Aturan Permainan DominoQQ utk Pemula

Aturan Permainan DominoQQ buat Pemula! Domino QQ, pun dikenal yang merupakan Qiu Qiu atau Domino Indo yaitu wujud poker yg amat sangat terkenal di Indonesia. Ini terkait dgn pai gow, yg yakni permainan judi domino Asia.
Kadang-kadang, ini mampu sedikit membingungkan utk mendalami permainan dominoQQ ini tapi demikian kamu melakukannya, itu menyenangkan & menciptakan ketagihan! Aturan buat game ini tercantum di bawah ini maka kamu sanggup membacanya & meraih pemahaman yg lebih baik menyangkut bagaimanakah gameplay terjadi & bagaimanakah total game bekerja.
wujud perjudian ini berikan kamu peluang buat menempatkan duit kamu kepada hasil permainan dominoqq yg dapat datang. Taruhan cuma mampu ditempatkan kepada hasil total dari kejuaraan, atau terhadap beraneka situasi yg berlangsung selagi turnamen. Biasakan beraneka ragam type taruhan sebelum kamu menyimpan duit kamu di telepon.
Aturan DominoQQ
juga sebagai permulaan, game ini dimainkan bersama 28 domino double-enam. tak seperti AS, domino di Indonesia kebanyakan card mungil yg dibuang sesudah sekian banyak dikala lantaran menunjukkan tanda-tanda aus & bermain.
kepada kebanyakan, seluruhnya pemain mesti memasukkan taruhan dgn jumlah tertentu ke dalam pot yg disediakan. Jumlah ini bakal bervariasi tergantung di mana kamu main-main & itu mampu jadi taruhan rendah atau tinggi. sesudah seluruhnya orang memasang taruhan mereka, tiap-tiap pemain diberikan 3 card domino.
sesudah seluruhnya pemain telah menonton domino mereka sendiri, mereka sanggup laksanakan 1 elemen dari 4 pilihan. kalau tak ada yg lebih baik pada awal mulanya mereka sanggup bertaruh namun apabila ada yg pada awal mulanya lebih baik sehingga mereka mampu menelepon, menaikkan, atau melipat.
tatkala putaran perdana, jikalau cuma satu orang bertaruh sehingga mereka membawa pot kemenangan tidak dengan mesti menunjukkan tangan mereka. kalau ada lebih dari satu orang, sehingga tiap-tiap orang yg tak melipat dapat dikasih card ke-4.
sesudah card dibagikan, babak final taruhan berjalan. sebahagian akbar disaat, ke-2 putaran mempunyai batas taruhan & babak ke-2 kebanyakan mempunyai batas yg lebih tinggi. Di akhir babak final ini, seluruh pemain yg tak mundur mesti menunjukkan tangan mereka. Orang bersama tangan teratas atau paling baik membawa pot kemenangan.
bagaimanakah Aturan basic dalam Permainan dominoqq?
card dimasukkan berpasangan & pips ditambahkan bersamaan & cuma digit ke-2 yg diambil. yang merupakan sample, keseluruhan pip 23 jadi 3 & keseluruhan pip 17 jadi 7. bersama begitu, pasangan paling tinggi merupakan 9, yg memberikan nama Qiu Qiu. Ada 3 tangan yg dapat berikan kamu score lebih tinggi dari sepasang angka 9. Yaitu:
• Tinggi – keseluruhan pip kepada 4 card domino sama bersama 38 atau lebih tinggi
• Rendah – keseluruhan pip kepada 4 domino sama bersama 9 atau di bawah
• Double-4 domino bersama ganda
Satu tangan lain yg di atas tangan non-khusus tapi di bawah ganda 9 yakni lurus. Di sinilah seluruhnya 4 domino mempunyai pips berturut-turut. Kita contohnya seperti ini, apabila pips sama dgn 4, 5, 6, 7. Tangan special yang lain yakni dikala kamu mempunyai 3 ganda & itu dinamakan sbg anak-anak & ke-4 sendirian.
apabila 2 pemain hasilnya mempunyai straight atau double, sehingga orang bersama double doubl menang. bila keduanya mempunyai straight tapi tak double, sehingga orang bersama straight straight dapat menang.
sekarang ini sesudah kamu tahu aturannya, kamu bakal mampu memainkan game ini dalam ketika singkat! Seperti halnya permainan apa serta, mungkin saja butuh sedikit latihan namun enteng utk menguasai & gampang buat dimainkan. kamu bisa menunjukkan pada sahabat kamu version dominoQQ baru & menunjukkan terhadap mereka trik bermain!

119 responses to “Aturan Permainan DominoQQ utk Pemula”

  1. DirkH

    Very good representation of the trends, Matti, thank you!

    I don’ t think we will see a repeat of the 1945-1977 cooling phase. The reason i don’t believe this is the behavior of the sun. I think we will see an end to the long-term warming trend and a return to LIA conditions. Increased CO2 levels might alleviate the effects to a tiny degree (i don’t dispute its LWIR properties), but we will have bigger problems than measuring by how much; its influence will drown in the influence of the sun. (Which will work through the Svensmark mechanism, greatly increasing cloudiness and thus albedo)

    All speculation but my current best guess. I do not want to frighten anyone; our technology will help us survive through this. The misguided energy policy of the EU is collapsing right now, and will be reformed. As i posted yesterday, the feed-in tariffs are being reduced across most European nations right now; the Solar industry directs its hopes towards India and SE Asia.

    1. Bernd Felsche

      I wouldn’t be so sure that everybody’s prepared for cooling. In this Focus article there’s a prediction of severe disruptions to the electricity grid due to the expansion of “renewable energy”, something of which many with an inkling of how a supply grid works, have been warning for a decade.

      But the same article fails to mention all those cuddly coal-fired power stations coming online over the next year or so … about 10GW. Not that coal-fired power generation is typically able to respond quickly enough to the holes and mountains that “renewable” generators put onto the grid with little or no warning. But at least the baseloadwon’t need to be filled with so much gas.

      1. DirkH

        Found a list of new coal power plants in Germany, under construction, in planning or “planning stopped” (probably thwarted by the Greens)

        Doesn’t look that bad. With regard to the destabilizing influence of renewables: new installations have to adhere to the Mittelspannungsrichtlinie or Medium Voltage Guideline and have to stop feeding in when the grid frequency becomes too high AFAIK so that’s not a danger. They will be paid for what they *could* have delivered, though, so it’s an economic loss. But probably cheaper than the Euro crisis. 😉

    2. Nonoy Oplas

      China investing big in solar and wind energy development is a win-win move. It can reduce howls against its many new coal power plants being commissioned monthly, while it also earns more forex revenues exporting renewable energy like solar panels and wind turbines and blades.

      On another note, cooling in Asia continues. The big and wide Han river in Seoul, for instance, has already frozen. I gathered a new collection here,

  2. DirkH

    These people still bet on the wrong horse:
    “Abu Dhabi’s bid to be a pioneer of clean energy”
    Video; interview with several solar salesmen on a trade fair – “We need incentives”. Nice incoherent sales pitches.

  3. Don B

    In 2005 solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladivir Bashkirtsev bet $10,000 with climate modeler James Annan that global temperatures would be cooler in 2012-2017 compared to 1998-2003.

    Note that cosmic rays at the recent solar minimum have been the highest – solar activity the lowest – since the Oulu record began. My betting is that the Russians correctly anticipated the weaker sun. choice&picture=on

    Oh, by the way, nice article.

  4. Dana

    Good compilation of every myth which tricks people into thinking the planet is going to cool. Throw in some non-climate scientist opinions and claim that all climate scientists are biased. It’s a one-stop shop!

    1. DirkH

      You’re the first to call the PDO a myth. Congrats.

      1. Dana

        I did no such thing. But PDO doesn’t have much impact on global temperatures. And besides which, it’s cyclical, meaning even any short-term cooling effect it has will just be reversed in the next positive cycle.

        1950-2000 saw one positive and one negative PDO cycle. During that period, the planet warmed more than half a degree Celsius. Even in the mid-20th Century during the negative PDO, with accelerating human aerosol emissions on top of it, the cooling effect barely overcame the GHG warming. And our GHG emissions are much larger than they were 60 years ago.

        Sorry, PDO is a red herring. It exists, it’s just not going to cause significant coooling.

        1. Jack Bailey

          Dana…..I don’t know who you are, but you are misled…..greatly….not a shred of science do you understand……another libtard I suppose……trying to make a point where none is to be made.

  5. Ed Caryl

    After the recent items about temperature measurements on TheAirVent and WUWT, along with the UHI discoveries, and the work, I’m beginning to doubt ANY 20th century warming. This article reinforces that judgement.

    1. Dana

      Funny, because the satellites show a 0.16°C per decade warming trend. But it’s probably UHI from the alien cities in orbit around the Earth.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      “I’m beginning to doubt ANY 20th century warming.”

      Ed, I would have to say again, when you make statements like this you place yourself well outside the realm of skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer. UHI is just not a viable concept, as Dana points out, shown merely by comparing ground based data sets to satellite data sets. If these two agree (as they do) then UHI absolutely can not be a factor.

      1. Ed Caryl

        Did you and Dana read the Providence article below?


    DIRK H

    You said “I don’ t think we will see a repeat of the 1945-1977 cooling phase.”
    I tend to agree with you that the global temperature anomaly trough will not go as low [ say not below -0.3 C] Maybe a trough closer to say 0. 0.0 C anomaly. I don’t think we will go to sustained global temperature anomalies that existed before the Pacific Climate shift of 1976. My feel is that we will see temperature anomalies that perhaps existed in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. There were some wild years in 1978 and 1979 .In individual months and years and particularly regionally we could see lower temperatures like we have seen during the last two winters. Is the cooling period going to last as long as the 1945-1976 period. ? There are short periods of cooling and longer periods . Personally I think this will be the longer type . Things are changing rapidly as El Nino’s and La Ninas do not behave exactly as in the past . Sudden blocking highs appear out of no where.
    Things are bound to change even more during the next several decades . We could also have a major volcanic eruption any time? The exact impact of the low solar activity is not certain.

    1. DirkH

      There is a lot of volcanic activity in Kamtchatka ATM; and i just found a report that comes from Der Spiegel. Africa is breaking apart in Ethiopia; strong activity since November. A chasm seems to be opening. Researchers say the formation process of new ocean floor is happening on land now, and fresh magma from below presses the land apart.

    2. DirkH

      Oh, and you misunderstood me.
      “You said “I don’ t think we will see a repeat of the 1945-1977 cooling phase.”
      I tend to agree with you that the global temperature anomaly trough will not go as low [ say not below -0.3 C] ”

      I have the opinion that it will go LOWER than the 1945-1977, much lower. It will take decades, though. The reason is the quiet sun. 1945-1977 had the highly active sun of the 20th century. We don’t have that anymore. It’s the big game changer.

      The warmists always talk about “warming in the pipeline” and “missing heat that will come back to haunt us”; meaning latency of the climate system. This knife cuts both ways.

      The silent sun is only a few years old now; and the ocean is our heat storage. If the sun doesn’t re-awaken to its highly active state, we will see cooling for a long time from now.

      1. DirkH

        And as nice as a CO2 blanket is, it won’t help us much. Its effects have been vastly overblown by Gore, Hansen Maybe half a degree C or whatever, barely measurable and completely irrelevant.

        1. Bernd Felsche

          IIRC, the atmosphere has enough heat in it to keep us warm for just 60 hours. Turn off the sun (as athought experiment) and the atmosphere above the surface will be too cold to breathe within 60 hours.

          OTOH, the oceans will remain warm for much longer, having a layer of insulating ice on top.

          1. DirkH

            I thought about “warming in the pipeline” after Dana pointed me to his “scepticalscience” writeup. Now, i thought, he can’t mean Trenberth’s “missing heat”, because it’s not there. I thought – they probably mean that higher CO2 concentrations reduce the capacity of the Earth to cool off due to the LWIR re-radiation.

            But there is simple proof that this is not the case to any significant amount. It is the speed with which the last La Nina cooled the planet down. It is in no way different from earlier La Ninas.

          2. Dana

            Instead of “thinking about it” (a.k.a. making incorrect assumptions about what the term means), maybe you should actually research it. A novel concept, I know.

          3. DirkH

            Dana, consider an anger management course.

        2. Rob Honeycutt

          “Maybe half a degree C or whatever, barely measurable and completely irrelevant.”

          This is a completely unsupportable statement.

          1. DirkH

            I don’t care because, frankly, it will not matter one jot whether it’s 0.5 or 0.75 if it cools like i expect.

            Rob, BTW, all that the greenhouse effect can do is redistribute the energy in the atmosphere a little, ever thought about that? It would get warmer near the surface and cooler higher up, leading to a higher temperature gradient and consequentially to stronger convection, more evaporation, more heat transport by non-radiative means.

            I have a prediction. Until the year 2100, we will see at least 400 revisions to the climate models, each time resulting in a different temperature projection. And in the year 2100, they will finally be able to perfectly predict the temperature in the year 2100.

        3. Cayl

          Could not agree more!! The affect of CO2 on climate has been “politically” overblown. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that increased CO2 levels today has minimal effects on temperature. Contrary to popular belief CO2 IS NOT A GOOD GREENHOUSE GAS when compared to methane, say, and is only significant if atmospeheric compositions become similar to Venus!

          Global cooling is occurring and will become more extensive. What “we” as the humane race MUST to do is prepare for the real possiblility of a much cooler world in the coming decades.

  7. DirkH

    Der Spiegel about Ethiopia’s volcanic activity in English:,1518,740641,00.html

  8. richcar 1225

    I have been very impressed with the Altai glacier ice core study that compared solar proxies and global temps 750 years in the past. They found a 20 year lag between solar and temps. If you consider that solar peaked between 1980 and 1990 and then began to decline you would expect the decline to begin in 2010.
    This is exactly what is happening. Since we have already experienced twenty years of declining solar activity then we can expect at least twenty more years of decline. While the study claimed that only 50% of the warming at the ice core site could be explained by solar in recent times it turns out that the temp at the site is twice the global average.

  9. Mervyn Sullivan

    If there is one thing that demonstrates why the IPCC’s mantra (i.e. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming) is in limbo, it is the recent attempt by warmist pseudo-scientists to attribute the freezing winter weather in the northern hemisphere, and the floods in the southern hemisphere, to global warming. Basically, with such rationale, they are telling us that any weather event, hot or cold, droughts or floods, or whatever… it’s all due to man-made global warming. Honestly, how stupid are these people?

    But really, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, as far as these warmist pseudo-scientists are concerned, ‘the science is settled’. But for the rest of the genuine scientific community, the quest continues for more scientific knowledge to better understand the complexity of the numerous factors that influence changes in climate.

    1. Dana

      This winter hasn’t been freezing in the northern hemisphere. In fact it was extremely hot (relatively speaking) in the Arctic, which may very well be why it was cold in parts of Europe and North America.

      It really bugs me when people assume that their local weather represents the entire planet (or half of it).

      1. Doug

        Dana, isn’t that what the Global Warming crows had been doing for some time now?

  10. R. de Haan

    Very good article, thanks for posting this.

    “the IPCC never had a mandate to study all causes of global warming – only the man induced component”

    They never had the mandate to study anything else but the anthropogenic component of CO2 because they were not interested in anything else.

    If their is any indication we are dealing with a political doctrine here it is this fixation on CO2.

    That didn’t stop the UN IPCC to produce flimsy reports about other aspects but these had all to do with the scare aspect, the propaganda to sucker the public and massage them to accept their sick measures.

    You can bet your life on the fact that we’re going to be in for a tough ride, even if we have ice age conditions tomorrow they are planning for energy rationing and even prohibition.

    Why? because they have decided to.

    Why do I know this for sure?

    WUWT just published an article on shale gas that concludes that we have energy available for the next 250 years to power the world.

    So lack of energy is not the reason and even if we didn’t have shale gas we still wouldn’t have energy shortages but the peak oil doctrine is an integral part of the doctrine that’s roled out here.

    They simply have decided to shut down our economies and reduce the world population.

    My last doubts evaporized when I read this Interpol report:

    Organized Crime and Energy Supply to 2020

    They are planning for scenario III

    So if you ask yourself what all the camera’s on along the highways and city centers are fore you now get a hunch of what’s coming.
    They are in place to catch people illegally buying some gasoline from a criminal so they can do their shopping with their car.

    Fuel will only be available for the EU apparachiks and their corrupt handlers.

    The next step is food.

    And while we’re making polite discussions with warmists, even making nice bets, the net is closing.

    The criminals in the EU have all their measures in place and they are ready to role, Don’t expect anything from local and national politicians.
    They are obligated by the Lisbon treaty to execute the EU decrees or face fines and cuts in subsidies. Of course the EU will wait for the moment they have the consent for European taxation which will make them independent from the national members for their budgets but their mind has been made up. And if any of you will protest and start a really big demonstration they simply send in a few battalions of Chinese or South Korean military to kick our ass.

    The EU crook including Interpol officials all have total immunity so you can’t sue and from January of this year we have no longer control over our own tax money.
    Take a visit at

    You will find there a story about the European GPS project which is going to cost us an arm and a leg and the permanent fraud within the ETS (Emission Trade System) that is booked on the account of the taxpayers and consumes billions of euro’s.

    And this is all on top of the bail outs that are going to cost our necks.

    Every crises is an opportunity for the EU to make a power grab.

    There are voices of opposition, very loud and clear voices.
    But that will not stop them.

    1. DirkH

      Fascinating document, Ron, thanks. With a great Freudian slip on p. 6:
      “In which EU and other Organised Crime (OC) groups see energy as a safe long term investment, play the markets for short-term opportunities, profit from price/tax differences and voluntary changes in consumer lifestyles, and use the energy sector to progress further towards respectability.”

      “EU and other Organised Crime (OC) groups”… now that’s the most honest assessment of our Politbüro i ever found from an international police organisation!


    Dirk H

    You said
    “I have the opinion that it will go LOWER than the 1945-1977, much lower. It will take decades, though. The reason is the quiet sun. 1945-1977 had the highly active sun of the 20th century. We don’t have that anymore. It’s the big game changer. ”

    You could be right. Scientists have been unable to clearly quantify the solar impact or accurately predict the cycles.Many of the 31 authors that I referred to in a previous post say the same thing as you do. The one thing that is different currently as opposed to the pre 1976 era is the ocean heat content. It would take cosiderable time to cool the planet down to the levels that you suggest. Isolated winters and years could still be very cold . We just hit -43.8C in Ontario, Canada which has happened before but still, it is quite cold

  12. Stephen Wilde

    This is what is going on:

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”

    The process described also accounts for a solar induced skewing of the PDO and other ocean cycles in favour of net warming or net cooling and also brings in the observed changes in trend of jetstream positioning, global cloudiness and albedo changes.

