Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Science Skeptics Forum  »  The "Greenhouse Signature" Is Missing!...
Page 1 of 1    
Author Message
0ZNB0...
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:39 pm
Guest
What The IPCC Wants To Hide. The "Greenhouse Signature" Is Missing!

Ray Evans

Quadrant Magazine Environment

June 2008 Volume LII Number 6



http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936



QUOTE: In 1800 William Herschel, the Astronomer Royal, published his
famous paper in which he took the wheat prices recorded by Adam Smith in
The Wealth of Nations, and found they correlated extremely well with the
sunspot record as it was then known.





BUT THESE CONSIDERATIONS are not as important as the inconvenient facts
which are finally coming into public view. The first is the
contradiction between what the climate models predict and what
temperature measurements of the troposphere are telling us. There are
more than twenty climate models around the world. Every one predicts
some degree of warming from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations (although estimates vary greatly) and every one requires
significant warming to take place in the troposphere in tropical
latitudes, at altitudes of about ten kilometres.



This phenomenon is known as the "greenhouse signature".



There has been intensive investigation into the actual temperatures at
these latitudes and altitudes using radiosonde balloons and satellites.
The results are now beyond dispute.



There is no warming. None.



This result poses a huge crisis for the IPCC and all those whose
reputations and livelihoods depend upon it. Do you stick with the
climate models, or do you believe the temperature data? This quandary
has been kept pretty quiet and it hasn't yet reached the mainstream
press. But it will be impossible to keep it under wraps indefinitely;
those who are in the know and appreciate the implications are
re-positioning themselves. When it finally breaks out, many people will
be searching for new careers.



The second is much better known; the failure of the planet to warm,
despite steadily rising carbon dioxide concentrations, since 1998.



The third is the record-breaking fall in global temperature in 2007.



The fourth, and most serious, is the failure of solar cycle 24 to become
manifest. Until belief in the IPCC theory of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide climate control became mandatory, the study of solar influences
on the world's climate had occupied scientists for at least two
centuries.



In 1800 William Herschel, the Astronomer Royal, published his famous
paper in which he took the wheat prices recorded by Adam Smith in The
Wealth of Nations, and found they correlated extremely well with the
sunspot record as it was then known. He was probably spurred into this
investigation because the Thames had frozen in London for the first time
for nearly a century, an early manifestation of the Dalton Minimum. This
period, which began about 1795 and persisted until 1820, had begun its
grim passage throughout Europe, where the combination of bad harvests
followed by the Napoleonic Wars caused great distress. It was coincident
with solar cycles 5 and 6, which were of very low intensity. But of
greater significance was that solar cycle 4 had been of high intensity
and long duration, thirteen years, and a period of warmer temperatures
and excellent harvests.



Historically, such long-duration, high-intensity solar cycles have been
excellent predictors of weak cycles and miserable weather for the next
twenty-five to thirty years. Why this should be so is an issue over
which many scientists, many of them retired or amateur, now argue. But
because the correlation is from a past event into a future event, no one
can argue that the climate change causes sunspot activity to diminish.
(In his movie Al Gore tried this reverse-causation trick in his
discussion of the carbon dioxide and temperature curves found in the
Vostok ice cores.)
--



Warmest Regards


Bonzo


".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
...
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:39 pm
Guest
On Jun 16, 6:39 pm, "0ZNB0" <0Z... at (no spam) do00od00.com> wrote:
Quote:
What The IPCC Wants To Hide. The "Greenhouse Signature" Is Missing!

 Ray Evans

Quadrant Magazine Environment

June 2008 Volume LII Number 6

http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936

QUOTE: In 1800 William Herschel, the Astronomer Royal, published his
famous paper in which he took the wheat prices recorded by Adam Smith in
The Wealth of Nations, and found they correlated extremely well with the
sunspot record as it was then known.

BUT THESE CONSIDERATIONS are not as important as the inconvenient facts
which are finally coming into public view. The first is the
contradiction between what the climate models predict and what
temperature measurements of the troposphere are telling us. There are
more than twenty climate models around the world. Every one predicts
some degree of warming from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations (although estimates vary greatly) and every one requires
significant warming to take place in the troposphere in tropical
latitudes, at altitudes of about ten kilometres.

This phenomenon is known as the "greenhouse signature".

There has been intensive investigation into the actual temperatures at
these latitudes and altitudes using radiosonde balloons and satellites.
The results are now beyond dispute.

There is no warming. None.

This result poses a huge crisis for the IPCC and all those whose
reputations and livelihoods depend upon it. Do you stick with the
climate models, or do you believe the temperature data? This quandary
has been kept pretty quiet and it hasn't yet reached the mainstream
press. But it will be impossible to keep it under wraps indefinitely;
those who are in the know and appreciate the implications are
re-positioning themselves. When it finally breaks out, many people will
be searching for new careers.

The second is much better known; the failure of the planet to warm,
despite steadily rising carbon dioxide concentrations, since 1998.

The third is the record-breaking fall in global temperature in 2007.

The fourth, and most serious, is the failure of solar cycle 24 to become
manifest. Until belief in the IPCC theory of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide climate control became mandatory, the study of solar influences
on the world's climate had occupied scientists for at least two
centuries.

In 1800 William Herschel, the Astronomer Royal, published his famous
paper in which he took the wheat prices recorded by Adam Smith in The
Wealth of Nations, and found they correlated extremely well with the
sunspot record as it was then known. He was probably spurred into this
investigation because the Thames had frozen in London for the first time
for nearly a century, an early manifestation of the Dalton Minimum. This
period, which began about 1795 and persisted until 1820, had begun its
grim passage throughout Europe, where the combination of bad harvests
followed by the Napoleonic Wars caused great distress. It was coincident
with solar cycles 5 and 6, which were of very low intensity. But of
greater significance was that solar cycle 4 had been of high intensity
and long duration, thirteen years, and a period of warmer temperatures
and excellent harvests.

Historically, such long-duration, high-intensity solar cycles have been
excellent predictors of weak cycles and miserable weather for the next
twenty-five to thirty years. Why this should be so is an issue over
which many scientists, many of them retired or amateur, now argue. But
because the correlation is from a past event into a future event, no one
can argue that the climate change causes sunspot activity to diminish.
(In his movie Al Gore tried this reverse-causation trick in his
discussion of the carbon dioxide and temperature curves found in the
Vostok ice cores.)
--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism

YOU ARE A STUPID JESUS FUCKER
Roger Coppock...
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:39 pm
Guest
Below, Bonzo quotes a false statement.
It's typical of industry lobbyists
to make false statements and assume
that no one will do the math to verify
them.

Sunspots are almost totally irrelevant to
the observed warming of the last century.
Don't be distracted, the major cause of
the recent warming is increasing CO2 in
the atmosphere.


On Jun 16, 6:39 pm, "0ZNB0" <0Z... at (no spam) do00od00.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
Quote:
Historically, such long-duration, high-intensity solar cycles have been
excellent predictors of weak cycles and miserable weather for the next
twenty-five to thirty years. Why this should be so is an issue over


The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master's oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today's sunspots on tomorrow's temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.

1880-2007
Lag in years Vs. R squared.
Lag: 0 R^2: 0.0579
Lag: 1 R^2: 0.0743
Lag: 2 R^2: 0.0816
Lag: 3 R^2: 0.079
Lag: 4 R^2: 0.0783
Lag: 5 R^2: 0.0799
Lag: 6 R^2: 0.0722
Lag: 7 R^2: 0.0575
Lag: 8 R^2: 0.0453
Lag: 9 R^2: 0.0518
Lag: 10 R^2: 0.0602
Lag: 11 R^2: 0.0708
Lag: 12 R^2: 0.0794

-.-. --.- Roger Coppock


(Those who are new to statistical correlation and
"R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html

Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed
relationships.)

- - - -
In the data table below:
Year AnnMean YearlySunSpots
1880 13.75 32.242
1881 13.8 54.308
1882 13.78 59.608
1883 13.76 63.633
1884 13.7 63.508
1885 13.69 51.958
1886 13.75 25.425
1887 13.65 13.05
1888 13.73 6.75
1889 13.85 6.2167
1890 13.63 7.05
1891 13.72 35.625
1892 13.68 72.942
1893 13.68 85.083
1894 13.67 78.008
1895 13.73 63.967
1896 13.83 41.808
1897 13.88 26.242
1898 13.75 26.717
1899 13.83 12.108
1900 13.9 9.4583
1901 13.84 2.7417
1902 13.73 5.05
1903 13.69 24.383
1904 13.66 41.95
1905 13.75 63.467
1906 13.8 53.858
1907 13.61 62.033
1908 13.66 48.542
1909 13.65 43.883
1910 13.67 18.583
1911 13.66 5.7
1912 13.66 3.5917
1913 13.69 1.4417
1914 13.85 9.5917
1915 13.91 47.367
1916 13.7 57.067
1917 13.61 103.89
1918 13.68 80.575
1919 13.8 63.608
1920 13.81 37.642
1921 13.87 26.133
1922 13.76 14.242
1923 13.79 5.775
1924 13.79 16.717
1925 13.84 44.308
1926 13.99 63.883
1927 13.87 69.042
1928 13.89 77.8
1929 13.75 64.858
1930 13.93 35.725
1931 13.99 21.225
1932 13.94 11.142
1933 13.83 5.6583
1934 13.95 8.7167
1935 13.9 36.033
1936 13.97 79.733
1937 14.08 114.4
1938 14.11 109.55
1939 14.03 88.75
1940 14.05 67.783
1941 14.11 47.483
1942 14.04 30.6
1943 14.1 16.325
1944 14.21 9.5917
1945 14.07 33.092
1946 13.96 92.508
1947 14.01 151.51
1948 13.97 136.2
1949 13.94 135.12
1950 13.85 83.925
1951 13.96 69.425
1952 14.03 31.408
1953 14.11 13.85
1954 13.9 4.4083
1955 13.9 37.95
1956 13.83 141.71
1957 14.08 189.85
1958 14.08 184.59
1959 14.06 158.75
1960 13.99 112.28
1961 14.08 53.883
1962 14.04 37.6
1963 14.08 27.892
1964 13.79 10.2
1965 13.89 15.058
1966 13.97 46.875
1967 14. 93.667
1968 13.96 105.89
1969 14.08 105.56
1970 14.03 104.69
1971 13.9 66.65
1972 14. 68.933
1973 14.14 38.15
1974 13.92 34.408
1975 13.95 15.458
1976 13.84 12.55
1977 14.13 27.483
1978 14.02 92.658
1979 14.09 155.28
1980 14.18 154.65
1981 14.27 140.45
1982 14.05 116.29
1983 14.26 66.633
1984 14.09 45.85
1985 14.06 17.942
1986 14.13 13.4
1987 14.27 29.225
1988 14.31 100.
1989 14.19 157.79
1990 14.38 142.29
1991 14.35 145.78
1992 14.13 94.483
1993 14.14 54.733
1994 14.24 29.867
1995 14.38 17.5
1996 14.3 8.625
1997 14.4 21.483
1998 14.57 64.208
1999 14.33 93.175
2000 14.33 119.53
2001 14.48 110.93
2002 14.56 104.09
2003 14.55 63.567
2004 14.49 40.442
2005 14.62 29.783
2006 14.54 15.183
2007 14.57 7.5

"AnnMean" is the J-D yearly mean of the NASA GISS
"GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" file,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

"YearlySunSpots" is the mean of the monthly means
in the NOAA NGDC "MONTHLY" file. Available at
the FTP site accessed through this web page:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html
0ZNB0...
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:46 pm
Guest
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1907fda0-bc28-4305-a2bb-e22ce9918fa1 at (no spam) p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

What The IPCC Wants To Hide. The "Greenhouse Signature" Is Missing!

Ray Evans

Quadrant Magazine Environment

June 2008 Volume LII Number 6


http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936

QUOTE: In 1800 William Herschel, the Astronomer Royal, published his
famous paper in which he took the wheat prices recorded by Adam Smith in
The Wealth of Nations, and found they correlated extremely well with the
sunspot record as it was then known.





BUT THESE CONSIDERATIONS are not as important as the inconvenient facts
which are finally coming into public view. The first is the
contradiction between what the climate models predict and what
temperature measurements of the troposphere are telling us. There are
more than twenty climate models around the world. Every one predicts
some degree of warming from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations (although estimates vary greatly) and every one requires
significant warming to take place in the troposphere in tropical
latitudes, at altitudes of about ten kilometres.

This phenomenon is known as the "greenhouse signature".

There has been intensive investigation into the actual temperatures at
these latitudes and altitudes using radiosonde balloons and satellites.
The results are now beyond dispute.

There is no warming. None.

This result poses a huge crisis for the IPCC and all those whose
reputations and livelihoods depend upon it. Do you stick with the
climate models, or do you believe the temperature data? This quandary
has been kept pretty quiet and it hasn't yet reached the mainstream
press. But it will be impossible to keep it under wraps indefinitely;
those who are in the know and appreciate the implications are
re-positioning themselves. When it finally breaks out, many people will
be searching for new careers.



The second is much better known; the failure of the planet to warm,
despite steadily rising carbon dioxide concentrations, since 1998.



The third is the record-breaking fall in global temperature in 2007.



The fourth, and most serious, is the failure of solar cycle 24 to become
manifest. Until belief in the IPCC theory of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide climate control became mandatory, the study of solar influences
on the world's climate had occupied scientists for at least two
centuries.



In 1800 William Herschel, the Astronomer Royal, published his famous
paper in which he took the wheat prices recorded by Adam Smith in The
Wealth of Nations, and found they correlated extremely well with the
sunspot record as it was then known. He was probably spurred into this
investigation because the Thames had frozen in London for the first time
for nearly a century, an early manifestation of the Dalton Minimum. This
period, which began about 1795 and persisted until 1820, had begun its
grim passage throughout Europe, where the combination of bad harvests
followed by the Napoleonic Wars caused great distress. It was coincident
with solar cycles 5 and 6, which were of very low intensity. But of
greater significance was that solar cycle 4 had been of high intensity
and long duration, thirteen years, and a period of warmer temperatures
and excellent harvests.



Historically, such long-duration, high-intensity solar cycles have been
excellent predictors of weak cycles and miserable weather for the next
twenty-five to thirty years. Why this should be so is an issue over
which many scientists, many of them retired or amateur, now argue. But
because the correlation is from a past event into a future event, no one
can argue that the climate change causes sunspot activity to diminish.
(In his movie Al Gore tried this reverse-causation trick in his
discussion of the carbon dioxide and temperature curves found in the
Vostok ice cores.)
--



Warmest Regards


Bonzo


".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
Doug Bashford...
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:25 am
Guest
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:46:12 +1000, 0ZNB0 said:

Quote:
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism


... You want us to believe that if you sit around in your
... underwear, farting and drinking beer listening to talk
... radio and reading in Reader's Digest about the climate
... of the past, that we should take your pontifications
... seriously. On the other hand, you would have us believe
... that people who make it their life's work to understand
... climatalogical variations of the past and present, who are
... actively involved in reconstructing and interpreting climatic
... records going back hundreds of thousands or millions of
... years, and in modelling and collecting and testing new data,
... can't hold a candle to your mighty intellect. Could be.
... Farkward P. Parkenfarker, 10 Jul 1996


PURE Republicanism?? It's now clear.
Six years of PURE Republicanism - BOTH houses
AND the Prez. Pure as it gets.
So?
Are you better off now than seven years ago?
Are you proud with what they have done to
America and her reputation? ...To your reputation?
....all the sleaze, lies and bribery?
How about all the killing?
....Americans torture now? Proud?

If actions speak louder than rhetoric, then
name ONE good thing about Republicanism.
Just one.

Just one *real* thing.

Can't do it?
You have only feelsgood rhetoric?

So? Your Republicanism more like a bad habit then?
 
Page 1 of 1       All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:52 pm