General Climate Change Discussion.......

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Also we have had a nino dominated phase of the peterbation period through these decades that has now switched to nina.

Hi Tamara et al,

Now have a look at the graph again. Perturbation cycle is approx 36 years [near as damnit]. It switched in Feb 07. Go back 36 years to 1971 [El Nino perturbation], go back 36 years to 1935 [La Nina perturbation], go back 36 years 1899 [El Nino perturbation], go back 36 years 1863....what do you see? Yes, you can see it....

BFTP

Edited July 27, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[noggin]

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

What an exquisitely written letter! What a cracker! I don't know who Mr Wyndham is, but I shall investigate.

The whole letter is interesting, but I shall re-link to it in the Arctic Ice thread, apropos the bit at the end from 1817.

[Iceberg]

No it's all right Noggin you don't have it put it anywhere near the Arctic thread.!.Please...

This forum is so much better which this kind of thing.

[Methuselah]

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

What an exquisitely written letter! What a cracker! I don't know who Mr Wyndham is, but I shall investigate.

The whole letter is interesting, but I shall re-link to it in the Arctic Ice thread, apropos the bit at the end from 1817.

Gives the impression that either, i) the guy's a raving lunatic with a better-than-average grasp of sentence structure; or that ii) some nutter has employed a hack journalist, who's produced something akin to a Dail Mail anti-immigration rant on his behalf?

The fact that a sentence makes grammatical sense, hardly guarantees its content?

[Thundery wintry showers]

To be brutally honest the only grounds behind a letter like that are if one has a pre-set view that AGW is a myth, and is prepared to accept any line of evidence purely because it supports that view, regardless of how nonsensical the evidence is.

I could probably write a decent size essay on how problematic that letter is, but first of all- can Piers Corbyn really claim to be more accurate than the UK Met Office? Somehow I don't think so.

If a similar quality letter was written from a pro-AGW perspective it would (rightly) be condemned out of hand.

[Solar Cycles]

To be brutally honest the only grounds behind a letter like that are if one has a pre-set view that AGW is a myth, and is prepared to accept any line of evidence purely because it supports that view, regardless of how nonsensical the evidence is.

I could probably write a decent size essay on how problematic that letter is, but first of all- can Piers Corbyn really claim to be more accurate than the UK Met Office? Somehow I don't think so.

If a similar quality letter was written from a pro-AGW perspective it would (rightly) be condemned out of hand.

Although I agreed in what Piers Corbyn had to say abouth the MetO, I also agree with what your saying TWS. And to be honest, Piers Corbyn is not the sort of person you want in your corner.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Whilst I do actually agree with quite a lot he (tried) to say, I must say the style of the letter doesn't help lend much respect to it all. Disappointing from a sceptics point of view that some material can't just be written normally without poorly grammatised jibes in it, and rather childish ya-boo repetitions.

Indeed if it was written from an AGW standpoint I would have to admit the knives would certainly be out for something similar.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It basically says that AGW is not factual [GW and climate change are different], it says we have been cooling for 10 years, it says that 'mistakes' have been made to show 'higher' temps and have had to be revised, it says that the wheels are coming off AGW because the evidence of global temps is going the other way.......yep not bad at all.

BFTP

[Iceberg]

I do like these flexible little trend lines that look as if they show an increase but are intelligent enough to actually be the reverse.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Except that we have not been cooling over the last 10 years- that point arises from deliberately cherry-picked data so as to mislead and make the case against AGW sound more convincing. Temperatures have been pretty constant.

There have indeed been some mistakes, as always, but some have gone towards warming and others towards cooling. Some of the attacks on Hadley and Phil Jones are somewhat ill-founded. There is no such thing as "the wheels falling off AGW" I'm afraid, and I know fine well that it wouldn't be tolerated if someone said "the wheels are falling off the sceptic bandwagon". The wheels can't fall off anything when there is still so much uncertainty.

[Methuselah]

It looks like case of 'preaching to the converted' to me. But, as the letter contains nothing factual, it belongs more to a tabloid opinion-page than to a 'scientific' discussion, IMO...

And you're right, TWS: if a GW-supporter came out with such a diatribe, it would deserve a similarly short shrift!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Except that we have not been cooling over the last 10 years- that point arises from deliberately cherry-picked data so as to mislead and make the case against AGW sound more convincing. Temperatures have been pretty constant.

There have indeed been some mistakes, as always, but some have gone towards warming and others towards cooling. Some of the attacks on Hadley and Phil Jones are somewhat ill-founded. There is no such thing as "the wheels falling off AGW" I'm afraid, and I know fine well that it wouldn't be tolerated if someone said "the wheels are falling off the sceptic bandwagon". The wheels can't fall off anything when there is still so much uncertainty.

This is where you stand out from many pro AGW folk. You see we kept being told that the science is settled and there is NO UNCERTAINTY. Clearly there is and it is this why I say the wheels are falling off [maybe a bit strong] but one may be able to see where I am coming from.

Ice June came in at 0.01c [by my favoured 'accurate' temp recorders] anomaly so last peak should be dismissed

BFTP

[Iceberg]

This is where you stand out from many pro AGW folk. You see we kept being told that the science is settled and there is NO UNCERTAINTY. Clearly there is and it is this why I say the wheels are falling off [maybe a bit strong] but one may be able to see where I am coming from.

Ice June came in at 0.01c [by my favoured 'accurate' temp recorders] anomaly so last peak should be dismissed

BFTP

BFTP,

You mean you "accurate UAH"

Which looks like this according to them. Funny how those flexible little minus signs can pretend to be plus signs isn't it.

Indeed there isn't a single dataset that shows cooling over the last 10 years. Much to the anonyance of the skeptics.

DECADAL TREND:

Global: +0.12 °C

Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C

Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh now I'm confused???

Do I believe the folk who have trained to do the job ,the guys with the instruments y'know or do I believe the folk who would appear to only want to disseminate the experts data to suit there own agenda's???

Oooh it's so hard to decide who to listen to isn't it??? good guys? bad guys? experts? wanna be's?

Maybe I'll pospone any decision 'till I can see the desolation inaction will cause.... I mean My little Lad will be able to sort it won't he??? Why should I bother my mind or butt on something that isn't 'proven' eh?

Anyhoo's, Tonight I'll be drinking mainly Spanish Red........

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Oh now I'm confused???

Do I believe the folk who have trained to do the job ,the guys with the instruments y'know or do I believe the folk who would appear to only want to disseminate the experts data to suit there own agenda's???

Oooh it's so hard to decide who to listen to isn't it??? good guys? bad guys? experts? wanna be's?

Maybe I'll pospone any decision 'till I can see the desolation inaction will cause.... I mean My little Lad will be able to sort it won't he??? Why should I bother my mind or butt on something that isn't 'proven' eh?

Anyhoo's, Tonight I'll be drinking mainly Spanish Red........

Pot, Kettle, Black so springs to mind GW

BFTP

Edited July 28, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[osmposm]

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

What an exquisitely written letter! What a cracker! I don't know who Mr Wyndham is, but I shall investigate.

The whole letter is interesting, but I shall re-link to it in the Arctic Ice thread, apropos the bit at the end from 1817.

No, really, it is not interesting, Noggin - except in demonstrating that a facility for writing the English language 'exquisitely' doesn't make for a persuasive argument. And I'm not even talking about the, um, debatable facts within it!

I am reminded of Disraeli's famous description of Gladstone, "A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself."

[osmposm]

It basically says that AGW is not factual [GW and climate change are different], it says we have been cooling for 10 years, it says that 'mistakes' have been made to show 'higher' temps and have had to be revised, it says that the wheels are coming off AGW because the evidence of global temps is going the other way.......yep not bad at all.

BFTP

It also uses the following insults: self-serving, 'sink of scientific chicanery and malpractice', 'inept and disreputable', (suffering) hallucinations, 'supposed and fanciful data', 'arrant knave', fabricate, inept (again), dishonest, co-religionists, contrived, fraud, 'act out its role delivering to its political paymasters the answer they demand', chicanery (again), 'corrupt institution', 'statist mouthpiece', 'its fellow lapdog', and finally 'the English language is replete with terms, (whoops, a superfluous comma there) which can be deployed to designate those who exchange integrity for lucre'.

