[Miyazaki]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

Case closed a long time ago, but now locked and sealed.

[Stephen Wilde]

The sun has been slightly less active during solar cycle 23 which takes us back about 15 years. If one adds the period of solar minimum between cycles 22 and 23 then I suppose 20 years is near enough but a bit forced.

About 10 years ago the Earth stopped warming and is now cooling.

Until recently the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was positive which offset the cooling effect of the slightly less active sun and kept global temperature approximately level. Once the PDO went negative with a continuing less active sun a temperature fall began.

We now have a much less active sun and a negative PDO. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 18 months.

Svensmark has always believed that the sun was not a factor. He is now on the defensive and needs to justify his stance with that skewed and out of date article.

Before long the behaviour of Earth will tell us the truth.

10 years ago we were told we had 10 years to save the Earth. Every failed doomsayer keeps pleading for more time.

If the temperature moves up despite a quiet sun and a negative PDO then I will be wrong. What are the chances of that ? Even if I am wrong my position is justified scientifically.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Even if I am wrong my position is justified scientifically.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

About 10 years ago the Earth stopped warming

Wrong. About 10 years ago we had an unusually high year, even compared with the higher temperatures we had come to expect and that we are still experiencing.

10 years ago we were told we had 10 years to save the Earth.

By whom? You again so you could say that's wrong?

[Stephen Wilde]

See here andykn. If this goes on any longer you will be the denier.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

See here andykn. If this goes on any longer you will be the denier.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg

Like I would have been the last three times this has happened?

All at lower temperature and followed by rises.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

Like I would have been the last three times this has happened?

All at lower temperature and followed by rises.

The 1930's were as warm or warmer than the 1990's.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

The 1930's were as warm or warmer than the 1990's.

Not according to this:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3...omparison.html

[Stephen Wilde]

Funny then that the USA recently revised it's figures to give a year in the 30's top spot.

I think we'll have to accept that the truth has become politically corrupted so that we can each choose what we prefer.

Probably best to just watch the real world and learn from that.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Funny then that the USA recently revised it's figures to give a year in the 30's top spot.

Link?

[Stephen Wilde]

Here:

http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/09/nas...34-as-hottest/

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Here:

http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/09/nas...34-as-hottest/

I wondered why Stephen had posted a link to a post quoting another post rayther than linking directrly to the post itself.

Then I looked at the chart on the post itself:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

No wonder Stephen didn't want you to see it.

And don't forget that these are US figures only, The UK, for example, does not reflect the US experience, and unlike the Yanks, we do recognise that there are other areas of the world outside the US.

[Stephen Wilde]

I just posted the first site that came up. Why do you need to assume dishonesty?

That said I see nothing in your link that I would have wished to hide.

In any event I have every confidence in readers to find verification for themselves. People who come here are not weak creatures easily fooled.

Strange how it is always the religious zealot types who first turn to personal insult and agression. C'est la vie.

It doesn't support your contention that each peak is higher than the last because of the qualifying comments.

Note all the discussion of further revisions downward yet to be made to recent readings because of pathetic site management.

Only 18 months ago I was harangued here for suggesting defective sites leading to contamination by urban heat island effects.

Since then the site surveys have revealed the true disaster of a wholly neglected temperature recording system due to neglect and incompetence.

And the US system is the best there is !!! or rather was.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I just posted the first site that came up. Why do you need to assume dishonesty?

Because it only took me 2 milliseconds to find the original article that clearly shows that temperatures in the US are rising beyond the 1930s highs.

That said I see nothing in your link that I would have wished to hide.

In any event I have every confidence in readers to find verification for themselves. People who come here are not weak creatures easily fooled.

Strange how it is always the religious zealot types who first turn to personal insult and agression. C'est la vie.

It doesn't support your contention that each peak is higher than the last because of the qualifying comments.

That would be because my contention is based on the global record. If you wish to talk about US only climate and temps you may be in the wrong place.

Note all the discussion of further revisions downward yet to be made to recent readings because of pathetic site management.

...recent US readings...

Only 18 months ago I was harangued here for suggesting defective sites leading to contamination by urban heat island effects.

Since then the site surveys have revealed the true disaster of a wholly neglected temperature recording system due to neglect and incompetence.

And the US system is the best there is !!! or rather was.

I'm not sure it's better than ours.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I just posted the first site that came up. Why do you need to assume dishonesty?

Perhaps you need a better search engine:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=

[Stephen Wilde]

You'll notice the one I chose was the first on the list.

I think an apology is called for.

There are no other record groups as big AND as long lasting as those of the USA.

Uk records are good but too local.

European are good but too diverse in instrumentation and methodolgy.

Anywhere else is hardly worth considering.

There is insufficient evidence that the recent short warm up was any hifgher overall than the 1930's 0r the Mediaeval Warm Period.

Anyway, it may all be over now. Best to just watch the real world.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

You'll notice the one I chose was the first on the list.

I think an apology is called for.

Youi think wrong.

The one you managed to find somehow was one without the graph showing that US temps are higher than the 30s and getting higher:

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Here:

http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/09/nas...34-as-hottest/

Google provides the source of your post with the graph showing that US temps are higher than the 30s and getting higher:

Originally Posted by andykn

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

There are no other record groups as big AND as long lasting as those of the USA.

Uk records are good but too local.

European are good but too diverse in instrumentation and methodolgy.

Anywhere else is hardly worth considering.

There is insufficient evidence that the recent short warm up was any hifgher overall than the 1930's 0r the Mediaeval Warm Period.

Anyway, it may all be over now. Best to just watch the real world.

Better to listen to the scientists like we did when they said Ozone was disappearing and we needed to do something about it. Rather than wait until the changes to the climate and the fixes required are even more expensive than now.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

Youi think wrong.

The one you managed to find somehow was one without the graph showing that US temps are higher than the 30s and getting higher:

Google provides the source of your post with the graph showing that US temps are higher than the 30s and getting higher:




Better to listen to the scientists like we did when they said Ozone was disappearing and we needed to do something about it. Rather than wait until the changes to the climate and the fixes required are even more expensive than now.

Both display the same material. The difference was not noticed by me so your allegation is still wrong.It's easy to move on to the full version anyway. Your attitude is objectionable.

You ignore the commentary about more adjustments to be made and the poor quality of the sites. Who is purveying misinformation here ?

There is some debate as to whether the ozone hole would have gone away in any event. Some say it expanded because of the then higher level of solar activity.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Both display the same material.

Except the article your special search engine found missed out the crucial graph showing US temperatures still rising and higher now than in the 30s

The difference was not noticed by me so your allegation is still wrong.It's easy to move on to the full version anyway. Your attitude is objectionable.

You ignore the commentary about more adjustments to be made and the poor quality of the sites. Who is purveying misinformation here ?

Er, that would be you again.

1/ "ignoring" is hardly the same as "purveying misinformation"
2/ I didn't ignore it anyway, I explained that it was only US information. See post 14.

[johntheexpat]

Ahh, that pinnacle of reliable science, a blog quoting a blog.
Can we have some real, reliable, credible, checkable data?
Probably not, if I am allowed to answer my own question.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

There is some debate as to whether the ozone hole would have gone away in any event. Some say it expanded because of the then higher level of solar activity.

So even if the global temperature keeps rising in line with predictions, you will still claim it has nothing to do with CO2. No question mark, you will note, because your faith in sun-spots to take the blame for everything is somewhat concerning.
The ozone hole is behaving as predicted, the models are accurate and CFCs have been shown to be fairly and squarely in the frame.
It would help in your battle against 'The Conspiracy' if you would actually acknowledge that sometimes scientists do get it right and do know what they are talking about.
Fusion power* is not an impossible dream and nor it is a huge conspiracy to keep thousands of scientists in jobs. (But it is trickier than at first thought).
The ozone hole was caused, or at least expanded to a dangerous extent, by the widescale use and mis-use of CFCs and other ozone 'busting' halogenated volatile organics and was not an excuse to keep thousands of research scientists in jobs finding alternatives.
Global warming,..... well you get the picture.

*for Stephen's views on fusion power use the search facility.

[Stephen Wilde]

I have said before that if global temperature starts rising again despite a negative PDO and a quiet sun then that will support AGW.

Can't say fairer than that.

Your other comments are irrelevant and designed to annoy.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

There is some debate as to whether the ozone hole would have gone away in any event.

Where? The scientists made their case, showed they were right and moved on.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Some say it expanded because of the then higher level of solar activity.

Who says that? Not some blog I hope?

And as for the rest, do you deny questioning the validity of fusion research? I'm sorry if it annoys you, but its here somewhere....

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Where? The scientists made their case, showed they were right and moved on.




Who says that? Not some blog I hope?

And as for the rest, do you deny questioning the validity of fusion research? I'm sorry if it annoys you, but its here somewhere....

I don't deny questioning anything.

The clear answers I was hoping for were not forthcoming.

I also said I was in favour of research continuing.

You just don't like anyone questioning anything if you have a clear opinion on the subject.

Care to apply for a job with a modern inquisition ?

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Where? The scientists made their case, showed they were right and moved on.

Some recent research has caused the ozone hole issue to be re visited.

I don't claim to know what is correct but there is now some doubt. Hopefully further research will resolve it.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html

[johntheexpat]

I refer your reference back to post no 20.

[Stephen Wilde]

So much for this chap then :

"Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate."

Can't believe anything these days can we ?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Some recent research has caused the ozone hole issue to be re visited.

I don't claim to know what is correct but there is now some doubt. Hopefully further research will resolve it.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html

According to the author of the paper in question:

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions

[Stephen Wilde]

He is a bit contradictory isn't he ?

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

He's just trying not to rock the boat until his findings are confirmed or rebutted.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

He is a bit contradictory isn't he ?

No, not a bit. He says:

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."

Then, to avoid people like you misinterpeting his research:

"Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."