Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

The model that produced this chart is a proven fraud, this was not peer reviewed, the IPCC used it anyway.
So a Canadian team used Michael Mann's model to reproduce his results (after a lengthy struggle to get the data)

please log in to view this image

This is what came out. One of these below is the data used for above. The other charts are created by the model from trendless junk data input.

please log in to view this image

In other words, this corner piece of the global warming scam is a complete fraud. The model produced a hockey stick shape in temperature no matter what garbage you put in.

#fraud

 

This is what a real temperature reconstruction looks like, it shows how we are clearly in a cycle

please log in to view this image

FIG 16. Backcast from Bayesian Model of Section 5. CRU Northern Hemisphere annual mean land temperature is given by the thin black line and a smoothed version is given by the thick black line. The forecast is given by the thin red line and a smoothed version is given by the thick red line. The model is fit on 1850-1998 AD and backcasts 998-1849 AD. The cyan region indicates uncertainty due to t, the green region indicates uncertainty due to β, and the gray region indicates total uncertainty.


Unlike the IPCC fraud this has been reproduced.

 

I wonder why the media does't mention stuff like FRAUD..


NASA and NCAR have known since 1971 that CO2 is not dangerous – yet have lied to the public about this for over 30 years.
In 1971, the top climatologists at NCAR and NASA reported that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible, because the CO2 absorption spectra is nearly saturated already. (As in cannot cause more warming!!.. in 1971)

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

This is exactly what NCAR’s current radiative transfer models show. Adding more CO2 has very little effect on downwelling longwave radiation.

please log in to view this image

But it is worse than it seems. Scientists have actually known for 115 years that CO2 is not dangerous.

Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant (“Herr J. Koch,” otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to “saturate” the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The evidence of fraud is overwhelming. An essential component of greenhouse gas theory is that a hotspot will appear in the upper troposphere. It hasn’t happened.

please log in to view this image

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

Satellites show that there has been about 0.1C warming over the past 25 years. Even less than the sensitivity calculated by Rasool and Schneider in 1971

please log in to view this image

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

All of the climate models have overestimated warming, many by a large amount.

please log in to view this image

"It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."
Richard P. Feynman


So NASA know CAGW is bollocks. They've known for 4 decades

 

Got to say as a complete novice that that looks like we are in some kind of cycle, it also looks to me as though the temperature decrease that took from from 998 to 1850 AD has been reversed at a much more rapid rate of change. Is this correct?

 

Lets look at that last you mention a bit more closely. Look at the rate of warming and the pattern from about 1910 to 1940. Now look at 1979 to 2000. It's the same rate of warming and the same pattern in increase trend. This is clearly natural.

please log in to view this image

So how can you blame the exact same warming trend on man that has happened in recent history without CO2?


As for the whole reconstruction you reference.

Look at the range on the y axis, the whole fluctuation in 1000 years is less than 2c range!! Over 1000 years an average change of less than 2 degrees is fantastically stable. The temperature in a single day difference can be 35 degrees or more.

please log in to view this image

 

@terrifictraore
The author of this fraud is currently embroiled in a few legal fraud battles, the media don't mention that.

please log in to view this image

Now look at the y axis and tell me if you notice something very misleading about this chart.

 

"we are clearly in a cycle"

The maximum on this graph is at about 1000 and the minimum about 1850. A cycle suggests we'd get back to the level at 1000 by the year 2700. Instead we're there by the year 2000. So we're back to +0.5 degree anomaly 700 years early, as if something since 1850 has dramatically increased the rate of change.

#sortyourstoryout

 

Did you happen to watch the BBC salford news at 10 last night? If not, get it on i player. I pissed myself last night thinking of you watching it with steam coming out of your ears

 

Especially for you, Sis. Bank of England, no less. Enjoy

Bank of England's Carney warns of climate change risk

• 29 September 2015
  
• From the sectionBusiness

Jump media player
Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Media captionMark Carney says global warming could become one of the biggest risks to economic stability
Harnessing the power of the ocean

• China eyes shift in energy policy

• Ice cold water heats whole city

• Wind turbines take to the skies

The Bank of England governor has given a stark warning that climate change poses a huge risk to global stability.

At a gathering of leading insurers at Lloyd's of London, Mark Carney pointed out the rapid increase in weather-related catastrophes and the jump in both the physical and financial costs.

He said the challenges currently posed by climate change "pale in significance compared with what might come".

He said this generation had little incentive to avert future problems.

He avoided spelling out what was causing this apparent change, but said evidence was mounting of man's role in climate change.

Insurers are among those with the biggest interest in climate change as the syndicates operating at Lloyd's, the world's oldest insurance market, are the most exposed to disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

Mr Carney said the after-effects of such disasters were likely to grow worse: "The challenges currently posed by climate change pale in significance compared with what might come.

"The far-sighted amongst you are anticipating broader global impacts on property, migration and political stability, as well as food and water security."

But he said because the cost would fall on future generations there was little impetus on the current one to fix it: "In other words, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late."

 

@sisu

I agree there is no point talking about short term eg unseanably warm weather last night and today so can we agree to just concentrate on the long term cycle that you posted.

Do you agree that the rate of increase is much faster than the rate of decrease.

You mentioned a cycle and it could well be the norm for the cycle to have a faster increase so I am not making any judgements on it. I just want to know i have it right in my mind so without any more graphs or proof of fraud etc can you just answer the question re the rate of increase.

 

I take it it was stupid ridiculous nonsesne, no science and wild claims of doom with lashings of guilt laden illogical arguments?

 

Mark Carney essentially presided over the theft of billions by the banks. He is worried people wont buy this climate change nonsense cos that would mean no multi trillion $ cap and trade business for his chums in the UK US and Canada

Wind power is a joke for several reasons, cost, they produce more CO2 making them than they ever mitigate in their lifespan and don't work when it is not windy, so with say 60% of power supply dependent on wind, what happens when it aint windy.. Should you have a whole system in place that produces backup, sure that will make already way to expensive energy even more so, as is subsidies will cause current energy costs to triple at least by 2020. Then the carbon global tax... will go into your energy bill too.

What actually does irritate me is Carney relating weather to CO2, there is 0 science on that, 0.

#suckers

 

Do you agree that the rate of increase is much faster than the rate of decrease.
Where's your start and end point and which data do you pick ? as there is a lot of different data
Here is Greenland's ice cores and Arctic ice cores, just to show that Greenland is far more responsive to temperature changes.

15000 years ago the temperature shot up. It looks far more drastic than 20th century warming in Greenland and the arctic.
So the .6c rate of warming in the late 20th century is nothing compared to these fluctuations. Stupid Vikings and their SUVs

Greenland has changed as much as 8 degrees in 30 years in the past, where as we change .3 degrees every 40 years in the two warmest spells in the last 120 years

please log in to view this image

Now if you are just talking the last 100 years, then what does answering "Do you agree that the rate of increase is much faster than the rate of decrease." even solve.

You say much faster, that is not true, you are looking at the lines not the temperatures. We are talking changes of .3c degrees over several decades like.. That is not "much faster" at all.

So I agree the rate of warming has increased. What does that confirm? nothing, I never even dispute that.

If you think that supports an argument to the contrary, imo that is an error. Mainly because I already showed that 1910 to 1940 warmed at the same rate 1979 to 1998 warmed. This is clear measurement evidence that this may indeed be natural.

That is why the Hockey stick chart was concocted, it deleted warm and cold periods from the history. Michael Mann claimed the medieval warming period was not global and neither was the little ice age.. and as we know now, his work turned out to be a fraud, which is why it was never peer reviewed. That paper was used to scam billions from tax payers, money which to this day he has refused to account for, even in court, citing his "privacy".

#epicfuckingscam

 

Nice try astrofail. Look at Greenland ice cores above. Is 50000 years far enough back for you

600 million? CO2 has absolutely no bearing on temperature, saturation begins at 20ppm.

please log in to view this image

The low level of CO2 is why we have deserts. They are greening again, go look at a map of the sahara compared to one 30 years ago, it aint getting more water, plants can survive on a fraction of the water they normally need when CO2 is around 1000ppm

 

The main reason the earth has deserts is because CO2 is so low. Pants and trees can survive on a fraction of the water they need at 400ppm CO2, if CO2 is around 1000ppm. Sahara is greening up because CO2 is up.

It doesn't become an issue for humans above 5000-6000 only maybe dangerous at 10000 ppm because it would begin to acidify your blood and change your pH

The room you are in right now probably has about 900ppm. harmless but house plants love that ****, pollution my arse, ****ing religious zealots and pseudo science.

 

epic fail there Sisu

I was pointing out your cycle theory was 700 years too short for the recent warming, so you copy and pasted a graph showing variations on the scale of tens of millions of years

#sortyourstoryout

 

No you tried to imply I said "we've come full cycle" as shown in this 1000 years, but that is not what I said, I said it is clearly a cycle, citing the pretty steady curve of cooling and into warming, nothing is abrupt over 1000 years but if you take the last 100, you can make anything look abrupt.

So no I never said the chart represented a full "cycle" of anything, either chart. The 100 year chart was to show there was same warming over the same time spell before CO2 was around as a bad boy. Seeing the same again in 1980 to 1998 is certainly looking like part ofa cycle. Duhh

But 100 years is useless in this matter, utterly.

I wish you'd actually read what is said, and stop the hyperbolic paraphrasing.

 

Yes, anyway is there any chance we can just discuss the fig 16 backcast that you apear to have some faith in?
You feel it shows we are in a cycle and I agree.
You say there is no point discussing short term fluctuations and I agree.
So can you please tell me what long term cycle that backcast shows us?

II think it shows a long term drop in temperature from 1000 to roughly 1850 and then an increase since then. Is this right?

PS is there an updated version of that chart to see where we are now?

 

Chinese Dynasties ended by Maunder Minimums.

please log in to view this image

Just interesting this, not really related to the whole climate argument. It just shows I guess how devastating a maunder minimum can be.

 

I see the Met office is now naming ****ing storms A ploy to basically propagandise people with names of storms to "raise awareness of extreme weather"

While America just had a fake cat5 hurricane, some deckchairs got blown over, UK has "Storm Abigail" #scary

FFS