    1. DirkH

      Spot on, Stephen, inactive sun == less energy into the oceans, exactly.



    Very interesting article . One of the things that puzzles me is that Solar Cycle # 19 which was the most active sun cycle [with 201 sunspot number late 1957] in the last 130 years and lasted from about 1954 to 1964. Yet there was no spike in global emperature anomalies and they were actually quite flat. A cool period was happening actually from 1944 to 1976 How come ? Is there a significant lag period here from the sun to oceans to atmosphere? Does your theory explain this?

    1. Stephen Wilde

      Yes MATTI I think it does.

      I made reference to the top down solar effect as being only half the equation. Additionally one needs to factor in a bottom up oceanic effect.

      Thus the effects of powerful solar cycles 18 and 19 were offset by the negative PDO of the time.

      It was when the positive PDO came along to supplement the solar effect that we saw the most rapid warming but even that seems not to have exceeded the warming rate during the positive PDO of the early 20th century.

      The precise timing and relative strengths of the interactions between the top down solar and bottom up oceanic effects needs still to be determined but I think I have the overall mechanisms right.

  14. Dana

    By the way, has anyone noticed the difference between Easterbrook’s and the IPCC’s projections for 2010 in Figure 2? Easterbrook predicted that we should already have seen some significant cooling, with an anomaly of around 0.3°C, whereas the IPCC is closer to 0.6°C (I wonder which IPCC projection scenario Easterbrook is plotting in this figure). So far the IPCC projections are much closer to reality.

  15. Mas

    A little long-term historical perspective 😉

    ‘There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

    The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.’

    1. Dana

      I wish people would stop referencing geocraft. It’s such a garbage site.

      The ice age mentioned came immediately after a rapid drop in atmospheric CO2. Sure it was still at 4,000 ppm (maybe – some records show it much lower), but according to the same CO2 records, it was at over 7,000 ppm before the ice age.

      Besides which, CO2 is not the only factor which impacts global temperatures. Nobody has claimed otherwise.

      1. DirkH

        Dana, don’t forget the influence of CO2 is logarithmic; so while 7000 and 4000 are big numbers, it’s less than a factor of 2 difference. So even in the topsy turvy world of warmist science, you’re splitting hairs.

        1. Dana

          Again, I’m quite aware of the logarithmic relationship. A factor of 2 change is in the ballpark of a 3°C change, with the difference between a warm period and ice age being only about 5°C.


    Dirk H

    You said
    “It is in no way different from earlier La Ninas.” referring to La Nina’s. I think this La Nina is somewhat different particularly regionally.
    If you listen closely to Joe Bastardi’s 8 minute tape noted by Pierre at the front of this track , you will find that Joe describes how this La Nina is different. US southeast is typically cold under the La Nina . The opposite is happening this time . Also the jet stream along North American west coast has changed. Under typical La Nina conditions , polar jet stream splits into two paths , one going further north to Alaska and then comes south across the Canadian western and Prairie provinces bringing all the cold air to the western provinces and the US northern central states . The other lower branch of the jet stream brings extra rain and snow across to the states of Washington and Oregon and then to the northern US states close to the Canadian border where some flooding is happening. This time most of the weather is coming straight across from the Pacific with what is called the “pineapple express” coming straight from Hawaii bringing rain to California and US northwest . Also UK typically has more normal or warmer winters since 1975 during Na Nina winters. Only 2 [namely 1985 and 1996 ] or 2 out of the 9 were cooler . Not so this time with the cold December although January is about normal so far . I agree that it does bring global temperatures down quite rapidly as the PDO went cool again.


    Correction to my last post. I said
    “US southeast is typically cold under the La Nina . ”
    I meant to say the opposite. US southeast is typically warm under a LA Nina and a cold PDO.



    You said
    “Easterbrook predicted that we should already have seen some significant cooling, with an anomaly of around 0.3°C, whereas the IPCC is closer to 0.6°C”

    I don’t know which data set Professor Easterbrook uses but the
    hadcrutgl3 Global temperature anomaly for December 2010 was 0.251C

    1. Dana

      Cherrypicking alert. The average anomaly for HadCRUT in 2010 was around 0.5°C.

      1. DirkH

        The average anomaly for 2010 was inflated by an El Nino; you don’t want an El Nino year’s average to count as representative, Dana, do you? Because if we skeptics mention 1998 you warmists will immediately jump on us, pointing out rightly that that was an El Nino year. What’s good for the goose is good for the ganter.

        1. Dana

          1998 was the strongest El Nino in a century. 2010 only had a moderately strong El Nino, followed by a moderately strong La Nina.

          But I don’t mind removing the El Nino signal, along with other short-term natural effects like volcanic eruptions and the 11-year solar cycle. If we do, 2010 is the hottest year on record, *especially* in RSS and UAH.

  19. intrepid_wanders

    23. Januar 2011 at 20:55 says:
    “So far the IPCC projections are much closer to reality.”

    Please, Dana, provide this reality…we are looking for a rate change that will accommodate >6degC by 2100 if western civilization does nothing to stop this “madness”. So far, we are looking at the rate change *if* will all drank the kool-aid and stopped all our evil emissions.

    1. Dana
  20. Edwin Adlerman

    Your evidence for cooling are some unreferenced graphs from a Heartland Institute Conference? Seriously, LOL?!!

    Since Professor Easterbrook hasn’t published anything in 6 years, when is he going to write these stunning findings up and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal?

  21. Edwin Adlerman

    Also note that part of this above referenced presentation by Prof. Easterbrook has been shown to be FRAUDLENT!:

    1. DirkH

      Thanks; i will now have less scruples to accuse warmists and wamist scientists of fraud and falsification – this rethoric seems to be SOP on warmist blogs.

      Reading your links, i scratch my head and ask, what has Easterbrook done wrong? Looks like he has taken the mean curve from that wikipedia graphic without distorting or changing it and presented it. How that is fraud i can’t tell. I guess it’s fraud because the warmists don’t like it.

      1. DirkH

        Oh, now i see where you see fraud. you accuse Easterbrook of NOT mixing the thermometer record with multi-centennial temperature reconstructions; IOW you accuse him of NOT doing a Michael Mann-like Hockey stick homunculus graph.
        (see the data source descriptions here:
        Quite a bit of post-normal logic here… You *really* don’t like science as it used to be done, right? 😉

        1. Dana

          First of all, taking somebody else’s graph, modifying it slight, and passing it off as your own is effectively plagiarism.

          Secondly, Easterbook claims the “present day temperature” is about 0.7°C colder than the actual present day temperature. Unless Easterbrook is living in the year 1900, that’s kind of stupid.

          1. DirkH

            Splicing together two different data sources with wildly different power spectra can only be described as unscientific. At least, one would have to calibrate and probably filter one of them, and justify the splicing.

            Also, “Global Warming Art” have not invented this data series; and furthermore, they probably publish it under a “Digital commons” licence which would invalidate your plagiarism claim even concerning typefaces and other decoration.

  22. R. de Haan

    Edwin Adlerman
    24. Januar 2011 at 05:04 | Permalink | Reply
    Also note that part of this above referenced presentation by Prof. Easterbrook has been shown to be FRAUDLENT!:

    Says who?

  23. Edwin Adlerman

    Huh? The links are from the same talk referenced above (look at the link). It doesn’t take a genius to see that lifting a graph from Wikipedia, falsely altering the reference line to back up one’s position, then presenting such graph as one’s own, constitutes scientific fraud!

  24. salvatore del prete

    As far as I am concerned the man made global warming theory is DEAD, because they have got the atmospheric circulation wrong. All of their models predicted the atmosphere as a result of man made global warming increasing the co2 in the stratosphere , would cause the startoshpere to cool, and cool more in the higher latitudes, which would then result in an ever increasing + Arctic Oscillation, while the reality is an ever increasing negative Arctic Oscillation has been evolving ,over the past 2 or 3 years. The exact opposite!!!

    Not to mention the upper troposhere hot spot ,over the equatorial regions of the earth, which was suppose to occur as a result of positive feedbacks from the increase in co2.


    In contrast to the global warmers, I with others, have forecasted an increasingly negative AO going forward ,due to low solar activity,and high latitude volcanic activity. I have emails to back up when I said it, and what I said. That is why I love emails ,you can’t spin your way out of something, which is what the man made global warming ,pathetic community is trying to do.



    There is nothing wrong with showing the latest global temperature anomaly [December 2010] to illustrate the latest cooling taking place which is what Professor Easterbrook.’s message was –expect cooling . All data sets show global temperature anomalies dropping in 2010. None show an anomaly currently around 0.6 C .You also cherry picked your period to make your numbers , so don’t be so quick to fault others when you are doing the same.

    1. Dana

      Matti I didn’t cherrypick anything. I estimated the annual anomaly in HadCRUT (nothing formal, I just eyeballed it). Looking at any single month, no matter which month, is by definition cherrypicking. Of course temperatures are dropping – we’re in a La Nina cycle now. What you’re suggesting is that this La Nina cycle is going to last for another 20 years. Either that, or you’re cherrypicking. Either way you’re wrong.


    Salvatore del prete

    You said
    “I with others, have forecasted an increasingly negative AO going forward ,due to low solar activity,and high latitude volcanic activity. ”

    I agree with you completely.
    I too track the winter AO [ average of DEC/JAN/FEB combined ]. The winter AO in winter of 2009/2010 was -3.442, the lowest since 1950. The 2010/2011 winter AO could be equally low . Certainly December’s was close to -4 to -5 and posibly a new low. I have found that if the winter anomaly is very low , often cooler weather extends right to spring and even later.[ possible cooler entire 2011 year also?] The year 2010 I believe was in negative AO all year [ first time since 1950?] and this probably was a warning for what would happen in the very cold December and this is what some of the forecasters may have missed. The article above pointed out the significant presence of the negative AO in past cool periods when I said,

    “An analysis winter temperatures for Central England’s last cold period of 1962 -1987 shows that 20 of 26 years were below the winter normal of about 4.8°C. Of these 20 years, negative winter AOs were present 90% of the time [18 years]”

  27. salvatore del prete

    Matti, but what gets me, is despite the fact, they are dead wrong on the atmospheric circulation, they are now trying to spin and spin things ,to try justify what we have now,is STILL due to man made global warming ,when infact what we have now, is the EXACT OPPOSITE , of what global man made warming crowd was predicting.

    They are the biggest BS artist, I have ever come across.

  28. salvatore del prete

    One last observation is, I believe the causes for climate change, are the phasing in of the natural items, I have listed below.

    Those items being mainly,solar activity,volcanic activity,SOI oscillation, AO /NAO oscillation, PDO/AMO oscillations.

    Also, I want to mention, one potential wicked positive feedback for global cooling,which is, a more meridional circulation , could result in more N.H. snow cover ,which could in turn, increase the albedo of the earth ,which would in turn ,cause even a further cooling.

    Now how is weak solar activity ,correlated to an increase in geological activity?

    This is how. Read below.

    Take a car going 80 (active sun) increase speed to 90 m.p.h (active sun),one will feel a small jolt. On the other hand ,take a car going 1 m.p.h (quiet sun) increase that car suddenly to 20 m.p.h (still quiet sun ,but with some activity) then back it down to 1 m.p.h, the jolts one would feel ,would be much greater ,because the magnitude of the car increase would be 20x greater then the 1 m.p.h speed ,to begin with, followed by 20x less speed.

    I believe, as Piers Corbyn does, that, that analogy, can be applied to the earth- sun /geological activity.

    Getting back to the phase in theory. I have never seen more potential, for the natural items I mentioned above, to not only phase into a colder mode, but phase in ,with a degree of magnitude and length of time, that has the potential , if it should come to fruition,to cause a much more substancial drop in temperatures for this decade, then even Dr. Easterbrook, is predicting.

    I also believe ,if natural items effecting the climate phase in a particular mode, to a degree of magnitude strong enough, and a length of time long enough, that climatic tipping points can be acheived.



    You said “What you’re suggesting is that this La Nina cycle is going to last for another 20 years. ” No, I am not suggesting that this La NINA is going to last 20 years . What I think may happen is that this La Nina may last several years like the post 1998 La Ninas which went on for 3-4 years and that over the next 10-30 years the frequency of La Ninas may increase as in other cooler periods . Already we have had two in only 4 years while in the recent warmer period 1989 2007 there were 2 in about 18 years .


    Salvatore del prete

    You said “they are now trying to spin and spin things ,to try justify what we have now,is STILL due to man made global warming ”

    Yes, the spin is still on . Personally I think they are losing credibilty with the public very fast now by wrongly correlating every natural weather event if even slightly bigger than the last one as being caused by man-made global warming without offering any evidence . Natural climate cycles do not remain constant and their amplitude and frequency can vary considerably from decade to decade and century to century. and even longer periods . The Australian floods are the latest example . Even the Australian government does not buy the false spin of these being caused by manmade greenhouse gases.

  31. Edwin Adlerman


    Nonsense! A climate model could be entirely 100% incorrect on day-to-day weather, and be 100% correct in terms of climate. You don’t seem to understand the basics behind your claim.

  32. salvatore del prete

    Edwin, you don’t know what I am talking about.

    I said the man made global warming models, have predicted wrongly, what kind of atmospheric circulation would result in the atmosphere, due to man made global warming.

    If you would think before you write ,you would have known it was in reference to climate, NOT the day to day weather forecasting.

    If you also would have done your research ,you would have known ,that without exception, every single PATHETIC , global man made warming model, predicted the atmosphere over time ,due to man made global warming, would evolve into an ever increasing +AO, and +NAO .

    Edwin my boy ,the exact opposite has been happening ,now going on for 3 years!!!!

    To take it further I and others ,predicted if solar activity would remain low, and we had an increase in high latitude volcanic activity ,that the atmosphere would evolve into an ever increasing -AO and -NAO, which is exactly what has been happening.

    I have emails to back up what I said ,when I said it.

    A positve AO ,versus a negative AO ,will cause the climate to evolve in a completly different manner. A positive AO, will result in the N.H. warming ,because Arctic air will be locked up near the pole,while in contrast what we have now, a negative AO ,will cause the N.H. to cool ,because Arctic air masses can move more south and invade the lower latitudes.
    In addtion this -AO circulation or meridional circulation, will probably result in an increase in cloud cover and snow cover in the lower latitudes, which would enhance earth’s albedo, and further the cooling.

    Edwin ,here is your last lessen in climate 101, to have a cold N.H. ,one has to have a warm Arctic ,in contrast to latitudes south of the Arctic. That is how it works, and the global warmers have it completely backwords and don’t know what they are talking about.

    Anything that will serve to warm the high latitudes /Arctic ,in contrast to the mid latitudes will promote, a neg. AO atm. circulation, and this in turn will promote global cooling, which is what is happening as we speak.

    You are the one that does not understand the basics behind my claim.

    This will be my one and only response to this nonsense. If you don’t like it ,so be it, I know exactly what I am talking about.

  33. Edwin Adlerman

    So Salvatore, why do you think the “atmospheric circulation” is divorced from day-to-day weather? You did put in ALL CAPITALS!

    >I said the man made global warming models, have predicted wrongly, what >kind of atmospheric circulation would result in the atmosphere, due to man >
    >made global warming.

    First of all what is a “man made global warming model”? Please be more specific… that a global circulation model, a cloud-resolving model, a 2-d model??? Which model? Exactly where has the “wrongness” of the atmospheric circulation models been published in detail?

    >You are the one that does not understand the basics behind my claim.

    Maybe because your writing is borderline incoherent and schizophrenic, and laced with lots of fantastical claims backed only by your “emails” Give me a break. Show me the evidence of how our models have got “the atmospheric circulation” wrong, but, are (incredibly!) able to forecast the weather. After all, climate models are using the same fundamental equations as cloud-resolving models.

  34. Edwin Adlerman

    Also Salvatore:
    >All of their models predicted the atmosphere as a result of man made global >warming increasing the co2 in the stratosphere , would cause the startoshpere to >cool,

    And the stratosphere *is* cooling:

    What is your point?

  35. Edwin Adlerman

    >Also, “Global Warming Art” have not invented this data series; and furthermore, >they probably publish it under a “Digital commons” licence which would >invalidate your plagiarism claim even concerning typefaces and other decoration.

    First of all, altering the data is fraud. Period. Someone who is a retired Professor knows that.
    Second, he also would know you can’t steal an image and pass it off as your own. The usage of that original graph is only allowed to be used if:

    “This image may be used freely in any academic work where the author(s) do not receive a fee for their efforts and/or in any non-commercial work, provided that in either case these conditions are met:
    You acknowledge the author of this image and Global Warming Art alongside the image. The recommended format is “Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art”, but this may be varied to conform with a publication’s style.
    If and where practical, you also include a link and/or reference to this specific description page:
    Such references may appear either alongside the image, or in a separate section where other source material is acknowledged.”

    So, Professor Easterbrook is guilty of both scientific fraud and plagiarism. End of story


    To me the depth of research and the value of the the information that Professor Easterbrook presents far exceeds any minor notation that he may have neglected to make . I would rather debate the man’s science and message rather than any missed minor notation if any. Certain bloggers seem to come on just to throw rocks at other bloggers rather than debate the blog message or science presented

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Easterbrook has some very fundamental errors in his work. His presentation on WUWT regarding GISP2 is a prime example. He doesn’t take the time to look at essential elements of the data and current research. GISP2 is a local record of temperature (stated clearly by Dr Alley in several papers and interviews) but Easterbrook continues to present it at a global proxy. He presents rapid climate change events in the GISP2 record but totally ignores D-O and Bonds events. He also completely ignores obliquity as the well known driver of NH cooling over the past ~8000 years (Miller 2010).

      If you take the time to read Alley 2010 you can also see that NH Holocene cooling seen in GISP2 is offset by warming in the Byrd ice core data in the SH.

      Anyone who publishes an article that claims any definitive answer to such a complex question as climate change is yanking your chain.

      1. DirkH

        Rob, i’m disappointed. You read WUWT?

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          I read both sides of the issue. Hey, I’m here at NTZ, aren’t I?

  37. salvatore del prete

    ATTENTION: The website will have an article coming out soon ,talking about how all the global warming man made models, have forecasted the atmospheric circulation wrong as a result of global man made warming. Joe D’ Aleo, will be doing this article, and it will echo, what I have said on this site.

    Edwin ,what matters is the contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere between the high latitudes and lower latitudes, not so much ,if it is cooling as a whole, or warming. It is the contrast in temperatures, that matters much more.

    Edwin, the fact that you are trying to indicate stratospheric cooling ,plays right into what I am saying. They were expecting a ,+AO, due to stratospheric cooling,due to an increase in CO2 concentrations,caused by man. So thanks for the confirmation.

    The fact is ,the global warming crowd based on the stratospheric cooling, said the atmospheric circ. would evolve over time into an ever increasing +AO circulation , and I and others said over time ,due to low solar activity and high latitude volcanic activity, the atmospheric circulation would evolve into an ever increasing -AO overtime, and that is exactly what has been taking place over the last few years. Those are the facts, you can scream and kick and cry all you want, but those are the facts.

    Edwin, I challenge you to post one prediction made by a man made global warming person ,or model , that predicted , prior to year, let’s take 2007, a negative AO oscillation ,would be the dominate atmospheric circulation going forward. You will not be able to produce it, because they all predicted the opposite. It is your job ,to show otherwise, not mine.

    Look for Joe D’ Aleo’s article, on this subject,on the website, it should be out in a month or less. I hope it will clear up this matter for you further.

    Take care and good luck in you climate endeavors. I have nothing against you, and if you still don’t agree that is fine. Have a nice day.

  38. salvatore del prete

    Edwin, I did not word it clearly. I should have said ,the models that people use to that predicted global warming, due to man made influences, have not forecasted the atmospheric circulation correctly.

    Edwin, you can’t have global warming, if you don’t have a +AO dominate atm circulation.

    I think that covers it. Time will further tell ,who is right,and who is wrong. Good luck.

  39. salvatore del prete

    One more time. The models that people use, to predict global warming ,due to man made influences, have not forecasted the atmospheric circulation correctly.


    Rob Honeycutt

    If I remember previous web blogs corrrectly , Dr Alley is the same scientist who claimed that the true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, and cause an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants, then I am sorry but my vote goes for the science of Dr Easterbrook. Sorry Rob your argument does not make sense to me .

  41. salvatore del prete

    Matti, you are so correct, and if anything he may be to conservative. We have to see how things phase in, and to what degree of magnitude, and length of time the phasing takes place over.

    MAS, your commentary about CO2 concentrations versus certain geological time periods is spot on. During the Ordovician Period some 400 million years ago , earth had CO2 concentrations of 4000ppm, and yet earth had an ice age!

    The global warmers are in denial of past history, they are in denial that now their models are not 50% off,not 75 % off ,but 100% off. Their models could not be more wrong. It is like saying someone is walking North, and the person is walking South. That is how off they are.

    As , I said earlier the global man made theory is dead.

    My prediction for year 2011, will be for temperatures to be between normal and -.2 c for the year.

    I am not afraid to make a prediction, and unlike the global warmers there is no SPIN, involved. If I am wrong ,I will admit to being wrong.

    However, I have never ever been more confident, that I am correct,and this decade will be the decade of global cooling, the only question remaining is, how much cooling.

    The AO oscillation needs to be monitored ,and we have to see if the correlation to solar activity continues. I think it will, and if the sun should have a burst of energy from time to time against an otherwise quiet back ground , lookout for increased geological activity ,during those times.

    If one is interested, if one goes back to year 1600 ,and plots all major volcanic eruptions from then to now ,with an explosive index of 5 or higher, one will find 85% of them ,are associated with sunspot minimum activity. That is a very strong correlation.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Salvatore… If the climate models were 100% wrong then the past 30 years would have seen cooling, not warming.

  42. Rob Honeycutt

    Salvatore said… “During the Ordovician Period some 400 million years ago , earth had CO2 concentrations of 4000ppm, and yet earth had an ice age!”

    Have you done any research at all on this event? You will see that it was the 4000ppm of CO2 that brought us OUT of the deep ice age. That is why you get carbonate layers in the record. CO2 builds up, the ice melts and then the CO2 is rapidly weathered out of the atmosphere.

  43. Wrangler Wayne

    You may be right about the 4000 ppm CO2 bringing us out of the ice age. However, at that level of CO2, no one was around to dispute it. I thought CO2s warming effect on the atmosphere flat lined out at about 200-400 ppm. That would explain why we have not seen any recent warming other than Little Ice Age rebound in temperatures for the last century (not counting misplaced urban temperature gages, El Ninos, Nuclear detonations, volcanoes, mid ocean rifts, East Africa land rifts, satellite altimeter calibration gages on the wobbly docks in NW Tasmania, falsified temperatures from East Anglia, a slowing in the Meridional Overturning Circulation, the Landscheidt minimum, falling solar gauss, and increased Cosmic rays and clouds). Yes, shorter days too. In 1950 the day count was + 3 msec, in 2010 it was only 0.8 msec. So, the oceans have shrunk and the earth now spins faster.

  44. salvatore del prete

    You are wrong, the CO2,followed the temperature, it did not lead the temp. out of the Ordovician Ice Age.
    So ROB , you should do some research.

    Rob, here is your answer to your other remark. The climate models have consistently forecasted only one type of weather pattern for the N.H., which is a positive AO. Do you understand that ,so far.

    Now during the past 30 years that was to be expected because all factors that control the climate,that being ,solar,volcanic activity,pdo/amo, soi oscillation ,ao/nao ,were in a warm mode, and therefore a positive AO was to be expected. So the models were right, just by chance. I predicted a positive AO , back then ,but things have changed Rob, all the factors that were in a warm mode for the last 30 years have now switched to a cold mode ,and therefore the AO has gone into a negative mode. The pathetic models however ,only can think one way ,which is an increase in co2 by man(lol) will cause the stratosphere to cool and the AO index to evolve into an ever increasing positve AO. The models are GARBAGE, because they are fed garbage in, and the result is, they give garbage out.

    The models take into account NO external factors, when trying to make future climate predictions, therefore they are useles, because nomatter what the situation will call for ,they will give only one result, which will be an ever increasing +AO index. So they suck ,in a word, as do all the poeple behind the man made global warming scam.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Savatore… I suggest you watch this lecture by Dr Alley. He does a good job of explaining exactly this topic:

      “You are wrong, the CO2,followed the temperature, it did not lead the temp. out of the Ordovician Ice Age.”

      That is not correct. You’re confusing glaical-interglacial cycles with snowball Earth events.

      Salvatore, I very much have done quite a lot of research on this topic.

      I would refer you to Royer 2006, Young 2009, and Young 2010 for further reading.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Just double checking myself… The late Ordovician glaciation was not a snowball Earth event. But it was a short glaciation lasting about half a million years whereas the data for that time period is very course, in the 10 million year increment range, so it is utterly impossible for you to suggest that CO2 followed temperature.

      2. DirkH
        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Dirk… Do you understand what Alley is talking about in terms of distribution curves? He has another lecture on “taming the long tail of the distribution” that is all about what he is discussing in the article you link to.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      One more paper for you to read… Crowley 1995 – Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels

  45. salvatore del prete

    ROB, make your prediction for the year and the decade.

    I said year 2011 will be between normal and -.2c and this will be the decade of global cooling. I don’t spin, and I love email because, it saves what you said and when you said it.

    Why don’t you make your prediction, then we can see who is right, and who is wrong.

    Nothing personel, but you global warmers just can’t see, or look at the data and the facts. The global man made warming theory is dead ,because they could not predict the atmospheric circulation correctly ,and if you can’t predict that ,you can’t predict the climate.

    My company is just getting started on informing the public about these facts.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Salvatore… In case you missed it, I put up a $5000 bet saying the coming decade would be warmer than the last one. The bet is running on this very blog!

      I’m not going to bet on the weather next year because that is not climate. Climate science is not about predicting weather. It’s about predicting weather trends over long periods of time.

  46. salvatore del prete

    Rob , I will save this , and we will see who is right and who is wrong. I am glad you made a prediction. You are correct, climate science is about predicting long term trends, and that trend will be lower temperatures as time goes by,this decade.

    Rob , I suggest you read what Piers Corbyn has to say about matters, as well as Dr. David Archibald ,of Australia,to name a few. .

    CO2 has never,ever led temperatures,and it never will. Your arguments are FALSE. I am not confusing glacial versus interglacial. Your side always resorts to spin, that is why you have no standing. I have read what your side has had to say about things many times, it is nothing but spin.

    In closing if one cannot predict the atmospheric circulation correctly ,on cannot predict the climate correctly. Of course, you won’t even admit to this, and this is as black and white as it gets.

    Joe D’Aleo, will be doing a piece on this ,on the icecap website ,in the near future, to expose further ,the fact that the models have gotton the atmospheric circulation completly wrong.

    I am printing your prediction out , and we will see who is right and who is wrong.

    Good luck in your climate research.

  47. Rob Honeycutt

    Salvatore said… “CO2 has never,ever led temperatures,and it never will.”

    250 million years ago. Siberian Traps. 90% of sea life went extinct. 70% of land based life also went extinct.

    In the more recent past (1M years), you are right. Co2 lags temp. That has been well understood for a very long time. You have to have a driver for temperature change, but without CO2 the forcings can only account for about 1C of the 5-8C of temperature change in the glacial-interglacial cycles. CO2 is naturally a feedback. But the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2 are well understood. When WE add CO2 to the atmosphere we change from a feedback to a forcing. Then CO2 leads temp.

    Again, this is all very well understood stuff. Not even Spencer or Lindzen question any of this. It’s basic physics. If I were you guys I’d at least stick with these guys and argue climate sensitivity based on cloud effects. That is the only place you have room for a rational argument.

  48. Stephen Wilde

    Rob Honeycutt said:

    “CO2 is naturally a feedback. But the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2 are well understood. When WE add CO2 to the atmosphere we change from a feedback to a forcing. Then CO2 leads temp.”

    Well, no.

    Increasing CO2 is a feedback from increased warmth. The entire biosphere is energised because oceanic absorption declines to increase CO2 in the air.

    We are a part of the biosphere so our numbers and the sophistication of our civilisations increase when it gets warmer. Our increased CO2 output is no different in effect to that from the farts and belches of the dinosaurs.

    The mere fact that WE as part of the biosphere produce more CO2 doesn’t change CO2 from a feedback to a forcing.

    None of that is to deny that CO2 does have thermal characteristics that seek to delay solar energy loss back to space. However there are lots of other negating factors such as clouds, the water cycle and the biosphere locking away the carbon in limestone and fossil deposits which have forever and will forever prevent CO2 in the air from ever significantly affecting natural climate variability from solar and oceanic influences.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Steve… I’m sorry but the research does not support what you are saying. If we were introducing CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that the natural system could readily absorb there would be no problem. Then CO2 would remain a feedback. But what is happening is that we have overwhelmed natural systems. That is why CO2 concentrations are rising (re: Keeling curve).

      It’s not a matter of the source of the CO2 it’s a matter of the effect. The Siberian Traps turned CO2 into a forcing because the rate CO2 was being released into the atmosphere overwhelmed the natural system.

      You are right, there ARE other cooling effects as well. Those are known but have a lot of uncertainty involved. The latest research shows that cloud effects may have either zero or a positive feedback rather than a negative feedback (Dessler 2010). So, I would start counting those chickens just yet.

      Go look at chap 2 of the IPCC AR4 WG1. You will see the error bars around cloud effects, so those are well accounted for even with their high uncertainty.

      1. DirkH

        Dessler was wrong before.
        “The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The immense credibility of the IPCC’s reports arises from the credible process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate scientists who were not authors of the report.”

        Will he be right this time?

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Nothing inaccurate in that statement.

          Also, have you read Dessler 2010?

  49. salvatore del prete

    Steve, is exactly correct. Thanks.

    ROB, here is the bottomline. Unless you get the atmospheric circulation to evolve back into a consistent +AO , your prediction ,along with all the other global warmers ,will be going up in smoke.

    Further, I predicted ,with some others a long time ago, that if solar activity were to remain low,and volcanic activity high ,(and volcanic activity is a consequence of low solar activity) that the atmospheric circulation would evolve into a -AO.

    Since it is very likely going forward that solar activity will be weak for many years to come, the chances of you getting the consistent +AO circulation that you need in order to have your prediction be correct, are slim at best.

    Without a consistent +AO you will not obtain global warming. Good Luck.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Salvatore… You sound pretty confident about your AO information. But I haven’t seen your name on the bet yet? So, what’up? You should be getting in on this deal.

  50. salvatore del prete

    What bet list? I have no idea what you are talking about.Take Care

    1. Rob Honeycutt

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy