Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sptrawler]

Well it looks like Victorians must be thanking their lucky stars that Labor dicks didn't shut down their .dirty brown coal' Power Stations.
All hell would have broken out.lol
Apparently Victoria is $hitting itself, because one of the Loy Yang 'brown coal unit is out of service". It may cause rolling blackouts due to the heat wave.

Imagine if a complete Power Station had been shut down, as GG would say, it just shows how dumb the Labor brain farts are.

Changing the world, on the back of a serviette politics, dumb and dumber.

It would be interesting to hear Smurphs take on the Eastern States system security if Hazelwood, or Loy Yang had been shut down.

 

[noco]

Some interesting facts about decisions made by Chris Turney from a report by Steve McIntyre.

The first highlight of Mc Intyres report is a must read.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...xcuse_for_having_his_ship_of_fools_stuck_in_/

 

[Smurf1976]

It would be interesting to hear Smurphs take on the Eastern States system security if Hazelwood, or Loy Yang had been shut down.

It is 100% certain that there would have been blackouts in Victoria this week if any major power station had been shut down.

There's no ifs or maybes about it. If any of the big plants weren't running, there would have been blackouts (or alternatively power restrictions imposed). Would be the same again tomorrow (Friday) too.

 

[Knobby22]

Labor actually paid Hazelwood to keep it open.
Their rhetoric didn't match their actions.

 

[DB008]

Climate change: Planet to warm by 4 degrees by 2100

Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong.

The research, by a team led by the University of NSW, says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia.

Current models estimate a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - a level that may be reached by mid-century - will result in temperature rises of between 1.5 degrees and 5 degrees. Instead, the likely range will be 3-5 degrees for twice the amount of C02, the study found.

The publication of the research comes as the top business adviser to Prime Minister Tony Abbott has again caused controversy with comments about the ''delusion'' of global warming and an assertion that climate change policy has destroyed Australia's manufacturing sector and competitiveness.

In an opinion piece in The Australian newspaper, Maurice Newman, Mr Abbott's pick as head of his Business

Advisory Council, said high energy costs caused by the carbon tax and the renewable energy target, introduced under the Howard government, had eroded competitiveness.

Under Labor and the Greens, Australia had been taken hostage by ''climate change madness'', Mr Newman wrote.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2qpLyIsVU

 

[noco]

Climate change: Planet to warm by 4 degrees by 2100




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2qpLyIsVU

But scientist are now saying the Sun's activity has fallen to its lowest in 100 years and we may be headed for another minI ice age where even the Thames River thorugh London could well freeze again.

Perhaps we can now forget about GLOBAL WARMING????????????????GLOBAL WARMING??????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING????????

http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s-to-century-low/story-fnjwlbuh-1226805090679

 

[Logique]

But scientist are now saying the Sun's activity has fallen to its lowest in 100 years and we may be headed for another minI ice age where even the Thames River thorugh London could well freeze again.
Perhaps we can now forget about GLOBAL WARMING????????????????GLOBAL WARMING??????WHAT GLOBAL WARMING????????
http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s-to-century-low/story-fnjwlbuh-1226805090679

Everything old is new again Noco. The climate scare of the early 1970s was of a New Ice Age.

The warmists really dislike this sunspot activity idea. You see, climate change is caused, and can only be fixed by humans, at a political level. The Sun?...pfft!

 

[basilio]

Everything old is new again Noco. The climate scare of the early 1970s was of a New Ice Age.

The warmists really dislike this sunspot activity idea. You see, climate change is caused, and can only be fixed by humans, at a political level. The Sun?...pfft!

Yep how amazingly, stupefyingly, obviously predictable. The Courier Mail (and a score of other blogs) carry the possibility that sunspot activity will fall to the Maundy Minimum levels and poof ! there is the excuse to trash the rest of the scientific evidence around climate change and suggest we are going back to the Ice Ages

Let's see just how one eyed you folks are here. You'll jump of the bandwagon on one particular piece of science which suggests that global temperatures could fall as a result of a fall in sunspot activity.
At exactly the same time you dismiss out of hand the extensive research on global warming which, together with the the temperatures rises we have already experienced takes us to a very hot future.

Is the information on solar activity and its influence on climate wrong ? NO . Not at alll. If you want to understand the full story on this phenomonen you can read it at the following URL.

The short answer is that a Maundy minimum phenomenon could result in a Global temp drop of .1 to .3C. At the same time we have the overwhelming effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions which will cause a further 1.5 to 4C increase in global temperatures.

Can you do the figures on this folks?

What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?
Filed under:

Climate Science
Sun-earth connections

— group @ 19 June 2011

EmailShare

Guest commentary by Georg Feulner

During a meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, solar physicists have just announced a prediction that the Sun might enter an extended period of low activity (a ‘grand minimum’) similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century. In this post I will explore the background of this announcement and discuss implications for Earth’s climate.

