How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:40 pm

honestly don't understand what you typed above.


Well, that's good for you, now you can leave your cognitive dissonance buried for at least another day.

Watts is a paid propogandist for big oil - he lies for money. End. Of. Fucking. Argument.


But I did not argue that, maybe he is. As I said before my stance has nothing to do with Anthony Watts and citing him is not a legitimate way to discredit questions.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:42 pm

Whatever. Talking to you is pretty pointless as far as I can tell.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:54 pm

One thing troubles me about the concept of Climate Change amongst those that consider it real (myself included) -

Those in the habit of questioning stuff, (representative of the people here, I believe), fall into one or the other of two broad categories (amongst many, many others, I hasten to add): (I'm sorry to be categorizing you all, I don't like it myself, either...but, needs must and all that... :wink )

X - those that believe there is a 'power', or control structure, that permeates our society - and is guiding society to ' that power's ' own benefit;

or

Y - those that do not believe X

Onward to Climate Change...

If CC is real - considering we've been, quite satisfactorily, 'around' (as modern humans) for the last 200,000 years, (having taken millions of years evolving to that state), wouldn't even the outside chance of an extinction level event ( - or something less apocalyptic - say, just enough to fuck our economic/social systems/infrastructure up, possibly terminally), in the next 30-1000 years, be worth avoiding at all costs?
After all, this is the second (nuclear holocaust being the first) time we've faced a 'potential' like this, of our own making, so we're not novices at this any more, right? We kind of know what has to be done - i.e. don't exacerbate the situation any further.

And so, to our merry band of ponderers:

Option A) If you're an Xer, you may well reach the final conclusion that the 'powers that be' are completely insane. If it's real, they are, at minimum, allowing it to happen. At worst, it is their agenda. The Powers That Be have children too, I imagine. What kind of people doom their own heirs? And yours?. One might begin to think they are a death-cult, even.
So what cha you gonna do about it, heh?

Option B) If you're a Yer - tsk...what kind of society have we created, eh? Society kind of goes where it wants to go...where we all lead it... right? One might begin to think this society is on some kind of death-cult trip... even? Odd, really, when you think about it - society is it's children and society is apparantly looking to fuck them all, forever, at some point. And it's not some random event - it's foreseeable.
So what cha you gonna do about it, heh?

In summary: If you believe CC is real, you need, with some urgency, to look beyond the horizon of your own life time and force drastic changes, now.

But isn't that, you know...a bit totalitarian? You can't just proclaim that people's life styles are going to change drastically and expect them to swallow it, surely! Think about the kind of ' ...ism ' that would be required to push through the massive changes required - when also taking into account that the vast majority of society (that even bother to think about it) don't really, really believe in CC, because if they did, really, really did, they'd be shitting their pants and doing something about it.

We need a new system, badly.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Elihu » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:17 pm

As regards this idea that AGW is a carbon tax, stealth scam perpetrated by TPTB - I don't get it.
...
I'm certain that first world economics are unsustainable and damaging to the wider biosphere (as it pertains to supporting mamallian life). Climate Change is supported by all of the science and dovetails with existing understanding of environmental degradation caused by industrial practice.

There is this inexplicable credulity from some in the conspiracy world that AGW is a scam because it is supported by some of the elites. ...

it's difficult. does the argument make sense? melting ice, sea levels etc. first world economics unsustainable. agreed. so then, culpability of captive consumers. who's responsible for this state of affairs in the first place?
Despite that these same elites have more to lose from mandated reductions in industrial capacity
you need to take a hard look at that my friend. in this monopolized cartelized command and control industrial economy the fortune 20 or 50 fear no mandates. their relative power and influence stand to increase not decrease. i sense a hegelian synthesis going on here. look at the clumsy pr of the oil majors pretending to be deniers. they finally get showed up. "oh damn. guess we'll just have to go along with the program." which is what they wanted all along.
I understand that it will be exploited for profit by the very agencies that are profiting from the fossil fuel industry,
it's not the profit they're after but control. profits are automatic and thus irrelevant in a monopoly. they need laws to get it. who's the only game in town offering "solutions"? i'm amazed at how converts readily agree to the proposition that yes it will be highly ineffective and graft ridden but it's the best we've got. why then other than some guilt complex would you go along with it? the elites have rolled out dozens and dozens of programs with screw results we lament every day. why would you think they're sincere or competent this time?
The science is real and the implications are of a culture ending danger.
if it's real why not insist upon a solution at least as scientifically sound as the problem is purported to be? instead of buying the canned bs "solution"?

The real scam is by the fossil fuel industries that tell you the science is bunk. Because if you believe the conspiracy there then you are perpetuating lies and propoganda from the very elites you purport to be against
if you're a plebe like i am, our enemy is the same. don't play into his hands.
Stupid Evil vs Regular Evil....
Don't know who to root for in that war.
vince :
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:38 pm

Excellent dodger, you are dealing with the substance of my contention and then following up with your POV and some fair analysis of implications.

That's the kind of thing that makes room for discussion.



I will pipe up later, maybe tomorrow.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:23 am

I'm somewhere between an Xer and a Yer, in that I believe there is a power elite and that their wealth affords them some level of control and "management" of society, but I don't believe it is altogether concerted or singular. They do know about the climate crisis but they must also be preparing a way to save their own progeny and to shed the laboring class.

Consider some past hit threads here, from the mundane to the paranormal, ideas that span the broadest range of possibilities. Libertarian yacht-cities, underground civilizations under DIA or Raven Rock, whistleblowers from the U.S. Navy who claim knowledge of a "space-ark" program, $32 trillion hidden offshore, the hollow moon, mass genocide, foreknowledge of anti-gravity or spacetime-bending technology, cold fusion, etc etc. The possibilities are really only limited by the imagination, but we at least have the biscuit crumbs.

It is likely that a few factions of the power elite carry their own conflicting, contradictory plans. What is the likelihood of the labor classes being used as pawns to ensure the survival of one tiny group vs. the survival of another tiny group?
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4937
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:57 am

One thing troubles me about the concept of Climate Change amongst those that consider it real (myself included) –


Maybe it is real; one can still question the relative implications.


Those in the habit of questioning stuff, (representative of the people here, I believe), fall into one or the other of two broad categories (amongst many, many others, I hasten to add): (I'm sorry to be categorizing you all, I don't like it myself, either...but, needs must and all that... )

X - those that believe there is a 'power', or control structure, that permeates our society - and is guiding society to ' that power's ' own benefit;


The ‘power’ does not derive from individuals so much as it is contained in the very way we approach reality. Some individuals may have found ways to consolidate power through the use of manipulation of our approach to reality or our dominant narrative, but the power is in the narrative rather than being held by any one person. Rockefeller is a symptom not a cause. We all are also symptoms of a narrative structure that rewards coercion.



or

Y - those that do not believe X


Everybody believes X in one way or another. Sub-consciously we record all information bits that cross our path. We all know we are being pissed on, but our conscious models, being greatly shaped by social conformity interests, locks us out of access to much of our sub-conscious knowing. Hence, cognitive dissonance.

In my opinion AGW is a cognitive dissonance producing machine. It is a narrative maintenance exercise for western exceptionalism.

Onward to Climate Change...

If CC is real - considering we've been, quite satisfactorily, 'around' (as modern humans) for the last 200,000 years, (having taken millions of years evolving to that state), wouldn't even the outside chance of an extinction level event ( - or something less apocalyptic - say, just enough to fuck our economic/social systems/infrastructure up, possibly terminally), in the next 30-1000 years, be worth avoiding at all costs?
After all, this is the second (nuclear holocaust being the first) time we've faced a 'potential' like this, of our own making, so we're not novices at this any more, right? We kind of know what has to be done - i.e. don't exacerbate the situation any further.

And so, to our merry band of ponderers:

Option A) If you're an Xer, you may well reach the final conclusion that the 'powers that be' are completely insane. If it's real, they are, at minimum, allowing it to happen. At worst, it is their agenda. The Powers That Be have children too, I imagine. What kind of people doom their own heirs? And yours?. One might begin to think they are a death-cult, even.
So what cha you gonna do about it, heh?


Try to convince others that the dominant imperative for power people is to maintain the narrative that provides them with their advantage. Without a coercion narrative, they would not exist. So they are not insane, they are quite like the rest of us really, they want what they think is ‘best’ for their children.

Option B) If you're a Yer - tsk...what kind of society have we created, eh? Society kind of goes where it wants to go...where we all lead it... right? One might begin to think this society is on some kind of death-cult trip... even? Odd, really, when you think about it - society is it's children and society is apparantly looking to fuck them all, forever, at some point. And it's not some random event - it's foreseeable.
So what cha you gonna do about it, heh?


I think it more likely we are being fucked by GMO’s, Fukushima and depleted uranium, but we are all entitled to our opinions.


In summary: If you believe CC is real, you need, with some urgency, to look beyond the horizon of your own life time and force drastic changes, now.


Yeah, I’m not real keen on current formulations for forcing, so called, drastic changes.

But isn't that, you know...a bit totalitarian? You can't just proclaim that people's life styles are going to change drastically and expect them to swallow it, surely! Think about the kind of ' ...ism ' that would be required to push through the massive changes required - when also taking into account that the vast majority of society (that even bother to think about it) don't really, really believe in CC, because if they did, really, really did, they'd be shitting their pants and doing something about it.


Why yes it is, - more than a bit totalitarian, and we will be all the more dis-empowered if CC is another fraudulent vehicle that makes space for further entrenchment of vertically structured authority.


We need a new system, badly.


How badly? Badly enough to address our own involvement in the promulgation and use of coercion to enforce social conformity demands? That will require levels of self-examination that many people seem unwilling to do.

But, but 97% of scientists say so. Spare me the appeals to authority.

I understand that it will be exploited for profit by the very agencies that are profiting from the fossil fuel industry,


Elihu's response...
it's not the profit they're after but control. profits are automatic and thus irrelevant in a monopoly. they need laws to get it. who's the only game in town offering "solutions"? i'm amazed at how converts readily agree to the proposition that yes it will be highly ineffective and graft ridden but it's the best we've got. why then other than some guilt complex would you go along with it? the elites have rolled out dozens and dozens of programs with screw results we lament every day. why would you think they're sincere or competent this time?



Folk must be feeling a bit like Charlie Brown kicking air at about this point.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Elihu » Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:43 pm

Folk must be feeling a bit like Charlie Brown kicking air at about this point.
it's not forward with more and grander social engineering at this point. it's rolling leviathan backwards. you want some earth changing social engineering? demobilize the military. defund the agriculture complex. defund the third and fourth parties involved between patient and doctor and their sycophant universities, end the violence and corruption inducing prohibition war on peaceful people (and the legal racism that goes with it). end the protection rackets around alcohol and tobacco. let the financial behemoths that thrive on these activities collapse. end their currency monopoly. pull the curtain back on the synergy between religions, entertainment monopolies, education and the warfare state.

have we sinned? heck yes we have in letting all this happen. it would mean admitting we've been wrong and dealing with the new old realities the foregoing would create. humans have way more technology and ability than we've ever had in the past to deal with it. gutsy, brave, bold. notice that this is a non-starter with the ruling quadfecta (a matrix of vertical integration and horizontal synergy, thank you sounder). they call it insane and seditious. jeepers, the dimunition of the car culture alone would reduce co2 way more than a carbon scam ever could. unless you like all that crap to the point where you don't want to give it up. i'll admit it has its appeal. which fork in the road are we gonna take? the future is easy easy easy to predict with the consensus choice. more failure. missed it by that much! doh!
Stupid Evil vs Regular Evil....
Don't know who to root for in that war.
vince :
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:15 pm

Really, how bout we engineer leviathan so as to support human needs.

That makes more sense than engineering humans to support leviathans needs.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:49 pm

And yet those who discredit science do so because they've bought and swallowed whole a meme promoted by profit-driven industrialists that sadly they do not understand will kill them.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby fruhmenschen » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:17 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... te-change/


Wall Street Journal Claims ‘Liberals No Longer Refer To Global Warming’ Because Winter Is Cold

By Joe Romm on January 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm


"Wall Street Journal Claims ‘Liberals No Longer Refer To Global Warming’ Because Winter Is Cold"


In a 2002 memo, GOP spinmaster Frank Luntz urged conservatives to switch from using the term “global warming” to using “climate change.” He wrote (original emphasis):

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming…

1) “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Scientists, environmentalists, progressives, and frankly the whole darn planet have always used both terms — hence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988.

But when have the facts ever gotten in the way of a good narrative in a Rupert Murdoch news outlet? So we have a Wall Street Journal editorial from Thursday, plaintively headlined “It Isn’t Climate Change,” which laughably asserts:

This being 2014, when everything devolves to politics, any spell of cold or heat inevitably leads to explanations of climate change. The conservative websites are having a good time pointing to the cold temps as a repudiation of global-warming models, while the global-warming crowd says even the cold is proof of … climate change. You see, it’s all about climate extremes. That’s why the liberals no longer refer to “global warming.”

It’s good to see the WSJ admit that conservative websites actually think the existence of winter repudiates global warming models. But since we’re talking semantics here, the global warming crowd doesn’t say the cold is proof of climate change. Scientific observation and analysis are what prove climate change.

Back in 2010, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said the case for warming was so strong they labeled as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.” The recent literature review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that scientists are as certain that humans are warming the globe “as they are that cigarettes kill.” And the IPCC’s best estimate is that humans are responsible for all of the warming we have suffered since 1950.

So there’s no need for anyone to waste time examining whether or not winter cold proves or disproves climate science. How precisely could the relatively modest warming we have seen to date — about 1.5°F — possibly eliminate winter cold spells?

It is true that some climate scientists have worked to understand how occasional deep cold spells are not inconsistent with warming-driven Arctic sea ice changes (see “Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral And Cold Weather”). But then we’ve seen so many off the charts weather extremes and weather whiplash in recent years, it bears as much study as possible given how devastating climate-driven weather extremes can be.

Yes, 2013 was on the cool side for the United States, and “for the first time in 20 years, the U.S. saw more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures in 2013,” as USA Today reports. But coming off 2012, the hottest year in U.S. history, “the ratio of daily highs to daily lows continues to be near 3 to 1 for this decade, so far,” notes Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton. That is considerably higher than the ratio from the previous decade.

As I discussed Thursday, the planet keeps warming and this year may well be the hottest on record. So global warming remains an accurate term. But we are also seeing changes that aren’t gradual — so-called non-linear changes — such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic ice, which may be weakening the jetstream and causing unexpectedly strong weather extremes. So climate change is also an accurate term.

Climate scientists, I expect, will continue to use both terms to explain what’s going on, whereas deniers will probably use both to mock and harass climate scientists with false charges and smears, as exemplified in this Media Matters video :

Media Matters further notes:

The term “climate change” was used long before Luntz’s memo, particularly in the scientific literature. For instance, a 1970 paper published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was titled “Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change” and discussed how emissions of carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere.


I use both terms, though as I’ve said many times, I prefer “Hell and High Water,” since it is more descriptive of what is to come.”

Others prefer “Global Weirding.” Whatever you call it, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Finally, Peter Sinclair also has a video debunking this myth showing just how far back the term “climate change” goes:




LINKS DE JOUR
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/
http://guymcpherson.com/contact/
http://radcast.org/



a 4 degree C rise in temperature will make the planet unfit for humans to live on



Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn
New climate model taking greater account of cloud changes indicates heating will be at higher end of expectations


The Guardian, Tuesday 31 December 2013 09.02 EST



Temperature rises resulting from unchecked climate change will be at the severe end of those projected, according to a new scientific study.

The scientist leading the research said that unless emissions of greenhouse gases were cut, the planet would heat up by a minimum of 4C by 2100, twice the level the world's governments deem dangerous.

The research indicates that fewer clouds form as the planet warms, meaning less sunlight is reflected back into space, driving temperatures up further still. The way clouds affect global warming has been the biggest mystery surrounding future climate change.

Professor Steven Sherwood, at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, who led the new work, said: "This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes and second by strongly discounting the lowest estimates of future global warming in favour of the higher and more damaging estimates."

"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet", with sea levels rising by many metres as a result.

The research is a "big advance" that halves the uncertainty about how much warming is caused by rises in carbon emissions, according to scientists commenting on the study, published in the journal Nature. Hideo Shiogama and Tomoo Ogura, at Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies, said the explanation of how fewer clouds form as the world warms was "convincing", and agreed this indicated future climate would be greater than expected. But they said more challenges lay ahead to narrow down further the projections of future temperatures.

Scientists measure the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to greenhouse gases by estimating the temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with pre-industrial levels – as is likely to happen within 50 years, on current trends. For two decades, those estimates have run from 1.5C to 5C, a wide range; the new research narrowed that range to between 3C and 5C, by closely examining the biggest cause of uncertainty: clouds.

The key was to ensure that the way clouds form in the real world was accurately represented in computer climate models, which are the only tool researchers have to predict future temperatures. When water evaporates from the oceans, the vapour can rise over nine miles to form rain clouds that reflect sunlight; or it may rise just a few miles and drift back down without forming clouds. In reality, both processes occur, and climate models encompassing this complexity predicted significantly higher future temperatures than those only including the nine-mile-high clouds.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:24 pm

Science discredits itself because they've bought and swallowed whole a meme promoted by profit-driven industrialists that sadly they do not understand will kill them.


Fixed

So then where is the science that shows us the effects of GMO’s for instance. I dare say, very few scientists do that work because there is no money in it. No, I love science, and am incensed for instance that the scientist that provided the first comprehensive results on GMO effects was fired, along with his whole staff, within 24 hours of releasing results. Coercion runs this world and scientists must be very clever indeed if they are to find a way to do real objective science.

Please note; Rockefeller ‘rehabilitated’ himself after the Ludlow massacre by ‘donating’ one million dollars each to fifty medical schools. On condition they dump the homeopathic dept. and adopt the allopathic-pharmacological model. Later he (they) further enlarged the petro and chemical markets by ‘sponsoring’ the green revolution.

Money and coercion drove those activities and developments, not science.

If one is looking to validate a forgone conclusion, then certainly what is being done is not science; it’s scientism.

The dudes on their jaunt to Antarctica were certainly looking to film some melting spring water thaw for their generous sponsors. It ain’t cheap to run a ship in Antarctica you know.

That is scientism.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:29 am

There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:05 am

Hitler does kind of look like a penguin.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:28 pm

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/germ ... s-by-2100/

German Scientists Show Climate Driven By Natural Cycles – Global Temperature To Drop To 1870 Levels By 2100!

By P Gosselin on 3. Dezember 2013
Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2

Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss
(Original German version here.)

We reported recently about our spectral analysis work of European temperatures [1] which shows that during the last centuries all climate changes were caused by periodic (i.e. natural) processes. Non-periodic processes like a warming through the monotonic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause at most 0.1° to 0.2° warming for a doubling of the CO2 content, as it is expected for 2100.

Fig. 1 (Fig. 6 of [1] ) shows the measured temperatures (blue) and the temperatures reconstructed using the 6 strongest frequency components (red) of the Fourier spectrum, indicating that the temperature history is determined by periodic processes only.

On sees from Fig. 1 that two cycles of periods 200+ years and ~65 years dominate the climate changes, the 200+ year cycle causing the largest part of the temperature increase since 1870.

EIKE_2

Fig. 1: Construction of temperatures using the 6 strongest Fourier components (red), European temperatures from instrumental measurements (blue). It is apparent that only a 200+ year cycle and a ~65 year cycle play a significant role.

The ~65 year cycle is the well-known, much studied, and well understood “Atlantic/Pacific oscillation” (AMO/PDO). It can be traced back for 1400 years. The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”, an “oscillator”.

Although the spectral analysis of the historical instrumental temperature measurements [1] show a strong 200+ year period, it cannot be inferred with certainty from these measurements, since only 240 years of measurement data are available. However, the temperatures obtained from the Spannagel stalagmite show this periodicity as the strongest climate variation by far since about 1100 AD.

The existence of this 200+ year periodicity has nonetheless been doubted. Even though temperatures from the Spannagel stalagmite agree well with temperatures derived from North Atlantic sedimentation; and even though the solar “de Vries cycle”, which has this period length, is known for a long time as an essential factor determining the global climate.

A perfect confirmation for the existence and the dominant influence of the 200+ year cycle as found by us [1] is provided by a recent paper [2] which analyses solar activities for periodic processes.

eike_2

Fig. 2: Spectrum of solar activity showing the 208 year period as the strongest climate variation.

The spectrum Fig. 2 (Fig. 1d of [2]) shows clearly a 208-year period as the strongest variation of the solar activity. Fig. 3 (Fig. 4 of [2]) gives us the solar activity of the past until today as well as the prediction for the coming 500 years. This prediction is possible due to the multi-periodic character of the activity.

EIKE_1

Fig. 3: Solar activity from 1650 to present (measurement, solid line) and prediction for the coming 500 years (light gray: prediction from spectrum, dark gray: prediction from wavelet analysis). Letters M,D,G denote the historical global temperature minima: Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg.

The solar activity agrees well with the terrestrial climate. It clearly shows in particular all historic temperature minima. Thus the future temperatures can be predicted from the activities – as far as they are determined by the sun (the AMO/PDO is not determined by the sun).

The 200+ year period found here [2], as it is found by us [1] is presently at its maximum. Through its influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last “Little Ice Age” 1870.

The wavelet analysis of the solar activity Fig. 4 (Fig. 1b of [2]) has interesting detail. In spite of its limited resolution it shows (as our analysis of the Spannagel stalagmite did) that the 200+ year period set in about 1000 years ago. This cycle appears, according to Fig. 4, regularly every 2500 years. (The causes for this 2500 year period are probably not understood.)

eike_4

Fig. 4: Wavelet analysis of solar activity (showing which periods were active at which time). The dominant oscillations (periods between 125 years and 250 years) are clearly recognizable and recurring at 2500 years.

Summary

The analysis of solar activity proves the existence and the strength of the 200+ year periodicity which we found from historical temperature measurements, as well as from the Spannagel stalagmite data. This 200+ year cycle is apparently the one known as “de Vries cycle”.

This solar “de Vries cycle together with the AMO/PDO determine practically completely the global climate of the past (Fig. 1) and the coming time. A significant influence of CO2 on the climate thus has to be excluded. This latter is not surprising in view of the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its weak infrared absorption cross section (also in view of the various proves of NEGATIVE water feedback).

eike_5

Fig. 5: Predicted global temperature of “official” models (red) and real (measured) global temperature (green).

The present “stagnation” of global temperature (Fig. 5) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum. Around this maximum it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. The temperature can expected to be then similar to the last AMO/PDO minimum of 1940. Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.

It accounts for the long temperature rise since 1870. One may note, that the stronger temperature increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, which is “officially” argued to prove warming by CO2, is essentially due to the AMO/PDO cycle.

[1] H.Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, C.O. Weiss; Clim. Past. 9 (2013) p 447

[2] F. Steinhilber, J. Beer; Journ. Geophys. Res.: Space Physics 118 (2013) p 1861
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/germ ... qcxCj.dpuf
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests