With all the junk science out there this makes as much sense as all these other “Climate change” ideas.

The return and flyby of an extraterrestrial body called "Planet X" in 2012.

Being in control of your own destiny with survival and health related skills and information has never been more relevant. When you hear what Marshall Masters has to say about the imminent earth changes coming due, perhaps, to the flyby of an extraterrestrial body called "Planet X", you will realize that more than ever, our survival will depend upon taking responsibility for every aspect of our lives.

Master's web site

your thoughts?



(Mod's note: This thread is a continuation of the thread found here. Cheers!)

Last edited by Yo on 13-Mar-2009 at 08:38 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@thomas

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/11/solar-cycle-24-has-ended-according-to-nasa/

you might want to look over the NASA stuff on "Planet X". If the info is correct, we might have a second Sun comming toward earth.

Watch the videos


link

Last edited by Interesting on 14-Mar-2009 at 01:42 AM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Yo

Well, the core problem (absence of additional GH effect by CO²) has been sufficiently exposed in vol. 1 & 2. I see no point continuing discussing unphysical realities and, therefore their non-existent consequences. What is sure is that belief can not be rationalized.

IPCC has been proved a non-scientific organization with a political agenda. A minority of scientists (Hansen and UnRealclimate) are embarked in a crusade where bad science is just a pretext to support a political goal based on an erroneous hypothesis. The best the majority of honest scientists could do is honest science (non-models based): demonstrating that earth climate is under negative feedbacks (oceans, vapour water, clouds, aerosols) with influence of the sun and other factors and CO² effect recognized as marginal. It will take probably some time because the science is currently being corrupted by politicians & environmentalists whose main concern is not ecology. The whole problem has been well summarized by Richard Lindzen recently (03/08/2009):
Quote:

Global warming alarm has always been a political movement, and opposing it has always been an up-hill battle. In this talk I wish to point out some simple truths that are often forgotten by our side of this issue. First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist. Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming. The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier. For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition. Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature, and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has several major oceanographic programs to worry about. Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal. Perhaps the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so. For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding, provides little incentive to complain about the spin. Second, most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science. For a basically political movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to coopt the sources of authority. This, the global warming movement has done with great success. Thus, for over 20 years, the National Academy had a temporary nominating group designed to facilitate the election of environmental activists. The current president of the academy is one of these. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm. Holdren is now President Barack Obama’s science advisor. There are numerous further examples. How often have we heard a legitimate scientific argument answered by the claim that the alarmist scenario is endorsed by, for example, the American Physical Society (regardless of their lack of expertise in the issue)? How often have you heard innocuous claims by some society or another taken as endorsements of alarm? How often have you heard that any particular argument has been dealt with by realclimate.org (a clear advocacy Web site designed to assure warming alarmists that the basis for alarm still exists)? Third, the success with respect to the second item also gives the climate alarm movement control over carrots and sticks -- which, in turn, is what makes it convenient for most scientists to go along. Note that the carrots are as important as the sticks. Thus, for example, John Holdren was long on the board of the MacArthur Foundation, which has awarded ‘genius’ grants to numerous environmental activists. Ironically, an award allegedly honoring the late Bill Nierenberg, a very perceptive and active skeptic of climate alarm, is now given annually to an alarmist. One could go on at great length. The process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science -- especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change. All impacts depend on regional forecasts, and quoting the leading scientist at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (widely regarded as the foremost atmospheric modeling center), Tim Palmer, such forecasts are no better than guesses. Nonetheless, regional forecasts are at the heart of numerous state initiatives to ‘fight’ climate change. These initiatives are usually prepared by the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), a Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group that purports to help states determine for themselves how to develop climate change policies. In reality, according to Paul Chesser of the John Locke Foundation, CCS tightly controls these commissions, who consider proposals mostly from a menu of options presented by CCS themselves. Nearly all the choices represent new taxes or higher prices on energy, increased costs of government, new regulations for businesses, and reduced energy-producing options for utilities, and therefore consumers. CCS is funded largely by a multi-million-dollar global warming alarmist foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. What can be done? The most obvious point is to persevere, to better understand the science, and to emphasize logic, which ultimately has to trump alleged authority. Generally, there is a deep disconnect between consensus statements that commonly only repeat the trivial points that there has been some warming and that man’s emissions have caused some part of this, and the claims of catastrophe made by advocates; stress these differences. With respect to better understanding the science, it is my view that the observations of almost a decade ago that outgoing long wave radiation associated with warmer surface temperatures was much greater than models predicted; this was as good evidence that model sensitivities were much too high as one could hope for. However, without an adequate understanding of the physics, the point is largely missed. How can one communicate this to the public? Actually, the science isn’t all that hard. John Sununu offered an easily appreciated example of positive and negative feedback. In your car, the gas and brake pedals act as negative feedbacks to reduce speed when you are going too fast and increase it when you are going too slow. If someone were to reverse the position of the pedals without informing you, then they would act as positive feedbacks: increasing your speed when you are going too fast, and slowing you down when you are going too slow. Stress that alarming predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer is unambiguously no. In the common (though admittedly somewhat inaccurate) picture of the greenhouse effect, greenhouse substances (mainly thin high clouds and water vapor, but also CO2, methane, freons, etc.) act as a blanket, inhibiting the emission of infrared (heat) radiation. We know that in the absence of feedbacks (in which water vapor and clouds allegedly act to amplify the effect of added CO2), an increase in temperature will lead to a certain increase in this heat radiation (also known as outgoing longwave radiation, OLR). With positive feedbacks, this amount of radiation will be reduced (in terms of the ‘blanket’ imagery, the blanket has gotten thicker). Current models do, indeed, predict this. We also know that the 1990s temperature was warmer than in the 1980s. During this period, satellites were measuring the emitted heat radiation. What at least four groups all confirmed was that emitted heat radiation during the ‘90s was not only much greater than what models predicted, but also greater than what would have been expected if there were no feedback at all. This implies that nature is, as any reasonable person might suppose, dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than destabilizing positive feedbacks. It has been noted that the climate in models is an example of unintelligent design -- something modelers are far more capable of than is nature. Getting people (including many scientists) to understand this is crucial. Once it is understood, the silliness of the whole issue becomes evident -- though those who are committed to warming alarm as the vehicle for a postmodern coup d’etat will obviously try to obfuscate matters. As important as the above is, it does not eliminate the possible need for more institutional approaches. These are limited by the minimal resources available to rectify the present situation. Indeed, given the minimal resources available to those who are truly interested in how climate actually works, and the immense resources and power of the environmental movement, it is astounding that resistance has been as effective as it has been. That said, one should not underestimate the impressive degree of organization behind the climate alarm movement. Notable, in this regard, has been the Climate Action Network that has coordinated the activities of hundreds of environmental NGOs since 1989. However, should some benefactor create a climate institute that could recruit outstanding scientists regardless of their position on global warming, and provide the resources for truly independent research protected from political manipulation, then it is possible that the corrupt state of the science could, in time, be rectified. So far, however, this would appear to be a pipe dream. A possibly more practical undertaking would be to undermine the authority of scientific organizations wherein a few activist members have managed to speak for the entire membership. A major campaign is needed to get thousands of scientists to resign from professional societies that have taken unrepresentative stands on the warming issue, while making the reason for the resignation unambiguous and public. This would, in my opinion, be far more effective than simply collecting thousands of signatures for petitions. The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science. In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional -- which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing a la increased CO2 -- is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it. However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble. Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature. The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd -- almost as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook. Finally, I would suggest that however grim things may appear, we will eventually win against anthropogenic global warming alarm simply because we are right and they are wrong. There are many reasons for being confident of this. However, we have just gone over one of the most important scientific reasons. The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal. In a field as primitive as climate science, most of the alleged climate scientists are not even aware of this basic relation. And these days, one can be confident that once they are, many will, in fact, try to alter the data. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the public is not likely to understand this as well. On the other hand, the fact that the global mean temperature anomaly has not increased statistically significantly since at least 1995, does not actually disprove anthropogenic global warming, but for the public this fact is likely to be crucial. For some of us, this is an occasional source of frustration, but one must always remember that this is a political rather than a scientific issue, and in a political issue, public perception is important. Moreover, the temperature record does demonstrate at least one crucial point: namely, that natural climate variability remains sufficiently large to preclude the identification of climate change with anthropogenic forcing. As the IPCC AR4 noted, the attribution claim, however questionable, was contingent on the assumption that models had adequately handled this natural internal variability. The temperature record of the past 14 years clearly shows that this assumption was wrong. To be sure, this period constitutes a warm period in the instrumental record, and, as a result, many of the years will be among the warmest in the record, but this does nothing to mitigate the model failure to show continued warming. To claim otherwise betrays either gross ignorance or grosser dishonesty. When it comes to global warming hysteria, neither has been in short supply.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, keynote addresses at the second International Conference on Climate Change.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You just keep repeating the IPCC unphysical belief. Linking to the IPCC site is not a demonstration of anything else: a good thing you do not embed such cartoon here.

Your thoughts are amusing. First you claim GHE has no blanketing or reflective effects. When it's demonstrated that you don't have a clear grasp of GHE your resulting answer is that you don't want to discuss it? Nice avoidance tactics.

Quote:

I am not interested discussing such unrealities. You will soon pay your carbon tax: a good tax-payeer you will be, conveniently formatted

If such carbon tax goes to investment to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil. (No matter the answer on GW.) If such investment go towards building factories in the USA to construct equipment related to self sustainablity of the USA's energy production then good.

After all as a the good tax-payeer I already have my tax dollars going to causes I don't support. For example bribes and military equipment to oppressive countries so we keep our oil cheap. Let alone the invasions and coups of those oil producing countries that might threaten cheap oil. It's too bad that God placed the USA's oil under the middle-east.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

embarked in a crusade where bad science is just a pretext to support a political goal

Quote:

currently being corrupted by politicians & environmentalists whose main concern is not ecology

Ah, yes, the need to invoke vague conspiracies. I remember that from the list recently posted :)

Anyway --- seeing as you seem to have such a firm grasp on what's going on... What is that "political goal" of those nefarious scientists? What are the real concerns of those insidious politicians and environmentalists?

I assure you that even scientists would like to run their aircon in summer, and their heating in winter, and drive powerful cars.

@umisef

Quote:

Ah, yes, the need to invoke vague conspiracies. I remember that from the list recently posted :)

The word was (first) used by BrianK/NoelFuller in vol.2. I posted extensive data/facts/quotes about people/organizations and supported by human science scientists (Dr Eric Katz, Andrew J. Light, and David Rothenberg and Pr Michael E. Zimmerman): I don't remember someone complaining about their analysis of the ecofascists from this post or this one. Or is it that, once again, you choose to remain silent in front of the authority (in the formal meaning) on the matter? Of course no, you will just pretend it is "completely pointless talking to you": not surprisingly, I'm very fine with that. Keep it that way.

Quote:

Anyway --- seeing as you seem to have such a firm grasp on what's going on... What is that "political goal" of those nefarious scientists? What are the real concerns of those insidious politicians and environmentalists?

It was discussed ad nauseam in vol. 1 & 2. I will not 'regurgitate', use the search features for additional informations. A recent example how environmentalists devoid Science, in a small repetition before the real IPCC Copenhagen meeting: What was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really about? in an article by Professor Mike Hulme, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.

Quote:

I assure you that even scientists would like to run their aircon in summer, and their heating in winter, and drive powerful cars.

Sure. That's what I said. Many scientists 'endorse' GW to get funds and/or keep their jobs. This is a corrupted system.

What do you think of the recent fires down under? Greenies known it. A clear, demonstrative and I hope useful example of where real politic has been replaced by failed ideology.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Well, the core problem (absence of additional GH effect by CO²) has been sufficiently exposed in vol. 1 & 2. I see no point continuing discussing unphysical realities and, therefore their non-existent consequences. What is sure is that belief can not be rationalized.

Here we go again! Perhaps you are to be congratulated on making the thread your own private anti GHG blog. I personally found your presentation as to why CO2 could not contribute to global warming a misuse of science, depending on the supposed ignorance of your readers to fail to examine the postulates and fall victim to plausible misrepresentation.

Now we know where you get it all from, that curious pretend science Heartland Institute from where you quote at length a professor who is somehow completely out of step with his colleagues and who impugns their motives so blatently. I wonder what they think of him? Of course he can't be pleased that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has just doubled its previous (2003) projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C. So he resorts to charges of dishonourable conduct which he represents so well and you TMTisFree demonstrate too his denigration of every real scientist with your endless perjorative statements as to their motives, integrity, scientific acumen and whatever, demonstrated yet again on this page! Are we now going to get all the Heartland keynote speakers and their misrepresentations?

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 14-Mar-2009 at 09:05 AM.

@NoelFuller

Ad hominem attacks will never enhance your credibility and reduce the "supposed ignorance of your readers".

Quote:

"Our judgements judge us, and nothing reveals us, exposes our weaknesses, more ingeniously than the attitude of pronouncing on our fellows."

- Paul Valery

Quote:

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

- Thomas Henry Huxley

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

It will take probably some time because the science is currently being corrupted by politicians & environmentalists whose main concern is not ecology.

Interestingly enough this claim is just as, if not more, valid for the anti-gw scientists. They are clearly funded by businesses with their own interest.

Quote:

The word "conspiracy" was (first) used by BrianK/NoelFuller in vol.2. I posted extensive data/facts/quotes about people/organizations

You are right. I, and perhaps Noel I'd have to check, called your arguement by it's nature -- conspiracy. You made the arguement for conspiracy, but didn't use that particular word. The reason why you didn't use that word is because you believe the moon-bat lunacy to be true.

Quote:

A recent example how environmentalists devoid Science, in a small repetition before the real IPCC Copenhagen meeting

Speaking of meetings devoid of science. There was one recently held by the Heartland Institute.


Instead of focusing on science they spent their time attacking the IPCC and Al Gore. The Heartland Institute leaders and relationships are with tobacco companies. Yet you seemingly grab onto their advice. They have about 100 scientists and over 500 businessmen and politicans. But, their evidence is okay and only the IPCC is political? Its seems to me all the problems you decry as issues with GW are one's you are willing to embrace of the anti-gw crowd.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Of course he can't be pleased that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has just doubled its previous (2003) projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C.

why was this done ? The focus is wrong someplace. If Planet X (PX) is real you’ll see higher temp spikes in the 2011 forward timeframe.

Planet X also explains why the temps are going up on several of the other planets among other items of interest.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Sure. That's what I said. Many scientists 'endorse' GW to get funds and/or keep their jobs. This is a corrupted system.

glad most are seeing the truth about the matter......its all about "funding".

@umisef

Quote:

Anyway --- seeing as you seem to have such a firm grasp on what's going on... What is that "political goal" of those nefarious scientists? What are the real concerns of those insidious politicians and environmentalists?

greed, and control is power. Don't make the simple complex

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Oh come on. You have NOT fallen for the Planet X hoax?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/

Seriously. We were NOT doomed in 2003, and we are NOT doomed in 2012, simply because the concept of a hidden planet that will suddenly be close enough to affect us is preposterous.

If you're going to fall for a hoax, at least try to fall for the original, and not a copy.

Saying the Mayans predicted the world would end in 2012 is akin to saying the Pope predicted the world would end in the year 999. However, we all know what happened then. Another digit.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Interesting

There was some papers not so long ago about tidal effects of Jovian planets on Sun's rotation and activity, here (PDF) and here. This site also deals with influences of planets on Sun and climate changes. Check papers link for a list of papers on the subject. The website of Leif Svalgaard is also a good source of informations on Sun.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil
@TMTisFree

Quote:

Seriously. We were NOT doomed in 2003, and we are NOT doomed in 2012,

had no idea they claimed 2003.....thanks for the link some good counter info to review when time permits.

Last edited by Interesting on 14-Mar-2009 at 08:49 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

here was some papers not so long ago about tidal effects of Jovian planets on Sun's rotation and activity

But wait the Sun and earth are isolated!

I'm leaning towards us entering a Dalton Minimum, nothing as extreme as a Maunder but significant nonetheless.






Atmospheric temperature rose 0.7o C in the 20th century; it has also fallen by the same amount in the last 18 months.

The longer a solar cycle lasts, the cooler the following solar cycle will be. Solar cycles are normally 11 years long, but the present one (23) is near its end and lasted just over 12 years. July 2009 might be the month of solar cycle minimum, and if so the cooling will be 2o C. The last time this happened was the Dalton Minimum of 1796 to 1820, which led to crop failures.

The satellite record is the highest quality temperature data we have, but only goes back to 1978. 1998 was the hottest year in this period, due to El Nino.

Data from the rural US go back to 1893, and avoids heat islands. The hottest year was 1936.

Central England has the longest record of thermometer readings, back to 1661. It shows the Little Ice Age, including the Dalton Minimum (the last time the River Thames froze over) and the even colder Maunder Minimum around 1700. The rise of 2.2o C in 36 years after this was four times as large and three times as fast as the 0.6o C rise over the 20th century. Of course it was quite natural, before the anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide.

For pre-thermometer records, proxies like tree rings and isotopes are used. A temperature graph going back to 700 AD clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period, which was 2oC warmer than today, and the Little Ice Age which reached 2o C colder than today. The range is 4oC compared with 0.7o C for the 20th century warming which is the cause of all the fuss today.

A graph going back over 10,000 years, from the end of the last Glacial shows the Holocene Climate Optimum (when sea level was about 2 m higher than today) and the Roman Climatic Optimum.

Vostok Ice core records temperature for 450,000 years, and the history of glacials and interglacials. An interesting diagram superimposes the last five interglacials, aligned on the peak temperature. It looks as if the Holocene warming is about to end with a plunge into perhaps a few thousand years of Little Ice Age conditions.

Solar cycles are explained in detail, with the records since 1700. The magnetic field is described, as are sunspots, polar faculae, and other aspects of solar science.

Solar Cycle 23 seems to resemble most closely Solar Cycle 4, and if the trend continues we should be heading for a Dalton Minimum. It could be worse, and Ken Schatten - the solar physicist with the best track record in predicting solar cycles - suggests we could be heading for a Maunder Minimum.

Last edited by Skyraker on 15-Mar-2009 at 02:25 AM.

_________________
[quote]Amiga were also offered Amithlon before anyone else. I was the first to run it. It ROCKED HARD. I begged them to use it, we had a WINNER and could sell a bajillion of them. We owned all the rights to it! But sadly, Bill and Fleecy didn't want peopl

@Skyraker

Could you indicate the origin of the graphs and text?

Noel

@Skyraker

Everytime I hear those argument I get the impression that the person forwarding them is somewhat involved with oil companies. That is just a mean to put the blame on something humans can´t control so that we don´t need to do anything about pollution.

Have you seen a picture of a large citys traffic lanes during daytime? There are thousands of petrol driven vehicles passing every hour and that is only in one city, we have thousands of large citys on Earth and that picture is the same in all those cities. Do you really mean that this, together with factories, power plants and other industry, have no effect on the climate?

The "anti-environmentalists" are getting more and more desperate. Recently they have stepped up the level to god. We humans can forget affecting anything on Earth as god decides all is their newest argument...

Sure, the solar cycles affect climate but remember that according to those we should be in a period of declining temperatures now and definitely not with the rapid temperature change we are experiencing now.

You people that live "near" the equator and has never had real winters with snow might not have noticed the change except for the frequent storms and flooding but here in the north we haven´t had a real winter for ten years (except for this one actually). We normally have 50 - 80 cm of snow between december and april where I live. The latest winters it has been 5-10 degrees plus in januari-february and has been raining for days (!) with a snow cover (more like ice when it freezes) of around 20 cm, no good circumstances for skiing really.

I do hope that the politicians doesn´t listen to this talk about the sun causing it all, they might as well start to prepare for the 2012 scenario as that is as likely.

edit: typo

Last edited by Niolator on 15-Mar-2009 at 01:48 PM.
Last edited by Niolator on 15-Mar-2009 at 01:32 PM.

@Skyraker

It's good to post to the articles where graphs are from. This lets us see the data and better understand the representation.

Interesting to lean towards a Dalton Minimum. The first graph shows a 2003 peak of temperature before a steady fall to 2023. Go back to the 2nd thread. TMTiF's last provided graph is UAH satellite temps. You'll see an actual peak at 2007 not 2003. Question - is the Dalton Minimum as predicted in your first graph incorrect? (Dalton Minimum predicted a fall from 2003-2007.) In actuallity, 2008 was a drop from 2007. Question - do you think the Dalton Minimum started 4 years late and they should shift the graph out respectively?

@BrianK



Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".