Hardly designed to lower the (debating) temperature, and tediously follows the party line that everyone involved in AGW research/promulgation is fradulent, corrupt, incompetent, stupid, lying, or kowtowing - or indeed all of the above. No possibility there that some - even if wrong - might be well-intentioned, but mistaken. Doesn't really help, does it.....though good for a laugh, I suppose?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Well, a poorly set out link, which although as Fred says, and I said earlier, it makes some salient points (albeit not very well)has still managed to show AGW propenents ability to miss an open goal and be at least as culpable in their own method of reply.

Fred, yes- Pot, kettle, black indeed!

[osmposm]

.......has still managed to show AGW propenents ability to miss an open goal and be at least as culpable in their own method of reply.....

Bit confused as to whether that is referring to me. If so, I plead guilty to verbosity, certainly (though I'm an absolute beginner compared with Mr Wyndham, and half of what I wrote was just quoting him anyway)....and I'm equally confused about the 'open goal' bit.

But if you prefer Hemingway-style, OK: The man's a fool if he thinks that's a clever way to write a letter. And it's full of stuff I reckon's pretty dumb, too.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Bit confused as to whether that is referring to me. If so, I plead guilty to verbosity, certainly (though I'm an absolute beginner compared with Mr Wyndham, and half of what I wrote was just quoting him anyway)....and I'm equally confused about the 'open goal' bit.

But if you prefer Hemingway-style, OK: The man's a fool if he thinks that's a clever way to write a letter. And it's full of stuff I reckon's pretty dumb, too.

No - I wasn't

I would buy your books if you published them

[Methuselah]

Well, a poorly set out link, which although as Fred says, and I said earlier, it makes some salient points (albeit not very well)has still managed to show AGW propenents ability to miss an open goal and be at least as culpable in their own method of reply.

Fred, yes- Pot, kettle, black indeed!

Tbh Tamara, that guy has scored a massive own-goal. (It almost has the whiff of a wind-up about it, it's so crass!) Can anyone really think that such vacuous ranting helps the cause of genuine scepticism? I think not. IMO, scepticism should be about putting-forward alternative (hopefully better) hypotheses and testing them, and not solely on evidence-free straw men?

And, what is the 'straw man' in this case? Why, that's simple: There's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists, scientific institutions and the like, all ganging-up in order to gag misunderstood geniuses such as Piers Corbyn and himself.

IMO, there is abundant evidence (enough indeed, for me to find it virtually incontrovertable) for Natural Cycles being the main drivers of climate. But, there is also abundant evidence for AGW. And, 'denial' of either will achieve absolutely nothing, save for the fact that it'll guarantee research grants ad infinitum?

[Methuselah]

How's about this, guys???

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaud.pdf

[Iceberg]

It's a shame it's a presentation Pete, without the wording. I'll try and look through it.

My first thoughts are that it's possible for lunar to have a say in things ENSO. But Kelvin waves and a correlation of upper heat content to lunar/solar gravitational effects would be needed to convince me of a strong relationship.

BTW I've not looked too closely to see if this is in there.

[Methuselah]

I'll google again and see if I can find any others. Tbh, for some reason, there don't seem to be many papers on the subject...

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N11/C2.php

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n17/cutting.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18099

Found these. Not sure they'll be much help, though?

[noggin]

It looks like case of 'preaching to the converted' to me. But, as the letter contains nothing factual, it belongs more to a tabloid opinion-page than to a 'scientific' discussion, IMO...

And you're right, TWS: if a GW-supporter came out with such a diatribe, it would deserve a similarly short shrift!

Re your first paragraph.......is "science" the be-all and end-all? Is that really the only thing that counts, in all of this? I will endeavour to come back with some other things which also count (when my brain is feeling less addled).

Re your second paragraph........I posted a piece from James Hansen the other day, I'm just trying to give both sides a fair crack of the whip. :lol: