Trillions are being spent on the completely wrong scenario, an independent veteran meteorologist implies. Instead of warming, we need to worry about the coming 125-year cool period, which has already begun.
A former National Weather Service (NWS) meteorologist has spoken out in a just released 49-minute video that looks at climate change and what lies ahead.
The recent cold winters and expanding polar ice caps are ominous signs of a global cooling that has already begun, maintains David Dilley, now President and Founder of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc. Claims of warming have not been properly founded.
Photo right: David Dilley, Global Weather Oscillations
Dilley has forty-two years of professional experience in the meteorology and climatology and many publications. He was with NOAA for twenty years. Not only is the government wrong with its claims of a coming warming, Dilley accuses the federal government of fiddling with global temperature data with the aim of producing a false picture of what is going on.
In his must-see video presentation dubbed “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, he examines the many drivers and factors behind climate change and why we need to focus on the real problem of a coming cooling.
Here are the points he makes in the video:
1. The 18+ years temperature pause is real. (4.09)
2. Natural cycles are behind the current pause.
3. Ice cores show CO2 lags temperature. (5.00)
4. 7000 years ago there was 50% less Arctic ice. (8.20)
5. The 1000-year cycle is real. (9.20)
6. Planet has been cooling over past 10,000 years. (9.34)
7. Natural cycles are driving our climate. (10.04)
8. Shows cooling from 2023 to 2150.
9. Current warming is perfectly natural.
10. Milankovitch cycles driving large-scale cycles. (13.00)
11. Gravitational forces can bulge Earth’s core by 1.4 km (15.35)
12. Gravitational forces impact global temperature (17.20)
13. Warming and cooling both begin at the poles (17.48)
14. Arctic warming/melt was caused by warm ocean pulses (19.50)
15. “Now starting to see a dramatic cooling in the Arctic“. (22.50)
16. “Arctic is cooling rapidly now. Rapidly!” (24.06)
17. Both poles are cooling rapidly now. (25.05(
18. Poles don’t show signs of warming. (26.30)
19. Western drought and Eastern cold due to 26-year cycle. (27.55)
20. Polar vortices due to Arctic/global cooling. (29.25)
21. Lunar cycles correlated with warming/cooling cycles. (31.30)
22. Rapid global cooling by 2019. (32.00)
23. “Temperature fiddling” are “more political than anything”. (32.56)
24. “Could be the biggest scientific scandal ever”. (33.20)
25. IPCC using “estimated temperatures”. (34.00)
26. How the government manipulated, rewrote data. (36.00)
27. “This is temperature fiddling.” Not the truth. (36.45)
28. NASA, NOAA’s “politically driven press releases”. (37.00)
29. Met Office calls NOAA’s 2014 claim untrue. (38.00)
30. Major data fiddling, cheating by NOAA. (39.50)
31. “The 97% consensus is bogus”. (41.00)
32. John Cook cooked the consensus data. (41.30)
33. 85% meteorologists say climate change is natural. (42.20)
34. Global cooling is the real danger. (43.20)
35. Volcanoes and cooling often correlated. (44.00)
36. Crop failures from cooling “very likely”. (45.45)
37. “Extremely cold” from 2025 to 2050. (46.36)
38. Global cooling next 125 years. (47.00)
39. “The cooling is coming”.
129 responses to ““We Are Now Starting To See A Dramatic Cooling In The Arctic”, Says Former NOAA Meteorologist …”Extremely Cold” From 2025 To 2050!”
Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.
But the real decline into a coming ice age started ~3000 years ago, in about 1000BC. That is when the rate of Holocene temperature decline escalated from about 0.05°C / millennium 8000BC – 1000BC, to about 0.5 °C/ millennium, 1000BC – 2000AD.
The GISP2 ice core records from Greenland show.
1 the last millennium of our current benign Holocene epoch 1000AD – 2000AD was the coldest of the whole current interglacial.
2 for its first 8000 years the early Holocene, encompassing its high “climate optimum” had a pretty flat temperatures on average a drop of only 0.05 °C per millennium.
3 but the recent Holocene for the last 3000 years since 1000BC has seen a temperature diminution at 10 times that earlier rate ~0.5 °C/ millennium
4 our happy Holocene interglacial is about 11000 years old and is probably drawing to its close in this century the next century or this millennium.
5 any current minor warming after 1970 will eventually be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of continuing cooling over the past 3000 years.
[…] Link originale […]
GWO appears to be one man with a mission, not a “company” in the normal sense of the concept.
From his web site: GWO’s Climate Pulse Technology – *CPT *Patent Pending
One can get copywrite on a phrase. What’s the technology? What’s to patent?
Presumably his earthquake and hurricane forecast methods, the forecasts are behind a paywall. Fair enough, Piers Corbyn is doing the same thing.
Roy Spencer’s response to Obama’s claim that 14 of the past 15 years have been the warmest on record. “On record” ignores the Medieval Warmng Period as well as several earlier even warmer periods during our current interglacial. A longer term perspective is needed.
Even though co2 level has been much higher during most of our planet’s existence, there is no empirical evidence that co2 has EVER had any influence on the global temperature. During the previous four interglacials, (covering about the last 340,000 years), the temperature in each interglacial was 2 degrees higher than now, but co2 level is 40% higher now – so co2 clearly has little to do with the global temperature.
We are indeed in a warm period, but there has been – to repeat once again – no additional warming for the past 18 and 1/2 years. The variation between global temperature in recent years has been miniscule – hundredths of one degree, so well within the area of uncertainty which is about 1/2 degree. (In other words, the temperature has been flat – no additional warming for the past 18+ years. The alarmist are pinning all their claims on this relatively brief warming – which began in the mid 70s and stopped increasing around 1998.
The computer model projections continue to be too high, and the spread between actual temperature (which has been flat) and model projections is widening, even though the models have been “tweaked” several times in response to this very same issue.
There have been several recent studies predicting cooling. Temperature variation tends to occur first at the poles. The Antarctic sea ice extent has been breaking records, and the Arctic sea level extent has recently jumped 30%.
Take a look at NASA satellite images
one look at hudson bay on the ct charts show them to be another load of crap.poor resolution satellite imagery coupled with the inability to “see” at night or through clouds.
now why would they use poor resolution satellite data when there is vastly superior information available ,i wonder ?
