph says it was.
snip
What ice core graph would that be that *you* have previously cited. ie your evidence.
I didn't realise that if someone else has already posted something it makes it invalid. That makes everything you have reposted invalid too.
I don't bother citing anything for you as you would just choose to ignore it anyway.
You made your claim long before Colin provided you with an escape clause. You didn't cite anything because you had nothing to cite.
That makes everything you have reposted invalid too.
Typical non sequitur.
Always an excuse but never a straight answer.
I have a problem with the ice core temperatures in the second link Colin cited.
The temperatures as shown is for Central Greenland (so not really representative of global anyway)with the last 10,000 years circa -33 and previously down almost to -50.
Its all very circumstantial.
Tree rings, ice cores, historical comments about grapes being grown here and there..the number of drawn crickets matches in Wisdens etc (rain) the Thames freezing over..people being 'sewn into their underwear' for the winter..
And of course, as with the current 'recession is over' stuff, remissions against a trend are all too common in the shorter term.
However, the best ever view I saw expressed was a simple excercise in risk analysis. Its on You Tube somewhere.
The guy drew a state machine chart. A 2x2 matrix. At the top he put as column headerrs
"Global warming is real and is a function of human activity" and on the right he said "it isn't"
For the rows he said "we do nothing about it" and "we really do everything we can to stop CO2 emission".
That gives four possible states as outcomes.
If its real and we do nothing about it, its a huge cost to humanity and to every single one of us up to and including getting dead. Its probably the end of civilisation as we know it.
If its not real and e do nothing about it, nothing much happens.
If its real and we pour the resources of the planet to stop it, it cots a few trillion dollars, but we get to keep most of our lifestyle.
If its not real and we pour in resources to stop it, we do at least disentangle ourselves from a carbon fuel culture that is ultimatly unsustainable anyway, and keep a lot of people busy and in work, and generate new toys.
In short., his reasoning was that the potential risk, whether proven or not was so great that it was simply not an option to do nothing, irrespective of the actual validity. The costs were high but acceptable to go non carbon, and the benefits *even if the climate model was false*, were almost enough to justify it anyway.
To spend a lot of energy and time arguing the case for doing *nothing*, was in his view , insane.
I am more or less of his opinion. There are very very good reasons to move away from fossil fuels, not the least being that I don't personally like the strings they come attached to. The need to kowtow to Russia for gas, to the Islamic world for oil, and the mess you get from coal (not to mention the radioactivity).
There are, however, no good reasons to move to windmills. I see on the news last night that the latest offshore monstrosities are as usual suffering technical problems. The steel towers made in china aren't up to scratch. They must be desperate to stay in budget as usual, and of course, it will all cost more in the long run. Much more.
Especially if some tanker drifts into them one stormy night.
>
Of course it was. Dinosaurs need heat,
I was also colder, apparently, with the whole earth frozen.
I return to my own post with some more information.
quotes from:
What is interesting in this is not the content which is only to be expected but the accompanying graph which puts the Holocene Maximum about 1.2 degrees C above the base line, the MWP about 1 degree above and the LIA about 0.8 below. Unfortunately it is not clear what the base line represents but the temperature plot apparently stops at the end of the LIA which is very much a moveable feast as far as some commentators are concerned but it could very easily be 1 degree below the 1998 peak which would agree with Crowley.
At the same time I also found:
"Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data"
looking at the plot near the top of:
Last year ISTR that I was arguing with Terry Fields as to whether the decline in annual values from the 2005 peak (Met Office figures 2nd warmest year)was the start of a permanent decline or merely a blip in the continuing upward trend. While it is still too early to call the odds must have shifted substantially in favour of rising trend with the latest upturn in the 13 month running average.
At about the time that they eliminated all the major predators and burnt and cleared all the forests and then introduced agriculture.
I think the problems is that no one denies that massive cosmological or geological events could easily swamp our own production of CO2 - in fact it is volcanic CO2 that allegedly caused the early warm periods - but is that any reason for not governing our own production?
I don't look to confirm or deny these multiple alternative views, as I doubt I have the time to work out which is or is not valid. I simply see them as evidence that the subject is badly understood, even by the experts, which, to my mind, makes all the predictions unreliable.
Colin Bignell
That is a justification for doing something. However, I question whether reducing carbon is the right something to do. It cannot be shown that reducing carbon will have any effect whatsoever. However, we do know that doing things like building flood defences, developing drought resistant crops and similar activities that will make us more ready for a change in the climate will have benefits, even if the climate change does not come. Therefore, that is where I think the money should be spent.
Colin Bignell
I made my claim because unlike you I knew that it was true. There is plenty of information out there that says so. If you spent some time looking for the truth rather than regurgitating the stuff you have been spoon fed you might learn something new. As it is you repeatedly quote the same old stuff as though it were supposed to mean something when in reality it is just a one sided publicity campaign with almost no actual evidence.
However you are quite happy to use the figures from other ice cores if they suit you.
Yes its all "guess" work and some people guess at global warming and some try to be more objective.
"nightjar.me.uk>"
The reality of climate change is that we can do nothing to stop it. We should be working on ways to survive it. The first thing we need is enough energy to do whatever is needed whether it is heating in an ice age or cooling in a heat wave. You can't rely on foreign imports for that. Nor can you rely on wind power.
The next thing is we need to develop ways of manufacturing enough food to feed us. There is no need for farms as such as in a disaster situation as it is quite possible to get adequate food without much in the way of farms (e.g. look at how Quorn is made).
Then you need an army! You also need some way to fuel that army.
Once you have that you can think about helping others survive. They won't survive if they keep increasing in population as there just won't be any leeway in their agriculture when the climate does change and they can't afford to buy the technology we own. 8-|
Anyway CO2 would be much worse if it weren't for people like me, I have had nearly all the energy saving measures for three decades now. e.g. CWI, DG, smaller car, LI, low energy lighting, better heating controls, etc. there is very little I can actually do to increase their effectiveness without spending a fortune.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.