Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter Foster: Crushing climate thoughtcrime | Financial Post

Only a couple of fossil fuel companies — Koch Industries and ExxonMobil — have ever dared to express anything approaching climate skepticism

The U.S. Democratic witch hunt against scientists skeptical about official climate science threatens to blow up in the faces of the Inquisitors. It lays bare the totalitarian mentality behind the radical climate agenda. Nobody must be allowed to dissent from “the consensus.” If they do, it is because they are either suitable cases for treatment, victims of “motivated reasoning,” or in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. The last-mentioned is the basis for this week’s McCarthyesque grandstanding by U.S. Democratic Representative Raul Grijalva, chair of the House committee in environment and natural resources.

Mr. Grijalva has sent letters to seven universities demanding details of the funding of prominent skeptical scientists including Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon of the of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and MIT’s Richard Lindzen. Meanwhile Senator Ed Markey and colleagues have gone on a huge fishing expedition, demanding details from corporations of any funding for science that deviates from that sanctioned by the Democratic Politburo.

The clear implication is that reputable scientists have been induced to lie by “dirty” money. More significant is the suggestion that the validity of science is determined by funding rather than objectivity.

Humans have real trouble understanding the scientific method. We are much more inclined to seek motives, especially dark ones, while often being impervious to our own.

Earlier this week, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was forced to resign after allegations of sexual abuse. But if Mr. Pachauri were a climate scientist — which he is not – being allegedly abusive wouldn’t undermine any scientific conclusions he might have reached.

Certainly, one should always be suspicious of funding by interested parties, but any support for skeptical research by the fossil fuel industry is swamped literally thousands of times by funding for the official perspective from governments, anti-capitalist foundations and international organizations centred in the UN.

A minority (i.e. Republican) report last year from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works exposed a “Billionaires Club” of wealthy foundations that supported climate alarmism. Certainly billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer are unashamed to put their wealth and clout behind alarmism, although the motives here might include penance and/or appeasement.

At the heart of catastrophic climate theory is the spectre of capitalism as a greedy and short-sighted system with no regard for anything but the bottom line. That is, Marxism in the Emperor’s new cloak of green.

According to Senator Markey, “’Corporate special interests shouldn’t be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy.” But note that he says “secretly.” That’s because he’d be pushed to provide significant examples.

One may not doubt the rent-seeking activities of corporations, nor their – sometimes well-justified – attempts to influence legislation, but another irony of this witch hunt is that fossil fuel companies – like corporate billionaires – tend to toe the party line on climate.

Against the hundreds of major corporations that grovel before environmental NGOs and the threat of bad policy, only a couple have ever dared to express anything approaching skepticism – Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. Their reward has been subjection to the equivalent of the Orwellian “Two-Minutes Hate.”

In his great book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn noted that scientific paradigms are fiercely, indeed irrationally, defended. They are particularly difficult to dislodge when they have been “professionalized” or when a moral element is involved.

No scientific theory since that of the geocentric universe has been as professionalized and moralized as climate. There is no bigger “moral” rationale for seizing global political control than that the world is in, or approaching, existential crisis. Thus skeptics are prepared to play Russian roulette with the planet. They must be silenced. The future of mankind demands it.

Kuhn noted that it was not altogether inappropriate to suggest that “the member of a mature scientific community is, like the typical character of Orwell’s 1984, the victim of a history rewritten by the powers that be.”

Nobody understood the totalitarian mentality better than Orwell. It not merely outlaws dissent, but attempts to crush even private doubt – “thoughtcrime.” In its milder democratic form it merely castigates its opponents for being motivated by self-interest, whereas it only seeks power for itself to do good.

“McCarthyism” has been invoked more than once by skeptical scientists who have been howled down and/or ostracized. British academic and television personality David Bellamy had been an environmental hero until he pointed out that the peer reviewed climate literature was in fact near-unanimous in not predicting climate catastrophe.

A more recent example was the eminent Swedish climatologist Lennart Bengtsson, who was fiercely attacked after it was announced that he would join the Academic Advisory Council of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, one of the world’s leading skeptical think tanks.

Professor Bengtsson withdrew saying he was concerned not merely for his health, but for his safety.

Meanwhile we might remember that while Senator McCarthy’s methods were objectionable, he was at least aiming at a real enemy: Communist infiltration. He himself was castigated as a “red-baiter” or “mindless anti-Communist.” Sort of a “denier” that Communism was benign, or at least harmless.

Members of the scientific/academic community are increasingly concerned about attempts to silence their colleagues, but few have been prepared to stand up and be counted because they fear they would be subjected to the same career-limiting onslaught.

It’s time for honest scientists to stand up for free inquiry.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 47
The number one SUN theory fake-scientist.

Willie Soon and the Pretend Harvard Connection

B-iqCtWCcAAFbRw-770x488.jpg


Yes, Dr Soon, its come to this.

5 years ago, climate deniers staged a fake “scandal” by hacking in to the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, and selectively quoting stolen emails to a compliant and cooperative media.
We know that deniers will be trying all this year to disrupt the science and policy messaging leading up to the important November COP meeting in Paris.
This time, the media has been deviating from the script, and instead, a leading climate denier, Dr Willie Soon, has found himself under withering examination for accepting more than a million dollars from fossil fuel funders. Of course, when real scientists get examined, as happened in the email affair, their case comes away strengthened.
Problem for Willie is, this “science” and pretend Harvard connections, don’t stand up.
Chronicle of Higher Education:
Years of using a Harvard nameplate to flog his insistence that polar bears are doing fine, and that sunspots might explain planetary warming better than the Industrial Revolution does, may finally have caught up with Wei-Hock Soon.
Mr. Soon, an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, has endured a barrage of news reports this week detailing his acceptance of $1.2-million in support from energy companies and others hostile to government limits on fossil-fuel use. In response, the Smithsonian Institution announced plans to investigate whether he had properly acknowledged his political alliances.
“We’re very concerned to get to the bottom of this, and make sure we have all the facts,” W. John Kress, the Smithsonian’s interim under secretary for science, said in an interview on Tuesday.
The investigation threatens serious repercussions for Mr. Soon, commonly known as Willie. But it may raise an equally tough question for Harvard University, the Smithsonian, and arrangements for their shared astrophysics observatory: How did the scientist trade on Harvard’s name to gain a leading role in climate politics?
In a series of scientific-journal articles over the past decade, Mr. Soon has routinely listed himself as representing “the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” In turn, various reports describing his activities and beliefs—often published by organizations dedicated to opposing government regulations—have short-handed his identification to “Harvard scientist.” EvenThe Harvard Crimson, the university’student-run newspaper, has referred to him that way.
The problem, according to Charles R. Alcock, a Harvard professor of astronomy who also serves as director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is that the “center” refers primarily to a shared set of physical facilities. Almost everyone working at those facilities, Mr. Alcock said, is either an employee of Harvard or an employee of the Smithsonian, a federally administered collection of museums and research centers.
“From a legal point of view,” he said, “there is no such entity as the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” And Mr. Soon is employed only by the Smithsonian, Mr. Alcock said. “It’s always been that way. He has never had any Harvard appointment.”
There is an important point to understand about Dr Soon – according to the New York Times:
Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.
Though he has little formal training in climatology, Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.
So Dr. Soon gets no pay other than what he can bring in thru grants for his work. And the grants he has consistently gotten for his “deliverables” – primarily science papers and frequent public speaking gigs, seem to have come overwhelmingly from the hard core fossil fuel industry – although we can imagine his former friends will be distancing themselves now. Even Exxon ended its support for Dr. Soon some years ago.
But Dr. Soon has told interviewers, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”
It will be interesting to see how his research output continues when he has to begin supporting himself without a reliable stream of fossil fueled climate denial cash.
 
Looks like the game is up for you OBD and your coming up short team.... LOL

[cJIW5yVk__w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJIW5yVk__w
 
Over 200 peer-reviewed papers demonstrating solar control of climate published since 2010
An ongoing compilation of new peer-reviewed, published papers demonstrating solar influences upon climate is maintained by Club du Soleil and Dr. Maarten Blaauw, PhD paleo-ecologist and lecturer at the School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.

The abstracts of papers published from 2013-2015 are excerpted below. Visit Club du Soleil for the remainder of their compilation extending back to 2010. Hundreds of other papers finding evidence of solar influence of climate published prior to 2010 may be found in the citations for these more recent papers.

This citation list is incomplete even for the last few years, as many posts at the Hockey Schtick and elsewhere have highlighted numerous additional published papers finding solar influence upon climate and solar amplification mechanisms that do not appear in the Club du Soleil compilation of citations below.

It's the Sun


The real hockey stick

Papers reported in 2015

Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate
Solanki et al. 2013 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 51, 311-351
The brightness of the Sun varies on all time scales on which it has been observed, and there is increasing evidence that it has an influence on climate. The amplitudes of such variations depend on the wavelength and possibly on the time scale. Although many aspects of this variability are well established, the exact magnitude of secular variations (going beyond a solar cycle) and the spectral dependence of variations are under discussion. The main drivers of solar variability are thought to be magnetic features at the solar surface. The climate reponse can be, on a global scale, largely accounted for by simple energetic considerations, but understanding the regional climate effects is more difficult. Promising mechanisms for such a driving have been identified, including through the influence of UV irradiance on the stratosphere and dynamical coupling to the surface. Here we provide an overview of the current state of our knowledge, as well as of the main open questions.
Robust Response of the East Asian Monsoon Rainband to Solar Variability

So I just wasted a couple hours going thru this and as I expected not one paper in your list disputes man made climate change.
It wasn't a complete waste as I learned more about the sun and that something that separates me and OBD. I like to learn science and he just denies science.

so lets take the first paper in the list and I'll just paste in the good parts.....
https://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/annurev-astro-082812-141007-1.pdf
(hint for OBD - read the paper don't let some moron website tell you what to think)

Page 2 - Under normal circumstances, the Sun is the only serious external source of energy to Earth. Any variability of the Sun’s radiative output thus has the potential of affecting our climate and, hence, the habitability of Earth. The important question is how strong this influence is and, in particular,how it compares with other mechanisms including the influence of man-made greenhouse gases.Although this has been debated for a long time, the debate is being held with increasing urgency due to the unusual global temperature rise we have seen in the course of the twentieth century and particularly during the past 3–4 decades. It is generally agreed that the recent warming is mainly driven by the release of greenhouse gases, foremost among them carbon dioxide, into Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels



Page 35 - Globally the mean surface temperature varies in phase with solar activity. Over the past few solar cycles, for which measurements of TSI are available, the small amplitude of this variationis consistent with what would be deduced from RF arguments (of order 0.1 K for a 1-W m−2 change in TSI). On longer timescales, while the in-phase relationship broadly persists back into the past, the amplitude is less easy to associate directly with RF because of the large uncertainties in TSI variations. However, it is virtually impossible to assign the global warming of the past half century to variations in solar irradiance alone, using either statistical or physical methods

now for your effed up graph
Why does it not show the 11 year solar cycle?
Why does it stop at 2005? That is ten years ago and your clowns missed a whole solar cycle.

attachment.php


lets look at some real graphs.....

Ren-Denial.png


Oh look the sunspot numbers are going down. Explain that OBD.....
Now lets look at the global temp (2014 was the hottest year on record)
See the trend OBD? sunspots going down and temp going up....
Your "it's the Sun" is not working out for you now is it?
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

2014hottest-year.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peter Foster: Crushing climate thoughtcrime | Financial Post
Yea cry us a river OBD with your outrage....
Shoe is on the other foot now and your side is up in arms.
Willie Soon will have McJob with anyone else that has colluded with the fossil fuel companies.
I here they might have an opening in Fort Mac at the McDonalds.
Popcorn is running low .. better stock up...
 
Love it when you pretend to be a scientist.

Glad you are learning.







So I just wasted a couple hours going thru this and as I expected not one paper in your list disputes man made climate change.
It wasn't a complete waste as I learned more about the sun and that something that separates me and OBD. I like to learn science and he just denies science.

so lets take the first paper in the list and I'll just paste in the good parts.....
https://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/annurev-astro-082812-141007-1.pdf
(hint for OBD - read the paper don't let some moron website tell you what to think)







now for your effed up graph
Why does it not show the 11 year solar cycle?
Why does it stop at 2005? That is ten years ago and your clowns missed a whole solar cycle.

attachment.php


lets look at some real graphs.....

Ren-Denial.png


Oh look the sunspot numbers are going down. Explain that OBD.....
Now lets look at the global temp (2014 was the hottest year on record)
See the trend OBD? sunspots going down and temp going up....
Your "it's the Sun" is not working out for you now is it?
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

2014hottest-year.png
 
Predictions, be scared.
1958 : New York Reported Massive Ice Loss – Predicted A New Ice Age
Posted on February 28, 2015 by stevengoddard
In 1958, the New York Times reported 50 percent loss of glacial and sea ice volume, and said “brilliant research” indicated the disappearing ice was going to cause a new ice age.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 29
The New Normal
Posted on February 28, 2015 by stevengoddard
Compare this year vs last. Nearly identical record breaking cold at the beginning of March. Government experts say it is the hottest weather ever, because they are paid to lie.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 22
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 22
Most Americans see combating climate change as a moral duty

BY BRUCE WALLACE
WASHINGTON Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:24am EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...0150227?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

(Reuters) - A significant majority of Americans say combating climate change is a moral issue that obligates them – and world leaders - to reduce carbon emissions, a Reuters/IPSOS poll has found.
The poll of 2,827 Americans was conducted in February to measure the impact of moral language, including interventions by Pope Francis, on the climate change debate. In recent months, the pope has warned about the moral consequences of failing to act on rising global temperatures, which are expected to disproportionately affect the lives of the world’s poor.
The result of the poll suggests that appeals based on ethics could be key to shifting the debate over climate change in the United States, where those demanding action to reduce carbon emissions and those who resist it are often at loggerheads.
Two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) said that world leaders are morally obligated to take action to reduce CO2 emissions. And 72 percent said they were “personally morally obligated” to do what they can in their daily lives to reduce emissions.
“When climate change is viewed through a moral lens it has broader appeal,” said Eric Sapp, executive director of the American Values Network, a grassroots organization that mobilizes faith-based communities on politics and policy issues.
“The climate debate can be very intellectual at times, all about economic systems and science we don’t understand. This makes it about us, our neighbors and about doing the right thing.”
Some observers believe the pope’s message can resonate beyond his own church.
“The moral imperative is the way to reach out to conservatives,” said Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelic Environmental Network, a large evangelical organization that advocates for action on climate change.
Talking in terms of values is “the only way forward if we are to bring our fellow Republicans along,” he added.
Some Republican politicians have begun to search for a new message on climate change, in an attempt to distance the party from those who oppose most efforts to limit greenhouse gases and have questioned the science explaining human-caused climate change.
POPE TAKES LEAD
Whether shifting moral beliefs can translate widely into a willingness to modify carbon-intensive lifestyles and assume the costs of weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels remains to be seen. U.S. sales of trucks and SUVs have been rising in recent months, for example, spurred by lower gasoline prices.
But moral questions are increasingly invoked in the climate debate – and not just among anti-carbon activists.
In a Feb. 12 speech to oil industry leaders in London, Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden noted that “the issue is how to balance one moral obligation, energy access for all, against the other: fighting climate change.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also wrapped some of its anti-pollution initiatives in the language of “climate justice,” likening the battle against climate change to the mid-20th century fight for civil rights.
Pope Francis also vowed to make fighting climate change a centerpiece of his papacy, using his authority as head of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics to push political leaders toward a deal at a United Nations-sponsored conference in Paris this December that is aimed at cutting carbon emissions.
The pope has confronted critics of climate change science that finds human activities responsible for increases in global temperatures, saying in January that it is mostly "man who has slapped nature in the face.”
Sixty-four percent of those polled agreed with the pope that human activities are largely responsible for the rising CO2 levels that scientists say drive climate change.
The pope also criticized the negotiators at a global climate conference in Peru last December for “a lack of courage” and has promised to issue an encyclical – a letter setting out papal doctrine – on climate issues that he hopes will add momentum to getting a deal in Paris.
In turn, he has been attacked by those who deny the scientific findings on global warming for aligning himself with environmentalists.
But only one in 10 saw him as a voice of authority on the issue, on a par with Democrats and Republicans in Congress and less than the percentage citing President Barack Obama(18 percent). The poll respondents also said that United Nations scientists and a popular U.S. television host, Bill Nye "The Science Guy", carry more authority on climate change than U.S. politicians.

The Reuters poll was conducted from Feb. 13 to 25 and the results were weighted to current U.S. population data by gender, age, education and ethnicity. It has a credibility interval - which measures the survey's precision - of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
 
[m4jtDSfMUsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4jtDSfMUsE
 
The Final Countdown Begins: Planet Has Less Than 11 Months To Go Before Al Gore’s Predicted Fiery Death!

Browse: Home / 2015 / February / 28 / The Final Countdown Begins: Planet Has Less Than 11 Months To Go Before Al Gore’s Predicted Fiery Death!
Conservative radio talkshow host Rush Limbaugh’s countdown clock now shows less than 11 months to go before our blue oceanic planet starts sizzling for good.

Countdown

Cropped from Rush Limbaugh site.

About a decade ago Al Gore was earnestly predicting the planet had only another 10 years if we failed to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. Well, we haven’t cut them at all. In fact CO2 emissions have grown very strongly since then.

Yet, so far the global mean temperature is not any warmer than it was 10 years ago, just before Gore made the bold prediction – see chart that follows. Same was true a year ago.

Hadrcut

Current 10-year trend even shows slight cooling tendency. Source: Woodfortrees.org.

Countdown for what’s left of Gore’s reputation

Woodfortrees chart shows that global temperatures have not risen at all since Gore issued his warning. Ironically the countdown is actually turning out to be one for Mr. Gore’s reputation. In fact none of the predictions the Nobel Peace prize winner made in his Oscar-winning movie are coming true. There’s been no warming, and the poles even have more sea ice today – about 1 million sq. km more!

At his site Limbaugh quoted Larry David, husband of AIT producer Laurie David:

You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

CO2 climate science, like all sciences, is also proving to be flat out wrong. The difference here is that there is so much at stake that no one wants to admit it.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 43
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    82.2 KB · Views: 43
And the award goes to..... OBD for cherry picking the data.....
We have been down this path before OBD or don't you remember that far back (3 weeks)
Now you are using Rush Limbaugh to do your thinking for you.
That say's a lot about the type of man you are.
What does it feel like to have your reputation so thoroughly disgraced in our community?
Yup I'm going to only give you 2 minutes of my time.

Here is the post from back them.....

Ok I'll take a stab at it.
First lets look at your facts.
You pick 18 years of RSS data with this graph.
You do know that the satellite data goes back further don't you.
Why do you like that 18 years?
Perhaps it's because it fits with what you want to see in the data.


image.php


Above is you data. Lets first reproduce this graph of your 18 year "no global warming"

trend


Yup .. I would say that's a match.... and your "no global warming" trend in in green
Now lets add the rest of the data.
trend


Let us now plot the trend in all the data.
trend

I see the blue trend line does not match your 18 year "Paws" trend there OBD
You would not be trying to pull a fast one on the good folks here on this website would you?
So there you go.... exposed with a fact, with your own data set (RSS).
Yes it's a classic trick called "cherry picking the data"
I suspect we are both looking for the truth and if I were you I would question the source of the 18 years without global warming.
 
Here is another graph that disputes your claim.
Care to explain that?
ENSO-temps-v2-wTrends-638x431.jpg
 
Science.

Science is supposed to be infallible -- and if you follow the scientific method, it is, 'cause there is no opinion in science, and there certainly cannot be a consensus. Science is not up to a vote. Science is not up to what a majority of a hundred scientists happen to think about something. Science... Whatever concept in science you're trying to establish, it either is or it isn't, or you don't know. It can either be proved or it can't be, and if it can't be, then it isn't. That's science.
 
Really, this is the guy that was leading the IPPC?
Makes you wonder about his creadibility and that of those who believe what he said.
Out on bail, IPCC’s Pachauri’s downward spiral continues: Resignation from the Indian Climate Council

Pachauri’s withdrawal from public life continues

pachuri-mugStory submitted by Eric Worrall

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has today accepted Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation from the Prime Minister’s climate change council.

According to the Indian Express;

“R K Pachauri, who has been accused of sexual harassment, has resigned from the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change as well, a government statement today said.

“The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has accepted the resignation of R K Pachauri from the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change,” said the one line statement.

The Council decides on broad policy guidelines on climate change, and is headed by the Prime Minister.”

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-resignation-from-his-climate-change-council/

The BBC reports that an Indian court has granted Pachauri bail, while police investigate claims of sexual harassment against the beleaguered former head of the IPCC.

“An Indian court has granted interim bail to former UN climate change panel head Rajendra Pachauri, who is facing charges of sexual harassment.

The court order bans him from leaving India or entering his office while police investigate the allegations.

A female researcher has accused him of sending her inappropriate calls, emails and texts and physically molesting her.

Mr Pachauri, who resigned from his post on Tuesday, denies the accusations. He is currently in hospital.

His lawyers say he is receiving treatment for a heart condition.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-31636255

We obviously wish Pachauri a speedy recovery from his heart condition. Perhaps a withdrawal from public life is for the best, the last few years, as head of the IPCC, have obviously been very difficult for Pachauri. Once the police investigation and court case is over, Pachauri may have the personal space he needs, to pursue other interests, such as his interest in writing pornographic fiction.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 33
Science.

Science is supposed to be infallible -- and if you follow the scientific method, it is, 'cause there is no opinion in science, and there certainly cannot be a consensus. Science is not up to a vote. Science is not up to what a majority of a hundred scientists happen to think about something. Science... Whatever concept in science you're trying to establish, it either is or it isn't, or you don't know. It can either be proved or it can't be, and if it can't be, then it isn't. That's science.

Now you are quoting Rush Limbaugh to make your case.....
What's wrong with you?
You are more then welcome to test the consensus on the theory of gravity.
Perhaps climb up on the roof and jump off.
The scientific consensus say's it's not going to work out for you but please give it a try and report back on your findings.

[QIubkvNT4Bo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIubkvNT4Bo
 
Science .

The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods

The activity of the Sun is an important factor in the complex interaction that controls our climate. New research now shows that the impact of the Sun is not constant over time, but has greater significance when the Earth is cooler.

There has been much discussion as to whether variations in the strength of the Sun have played a role in triggering climate change in the past, but more and more research results clearly indicate that solar activity - i.e. the amount of radiation coming from the Sun - has an impact on how the climate varies over time.

In a new study published in the scientific journal Geology, researchers from institutions including Aarhus University in Denmark show that, during the last 4,000 years, there appears to have been a close correlation between solar activity and the sea surface temperature in summer in the North Atlantic. This correlation is not seen in the preceding period.

Since the end of the Last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, the climate has not been stable during this period, when temperatures have varied for long periods. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and the ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.

"We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear. Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity. The extent of the Sun's influence over time is thus not constant, but we can now conclude that the climate system is more receptive to the impact of the Sun during cold periods - at least in the North Atlantic region," says Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz, Aarhus University, who is one of the Danish researchers in the international team behind the study.

A piece of the climate puzzle

In their study, the researchers looked at the sea surface temperatures in summer in the northern part of the North Atlantic during the last 9,300 years. Direct measurements of the temperature are only found for the last 140 years, when they were taken from ships.

However, by examining studies of marine algae - diatoms - found in sediments deposited on the North Atlantic sea bed, it is possible to use the species distribution of these organisms to reconstruct fluctuations in sea surface temperatures much further back in time.

The detailed study makes it possible to draw comparisons with records of fluctuations of solar energy bursts in the same period, and the results show a clear correlation between climate change in the North Atlantic and variations in solar activity during the last 4,000 years, both on a large time scale over periods of hundreds of years and right down to fluctuations over periods of 10-20 years.

The new knowledge is a small but important piece of the overall picture as regards our understanding of how the entire climate system works, according to Professor Seidenkrantz.

"Our climate is enormously complex. By gathering knowledge piece by piece about the way the individual elements work together and influence each other to either strengthen an effect or mitigate or compensate for an impact, we can gradually get an overall picture of the mechanisms. This is also important for understanding how human-induced climate change can affect and be affected in this interaction," she says.

###

Link to Geology: Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/02/02/G36377.1.full.pdf+html

Contact:

Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz
Centre for Past Climate Studies, Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Denmark
E-mail: mss@geo.au.dk
Tel: +45 2778 2897

Professor Hui Jiang
East China Normal University, Shanghai, P. R. China
E-mail: hjiang@geo.ecnu.edu.cn

Dr Mads F. Knudsen
Centre for Past Climate Studies, Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Denmark
E-mail: mfk@geo.au.dk
Tel: +45 8715 6465

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The difference is that there has been no warming over the last 18 years and even your side agrees with that.
So if you say that is wrong then you are going against your scientists.
Mann one of your leaders agrees with the pause.
So disagree with him and you have less creadibility than before.




Since the end of the Last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, the climate has not been stable during this period, when temperatures have varied for long periods. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and the ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, here is the proof by your side of the pause.
So, all the crap you said about global warming over the last 18 years was just that.

Now if you want to discuss what man does to screw up the planet I will agree he has and does and still is doing it.
As to creating global warming, via C02 no.

Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us

Higher temperatures are imminent.
© Provided by Quartz Higher temperatures are imminent.
It’s been called the “hiatus,” “pause,” or “slowdown” and has been a favored meme of climate skeptics for years.

Despite the continued increase of greenhouse gas emissions from us, rise of global surface temperatures has been easing since 1998.

Two new studies published this week examine the origins of the“pause,” and, surprisingly, suggest that it may persist for years even in our notably warming world.

The first study, published on Feb. 26 in the journal Science, looked into likely causes. “It appears as though internal variability has offset warming over the last 15 or so years,” Byron A. Steinman, lead author of the paper and assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told Quartz.

That internal variability is found in the natural cycles of temperature change that occur over years or even decades in the oceans, like El Niño and La Niña. There are others, like the “Atlantic multidecadal oscillation” and the “Pacific decadal oscillation,” which Steinman said are leading culprits for the warming slowdown.

The paper, which was co-authored by Michael E. Mann and Sonya K. Miller of Pennsylvania State University, found an oceanic tug-of-war between the two systems. Sometimes the ocean cycles worked together to suck heat or burp it skyward—sometimes their push-pull led to a draw.

The second study, published on Feb. 23 in the journal Nature Climate Change, took up the question of how long our warming break might last.

Chris D. Roberts and colleagues at the Met Office Hadley Center in Britain looked at the pause’s possible lifespan. Using a suite of climate models, they estimated that there is good chance, up to 25%, of it continuing until the end of the decade.

More troubling are the odds that the end of the hiatus, whenever it does happen, will be followed by a five-year period of accelerated warming. This could mean that global surface temperatures rise at twice the normal rate of 0.36°F per decade. They put the chances of that warm burst at up to 60%.

The Science study, which looked at how a warming pause is created, took over 150 models and let them age from 1850 to 2012.

This gave the researchers a tally of the random natural ripples inside the climate system (those Atlantic and Pacific temperature variations) and ones outside the system called “forcings” (atmosphere-cooling volcanic eruptions and changes in the sun’s strength over time). They then took the observed ground and ocean surface temperatures for the past 130 years and subtracted the volcanoes and the sun. That gave them a measure of the power of ocean cycles to create the warming pause.

The Nature Climate Change study looked at an “archive of 15,000 years of simulated climate” to see what a nature-made hiatus typically looks like.

When they looked at a subset of models that matched well to temperature trends in the Pacific Ocean, they found that a natural 5-year-long hiatus could occur up to 30% of the time. There was about a 10% chance of a 10-year-long warming pause. And at 20 years, the chances were about 1%.

Roberts told Quartz that this all suggests our current warming pause is unique, but despite the low probability, it also “very possible” that the pause could continue a few more years. And that wouldn’t be inconsistent with what we know about the effects of the heat-trapping ocean oscillations at work in the Science study.

The idea that the oceans are storing the heat that we should be feeling isn’t new. Our ability to measure that drowned heat has gotten better of the past 15 years, thanks to an ever-expanding, semi-autonomous armada of diving buoys.

Through that army, scientists have been honing in on the mystery of the hiatus by searching for the specific ways (and locations where) heat is entering the oceans. It turns out the Pacific Ocean is playing a big role where winds are helping churn the waters and suck in heat.

But sinking heat is just one side of a seesaw.

Michael E. Mann, a co-author on the Science paper, he told Quartz in an email, ”the Pacific Ocean has been in a natural ‘cooling’ mode, which has slowed the warming of the globe, but we expect that to reverse in the near future.”

Some even say that 2014, the hottest year on record, already marked the end of the hiatus. But Roberts of the Met Office advised caution before calling it officially off. “I would argue that we need a run of several unusually warm years to be able to definitively identify the end,” he said.

All of the researchers who spoke to Quartz about the two studies agreed that the warming pause was just that.

“Eventually we expect temperatures to ‘catch up,’ but it may take longer than five years for that to happen,” Roberts told Quartz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top