Solar Minimum 2009, Global Cooling and the Record Breaking Winter

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Malbekh, do you see any flaws in the arguments used by Cassandra on this thread, or does it all make perfect sense to you?
My arguments have not become politicised and created excessive taxes, regulations and a new derivatives minefield in the midst of the 2nd Great Depression. The downturn alone will reduce these carbon emissions substantially.

This thread is clearly about Solar activity and the influence it has on climate change. It influences other planets as well.

What is flawed by saying that the sun is the primary driver behind climate change?
 


ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
My arguments have not become politicised and created excessive taxes, regulations and a new derivatives minefield in the midst of the 2nd Great Depression. The downturn alone will reduce these premise emissions substantially.
Yes, and amazingly enough, despite this being, apparently, a tax scam/plot to drive everyone back to the stone age, you'll find that the taxes have therefore gone down. It's as if they were really trying to get people not to pump out CO2!

This thread is clearly about Solar activity and the influence it has on climate change. It influences other planets as well.

What is flawed by saying that the sun is the primary driver behind climate change?
That it doesn't match the data. That's a big problem for an explanation. Well, in the reality-based community, anyway.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
1. The data is not under the control of EAU and never was. You are like the Party people in your beloved 1984 on this point, parroting lies from the Ministry of Truth.
2. Even if you exclude all data from "urban heat islands", there is still great evidence of warming. You forget that there is such a thing as Google Earth: we can now check if the location of a given weather station is in an urban area or not. Unless you are now going to say that the urban areas are camouflaged as wilderness in order to give a false picture of AGW.
3. Are Alaska and Australia all around the world? Because they had one of their hottest winters ever. When you average it out, it's not much of an anti-AGW argument.
1. The reference to 1984, I am merely questioning the "facts". I have no control laws and regulations. But for questioning the "logic" I am the one being tossed into Room 101 and being tortured into accepting 2 + 2 =5.

Between personal experience and some of the data that is trustworthy, the climate has fluncuated since the 70s, correlating with the sun and sometimes regressing against the linear increase in CO2 ppm.

2. Where is the evidence in the past year?. No extreme heatwaves, total storm seasons, or mild winters. If 2009 is one of the warmest on record, show us a link of a record breaking temperature set somewhere in the world? The laws of probability say that at least somewhere in the world must have hit a record of if the momentum is constantly moving to the hot side.

3. Australia's summer this year is not extreme, nor was Alaska's winter mild. Where is all this heat to compensate for the unilateral record breaker winters?
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Malbekh, do you see any flaws in the arguments used by Cassandra on this thread, or does it all make perfect sense to you?
Well, this is the problem isn't it? This whole AGW thing does make a lot of sense, so in the beginning I was happy enough to go along with the whole process particularly under the impression that 98% of scientists or something were fully behind it.

So I would have taken everything SOTR and Cassandra said with a truck load of gritting salt. However, over the last few months we've had an incessant drip, drip of information and reports coming out that undermine the whole process.

There's no need to list them, you know the ones I'm talking about. Then we had the joke that was the Copenhagen summit. Now we have the carbon tax. I tell you what, one of the key points for me was that debate on Pat Kenny with the environmentalist from the IT. To all intents and purposes he sounded like religious zealot who cared nothing for the facts and was only interested in attacking anyone who disagreed with his narrow point of view.

Oh yes, I know that statistics are being twisted and misused on both sides. If I can remember correctly, 1998 was one of the hottest years on record, so logically, if you draw a line from that year onwards it's going to appear that yearly temperatures are dropping, not rising. I'm also aware that with global warming, hurricanes will decrease in number and increase in intensity.
The current cold weather is down to the location of the jetstream, which as has been pointed out, if this was happening in 6 months time we would have had a record hot summer with water shortages and we'd all be going loo-lah on climate change.

But.

This isn't the summer, and the last three summers in spite of numerous promises of record heat waves have been the complete reverse. I'm not offering anecdotal evidence, this is a fact as anyone living in this country can confirm.

If we are going to set aside hundreds of billions of Euros to help combat AGW then the science needs to be infallible, and it ain't. Possibly because it's something that is exceptionally difficult to prove.

What I am prepared to support is the same hundreds of billions of Euros in taxes but ring-fenced in producing cleaner forms of energy sources, non-carbon and non-nuclear, by an EU generated fund for the benefit of all EU-member states and freely available when commissioned to Third World countries.
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
Yes, and amazingly enough, despite this being, apparently, a tax scam/plot to drive everyone back to the stone age, you'll find that the taxes have therefore gone down. It's as if they were really trying to get people not to pump out CO2
ibis

The reality is that oil producing countries are now experiencing a new phenomenon, Peak oil demand, now there is a turn up for the books
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
ibis

The reality is that oil producing countries are now experiencing a new phenomenon, Peak oil demand, now there is a turn up for the books
Peak oil has past. The price of oil is back up to where is was when demand was much much higher.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
This isn't the summer, and the last three summers in spite of numerous promises of record heat waves have been the complete reverse. I'm not offering anecdotal evidence, this is a fact as anyone living in this country can confirm.
I defy you to find ONE peer-reviewed climate science paper predicting that Ireland was going to have unseasonal heatwaves at this time, just one.

You may try to defend yourself with some bit of non peer-reviewed rubbish journalism that may or may not predict such things, but that doesn't matter a goddamn. You knew that whatever source you got that stupid prediction from was not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and, as such, should not be believed any more than a horoscope.

If you are basing your opinions on non peer-reviewed journalism, then you are an ignorant fool and there's no two ways about it.

At least the deniers are fairly open about their upfront rejection of reality. You, however, pretend to be open to reality, yet imagine that science ever predicted heatwaves in Ireland.

Ireland could be covered in snow for the next 1000 years (that's a hypothetical, not a prediction) and that situation wouldn't prevent the world as a whole from warming. We are not a barometer for the planet.
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
feargach

I read a lot of peer reviewed rubbish every day, I also read some excellent peer reviwed stuff, and from time to time I come across amatuer papers that deserve a Nobel prize.

Stop being an academic snob
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
feargach

I read a lot of peer reviewed rubbish every day, I also read some excellent peer reviwed stuff, and from time to time I come across amatuer papers that deserve a Nobel prize.

Stop being an academic snob
Hm. It's not about snobbery, it's about method. Peer review is there to catch fakes, spot errors, detect special pleading and logical holes, and deter pointless publishing.

Now, obviously if one is a fan of the various movements that have to oppose mainstream science (vaccination, fluoridation, creationism and climate change opposition) then one has to believe that the system is already fundamentally broken. Otherwise, looking at the evidence, peer review has an extremely good record as quality control for the disciplines it's used in.

None of that stops an amateur paper being excellent, but it does mean that it hasn't been given any quality control. Its apparent excellence may be entirely a surface gloss, with the data behind it absolutely valueless - and you're going to have to cross-check that for yourself, as is everyone else who reads it.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Well, this is the problem isn't it? This whole AGW thing does make a lot of sense, so in the beginning I was happy enough to go along with the whole process particularly under the impression that 98% of scientists or something were fully behind it.

So I would have taken everything SOTR and Cassandra said with a truck load of gritting salt. However, over the last few months we've had an incessant drip, drip of information and reports coming out that undermine the whole process.

There's no need to list them, you know the ones I'm talking about. Then we had the joke that was the Copenhagen summit. Now we have the carbon tax. I tell you what, one of the key points for me was that debate on Pat Kenny with the environmentalist from the IT. To all intents and purposes he sounded like religious zealot who cared nothing for the facts and was only interested in attacking anyone who disagreed with his narrow point of view.

Oh yes, I know that statistics are being twisted and misused on both sides.
What statistics have been "twisted and misused" in climate science?

If I can remember correctly, 1998 was one of the hottest years on record, so logically, if you draw a line from that year onwards it's going to appear that yearly temperatures are dropping, not rising. I'm also aware that with global warming, hurricanes will decrease in number and increase in intensity.
The current cold weather is down to the location of the jetstream, which as has been pointed out, if this was happening in 6 months time we would have had a record hot summer with water shortages and we'd all be going loo-lah on climate change.

But.

This isn't the summer, and the last three summers in spite of numerous promises of record heat waves have been the complete reverse. I'm not offering anecdotal evidence, this is a fact as anyone living in this country can confirm.
Unfortunately, although that's not strictly anecdotal evidence, it might as well be. Who predicted 'heatwaves'? Did they predict them in Ireland? Is global warming a solely Irish phenomenon? Were the last three years warmer or colder on average than, say, the 1960-1990 baseline?

If we are going to set aside hundreds of billions of Euros to help combat AGW then the science needs to be infallible, and it ain't. Possibly because it's something that is exceptionally difficult to prove.
In fact, the recent "scandals" have involved virtually none of the science that the prognosis of climate change is based on. The body of climate science involved is enormous - thousands and thousands of papers.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Malbekh said:
This isn't the summer, and the last three summers in spite of numerous promises of record heat waves have been the complete reverse. I'm not offering anecdotal evidence, this is a fact as anyone living in this country can confirm.
Here's the problem with relying on anecdotal and quasi-anecdotal evidence - this is the Met Eireann summary of the years 2007-2009:

2009
Despite very cold weather at the end of the year, mean annual air temperatures were around half a degree above normal for the 1961-90 period at most stations. Mean values were close to those of 2008, but Valentia Observatory had its coolest year since 2002, while it was the coolest since 1996 at Cork Airport. Mean air temperatures for most months were slightly higher than normal, while values for January were near normal and December was colder than normal everywhere. The highest temperatures of the year were observed during early summer at most stations, with both Birr and Claremorris measuring 27.5°C on June 2nd. The lowest values were recorded during early January and late December. Mullingar’s air and ground temperatures of -10.0°C and -13.0°C respectively on December 25th were the lowest at the station for almost 30 years. The total number of air frosts during the year of between 38 and 58 at inland stations was close to normal.

Annual sunshine totals were above normal everywhere, with Malin Head having its sunniest year since 1960. The sunniest months relative to normal were March, May and particularly June, which was the sunniest for over 50 years in places; August was the only relatively dull month generally. All stations measured their sunniest day of the year during June.


2008
Mean air temperatures for the year were around half a degree above normal for the 1961-90 period at most stations, but it was nevertheless the coolest year for between six and 14 years generally. The mean temperature for most months was around half a degree higher than normal, but May was the warmest on record at most stations, with mean temperatures over three degrees above normal in western areas. Mean temperatures were below normal generally in October and December, while they were around normal in June and September. The highest temperatures of the year were recorded during the last week of July in most places, but Birr’s maximum was recorded as early as May 12th. Most stations measured their lowest air temperatures on January 4th, but there were also some very low values recorded during mid-February and late December. The total number of air frosts during the year of between 32 and 46 at inland stations was a little lower than normal generally.

Annual sunshine totals were close to normal everywhere. The sunniest months relative to normal were February, April, May, June, October and December, while January, July and August were dull; percentage of normal sunshine values for August were only around 60% in places, making it the dullest on record in places. Most stations measured their sunniest day of the year during May.

2007
Mean air temperatures for the year were just over one degree above normal for the 1961-90 period, the fourteenth successive year of higher than normal mean annual values. This was despite a relatively cool summer, especially over the eastern half of the country. It was the warmest year on record at the long-term stations of Valentia Observatory and Malin Head, where comparable records began in 1892 and 1885 respectively. It was also the warmest year on record at Belmullet, Rosslare and Kilkenny, where records commenced in the mid-1950s, and the warmest since 1949 at Birr. April was the warmest on record at most stations, while the autumn months between September and November were also exceptionally warm. July was the only month when mean temperatures were below normal over most of the country. The highest temperatures were recorded relatively early in the year: during the period June 9th to 11th in many places and on May 17th near the south and southeast coasts. The lowest air and ground temperatures of the year at almost all stations were recorded during a spell of very cold weather between February 5th and 8th.

Annual sunshine totals were above normal everywhere and both Malin Head and Belmullet had their sunniest year since 1968. The spring months of March, April and May were the sunniest relative to normal, while both June and November were relatively dull.
It doesn't really matter whether you expected (or the media predicted) 'heatwaves', or whether we had a dramatic cold spell. What matters, I'm afraid, is that little bit of extra heat, year in, year out.

And contrary to the 'predictions' of heatwaves, this is Met Eireann's predictions for climate change in Ireland:

We can expect the average temperature to rise in the future. The average temperature in the years 2021 to 2060 will be 1 to 1.5°C higher compared to the years 1961 to 2000. For the same years, C4I is predicting wetter winters and drier summers.
That's not very dramatic, I'm afraid - no mention of heatwaves sweeping the Irish desert. But then, God is kind to the Irish, because we're expected to get away with the whole business very lightly compared to southern countries.
 
Last edited:

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
I defy you to find ONE peer-reviewed climate science paper predicting that Ireland was going to have unseasonal heatwaves at this time, just one.

You may try to defend yourself with some bit of non peer-reviewed rubbish journalism that may or may not predict such things, but that doesn't matter a goddamn. You knew that whatever source you got that stupid prediction from was not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and, as such, should not be believed any more than a horoscope.

If you are basing your opinions on non peer-reviewed journalism, then you are an ignorant fool and there's no two ways about it.

At least the deniers are fairly open about their upfront rejection of reality. You, however, pretend to be open to reality, yet imagine that science ever predicted heatwaves in Ireland.

Ireland could be covered in snow for the next 1000 years (that's a hypothetical, not a prediction) and that situation wouldn't prevent the world as a whole from warming. We are not a barometer for the planet.
That's pretty strong stuff feargach, and I acknowledge that you're passionate about something that's very important to you. But you're beginning to sound like that guy from the IT on Pat Kenny.

You guys need to convince random people like me who are not peer-reviewed in the things that we say but do form the basis of public opinion.

It mightn't have clicked with you yet, but if you want people to buy in to AGW you're going to have to explain it at a level that people like me can assimilate and understand. You can push as many graphs and peer-reviewed reports down my neck, but you're losing the battle. The optics of the IPCC and Copenhagen do nothing for this cause.

Going off an a personalised rant against me is not conducive the getting your point across.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Hm. Here's Met Eireann's predictions for 2061-2100 July average temperatures under the IPCC 2007 prediction scenario:



Still no heatwaves. Here's the predicted maximum temperatures:



Expected to hit 22 degrees in places...
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Here's the problem with relying on anecdotal and quasi-anecdotal evidence - this is the Met Eireann summary of the years 2007-2009:



It doesn't really matter whether you expected (or the media predicted) 'heatwaves', or whether we had a dramatic cold spell. What matters, I'm afraid, is that little bit of extra heat, year in, year out.

And contrary to the 'predictions' of heatwaves, this is Met Eireann's predictions for climate change in Ireland:



That's not very dramatic, I'm afraid - no mention of heatwaves sweeping the Irish desert.
Now, see? That's more like it. I can understand this kind of simple stuff. So the line is, wasn't sunny but still warmer than in previous decades.

Hang on though, what about cloud cover?

From a simplistic point of view, if you have crap weather, heavy rain and cloud, isn't it the case that night time temperatures are also higher, so your mean temperatures will be higher also?

Doesn't this skew the figures somewhat Ibis?

Otherwise thanks for going to the trouble to enlighten me, it's worthwhile, trust me.
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Still no heatwaves. Here's the predicted maximum temperatures:



Expected to hit 22 degrees in places...[/QUOTE]

But I'll be dead at that stage, not much use to me...This on the assumption that the IPCC figures are actually accurate though? Maybe that's a road we don't want to go down....
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Now, see? That's more like it. I can understand this kind of simple stuff. So the line is, wasn't sunny but still warmer than in previous decades.

Hang on though, what about cloud cover?

From a simplistic point of view, if you have crap weather, heavy rain and cloud, isn't it the case that night time temperatures are also higher, so your mean temperatures will be higher also?

Doesn't this skew the figures somewhat Ibis?

Otherwise thanks for going to the trouble to enlighten me, it's worthwhile, trust me.
Actually, I included the sunshine record summary there as well as the temperature. I appreciate it's a bit long, so here they are by themselves:

2009: Annual sunshine totals were above normal everywhere, with Malin Head having its sunniest year since 1960. The sunniest months relative to normal were March, May and particularly June, which was the sunniest for over 50 years in places; August was the only relatively dull month generally. All stations measured their sunniest day of the year during June.

2008: Annual sunshine totals were close to normal everywhere. The sunniest months relative to normal were February, April, May, June, October and December, while January, July and August were dull; percentage of normal sunshine values for August were only around 60% in places, making it the dullest on record in places. Most stations measured their sunniest day of the year during May.

2007: Annual sunshine totals were above normal everywhere and both Malin Head and Belmullet had their sunniest year since 1968. The spring months of March, April and May were the sunniest relative to normal, while both June and November were relatively dull.
So, again, contrary to what we think looking back sunshine totals (the reverse of cloud cover) were above normal in 2007 and 2009, and close to normal in 2008. Actually, looking back, I do remember it being sunny in the winters and spring, but the memory of the July-August cloud blanket tends to dominate memories.
 

fiannafailure

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
2,066
Hm. It's not about snobbery, it's about method. Peer review is there to catch fakes, spot errors, detect special pleading and logical holes, and deter pointless publishing.

Now, obviously if one is a fan of the various movements that have to oppose mainstream science (vaccination, fluoridation, creationism and climate change opposition) then one has to believe that the system is already fundamentally broken. Otherwise, looking at the evidence, peer review has an extremely good record as quality control for the disciplines it's used in.

None of that stops an amateur paper being excellent, but it does mean that it hasn't been given any quality control. Its apparent excellence may be entirely a surface gloss, with the data behind it absolutely valueless - and you're going to have to cross-check that for yourself, as is everyone else who reads it.
ibis

I was being ironic in my reply to feargach, there was a piece in New Scientist last week about the Large Hadron Collider being the possible subject of an injunction being granted by a court over fears of creating a black hole and it makes the point I was making much better than I did.

CERN on trial: could a lawsuit shut the LHC down? - opinion - 23 February 2010 - New Scientist

You see peer review is vital within academia but loses its potency in the court of public opinion, in this realm evedince must be presented and argued differently
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Still no heatwaves. Here's the predicted maximum temperatures:



Expected to hit 22 degrees in places...
But I'll be dead at that stage, not much use to me...This on the assumption that the IPCC figures are actually accurate though? Maybe that's a road we don't want to go down....
Ah, well then, you want the 2021-2060 predictions. Here's the predicted July maximums:



19 degrees! Brutal weather...

This is the "anomaly map", in other words, the difference between the predicted temperature and the 1961-1990 baseline:



You can get all these maps here, including rainfall, frost days, etc.
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Actually, I included the sunshine record summary there as well as the temperature. I appreciate it's a bit long, so here they are by themselves:



So, again, contrary to what we think looking back sunshine totals (the reverse of cloud cover) were above normal in 2007 and 2009, and close to normal in 2008. Actually, looking back, I do remember it being sunny in the winters and spring, but the memory of the July-August cloud blanket tends to dominate memories.
Yeah, that's good for me, but perfectly will to listen to an opposed point of view. See, I get involved in a lot of agricultural work and the weather from June to October is pretty critical.

2007 was fantastic because while the summer was awful we had a great run all the way until practically December getting product out of the ground. 2008 and 2009 was in a word, crap. If we could just get our act together and make sure the sun shines in the right months I won't b1tch again, honest...

Pat is right though about public opinion. In the end, despite all the reports and analysis, this is the important thing to have on your side. Up until last year everyone was nodding their heads sagely when global warming was mentioned.

Lately it's been all 'I'm not so sure....'
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
IIf you are basing your opinions on non peer-reviewed journalism, then you are an ignorant fool and there's no two ways about it.

At least the deniers are fairly open about their upfront rejection of reality. You, however, pretend to be open to reality, yet imagine that science ever predicted heatwaves in Ireland.

Ireland could be covered in snow for the next 1000 years (that's a hypothetical, not a prediction) and that situation wouldn't prevent the world as a whole from warming. We are not a barometer for the planet.
Tut tut. Calling people ignorant, that is not very nice. This thread is about the influence of Solar Activity on our climate. Are you denying that the Sun has influence on our climate?

How much have you studied solar radiation and its impact on the planets in general?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top