Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years'

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 18 Jun 2011, 10:08

[quote="biffvernonStart learning (of course) at Wikipedia, which says

Nasa's 2006 prediction. At 2010/2011, the sunspot count was expected to be at its maximum, but in reality in 2010 it was still at its minimum.

And then follow Easterbrook (a professor of geology so he knows all about AGW from the rocks):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/e ... more-41821

(Sorry for the WUWT link, but then people are citing sceptical science!)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Jun 2011, 10:24

Don Easterbrook? Don't make me laugh!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Jun 2011, 15:30

Sounds like the geologist is not a historian of the European medieval.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 18 Jun 2011, 15:47

RGR: yes, it's nice to see the historically founded Medieval Warming Period, and The Little Ice Age restored.

I was never sure why the CAGW brigade wanted rid of them. Without them the climate looks so rigidily stable and flat-lined for the last 1,000-2,000 years that the idea of it containing lurking positive feedbacks seems absurd. But it did give them the sensational 'hottest year EVER' headlines, all thanks to Michael Mann at the Hockey Team.

If you want to read how the science/statistics were bent to fit the wishes of climate 'science', (it's not science as I know it) and the views of dissenters supressed, this is a damn good read - at the 'whodunit' level:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/reviews

Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) will be another one of those scientists not approved by the CAGW brigade.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 18 Jun 2011, 16:26

biffvernon wrote:Yeah, 'sunspots' are just a shorthand for solar irradience and the whole gamut of activity which formally couldn't be detected. Instruments can now measure the bright patches on the Sun and are a more direct measure than the optically visible Sunspots that were all we could see tears ago.

But the OP papers aren't relying on irradience. Variations in irradience only produce about 0.1 deg C difference over a solar cycle. It's the underlying magnetic effect which has a effect on the solar wind which reduces the earth's shielding against cosmic rays. More cosmic rays produce ions in the atmosphere, which cause cloud formation, which increases the earth's albedo, which reduces temperature by a lot more than 0.1 deg C.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Jun 2011, 08:09

kenneal wrote: lot more than 0.1 deg C.

What, like 0.3 degrees? Debating AGW is utterly non-constructive. The deniers will never change their position as a result of rationalism because that is not what brought them to their position.

Someone might succeed with non-rational argument but I'm not very good at that so I'll leave it to others. I know a bloke who is a god-believer who makes a good case for AGW within his own paradigm. It doesn't involve much science so may be a worthwhile enterprise under the circumstances.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 19 Jun 2011, 08:44

RGR wrote:Read the newest issue of Earth. They have a wonderful article in there about how some scientists advocate making scary claims to get attention for whatever they happen to be studying, on the groups that people won't pay attention to them if they actually tell the truth.

Amazing thing if they (the people advocating this idea) actually mean it. Would explain some things within the climate change debate though.

Do you have a link to the earth blog? Perhaps the 'scientist' who started all this was Stephen Schneider - -now, sadly missed.

Who knows, if he hadn't started the alarmist ball rolling we might have had a rational debate about the climate. However, it seems that logical thought on the climate is now entirely in the domain of the 'denier' camp.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 20 Jun 2011, 02:30

An Inspector Calls wrote:However, it seems that logical thought on the climate is now entirely in the domain of the 'denier' camp.

I'm not a denier!

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 20 Jun 2011, 07:38

kenneal wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:However, it seems that logical thought on the climate is now entirely in the domain of the 'denier' camp.
I'm not a denier!

Neither am I.

But I am healthily sceptical of the amount that the IPCC and some other organisations say we humans contribute to global warming of the planet. As much as certain people try to state, the consensus on AGW is far from settled.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Jun 2011, 07:47

It would be logically impossible for a denier to deny being a denier.

(I think)

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 20 Jun 2011, 07:53

biffvernon wrote:It would be logically impossible for a denier to deny being a denier.

(I think)

Hey Biff, I knew you would be the next to post.

But you were even faster than I expected.

I think you may be a bit confused again.....

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 20 Jun 2011, 08:38

Neither am I, but then there are so many AGW grades these days - ranging from catastrophe merchant through warmists, lukewarmers, and skeptic to denier.

However, I do like the denier word - as a badge of honour. The ironic echo of 'holcaust denier' when the term's used by a bunch of AGW fascists!

Pepperman · Post by **Pepperman** » 20 Jun 2011, 09:35

To all those who think that climate scientists are in some way overstating things in order to get attention or research funding, you really need to take the time to see people working directly in the field speak about it, and if possible talk to them directly.

You'll quickly see that this is not them being alarmist for the sake of it: they are deeply worried about the trajectory that we are following.

Pepperman · Post by **Pepperman** » 20 Jun 2011, 11:33

Pathetic.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 20 Jun 2011, 11:35

An Inspector Calls wrote: . . and where their next research grant is coming from.

But that applies to all scientists (and similar things for many other people). What is never explained is why climate scientists are uniquely evil in falsifying their work in response.

Peter.