It has, I heard it on Radio 4 some days agowhen the reprt first came out.
However as i understand it we are still in a Warming phase since the last
big Ice age, and no matter what you may believe, anything we can do to stop
the gradual warming is worth the effort.
Maybe this Fusion thing reported a few days back will be the saviour.
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" < email@example.com> wrote in message
The big flaw with that idea is that nobody can provide solid scientific
proof of what is causing the warming. IMO that means we should be
preparing for the changes, not hoping that we have made the right guess
about what to try to stop it. That is assuming of course, that the
Russians, who are the only people whose projections of global
temperature have been anywhere near correct in this century, are wrong
and we are not about to go into a cooling phase.
It still seems pretty likely to me that we are going to go into a
cooling phase eventually. Interestingly, the Russians have much to gain
from warming, much to lose by the next ice age. Perhaps this is why they
see cooling as the threat.
30 or 40 years ago there were many papers and ideas that were entering a
I recall a Horizon program detailing positions of planets in the solar
system and the consequential distance between the Earth and Sun over
time, plus the cyclical nature of the Sun to explain some of the
historical perturbations in temperature.
How about this Russian Scientist? Apologies for the reference, but it
just happens to be first hit on Google
Surely it's all about the relative time-frames?
We are heading for another ice age (thousands of years) but warming is a more
immediate problem and will dominate in the short time-frame - ie next 100 years.
That is when the Russians are predicting we will see significant
cooling. Their hypothesis is that global temperature is linked to the
sunspot cycle and that we are now moving into a Maunder Minimum. The
result of that will be another mini ice age, lasting at least several
decades. Based upon their hypothesis, about a decade ago they predicted
that warming would start to slow before cooling sets in, with the
turning point arriving around 2012.
The main alternative hypothesis, that global temperature is linked to
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, was then predicting that
temperatures would continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
The Russian prediction is quite close to what has actually happened.
A newspaper report that includes:
"Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying
the recent inclement weather simply proved we were heading towards a
Now it is always dangerous to rely implicitly on the accuracy of what we
read in the papers but if that is an accurate observation of the
scientist's view of the immediate future then he deserves to be ignored
for confusing weather with climate.
My previous post was actually specifically aimed at Terry who is often
more than a little reluctant to reveal his evidence.
I'm struggling to find a Russian peer-reviewed paper where the authors
have had to use a Nature Trick or miss bits off a graph to hide the
decline. However, please note that what I wrote above was a
suggestion, not a statement of fact. You might like to consider
whether the manoeuvres mentioned reflect pragmatic showmanship or a
desire to hang on to a well-paid job, so won't count as science.
Have a look at this graph from a decade ago:
It basically says we know FA about most known forcing effects - and
the state of knowledge since then hasn't improved much. It's a dismal
picture. If the Russians don't believe the CO2 approach then their
view might well be better founded than those that claim the
science is settled. After all, the sum of all those effects (bar
Solar) could easily sum to zero, leaving Solar as the dominant forcer
- and this is what the Russians seem to be saying, and what
could account for the current plateau. Various parts of the Solar
System also seem to be warming, and they don't have human activity to
blame - but they have Solar effects in common.
Ah, Mike's trick - to substitute real average temperatures when the tree
ring record suddenly went tits up. Not the wisest thing to do while not
shouting what had been done from the treetops but nothing like as
heinous as the actions of the dishonest deniers who immediately turned
the evidence on its head and pretended that the tree ring record gave
the correct temperatures and the real temperatures were a fraud.
What the recent results from the tree ring data do is to cast doubt on
the temperatures generated from this particular form of proxy data.
The Merkins have 2 independently derived temperature records and much
more besides that are accessible on the Internet. I have failed to find
anything remotely similar from the Russians. It doesn't help of course
that I don't speak Russian but I suspect that doesn't make much
difference in this case.
A very low scientific understanding of solar forcing but you have
overlooked the other end of the graph where there is a high level of
scientific understanding. Included are the usual suspects, CO2 and CH4
which, apart from the high level of understanding have a much larger
influence than most of the other factors.
I'm sorry, but you can't say that with justification. Just because the
CO2/CH4 etc are claimed to have a HL understanding doesn't mean that
all their effects and interactions are known; all it means is that
they are thought to be better understood than the considerable
majority of effects of which VL is understood. The latter may in
fact dominate, they may sum to zero, but we don't know enough to say
so. What we can say, with increasing justification, is that the
CO2/CH4 etc approach is inadquate on its own as it fails as a
predictive mechanism; and it may not be difficult to see the reasons
However, if the Russians claim that Solar effects account for all the
warming, and the coming cooling, then that hints at some or all of
the other VLs, or interactions among them, might render the CO2/CH4
etc effects of no consequence as they are balanced out.
And there are plenty of possible ways this could be so.
IIRC the unweighted climate siensituvity to CO2 is anbout 0.2 degrees C.
So all other thngs being equal that is how much difference doubling CO2
would have. I.e. utterly insginifficant.
In order to make CO2 fit late 20th century warming, they had to invent
positive feedabck. that pushe dte senitoveity to CO2 up by a factr of TEN.
IN simple terms because CO2 physics didnt fit the warming, they simply
multiplied it by ten untl it did. And got suitably scary predictions out
No actual mechansim has ever been proved to give this amplification.
Ergo the logical process was 'assume its all CO2, and add an unknown
multipler to fit the data'.
Consider two possible alternatives.
It was never CO2 at all, it was simply an unknown factor.
There might also be unknown negative feed-back reducing the effect CO2 has.
Logically either of the above scenarios are equally plasuible.
Now the sun of and by itself does not produce the actual insolation
variation needed to fit the changes in temeperature observed over the
late 20th century.
And that proved to be a stumbling block. Thats where teh cludists came
along and propsed a linkahge between teh susn electro magnituc field,
and sunspost and cosmic ray density etc that could modulate cloud cover.
Clouds are not modelled at all well by the IPCC but there are distinct
correlations showing up in satellite data that link cloud cover to
annual temparuture fluctuaions and so on. And you can calculate that
quite small variatonson in average cloud cover can easily acount for all
of the observed warming, and more.
so an entirely different possible mechanism exists for global warming.
Variations in clouds.
Now consider the feedback issue. The thesis of hte IPCC is that small
drivers in temnperature cerate large effects because if some positive
feedback. But if that were so the climate would have been wildly
unstable in the holocene. For example natural cloud variability would
have led to massive temperature changes. Ergo there is no positive
feedback operating, and the positive feedback is wrong. In fact its far
more likely that a warmer earth carries more warm water vapour up into
the stratosphere where it can radiate to space well beyond most of the
CO2, turn into ice, and fall as cold rain, with the intermediate clouds
providing a sun screen. I.e. the feedabck in the water cycle is in fact
And MASSIVELY negative, making the effect of CO2 emissions utterly and
totally irrelevant. ALL of the so called insulating properties of CO2
are meaningless if the dominant heat loss is not from the planets
surface but from cloud tops above (most of) the atmosphere. The
greenhouse has holes in the roof...
The logical next step then is to say 'well what could have caused the
temperatures to climb between 1970 and 2000' and the obvious answer
would be 'anything that reduced low cloud cover, or increased high cloud
cover'. (Thin high clouds tends to not affect sun coming in, but stop
some heat escaping at night). The opposite happens for thicker low
clouds whch tend to stop the daytime heat more than they stop the loss
some human candidates that could be in the mix are the REDUCTION in
pollution as the West cleaned up its air in the 1950-1970 timescale. Or
the injection of contrails into the high atmosphere by a massive
increase in air traffic.
Then you have the cosmic ray boys, who pose a linkage between the suns
MAGNETIC fields somewhat associated with solar flares susnpots and the
like, and linked to perhaps multi-decadal cycles in the suns heliosphere
affected by the tidal pull of the planets. These modulate cosmic ray
activity at the earths surface and the propsition by Svesnsmark and
others is that this modulates the propensity to form cloud nuclei. You
can map teh historic densiity of cosmic rays in te reasonably near past
by the production of radioactive elements in the atmosphere - carbon
14 and IIRC beryllium - which show historic variations in density.
And Svensmark likes to point out that the warm and cold periods in the
deep past seem to coincide with times the solar system crossed the plane
of the galaxy, where a higher density of cosmic rays might be expected.
So there is no shortage of competing climate theories and the science is
far from being settled, looking even more uncertain that it ever has.
If you want a multi-chapter summary there is one produced as a counter
to the IPCC 'the science is settled' report and its here:
The main conclusion being that the REAL science hasn't got a clue,
beyond being 95% certain that CO2 is NOT the main driver of recent
climate change. Nor probably any other human activity.
But of course that MUST mean its written by well funded climate deniers
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.