If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing over again.

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
world temperatures ended in 1997."

Guess What? There's controversy!

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1kx6soAc2

Mikek

On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net> wrote:
>> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
>> Met = UK's National Weather Service
>>
>> "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
>> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
>> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>
> Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
> larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
> the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation
>
> As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
> scientific matters.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?
Mikek

John Larkin wrote:
>
> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>
> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>
> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>
> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

amdx wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net> wrote:
>>> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
>>> Met = UK's National Weather Service
>>>
>>> "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
>>> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
>>> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
>>
>> Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
>> larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
>> the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation
>>
>> As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
>> scientific matters.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?
> Mikek

You might like to note the fact that the Daily Wail has just been
awarded the 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation.

http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2012/01...rnalistic.html

They score incredibly badly on scientific accuracy. Setting a new all
time record for printing gibberish with their winning entry in 2011.

I suggest you go back to the original publication rather than rely on
their wilfully misleading selective misquoting of the actual research.

Regards,
Martin Brown

John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>>>
>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>>
>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>>>
>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
>
> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
> is actually causal.

Sunspots have been visible ever since people first started looking at
the sky. Naked eye sunspots are recorded by Chinese astronomers.

A more quantitative index vy Wolf of Zurich goes back nearly 150 years.
The Hale cycles are fairly well predictable and despite what you may
read in the rightard press the sun is really quite active at the moment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm

http://www.space.com/14387-biggest-s...ion-storm.html

Now is a relatively good time to go aurora watching or buy an H-alpha
solar prominence telescope. There is plenty to see on the sun.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
>> is actually causal.
>
> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
> effect on climate is very small.
>

ROFL!

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../sunspots.html

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> BillSlomanwrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
>>>> is actually causal.
>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
>>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
>>> effect on climate is very small.
>> ROFL!
>>
>> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../sunspots.html
>
> O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
> small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
> web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
> to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
> sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
> example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
>
> The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
> some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
>
> English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
> weasel-wording by now.
>

I did, in the climategate emails :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>
>>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
>>> is actually causal.
>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
>> of the sun,
>
> And how do you know that?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
>
> "Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
> research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
> magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
> by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
> limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
> Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
> the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

It takes around a hundred thousand years for a photon from a nuclear
reaction at the centre of the sun to make it to the surface. Effectively
a diffusion style random walk in a highly scattering plasma medium.

Sunspots merely tweak the effective transport properties of the
relatively shallow uppermost surface layer slightly.
>
> Idiot.

Although it is true that the *sunspots* are cooler than the main
photosphere there is one crucial point you are missing. The sun on
average is mostly *brighter* when there are lots sunspots visible as the
lost output from the spots themselves is more than compensated for by
the much larger areas of bright faculae that accompany them. An active
sun is a brighter sun this is not in dispute and is included in all the
climate models. The effect of the sunspot cycle variation in TSI of 0.1%
on the global climate is however right at the limits of detection.

You cannot blame the sun for all the recent warming - the satellite data
rules out magically making the sun brighter.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> BillSlomanwrote:
>>> On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> BillSlomanwrote:
>>>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>>>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>>>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>>>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
>>>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
>>>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
>>>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
>>>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
>>>>>> is actually causal.
>>>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
>>>>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
>>>>> effect on climate is very small.
>>>> ROFL!
>>>> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../sunspots.html
>>> O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
>>> small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
>>> web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
>>> to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
>>> sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
>>> example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
>>> The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
>>> some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
>>> English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
>>> weasel-wording by now.
>> I did, in the climategate emails :-)
>
> There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
> researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
> call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
> commentary on it.
>
> I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-.../dp/0852652291
>
> He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
> about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
> editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
> to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
> was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
> advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
> very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
> denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
> trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
> literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.
>

Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> BillSlomanwrote:
>>>> On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> BillSlomanwrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>>>>> <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
>>>>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
>>>>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
>>>>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
>>>>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
>>>>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
>>>>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
>>>>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
>>>>>>> is actually causal.
>>>>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
>>>>>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
>>>>>> effect on climate is very small.
>>>>> ROFL!
>>>>> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../sunspots.html
>>>> O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
>>>> small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
>>>> web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
>>>> to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
>>>> sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
>>>> example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
>>>> The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
>>>> some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
>>>> English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
>>>> weasel-wording by now.
>>> I did, in the climategate emails :-)
>>
>> There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
>> researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
>> call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
>> commentary on it.
>>
>> I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-.../dp/0852652291
>>
>> He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
>> about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
>> editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
>> to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
>> was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
>> advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
>> very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
>> denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
>> trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
>> literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.
>>
>
> Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
> your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

Leaving the merits of the argument aside - a conspiracy theory would be
where you think all the experts in the field are wrong, suppressing
evidence and so forth. If this is what you think, then surely it is
*you* that believes in a conspiracy theory, not Bill?

E.g., you presumably think the "climategate" scientists were engaged in
a "conspiracy" to defraud the public or some such?

--

John Devereux