Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Interesting reading on Global warming...hope it's true!!

snowmanx

Well-known member
Premium Member
If it is, then we should have some GOOOOD years of riding ahead!

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
By Dennis T. Avery, Hudson Institute

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.



For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean . We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.



Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska , but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.



The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic —but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States ’ far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures.



Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth’s temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.



All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.



The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.



How many years of declining world temperature would it take now—in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998—to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?



Copyright by Dennis T. Avery



DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202 , Churchville , VA 2442 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_20166.shtml
 
"These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures. "

Wow, you mean that HUGE nuclear reactor we call the sun actaully warms the earth??
somebody better tell Mr Gore.

Gonna be interesting. You will notice they are already switching over to Climate Change vs Global Warming. I guess they see the hand writing on the wall.
 
From a statistics point of view, this year has been very interesting.

They have these simulations, that predict the earth's temperature. They usually like to wave a hand full of data around and declare their simulations show disaster. (aka give me more research grants) So, how many simulations predicted this year's low temperatures? If they can't predict one year in advance, how can they reasonably predict 50 years into the future? Granted the temperatures they predict, are a probabilistic band of possible temperatures, and we could have just been on the low side of their predictions. But, something tells me that no one on the chicken-little side predicted this year. Somewhere there's a bunch of researchers trying to justify this year to their grant holders. Maybe they should cancel the grants of any team that didn't predict this year.

UKMET%20Short%20Term%20Forecast.png



The model data used above was taken from the IPCC-DDC, and the models are as follows:

* CCSR/NIES: Center for Climate System Research [2] & National Institute for Environmental Studies, [3], CCSR/NIES AGCM + CCSR OGCM Models 1890-2100
* CCCma: Canadian Center for Climate Modelling and Analysis [4], CGCm2 Model 1900-2100
* CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [5], CSIRO-Mk2 model 1961-2100
* Hadley Centre: Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research [6], HADCM3 model 1950-2099
* GFDL: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory [7], R30 Model 1961-2100
* MPI-M: Max Planck Institute für Meteorologie [8], ECHAM4/OPYC coupled model 1990-2100
* NCAR PCM: National Center for Atmospheric Research [9], PCM model 1980-2099
* NCAR CSM: National Center for Atmospheric Research [10], CSM Model 2000-2099

Global_Warming_Predictions.png


Notice that none of the predictions show this year.
 
Last edited:
You will also notice that none of their predictions take into account that the global temps have fallen every year since 98.
There is SO much momentum to the global warming BS it will take a few more years to fully put the breaks on it and by then they will have climate change fully in place.
 
hipe put on to the fullest, some are making money on this, all because they see that glaciers are melting, well duh!, how long has it been since the last ice age?
 
hipe put on to the fullest, some are making money on this, all because they see that glaciers are melting, well duh!, how long has it been since the last ice age?

EXACTAMUNDO!!! Not just 'some'...more like many are making money off of global warming. Government grants, governement funded scientific research, IPCC, horrible computer models...it just goes on and on and on. If we would get our congressmen to pull their heads out of their a$$es, maybe we could get them to quit giving our money away and using it for something in our own backyard.
 
Global warming is an industry, that many will not let go.
Tens of thousands of people will be out of a job.... if not more.
 
I think businesses and special interest groups are making more money from this global warming--be green than scientists. I would argue that the gov't should invest in a couple high quality research studies to address this question. many of the "studies" to date have been sponsored or co-sponsored by environmental groups.

the difficult aspect now is to find completely unbiased climatologists and statisticians to conduct these objective studies.

EXACTAMUNDO!!! Not just 'some'...more like many are making money off of global warming. Government grants, governement funded scientific research, IPCC, horrible computer models...it just goes on and on and on. If we would get our congressmen to pull their heads out of their a$$es, maybe we could get them to quit giving our money away and using it for something in our own backyard.
 
Nobody knows what will happen. They cant even tell me what will happen tomorrow, let alone 30 years from now. I do hope gore and co. are wrong. I want my kids to have the same opportunities to play in the snow that I have had.
 
We could use a little global warming here in Butte MT. It is the middle of May and it is still snowing. If we get a cooling trend, I will be riding sleds until July. Wahhooo. Pretty short bikini season, but in Montana, that is usually a good thing. Ha Ha.
 

Sorry, I was meaning actual data, not a piece of journalism, such as this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Look, I am not trying to say GW is human caused because I am not a scientist, but the earth is warmer now than any time our records can prove. Yeah we had a wet winter, but in Montana, the temperatures were actually warmer than average until April. I honestly hope we return to colder temperatures, but 2006 and 2007 were NOT colder than average.
 
Sorry, I was meaning actual data, not a piece of journalism, such as this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Look, I am not trying to say GW is human caused because I am not a scientist, but the earth is warmer now than any time our records can prove. Yeah we had a wet winter, but in Montana, the temperatures were actually warmer than average until April. I honestly hope we return to colder temperatures, but 2006 and 2007 were NOT colder than average.

Dude, do some homework! The hottest year was 1934, the second hottest year was 98. The earths tempreture has gon down .75 degrees C since 98. We are getting colder again, and good luck finding any current data on the greenie sites. Most of it is conviently old. Check out globalclimatescam.com and globalcimatedebate.net vs the epa numbers.
 
Sorry, I was meaning actual data, not a piece of journalism, such as this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Look, I am not trying to say GW is human caused because I am not a scientist, but the earth is warmer now than any time our records can prove. Yeah we had a wet winter, but in Montana, the temperatures were actually warmer than average until April. I honestly hope we return to colder temperatures, but 2006 and 2007 were NOT colder than average.

Ah, you are listening to NOAA.

Does anyone still have the report detailing the violations concerning their data collection points??
I know it was posted at one time, not sure if it was on the new forum or the old one.

The data collection points NOAA uses to get their temp readings have set rules concerning where they can be placed and how. A study was found that showed they were in violation on over 40% of their collection points and another 30% were questionable.

Give you an idea of what I am talking about.

Lets say you have a temperature collection point. It is 3 miles from any buildings, parking lots or roads. 20 years later there is a parking lot RIGHT next to it. This collection point is now invalid.

Why??

Stand on a asphalt parking lot in july, then go 2 miles out into a field on the same day. Which one is hotter?? The problem they found with the collection points were they were giving bogus reading because of interference from building, parking lots and passing cars. The same is true regardless of the time of year. Any data collection points next to buildings, parking lots and roads will give higher than actual readings.

The only true way to tell if the earth is getting hotter or cooler (overall, not just over a short period of time) is by taking the temps at the bottom of the oceans, which haven't changed in the 30 years they have been taking those readings.

Oh, and the whole, warming than at any time in recorded history.
That is a bogus statement also since they didn't start really taking those reading till the 60's and 70's and in some cases (as in the polar ice readings) they didn't start taking some of those reading till the 80's. So to say it is the worst in recorded history is BS. 20-40 years isn't even a blink in history. Especially when you take the 1938 dust bowl into account.

If these guys arn't enough, "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

Those are the 4 that track world temps, not just local temps. They take the data from all over the world.
I will be glad to do a little research and find some more accounts if you like.
 
A study was found that showed they were in violation on over 40% of their collection points and another 30% were questionable.

If these guys arn't enough, "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

Those are the 4 that track world temps, not just local temps. They take the data from all over the world.
I will be glad to do a little research and find some more accounts if you like.

Post it up, please enlighten me.
 
I here ya. I hate journalistic dribble too. I think you'll find this web site has a lot of facts based on science and collected data.

http://icecap.us/



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MEITEMPS_LAST_DECADE.jpg

That is a neat site.
Got 9 out or 10 correct in their climate test.
A lot of what I read on that site pretty much echos what we have been saying on this site for the last 5 years.

The bad part of any article, or science report or anything else for that matter is that no matter what is printed or "proved", there is another report or science study that says the oposite. Kind of depends on who is paying for the report. That is kind of sad, but true.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top