Predictability? With a Pinch of Salt please.. Part One

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/13/pred...-part-one/

Quote:The possibility that the THC will change direction is a huge issue in the predictability of future climate.

CHANGE direction? Eh, what? Is the earth going to flip over? Timescales? THC cannot be equated with water going down a plughole. That circulation involves timescales over hundreds of years.
Pinch of salt indeed. What a load of pontificating twaddle.

LOL,

I posted it to get a response.I agree that what he is suggesting appears silly.

He is one of the AGW believers who writes better than usual.

Good catch!

(04-06-2010 07:02 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  He is one of the AGW believers who writes better than usual.

I agree. I accept he is much smarter than I am but he is trying to push an anti-science agenda and that trips him up each time.

His style of writing reminds me of silas on the Physics Forums.

Is Nature Warning Us of a New Ice Age?

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Ar...ce_age.pdf

Future low solar activity periods may cause extremely cold winters in
North America, Europe and Russia.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyork...tivity.pdf

(04-10-2010 08:41 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Is Nature Warning Us of a New Ice Age?

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Ar...ce_age.pdf

Thanks for that. The article referenced in the above article titled "Where the Global Warmning Hoax Was Born" by Marjorie, Mazel-Hecht should be required reading for everyone.


http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Ar...axBorn.pdf


It makes it perfectly clear why "to establish the scientific basis for human caused global warming" is part of the mission statement of the IPCC. The AGW conclusion was reached about 40 years ago before there were even computer climate models or any serious research! The intellectual elite have done more to screw up the planet an entire atmosphere of CO2 could ever accomplish. One of those elitists and Paul Erlich disciple from the 70s, John Holdren, is now the chief science advisor to to the Clueless One (aka Barack Obama). And through Obama, they now have the bully pulpit and law making capability, to say nothing of the willing participation of the equally clueless national media and magazines such as Discover and Scientific American to continue to promote the hoax. Very scary.

Nice one ajmplanner. Have a look at the link Derek posted over on the Gazebo about the meaning of going green. Then have a look at WUWT post today about ecocide. They want the UN to put "climate deniers" on trial.

ajmplanner,

I have not looked into the link you brought up,but I would not be surprised at her claims that it began in the 1960's.

You might look up Maurice Strong and find out what a bad man he is.

I think jbg made a big post on him a while ago here in this forum?

Here is a history lesson about human caused climate change:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32396573/Witch...ng-Maunder

It is about the little ice age and superstition.

There is new research released and linked at "The Resilient Earth"
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/...-emissions
Excerpt:
Scientists are coming to the realization that claims about greenhouse gas emissions can have integrity only if verified by direct atmospheric measurements. Emissions data are produced by greenhouse gas emitters of all sizes—farms, factories and entire nations. These emissions are often quoted with high precision but, as Euan Nisbet and Ray Weiss state in their article, “misreporting still occurs, whether by simple error, ignorance, or intention.” They claim that carbon-equivalent emissions are currently assessed by “bottom-up” methods, which are made up from a variety of local statistics such as fuel consumption or numbers of cows. When these measured “bottom-up” emissions are rolled up to a global scale, the amounts can disagree by factors of two or more when compared with direct atmospheric measurements.

How can you control GHG emissions when you cannot accurately identify their sources? And how can you blame the rise in atmospheric CO2 solely on humanity if you cannot reconcile actual emissions with atmospheric measurements? The answer is that you cannot. To try and shore up the case for emissions control—including all those calls for “cap and trade” and a carbon tax—the authors want to establish a global network to provide a “top down” assessment of anthropogenic emission.