The evidence presented in the video is not only persuasive, it also seems conclusive.
I’d be willing to bet all of my life’s earnings on this being a propaganda piece – excuse me, “PR” article – indirectly funded by either the coal, oil, gas industry or some combination of the three. The entire thing is chock full of misleading statements; utilizing minute factoids like “expanding polar ice caps” and ripping them from any sort of context. Sea ice has been expanding, yes. Land ice (the kind that increases sea levels) is still melting at an accelerating rate.
I’d also be willing to bet my comment either never gets posted or is posted and then immediately taken down by the unethical, soulless individual that gets PAID to host this webpage and peddle misinformation (lies) to his fellow human beings.
Keep wearing the tinfoil hat, it’s only alarmist sites that delete comments etc. One thing I know is that not even a rabid CAGW supporter would pay you to write the drivel you have just produced.
I don’t get paid anything to write at this blog. The question that needs to be asked is how many billions do the climate institutes get paid by governments to rewrite data and twist the science?
we await you handing over your life earnings to pierre . by the close of business tomorrow will be fine 🙂
“I’d also be willing to bet my comment either never gets posted or is posted and then immediately taken down by the unethical, soulless individual that gets PAID to host this webpage and peddle misinformation (lies) to his fellow human beings.”
How can a “soulless individual” have “fellow human beings”? Do the “fellow human beings” have souls? Why are you then calling them “beings”, and not simply men? Do you call dogs “canine beings”? I kinda like that. Has a certain mad ringing to it.
On my first reading of this I thought that Ben had missed the sarc tag off!
On rereading I now feel embarrassed for him.
I am 75 now but the beach I played on as a boy still has the same high water mark and the naval docks and jetties where I crabbed remain the same as when the Queen reviewed the Fleet in the Solent in the early 50s.
The Fleet has all but disappeared though.
Now we build windmills to save the planet rather than ships to defend the realm.
Can’t help but think from my long perspective that this will comeback and bite us.
Good points, all.
And the windmills (or at least most of their components) are built by those whom we no longer have the ships to defend against.
To their benefit and our detriment. Fleecing us, whilst flouting the same “international” regulations (based on myths and Malthusian “massaged” maths) that are destroying us.
I am sure he just forgot the Sarc tag.
For the Record: GWO is not funded by any grants, coal companies, energy companies. GWO is a private company utilizing research by David Dilley and associates. Mr. Dilley is offering knowledge to everyone in the world by assembling the big picture on climate change, free of charge with no outside funding.
Ben Jensen: Wow! Just WOW! Are you that delusional?
“I’d also be willing to bet my comment either never gets posted”
On the contrary.. weird rants like this should always be published…
everybody needs a good laugh every now and then,
and this shows up the moronic idiocy of the average climate alarmist for all to see…
Baseless assertions. But then thats all you and your ilk have. Take your troll behaviour elsewhere.
Sorry, Ben, but you seem to have a little problem with understanding. It’s the sea ice that has been melting in the Arctic and is now on the increase again while land ice is pretty stable.
And you do (don’t you) understand just what sort of a temperature increase would be needed to melt the Greenland ice cap and how long it would take?
You also seem to be a little deficient in the “keep your cool and watch your manners” department. You may not agree with Pierre; that’s no excuse to insult him. Nor to trot out the only ammunition the warmists seem to be left with – the “paid by Big Somebody” excuse. I’m afraid that is really getting to be rather pathetic in light of the money from government, environmental groups, oil companies, hedge funds that has been poured by the $billion into the pockets of the warmists.
Don’t forget the money from the church and other “big business” spending their pr budgets on CAGW.
One for sod.. 🙂
[…] “We Are Now Starting To See A Dramatic Cooling In The Arctic”, Says Former NOAA Meteorologist (See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2015/08/12/now-starting-to-see-a-dramatic-cooling-in-the-arctic-says-former-…😉 […]
According to the GISP2 ice core records the most recent warming periods, Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern have all been progressively colder than the previous.
The previous Millennium 1000AD – 2000AD was the coldest of the current Holocene. Looked at in the longer term the Holocene has been cooling quite quickly for last 3000 years.
Just expect that trend to continue.
[…] notrickszone.com/2015/08/12/now-starting-to-see-a-dramatic-cooling-in-the-arctic-says-former-noaa-me… […]
[…] notrickszone.com/2015/08/12/now-starting-to-see-a-dramatic-cooling-in-the-arctic-says-former-noaa-me… […]
The only real question is if the coming cooling is going to be another ‘Little Ice Age’ or the Big Drop.
David Dilley does a great job but misses a couple points.
#1 The climb out of the Wisconsin Ice age happened in ONE YEAR. (Dr. Richard B. Alley – http://www.sott.net/article/279874-The-End-Holocene )
#2 The Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). The onset of the Little Ice Age was right about when the Holocene reached half precession cycle old. The Grand Solar Maximum,now being stomped flat by warmists, is what kicked the Earth out of the cold cycle. Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier in Wyoming show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years between 1845 and 1855. This was 11 years after a strong solar cycle 8. (Dr Evan’s Notch-Delay)
In looking at the Milankovitch cycle, the insolation @ 65N (or 60N) in June is used.
NOAA gives the Berger insolation values in June at 60N
12,000 years ago — 522.50 Wm-2
Ice age – Holocene transition, 11,717 years ago
11,000 years ago. — 523.16 Wm-2 peak insolation
Last ice age, lowest insolation ~ 464 Wm−2
NOW –476 Wm-2
A fall 2012 paper “Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?” gives the calculated solar insolation values @ 65N on June 22 for several glacial inceptions:
Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper)
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2
The earth is certainly in the ball park for glacial inception.
Loutre and Berger (2003) over at Wiki forms the backbone of the warmist camp predictions for the course of the present interglacial. However this particular topic, as we all know, is under the editorial control of Wm. Connelly.
The Loutre and Berger (2003) paper was based on a model run. Observational data — “A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records” Lisiecki & Raymo (2005) — put it to rest just 2 years later and I have heard of no paper refuting Lisiecki & Raymo since then.
Lisiecki & Raymo (2005) says:
“… the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….”
Off Topic, but Britain has a policy for when the wind don’t blow
” Households’ lights could be dimmed and kettles take longer to boil when the wind isn’t blowing, under Government-backed plans to routinely dip the voltage of Britain’s electricity supplies.
As Britain builds more wind farms, the measures to dip voltage could be used when there is an unexpected lull in wind power output.
New technology to instantly dip the voltage of power to entire regions “at the press of a button” has already been quietly trialled on half a million households across north-west England.”
Always assuming there’s something left to provide even an inadequate base load.
i can assure you the first time that happens i will remove the door from the house of my local member of parliament and burn it in my log burner for the energy that i require.
the longer the outages last, the more of their house i will burn 🙂
Well said. May I contribute a confirmation of Dilleys speech from an entirely different direction? Every synoptical meteorologist should have noticed that there is an extraordinary series of most intense low pressure systems on the Atlantic. Just today there is one with core pressure below 975 hPa! In average this happens every five years ONCE in summer, but a sieries like this one I never experueinced in more than 40 years of work as a bench forecaster.
The intensity, amongst other phenomena, depends on the temperature difference between high and low latitudes. The bigger the difference, the stronger the low pressure systems. Thats why in winter this is a regular phenomenon – there is much more seasonal variability in the arctics than in the tropics. If there is a series like this occurring in summer, there is just one conclusion: it must be extraordinary cold in the arctics this summer! This must not necessarily be mirrored by sea ice cover instantly, but wait for the next few years.
More information about this can be found in my article (in German) over by the EIKE here:
Dipl.-Met. Hans-Dieter Schmidt
Equating someone’s character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy. Perhaps Ben Jensen could find another mode of expressing his dissent so that his argument can be taken seriously?
For years the warmunists have told us that it’s a terrible thing if the arctic sea ice shrinks. Now as it refuses to melt, they say it’s not important anyway; in their typical 3 card monte way.
Fantastic news for the lovers of overprized subsidized electric 3 ton luxury planet-saving limos made in vanishingly small numbers!
Tesla just got RECHARGED! Sold enough new stock to idiots to keep the Dollar bill heated ovens warm for another two quarters !
[…] referens […]
Warning, sarcasm ahead:
Yes, people of random climate denialist hangout website/blog/thing (whatever this is), I agree with you… The totally obvious explanation for all this sciencey doomsday talk is clearly that there’s a vast, underground network of likeminded, freedom-hating elitists who are paying off virtually every established scientific organization on the planet, as well as virtually every single climate scientist in the world to cook the books on all of the data they pull from the field and scare the crap out of all of us with it in order to further some sort of government related nefarious aim. Conspiracy theorists run wild with it from this point on. You wanna know my opinion on it? Lizard people. They’re for sure behind all of it.
I can’t believe how silly my premise was: I actually thought (before you guys all changed my mind with your ironclad logic) that there might be a possibility that there would be vastly more misinformation floating around the interwebs coming from the denialist side of this argument. I know I shouldn’t have asked myself rational questions like: “who stands to lose the most in all of this if this global warming hullabaloo turns out to be true?” I actually thought it could be the global energy industry… But, NAH. I looked into it anyways and it turns out those folks have quite a bit of money to throw around. Much more, it turns out, then all of the budgets of all of the world’s funding for scientific research, combined. So much money, in fact, that macro economists struggle intensely with estimating total global revenue per year.
But, I digress. You guys are clearly right.
My idea that the vast majority of scientists actively studying in the field for the past 30 years were probably right in their conclusions, given that they’re all experts in their fields? Wrong. My pointing out that the above “article” is extremely misleading and cherry picks the facts? Unfair. Implying that you’re all gullible enough to wholeheartedly believe in the authenticity of propaganda that’s written, crafted and distributed by the best PR that money can buy and funded by an industry with the deepest pockets on earth? An industry that’s threatened by the undeniable fact that what they’re doing is destroying the environment? Not. Cool.
Okay, sarcasm over. Please go back to discussing this subject as if you were all highly learned climate and physics experts with objective sources of data and clear minded, unbiased opinions. Opinions that are in NO way clouded by your political beliefs. HA!
“Please go back to discussing this subject as if you were all highly learned climate and physics experts ”
Your junior high failure shows that you certainly are not.
Arts/Lit first year fail.. was it. 🙂
Rant and yell all you want, child-mind.. you have nothing.. otherwise you wouldn’t rant and yell.
“An industry that’s threatened by the undeniable fact that what they’re doing is destroying the environment?”
You will have to rant at the solar and wind scammers if you want to do anything about that. They are the ones destroying the environment. If you don’t believe that, I DARE you to go an rent a house 200m from a big wind turbine.
Or do you prefer your low-end inner city slum with its coal and gas powered cafe lattes ?
ps.. you are using a computer.. look up the meaning of HYPOCRISY!!!
Either turn off ALL your trappings of modern society or STFU, moron !!
Ben, the warmunist climate models are still expensive junk.
“I looked into it anyways and it turns out those folks have quite a bit of money to throw around.”
You do realize that BP funded the CRU, right? Because Big Oil always funded warmunism, to kill the rival coal.
“Ben, the warmunist climate models are still expensive junk.”
Actually, climate models predict the total surface warming we’ve had so far to within 5%. Here are the numbers:
Here’s an even simplier climate model:
surface warming = 1.5 degrees C per trillion tons of carbon emitted.
Next use something where Gavin Schmidt didn’t have his fatfingers in. His employer NASA knows why they don’t let him use satellite data. Global Warming panic ensures 1.2 bn USD per year for NASA.
ahh, i understand now benny boy, you are scared. fear not young man , the end is not nigh . pleny tie for you to get your “factoids” (wtf is a factoid ?) in order and save yourself all that worry.
Ben Jensen –
Compliments on your sarcasm.
But why don’t you attempt an argument based on data instead?
Is deference to self-proclaimed “experts” your only game?
Someone (a famous scientist) once said that the essence of science is found in the courage to challenge the “knowledge” of experts (paraphrased). Perhaps someone here can find the actual quote.
There is a difference between conspiracy and conveniently jumping on the bandwagon (safety in numbers, personal preservation, etc.). History is fraught with examples of “experts” having been found horribly wrong years, decades or centuries after the “settled science” was enshrined into textbooks and dogma.
Remember that human beings love fashion. Even scientists. But especially politicians. And more especially political scientists – or scientific politicians?
Kurt in Switzerland
(1) First, please learn the difference between denial and skepticism. The ‘climate-denier’ tag is aggressive, utterly stupid and scientifically speaking doesn’t mean anything. No-one denies that the climate changes. It always has and always will. What is under question here is whether human activity can possibly govern climate, or drastically affect it.
(2) You seem to be implying that there somehow exists a ‘consensus’,or that AGW theory has been proven. As if an alleged consensus about something as complex as climate actually mattered anyway (or have you not learned from history?) You also assume that others who are skeptical, scientists and non-scientists alike, are in a minority and cling to conspiracy theories. Furthermore you fail to provide any sources to back up your ludicrous comments. You will find a wealth of evidence and cogent argument that contradicts what you are saying on the many fantastic skeptical sites in the blogosphere. In behaving the way you have, you have demonstrated the arrogance and ignorance of the self-proclaimed ‘environmentalist’ elite.
(3) It is this fascist, anti-human and intolerant movement (that you seem to be very keen on defending) who stands to lose not if, but when the alarmist claims are shown to be either false or wildly exaggerated. Ironically, many green NGOs have taken money from the fossil fuel industries before and this is well documented.
(4) If you firmly believe in using objective sources of data and in formulating clear-minded, unbiased opinions then perhaps its time you gave serious consideration to the skeptical argument.
(5) Some sarcasm for you: you are well-mannered, do not indulge in troll behaviour, and certainly wouldn’t allow political beliefs to cloud your opinions. HAHA LOL 🙂 🙂
People like Ben Jensen should realise that rants such as his recent one do their cause immense harm. Keep them coming sonny
If we are further from the Sun in NH summer then why are we on the warming part of the cycle? The talk neglected the fact that the Earth orbits morre slowly when we are further away. Currently there are 7-8 more days on the Summer side of the solstices than on the winter side. The longer duration of solar heating is apparently more significant than the lower solar input at the greater distance. Why else would we still be on the warming parrt of the Milankovic cycle?
Things will change drastically when we are further away in NH winter and when the Winter half has a longer duration. That will occur in some 8,000 year as the Earth’s axis of rotation precesses and Polaris is no longer the North Star. If you are still around then, go south young man!
Correction – replace “Summer side if the solstices than….” by “Summer side of the Equinoxes than….”
Your lecture is not all that different from what my olde (now deceased) friend and colleague Joseph O Fletcher – who ran various Climate Science labs since long before he Directed NOAA’s Ocean and Atmosphere Science labs –
gave in his 200 Lecture = Dr Fletcher’s lecture –
He started his career in the late 1940s flying out of Alaska – and found the Ice-Islands were quite active – and set up the 1st Ice-Island Research Station = Fletchers Island = Fletcher’s Ice Island – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meanwhile my Okde (now deceased Russian Colleague – Leonid Klysahtorin, and his math wizard colleague – Alexey Lyubushin, wrote up their insights on the Climate-related climate regime shifts — To Sum it up = It Ain’t CO2 ! ~
Your lecture is not all that different from what my olde (now deceased) friend and colleague Joseph O Fletcher – who ran various Climate Science labs since long before he Directed NOAA’s Ocean and Atmosphere Science labs –
gave in his 200 Lecture = Dr Fletcher’s lecture –
He started his career in the late 1940s flying out of Alaska – and found the Ice-Islands were quite active – and set up the 1st Ice-Island Research Station = Fletchers Island = Fletcher’s Ice Island – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meanwhile my Olde (now deceased Russian Colleague – Leonid Klyashtorin, and his math wizard colleague – Alexey Lyubushin, wrote up their insights on the Climate-related climate regime shifts —
To Sum it up = It Ain’t CO2 ! ~
This Video should be mandatory viewing by all school and university students and all politicians.
Dr. Dilly, there is just one thing you are overlooking, which needs to be included in your presentations, and writings. Well, actually two, but they are intertwined together. You are overlooking the importance of Impactors, either comets or asteroids. When they periodically strike the planet, they tend to cause an almost instant cooling phase. And if they are big enough, they will facilitate tectonic activity greatly. In other words, a double whammy. My guess is that this is the shove that propels the planet into the next glaciation phase.
One other thing. You have stated that we are several thousands of years before sliding into the next glaciation. But I disagree. As a physical anthropologist, I know a lot about the growth of hominids and the Pleistocene. And the truth is that we were coming out of the last glaciation earlier than is generally acknowledged. If you closely look at the Vostok records, we were climbing out, when suddenly we entered the Younger Dryas cooling. This was almost certainly caused by an Impactor, most likely a comet. And even though it probably was an air burst, it greatly affected the length of the last glaciation.
When I was in graduate school, in the mid 70s, it was believed that a sudden breaking of the log-jam of melted ice, let loose, flooding the St. Lawrence freeway, and the cold water screwing up the Atlantic Conveyor. But we now know that there was more to the story than we thought, hence the Clovis Comet theory. And the evidence is continuing to accumulate for this having occurred.
What that means is that this Holocene interglacial is overdue for an end, not some several thousand years in the future. Its overdue, right now. Sort of akin to that next major mega-quake off the Pacific Northwest coast. Both could happen at any time, and humanity is not prepared for a sudden drop off in global temperatures. Because the next phase may be accompanied by a celestial event, and Off We Go!
One other thing. Geologists and climatologists don’t like to state this, but the trigger for the Pleistocene is due to the land bridge, which ties North and South America. Without all of that warm Pacific water flowing directly into the Atlantic, it is just enough to make the Atlantic Conveyor less potent and able to circulate more northward.
This is a wonderful time to be a geologist, and I wish I had taken that route. Just officially tying El Nino to the heat from within, and the causes of the Pleistocene, is awaiting some enterprising geologist out there. The next Eugene Shoemaker type of revelations? Just think about that.
Last time I looked, the US Govt was spending about $20B (that’s Billion) a year on Climate Change caused by human influence. At least half of that amount went to research grants.
Now, what if you are a recent grad and want to make a career out of your degree (BTW, the field doesn’t matter). You first need to get attached to a Grant, then get your name attached to a Paper which is published in a prestigious Pal reviewed journal, thus beginning the long path towards full tenure.
If you disagree with the basic premise that humans are the main cause of Climate Change, then none of the above will happen and you will find yourself asking “Would you like cheese with that?”.
Now take a look at those that disagree with the premise (ie labeled as “deniers”). A majority of them are either tenured, possibly retired or independently wealthy. This is the only way to get back at a multi billion dollar industry. You have to be in a protected position.
Kurt in Switzerland and the rest of the pack –
I’m an accountant, not a climate scientist. So yes, deference to expert opinion in a field outside of my own is the only honest argument I can make. When I need legal advice, I seek out a lawyer because I’m wise enough to realize that they are in a better position than I am to speak on legal matters, regardless of how much I personally research the subject. When I’m sick I go to the doctor because I unfortunately don’t have 10 years of medical school under my belt. When a pipe breaks in my home, I call the plumber. You get the picture.
Expertise seems to be respected in just about every single field besides this one and to me, that’s very strange. Being accused of “hopping on the bandwagon” is a ludicrous argument to make. Yes, absolutely, general consensus should always be challenged. That’s how science works. However, you don’t see non-physicists arguing rabidly online about whether or not the discovery of the Higgs Boson supports the theory of super symmetry or the theory of the multiverse. It just doesn’t happen. I could throw around data all day, and in fact I have many, many (too many) times in the past with the kind of people that frequent blogs like this. You know how far that progresses the debate? Absolutely nowhere at all. Never has and it never will, especially since you can find anything on the Internet to support any argument. Not to mention, once again, that the most powerful industry on the planet has been actively funding a misinformation campaign on this for decades, flooding the marketplace of ideas with pure, uncut propaganda that gets gobbled up by certain people with certain political and corporate allegiances. Read ‘Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming’ and ‘Merchants of Doubt’. It’s all in there.
The fact of the matter is, in order to properly discuss something as complex as climate, you have to have a comprehensive background in physics, ecology, biology, meteorology, geology and so on. Just as in order to speak with any kind of authority on capitalization and depreciation, you have to have years of experience in accounting.
I’ve found, in the last decade of debating this with individuals such as yourself, that deferring to expertise is by far the most effective argument to make because it appeals to basic common sense. We may not all have degrees in climatology but we do all have brains that are capable of simple logic tests such as the one I outlined in my last sarcastic comment above.
“The fact of the matter is, in order to properly discuss something as complex as climate, you have to have a comprehensive background in physics, ecology, biology, meteorology, geology and so on”
So, as an accountant… for which syndicate… ?
.. you should probably refrain for comment, I think can all agree on that.
Unless of course you want to continue to rant your brain-washed ignorance.
As soon as you start citing “Meer-chants of doubt”, you are certainly on very shaky PROPAGANDA ground, backed with zero science or understanding of the how the atmosphere operates.
Sorry dud, but the science and the raw data is very much against you.
“could throw around data all day”
Like a child throws their breakfast, hey.
Well.. where is this “data” ?
Like most climate drones.. data doesn’t matter,
… just “feeling” and “believing”
The funding in the climate debate is something like 1000:1 to the paid propaganda alarmists.
Are you one of those?
Which trough do you swill from ?
Here’s my argument on the data: I could repeat everything that Neil Degrasse Tyson says in the reboot of Cosmos or I could just let you all enjoy it yourselves. There is NO WAY you could deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of this after watching that program. No way at all.
More common sense here as well: http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg
Oh dear, you cite a video by a comedian..
The 97% consensus is one of the biggest FRAUDS after the #1 FRAUD of CO2 forced Global Warming / Climate Change (because warming stopped)/ Climate disruption (because the climate isn’t changing much)
If that is all you have to present, you have NOTHING !!!
“(because the climate isn’t changing much)”
Actually our climate is warming 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial period 20,000 years ago.
This is total nonsense. The globe has not warmed by any statistical significance in almost 20 years…this according to at least 3 independent datasets. Of course there are catastrophists out there who absolutely have to have calamity in their future and so they will seize, as David does, any twisted data manipulation or conjured hockey stick chart out there as (bogus) evidence. Do read “A Disgrace to the Profession”, by Mark Steyn. Climate scientists pushing the global warming scenario are a disgrace to science.
“The globe has not warmed by any statistical significance in almost 20 years.”
Rubbish. The surface — where we live and die — has warmed by about 0.2 C.
And the ocean — which is by far the best place to look for a global energy imbalance like that caused by GHGs — has gained enormous amounts of heat. In fact, that heat gain is accelerating upward.
I know you only want to look at a subset of all the data, but that’s simply not scientific.
David means the climate in the computer models.
David, you’re right about the virtual climate! It’s very hard to get conservation of energy right in a climate model, and very easy to make it drift into one direction! And as far as I know to this day they never had computer scientists audit their code, which is rumored to be a huge mess of FORTRAN which is so dependent on rounding errors ONE climate model source code produces different results when moved from one supercomputer architecture to the other. Bit noise of the LSBs of floating point numbers. In an iterative simulation that means fun and games for the whole family! Very easy to botch it just the right way to give the UNFCCC it’s raison d’être and keep the billions rolling.
“David means the climate in the computer models.”
No, I mean the observations.
And which planet is it that you might be observing?
“And as far as I know to this day they never had computer scientists audit their code….”
“Assessing climate model software quality: a defect density analysis of three models,” J. Pipitone and S. Easterbrook, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 5, 347–382, 2012
From the Abstract:
“We found that the climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects.”
“…a huge mess of FORTRAN which is so dependent on rounding errors”
Scientists and modelers are well aware of rounding errors and precision needs. My friends and I were all well aware of them in graduate school, doing our different physical calculations. They aren’t exactly rocket science.
“ONE climate model source code produces different results when moved from one supercomputer architecture to the other.”
“The last 20 or so years there has been NO WARMING.”
Completely wrong. The surface and the ocean’s surface and the ocean’s body have all clearly warmed in 20 years. That data is clear.
You prefer to ignore that data, and pretend the lower troposphere is the entire planet. It isn’t.
Nor are 20 years sufficient to make conclusions about climate change. It’s just all you have.
Sorry David, but we’ve got millions of years of temperature reconstructions, with the past tens of thousands with pretty good resolution. Watch Dilley’s video (which has had thousands of views in the past few days): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4hbKF5-qUE
Different results on different architectures
“My friends and I were all well aware of them in graduate school, doing our different physical calculations. They aren’t exactly rocket science.”
Yet you defend climate models. Meaning that you do not grasp the effect of state amplification in discrete simulations of chaotic systems (which necessarily amplify state LSBs as they could not be chaotic otherwise).
So. Here’s the homework you haven’t done in decades. Understand chaos theory.
David Appell 19. August 2015 at 2:40 AM | Permalink
“From the Abstract:
“We found that the climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects.””
I fall off my chair. Climate models have less bugs than the average heap of safety-uncritical entertainment package thrown together by a bunch of anonymous unpaid coders. Are ye serious.
“Understand chaos theory.”
All climate scientists are aware of chaos theory — see their work on abrupt climate change, including two reports in 10 years from the National Academy of Sciences. It’s an active area of research.
Perturbing the climate system as we are INCREASES the chances of abrupt change. That’s even more of a reason to take climate change seriously and prevent it.
The climate seems overall to respond to climate forcings — look at the regularity of the last 800,000 years of ice ages. Look at the climate from the Industrial Revolution to now. Look at the PETM. All show a definite physical response to physical forcings, and that climate models capture.
Saying “chaos!” doesn’t exclude any of that.
David Appell 19. August 2015 at 5:28 PM | Permalink
“All climate scientists are aware of chaos theory — see their work on abrupt climate change, including two reports in 10 years from the National Academy of Sciences. It’s an active area of research.”
How can they hold that their models have any skill beyond 10 days if they understand chaos theory AND hold that the sun’s influence is constant.
If they still research it, why have we heard for a decade that the debate is over and that there’s a consensus?
Maybe 90% of them DON’T understand chaos theory and the ENSEMBLE of climate scientists therefore averages out to the opinion that it doesn’t matter.
That doesn’t make it one bit more correct. Science is not a democracy.
“David, why is the troposphere not heating?”
I just wrote a few long comments about that.
Did you miss them? Go back and look again.
“How can they hold that their models have any skill beyond 10 days….”
Did you read Chapter 9 of the IPCC 5AR, on climate model evaluation? (It’s the longest chapter in the WG1 report.)
No, of course you haven’t.
P Gosselin wrote:
“And which planet is it that you might be observing?”
Clearly you do not keep up with the data you don’t like. Let me help.
Cowtan & Way
ocean heat content http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
David, since you have been alive, the only change has been a fraction of a degree, totally un-noticeable (like sea level rise). Most of that was at the end of last century because of the series of strong solar peaks, and the real rate was probably around half of the minimal warming indicated even in fudged series like HadCrut.
The last 20 or so years there has been NO WARMING.
Your comment that we are warming 30 times faster is a complete and utter nonsense, just like most of the other crap you come up with.
David Appell 19. August 2015 at 2:45 AM | Permalink
“You prefer to ignore that data, and pretend the lower troposphere is the entire planet. It isn’t.”
David, do I understand you right that the theory of Global Warming is falsified, because that theory states that the troposphere should heat up FASTER than the surface, while you state that the opposite has happened.
So we agree on one point, that the theory of Global Warming is falsified.
Now get over your huge cognitive dissonance and start to analyze the fraud that is thermometer homogenization will ya.
Of course it isn’t falsified. There is too much supporting evidence — it’s a fact that CO2 causes planets to warm.
The lower troposphere may be somewhat of a mystery — 20 years includes a lot of natural variability, so it can’t be used to make conclusions about climate change — but the observational data must be questioned as well. Satellites don’t even measure temperature; they use complicated models to convert microwave readings into temperatures, and that analysis is tricky, requiring a host of adjustments due to decaying satellite orbits, instrument calibration, etc.
As a sign of how tricky it is, UAH’s transition to version 6 beta had HUGE changes to its results — changes far bigger than the changes to surface temperatures in Karl et al just recently published. Some regional monthly temperatures changed by as much as 1.4 C. Some global numbers changed by as almost 0.3 C:
But “skeptics” completely overlooked these much larger changes, complaining about Karl et al but accepting without question the larger changes from UAH. That’s not how science is done.
And UAH’s new model hasn’t even been peer reviewed or published yet, just announced on a blog post. That’s not how science is done, but Roy Spencer is an activist.
BTW, reanalysis does show a warming lower troposphere; see the bottom graph in the first figure here:
This has happened before — climate scientists like Ben Santer kept saying, in the 1990s, that the UAH model wasn’t correctly measuring the lower troposphere. UAH fought tooth and nail, until it was found they made a sign error. The revised numbers showed warming, not cooling.
So of all the data — surface, ocean, satellite — I think the satellite results are the most questionable.
Don’t look at that man behind the curtain!
David, why is the troposphere not heating? If that doesn’t happen, the energy exchange model of the climate models is wrong and we can and MUST ignore their projections. It would be INSANE to listen to them UNTIL they have cleared up this CRUCIAL mistake.
I mean at a certain point even your brain has to recognize that.
“it’s a fact that CO2 causes planets to warm. ”
NO IT IS NOT !!
Re: Song-You Hong, Myung-Seo Koo, Jihyeon Jang, Jung-Eun Esther Kim, Hoon Park, Min-Su Joh, Ji-Hoon Kang, and Tae-Jin Oh, 2013: An Evaluation of the Software System Dependency of a Global Atmospheric Model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 4165–4172. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00352.1
What is surprising about getting different results from computer systems that handle rounding differently, have different libraries and differnt compilers?
Any programmer needs to be aware of the characteristics of the machine she’s programming for. This is one reason why most summary model results you see, like the IPCC’s, are from an ensemble.
I see you are embarking on another comment marathon. Why don’t you vent at your own blog? Please don’t abuse the commenting privilege here by using this site as a platform to host the David Appell Climate End of World Show.
“I see you are embarking on another comment marathon.”
I comment as I see fit — less than many of the other commenters here who you have no problem with. I link to my own blog because I’ve throught through many of these issues and have presented relevant evidence there.
Clearly, you only don’t like my comments because I disagree with you.
David Appell 19. August 2015 at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Any programmer needs to be aware of the characteristics of the machine she’s programming for. This is one reason why most summary model results you see, like the IPCC’s, are from an ensemble.”
Ah thanks for mentioning THAT. It is an entirely LUDICROUS idea to think that one gets a benefit from averaging 23 samples from a state space that far exceeds the numbers of particles in the universe.
Whoever got THAT idea must have been the perfect moron. Even IF they had ONE model that were actually correct, they piss in the soup bowl with the 22 junkyard models! GENIUSES, I TELL YA, GENIUSES!
Do not TRY to fail – ENSURE IT!!!! Now that’s value for money.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
BTW, state spaces are often infinite. See: Hilbert space.
I tried posting two very well mannered comments a couple hours ago, saw them “under moderation” and when I just came back to check and see if there were any responses, I found that they had been blocked. I spent a fairy significant amount of time putting together my argument for those. How dare you.
Point proven: this is not a place where the truth is sought. This is a place for putting forward a very specific agenda that isn’t allowed to be challenged. How do you sleep well at night knowing that you’re part of the cover up?
Poor little cry-baby…
someone please get him a new nappy…
..his **** is leaking onto his keyboard.
Stick around and actually argue the data and science… if you dare. !!
So far you have NOTHING !!!
Isn’t it interesting how the cooling is always supposedly just around the corner….. Meanwhile, we’re having another record warm year. People just don’t learn.
Warming was supposedly just around the corner, and we aint seen that in over 18 years. In fact not a single child under the age of 18 has ever seen warming.
“Warming was supposedly just around the corner, and we aint seen that in over 18 years.”
But by now I’ve learned you aren’t interested in actual data.
Not interested in climate catastrophe fantasies from runaway imaginations.
The actual real data says no warming for 18+ years,
and no CO2 forced warming for the whole satellite record.
So again, your claims are totally BASELESS, like your very existence.
We are NOT having another record warm year except in the massively adjusted and manipulated NOAA/GISS data … reality is far different.
You are pushing your LYING PROPAGANDA yet again.
And no, you don’t learn, because you are incapable of it.
This is how they MANUFACTURE warming.. FAKE DATA. !!
But you keep your little science fiction LIES going, DA,
Its your life and your soul. Empty.
Do we really need to review all the many, many errors Tony Heller has made in the past — ones he’s admitted to?
“Steven Goddard Published an article titled “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered” in The Register. Goddard claimed that the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on August 25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that “… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.””
retraction: at the bottom of the page
You are making a big mistake if you think anything “Steve Goddard” is doing is science.
So, David, if a person makes a mistake we should ignore that person? THAT’S GREAT ! Because you’ve just said that we can safely ignore ALL THE IPCC’S CLIMATE MODELERS.
Thanks. We agree AGAIN.
That’s hardly Heller’s only mistake. He’s full of them. I can’t imagine anyone taking him the least bit seriously (unless that was all the “evidence” you have).
You have not disputed my point that we can now safely ignore the climate modelers so I take it you tacitly agree even though you can’t admit it as that would bring you in trouble with your handlers. Well, David, I’ll call it a day and au revoir until the next time you have to fulfill your quota.
Now find a retraction of an error by an CAGW advocate. As if that will ever happen. !
Nothing to do with CAGW is science, it is all just propaganda lies and BS !
SG was scientific,.. he admitted his error.
That is called REALITY.
The fact that you have to use desmog tells everyone anything they need to know about you.
You are a low-end propaganda monkey.
Nothing more, nothing less.
“ones he’s admitted to”
This is called honesty….
…something David Appell has never heard of.
“Its your life and your soul. Empty.”
Why is it you can’t comment on science without personal insults?
It makes you look insecure of your position.
Unless you stop, I’m not responding to any more of your comments.
Also, you should work on your spelling.
Poor DA, cry me a river, child-mind.
Your very presence is an insult to people’s intelligence.
You have never produced anything by low-end propaganda BS. Its all you have in your life.
Science… not ever.
I love it when you say you will stop responding…
…it gives me open slather. 🙂
“Unless you stop, I’m not responding to any more of your comments”
ROFLMAO !!! Bring it on. 🙂
“It makes you look insecure of your position.”
From someone who cite DeSnog and worthless comments from his own propaganda slime site, that is truly funny ! 🙂
the “science” you refer to is shit david. it is not worthy of comment. todays climate scientists will be well studied examples of group think, herd mentality and scientific malfeasance in years to come.
the only good thing to come from this episode in time is it is likely to increase the scrutiny of science in general in the future.
as for your concensus crap , how many scientists were convinced of the cause of stomach ulcers not so long ago.
Ben Jensen: When do you sleep? You’re seriously posting here at 3 AM, providing links to some dipstick, YouTube comedian talking about the hypothetical effects of AGW…and then you refer to the oft-repeated “97% of scientists” fallacy. [There are now over 31,000 American scientists – including over 9,000 Ph.Ds. – that have signed the Oregon Global Warming Petition that states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”]
Andy and Gary are spot-on about bogus arguments on the causes of global warming/climate change/climate disruption. “To Sum it up = It Ain’t CO2!” (that’s the culprit.)
You might want to do a little research on the ability of water vapor vs. carbon dioxide (only about .038 percent of the atmosphere) to hold heat near the surface of our planet. If you do, you’ll discover that water vapor is more than an order of magnitude (that’s 10 times for accountants) more efficient at this process.
As a chemistry major, a minor in physics, and 35 years in environmental regulation, I have appreciated all of the technically-informed comments here; but you, Ben, need to just “troll on” back over to the “echo chamber” at HuffPo…where no one will challenge you when you emphasize your ignorance with certainty.
>> “You might want to do a little research on the ability of water vapor vs. carbon dioxide (only about .038 percent of the atmosphere) to hold heat near the surface of our planet. If you do, you’ll discover that water vapor is more than an order of magnitude (that’s 10 times for accountants) more efficient at this process.”
Scientists know this (although the situation isn’t as simple as you portray it).
However, the amount of water vapor in the air doesn’t change UNLESS the temperature changes first. (This is a fundamental result from thermodynaics, called the Clausius-Claperyon equation.) Thus water vapor is “a feedback, not a forcing.” Manmade CO2 first changes the temperature, water vapor increases in concentration, and even more warming results. Water vapor is a positive feedback.
So David why does the water vapor feedback not lead to a local runaway, turning say Singapore into Venus? You MIGHT remember that temperatures and humidity vary greatly locally. If you’ve been outside some day in your life.
And, if that runaway doesn’t happen, what does that tell us about the climate models that have it hardcoded into them?
And what does this tell us about all predictions by the IPCC and the UNFCCC?
Because Earth isn’t close enough to the Sun. I recommend you read the work of Jim Kasting of Penn State, who did this calculation first and has been applying it to exoplanets.
David Appell 19. August 2015 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Because Earth isn’t close enough to the Sun.”
So you just said that water vapor runaway feedback can’t happen because we are too far from the sun.
Now, of course you will also claim that rising CO2 will make it happen nevertheless – because you must claim that to save your theory of Global Warming.
So – at which point will we see the first local water vapor runaway feedback IN SINGAPORE that does NOT insantly develop into a tropical thunderstorm (and it will NOT develop into a boring old thunderstorm because, well, GLobal Warming models DO NOT MODEL THUNDERSTORMS!!!!).
I know, youre just a troll, I’m not trying to break through your obtuseness. I write this for sane listeners.
“And, if that runaway doesn’t happen, what does that tell us about the climate models that have it hardcoded into them?”
Prove that is hardcoded into them? I’m am sure you cannot, but will wait to see what you produce.
David Appell 19. August 2015 at 10:33 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Prove that is hardcoded into them? I’m am sure you cannot, but will wait to see what you produce.”
Oh thanks, I don’t spend time analysing junk code – I junk it.
BTW David wasn’t it you who gave us a simple linear equation that says warming is proportional to CO2 concentrations and claimed that that is what climate models boil down to.
Pressure – The atmospheric pressure on Venus is around 90X earth G. Venus has the same side of the planet facing the sun all the time; no axial rotation.
Oregon Petition: 31,487, 9029 PhDs. It appears they’re still counting – I haven’t signed; it might be worthwhile to do a last-minute push prior to the Paris political climate farce.
Wait, I just realized that the comment post times on this site are not CDT in the US, but are some time zone in Europe. Sorry.
Meanwhile in the real world..
Soros buys heavily into COAL !!!
Force the price down…. buy up big…. wait for the surge.
FOLLOW THE MONEY !!!
The narrator of this video by David Dilley says in the very beginning his company (just him?) can provide predictions of major earthquakes “4 years in advance.”
I’d really like to see THAT evidence.
How come no one here has expressed skepticism about that?
July was the hottest month on record.
you folks are holding your charts upside down!
According to a dubious dataset.
have you been in Germany during July? it definitely felt like being in such a red spot.
we are also seeing a strong el nino event.
These are facts, not “dubiuous data”.
I seriously wonder, what “sceptics” will do, when the UAH set “pause” gets erased by a strong el nino event.
It would be a bit “tricky” to just decalre it “dubious” as well…
UAH year to date as of July, global is currently 6th warmest in the very short period of satellite data, and nowhere near 1998 (0.191C for 2015 vs 0.563C for 1998)
(download the data and figure it out for yourself if you have the ability (lol…. as if :-))
And of course nowhere near the temperatures of the first 3/4 or so f the Holocene.
So far, the supposed El Nino hasn’t caused even the smallest spike. Even if it does, it will be a small sharp spike with increased rate of cooling thereafter, just like the 2010 El Nino.
I suspect that you don’t have the intelligence to realise why. !! Maybe get out from behind your coal powered and oil made computer sometime during the day, and look up into the sky for a hint, s.o.b.
nope, no strong el nino event. by spring next year it will be an el nada as the pacific continues to cool along with the atlantic. you wanna bet some money on that, you have the climate science world on your side and i only have my opinion.
July was NOT the hottest month on record by a long shot.
… except maybe in the massively fabricated NOAA data.
(I don’t even bother looking at it , it is so obviously a total hack)
There has been ZERO warming for over 18 years,
and there is ZERO evidence of ANY CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite record.
The whole CO2 warming LIE is totally disproved by 36 years of temperature evidence.
“and there is ZERO evidence of ANY CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite record.”
We are living on the surface of this planet. and not at the upper end of the lower troposphere.
please look at the real data or even at a thermometer once in a while.
and so was august:
Please do not ignore reality!
[…] than normal. But from a global point of view, it seems to have been very warm. Absolutely: “We Are Now Starting To See A Dramatic Cooling In The Arctic”, Says Former NOAA Meteorol… Author of the bestselling book "The oceans will boil" Reply With Quote […]
[…] Alternando il riscaldamento globale e il raffreddamento dei cicli storicamente verificati, si è concluso che sono come un orologio e che accadono ogni 220/230 anni, con quasi 4000 cicli che si sono verificati nel corso dell’ultimo milione e mezzo di anni. L’ultimo ciclo di raffreddamento globale è iniziato intorno al 1795, o circa 220 anni fa. Se i cicli sono come un orologio, più volte confermati nel corso della storia, il prossimo ciclo di raffreddamento è già iniziato in Artico e in Antartico, come mostrato nel mio video, “il cambiamento climatico pericoloso?“ […]
I am just a nobody, with no really valid opinion on the science, except this:
Based on my conversations with my son’s godfather, an astrophysicist, the test of any scientific theory is if it makes valid predictions which are supported by raw data. In the past 20 years, the sea level has risen .1 inch per year, on average… well below the predictions. The winters have not disappeared, as we were told they would. The “hockey stick” leveled off, as we were told it would not.
One major change that DID take place was that “global warming” was renamed “climate change”.
One year is not climate. Ten or twenty is not climate. And, as best I can see, most reputable climatologists agree that we do not fully understand all of the extant variables.
I will shut up, now. Flame at will.
“One major change that DID take place was that “global warming” was renamed “climate change”.”
This happened, because of people pointing at a single colder point on a completely red map, shouting “see, there is no global warming, because that one point is abnormally cool!”
July was hot on the surface of this planet. There is no discussion on that point and your local swimming pool management will be able to confirm this without any adjustment of the data!
Believe you did not totally comprehend my video. NOAA etc totally left out the Arctic and Antarctic when referring to warmest year on record. Both areas within 30 degrees of the poles were colder than normal. Yes the oceans are warm, but satellite data has only gone back to the mid 1880s, thus they can and should not include ocean data for only a 30 year period and call it the warmest on record… What Record! very poor scicence
As a layperson and very much so, I have to ponder the following in trying to sort out climate matters (1) despite what I read here solar cycles, ice ages etc. are considered by the IPCC (2) contrary to what David Tilley and others write , the globe has warmed significantly in the last 20 years ; the situation is that less of the heat is going into the surface and more into the oceans – such global warming for that period is very clearly shown by the continued and faster rise in sea level that occurred (3) David Tilley has published nothing in the science journals despite his long research career.