Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Christopher Booker's latest article namechecks your humble host while discussing the selection of papers for the Oxburgh report.
View Printer Friendly Version
"If it's cool, it's weather; if it's warm, it's climate." Moreover, Green Gang expositors constantly cite seasonal temperature extremes as catastrophic variables, feeding on themselves to produce ever-wilder fluctuations.
From 1890 - 1939; 1940 - 1979; 1980 - 2009; now 2010 - 20(29?), temperature cycles have reduced wavelengths from 50 years of warming to forty years of cooling, then thirty years of warming until today's looming 20 -year chill-phase. As wavelengths diminish, a cycle's amplitudes and frequencies increase... by about 2030, Earth's "global thermostat" is due to crash, switching on-and-off within a 10-year period (to 2040) unable to countenance such extreme short intervals.
In context of a probable 70-year "dead sun" Maunder Minimum similar to that of 1645 - 1715, not to mention the long-overdue end of Planet Earth's "Long Summer" aka the current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, any such crash could well presage resurgent Pleistocene Ice Time, a 102,000-year glaciation characteristic of this era for the last 2.6-million years.
Since geological phases from the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) Boundary 65-million years-before-present (YBP) have averaged 14 - 16+ million years, Pleistocene patterns have at least ten million years to run. On this scale, Warmists' grunting and fussing over late-Holocene fibrillations are worse than a crime-- they are a mistake.
OH MY GOD! On a London Newspaper! The momentum is building, your grace. Hopefully, it will build sales of HSI as well.
Don: Christpher Booker has a huge following. He is one of the Telegraph's mainstays.
Do not disregard Christopher Booker. He was one of the chosen that Steve Mc met when he visited London. He is a highly respected journalist and scourge of institutional stupidity and wishful thinking. Check out his books on Amazon - they are all well researched and good reads.
Booker writes "In Greenland, for instance, two of the hottest spots, showing a startling five-degree rise in temperatures, have no weather stations at all."
What an extraordinary detail! How do you do that?
For a truly amazing review of the Hockey Stick Illusion, you must, must read this:
You couldn't make it up.
DennisA, did you also note this comment at the boomantribune site?
by mainsailset on Sat Jul 24th, 2010 at 06:39:00 PM EST "Re: Most Successful Conspiracy Theory Evah (none / 1) There are moments and there are deniers that drive me to respect the attitude China adopts and that is to whack off the heads of those who stand broadside to undermine the good of the people (not sure they'd be willing to expand that to the good of the globe, but there you have it)"
Phillip Bratby & Latimer Alder
I was implying quite the opposite. Perhaps you saw it as sarcasm; I am sorry if you did, for I did not intend that. What I was trying to say is the momentum is building when you see stuff like Booker's. Josh makes an excellent point. Fine detail like about Greenland really, really catches the eye of the average punter.
Thanks, I needed the laugh. Kermit the Frog is alive and well, writing blogs. Perhaps he is trying to overcome his inferiority complex
Yes, I did note that, quite chilling that people like this are out there.
Don, thanks. But seriously how do they do that? If it is true it has to be a spectacular own goal.
Any refs from anyone would be interesting.
Josh -Not sure whether you're still wondering about the anomalies being higher in the interior of Greenland (where there are no temperature measurement stations) than on its coast (where stations exist).
There's a thread at WUWT which touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/26/giss-swiss-cheese/
Apparently the result is a byproduct of a changing population of stations. In recent times, there may be no stations in the immediate area, so that the current temperature anomaly is extrapolated from distant stations, up to 1200 km away. However, the trend is, naturally, produced by looking at the historical variation in anomaly, and in previous years perhaps there were other stations nearby which contributed to, or were the primary source of, the local anomaly value. The trend in the interior is not defined solely by the data of the stations which are still active; they include data from the discontinued stations.
Mathematically, the above explains why a trend can be larger in an area currently devoid of stations, than at all nearby stations. However, this phenomenon is present not only in the interior of Greenland, but also in the interior of Africa and South America. (Cf. the maps at the beginning of the WUWT thread.) This surprising and counter-intuitive result should make one leery of the algorithms. They might not be wrong per se, but certainly there are many very reasonable-sounding algorithms which produce plainly erroneous results, and it is worth investigating whether this may be one of those cases. That said, as with many of these estimations, the "bottom line" seems to be relatively insensitive to this issue: the figures in the upper right-hand corner of those maps indicate that using the "1200-km smoothing" algorithm (which creates those unexpectedly warm trends in the interior of Greenland et al.) the average 130-year change is +0.78 deg C, while the "250-km smoothing" (which does not produce any estimate for those regions) shows a +0.71 deg C average change. So, while we might find these "hot spots" unexpected and possibly unjustified, it comes to only a 10% difference in the end -- above the level of calling it negligible, but not huge either.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.