It has been known for a long time that solar activity shows a very regular pattern. Every 11 years the Sun is particularly active, and numerous dark sunspots are visible on its surface. These maxima of solar activity are separated by times of low activity when only few (if any) sunspots appear.

......Solar physicists do not yet understand how an extended solar-activity low like the Maunder Minimum arises. Yet there is recent observational evidence for an unusual behavior of the Sun during the current cycle 24, including a missing zonal wind flow within the Sun, decreasing magnetic field strength of sunspots and lower activity around the poles of the Sun. These observations prompted Frank Hill and colleagues to suggest that the Sun might enter a new Maunder-like minimum after the current 11-year cycle ends (i.e. after 2020 or so).

It remains to be seen whether this prognosis turns out to be true (there have been some doubts expressed), but since grand minima of solar activity did occur in the past, it is certainly interesting to explore what effects such a minimum might have on 21st century climate if it did occur. This is precisely the question Stefan Rahmstorf and I investigated in a study published last year (see also our press release. (Earlier estimates for the size of this effect can be found here and here.) In our study we find that a new Maunder Minimum would lead to a cooling of 0.3 °C in the year 2100 at most – relative to an expected anthropogenic warming of around 4 °C. (The amount of warming in the 21st century depends on assumptions about future emissions, of course).

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nto-a-new-grand-minimum/#sthash.eetyJcIo.dpuf

 

[basilio]

You might also be wondering about the views of Mike Lockwood whose research is constantly quoted in relation the possibility we can go back to a mini Ice Age.

As usual, (because they are completely dishonest liars) Mikes words have been totally twisted. Want to see what he actually said and how you have been comprehensively stooged ?

25 percent chance” of Grand Solar Minimum
November 3, 2013

Mike Lockwood is a solar physicist who became a target of climate deniers several years ago when he wrote one of the definitive papers debunking the “it’s all caused by the sun” canard.


Now check and see if this latest interview with him becomes some kind of teapot tempest among the usual suspects.

From Lockwood and Froelich 2007, “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”

Watch for this to be spun – I am sure that Dr. Lockwood’s “don’t look for a little ice age” disclaimer’s below show that he is aware of how the game works. (see video above for an example of denialist standard O.P.)

New Scientist:

The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspotsMovie Camera for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.

Lockwood thinks there is now a 25 per cent chance of a repetition of the last grand minimum, the late 17th century Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots for 70 years. Two years ago, Lockwood put the chances of this happening at less than 10 per cent (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI:10.1029/2011JD017013).

Little ice age

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the worst European winters of the little ice age, a period lasting centuries when several regions around the globe experienced unusual cooling. Tree ring studies suggest it cooled the northern hemisphere by up to 0.4 °C.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. Temperatures have risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/03/25-percent-chance-of-grand-solar-minimum/

But you would never expect your run of the mill denialists to actually quote what a scientist said without comprehensively twisting the truth out of it would you ?

 

[wayneL]

Interesting ironies basilio.

But irrespective of the case presented, you show a consistent absence of honour, while you persist with the D word.

May your armpits br infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.

 

[burglar]

Interesting ironies basilio.

But irrespective of the case presented, you show a consistent absence of honour, while you persist with the D word.

May your armpits br infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.

Give an evangelist enough rope and eventually, he will paint himself into a corner. :

 

[basilio]

Interesting ironies basilio.

But irrespective of the case presented, you show a consistent absence of honour, while you persist with the D word.

May your armpits br infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.

What this infested website really needs Wayne is a specific thread to detail just how routinely and outrageously dishonest climate change denial has become.

I notice you don't have the bottle to acknowledge how Mike Lockwoods research was deliberately twisted to come up with a conclusion he specifically and categorically refuted.

And as I pointed out exactly where is the intellectual honesty(let alone numeracy capacity) in selecting one scientific possibility which could result in a.3C decrease in temperatures and then completely ignoring the remaining body of work which takes us in a completely different direction?

Zilch, zero, 0

____________________________________________________________________________

So, should I start up a specific thread on the 1001 ways climate deniers work ? Or would the sound of apoplectic screams across the blogosphere melt the wires ?

 

[wayneL]

What this infested website really needs Wayne is a specific thread to detail just how routinely and outrageously dishonest climate change denial has become.

I notice you don't have the bottle to acknowledge how Mike Lockwoods research was deliberately twisted to come up with a conclusion he specifically and categorically refuted.

And as I pointed out exactly where is the intellectual honesty(let alone numeracy capacity) in selecting one scientific possibility which could result in a.3C decrease in temperatures and then completely ignoring the remaining body of work which takes us in a completely different direction?

Zilch, zero, 0

____________________________________________________________________________

So, should I start up a specific thread on the 1001 ways climate deniers work ? Or would the sound of apoplectic screams across the blogosphere melt the wires ?

Attitude Polarization Bias baslilio.

When you concede valid points against your case, perhaps there could be meeting of the minds.

IOW, acquire some honour and we can talk.

 

[wayneL]

After another petulant and totally unprofessional attack on Judy's credibility (for which she has issued a challenge) from M Mann, she had this to say:

'Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.'

Think about that next time you feel like sinking into the intellectual gutter basilio.

 

[basilio]

There is absolutely nothing "skeptical" about deliberately misrepresenting a scientists findings on sunspot activity in an attempt to con people into believing we are going into a mini ice age.

That was the sum total of the hundreds of repeated stories relating to the possible decline in sunspot activities and the idea that we were going back to the freezes of the 18th century. Just deception and lies.

Is anyone here interested in learning about the science behind current understandings of CC? The US Senate committee had a 4 hour hearing last Thursday on the topic as they deliberated on how to tackle the problem.

The Guardian published an overview of this hearing and the full testimony of one of the main presenters is on the US Senate website.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...clear-and-present-danger?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

What we know about climate change

Andrew E. Dessler
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University

My name is Andrew Dessler and I am a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. I have been studying the atmosphere since 1988 and I have published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, including studies of the cloud and water vapor feedbacks and climate sensitivity.

In my testimony, I will review what I think are the most important conclusions the climate scientific community has reached in over two centuries of work.Let me begin by describing some important points that we know with high confidence””and how that has led me to personally conclude that climate change is a clear and present danger.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=26edecac-2c6f-4f8e-ab90-962a7d074d06

 

[trainspotter]

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.
On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...-are-al-gores-stupidest-global-warming-quotes



And now for the Arctic ice situation ...

The bounce back in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this summer was reflected also in the volume of ice.

Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season.

This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373



Al Gore anyone? http://www.generationim.com/

But, but, but he wants to save the world form nasty carbon polluters or is he out to line his own pocket first?

Generation Investment Management, the private equity fund chaired by former U.S. vice president Al Gore, has acquired a 9.5 percent stake in Camco International Ltd, a carbon asset developer.

Generation, set up in 2004 by Gore and David Blood, former chief of Goldman Sachs's asset management arm, now holds 16 million Camco shares, Camco said in a statement.

Camco, which has one of the world's largest carbon credit portfolios, works with companies to identify and develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care

(insert maniacal laugh here)

 

[Logique]

Basilio,

the short answer is that a Maundy minimum phenomenon could result in a Global temp drop of .1 to .3C. At the same time we have the overwhelming effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions which will cause a further 1.5 to 4C increase in global temperatures.

Citation? Just ridiculous zealotry.

I think the mention of sunspot activity has upset you Basilio. Solar vs anthropogenic, we know which side you are on.

 

[basilio]

Basilio,
Citation? Just ridiculous zealotry.

I think the mention of sunspot activity has upset you Basilio. Solar vs anthropogenic, we know which side you are on.

The two posts I made provided 2 detailed references for the effects of sunspot activity. Please check.

And if you read the posts you would have seen me clearly acknowledging the impact of sunspot activity. After all it was the climate scientists who identified and quantified this effect. That was the basis for the possible .1 to .3 decrease in global temperatures.

My points were:

1) The comments from the papers completely misrepresented the work of the scientist in question. He made it clear that he didn't see any likelihood of a similar mini ice age because

A) We have seen a .8C increase in global temperatures which takes us a long way from the climate of
the 17th century
b) The ongoing effects of anthropogenic climate will far outway the very limited possible effects of
solar activity.

2) Why are you so ready to accept one part of a scientists work on CC (solar activity) when it suits you and totally reject the rest of his research ? ( He wrote a paper a few years ago which comprehensively demonstrated that current warming cannot be explained by solar activity?

 

[burglar]

...
b) The ongoing effects of anthropogenic climate will far outway the very limited possible effects of
solar activity. ...

By rotating our planet every day, we switch off the solar activity.
The difference is noticeable, to say the least.

So your point is moot, at best!

 

[basilio]

By rotating our planet every day, we switch off the solar activity.
The difference is noticeable, to say the least.

So your point is moot, at best!

Pleeese ! You really are having us on arn't you ?

We have a 24 hour rotation cycle don't we? So yes we go from full sun to part sun to NO sun (100% loss) and then back again. So the Earth doesn't get too hot or too cold. Goldilocks stuff.

If you want to see what the prolonged effect of no sun/full sun is there are a couple of moons and planets that offer excellent case studies.

Small (but still significant) changes in the solar activity as discussed by Mike Lockwood have nowhere near as much change in the earths climate as daily rotation.

For a more complete analysis of the various impacts of the sun check out the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm