Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Two articles and comments

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html Abstract: Analysis of the sun s
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 11, 2003
      New Little Ice Age
      Instead of Global Warming?

      by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt



      Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia
      indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made
      global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a
      long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to
      be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg
      cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on
      Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of
      the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the
      centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this
      cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the
      Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of
      the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This
      forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of
      climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have
      turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three
      El Niños years before the respective event.


      The study by Landscheidt is FUNDIMENTALLY flawed and should be
      rejected--even prior to the period playing out, for the following
      four main reasons:

      1. Landscheidt is interested only in correlations associated with
      the amount of RADIATION that is emitted by the sun, according to some
      sun EMF based patterns that are starting to be studied. What
      Landscheidt FAILS to appreciate is that there is a varying EMF as
      well (and absolutely forget what the Danes would say about cosmic
      rays in relation to the solar wind, another form of space EMF input).

      2. Cirrus are the key forcing. Indeed there is a solar signal that
      is express through the cirrus, but it depends on a signal noise
      problem. That is, the extremely low currents of space EMF will be
      directed through the closer isobars of the earths EMF toward the
      colder regions of the earth were there is less convection. There,
      patterns may emerge. OTOH, radiation to the tropics produces
      relatively unpatterned but powerful EMF that would produce a "noise"
      rather than a signal that is amplified by the charge separtions of
      enhanced convections. In short, sometimes colder means warmer and
      visa versa--a level of comnplexity is added to the outcome based on
      the way EMFs behave!

      3. The biosphere makes it all possible. Without getting into
      details, it is bio modulation then, bio modulation now, a living
      earth. This applied when the sun was much less lumenous than today,
      and the proof is in life's genetics!! Without the biosphere
      modulating EMFs and hence cirrus and hence "climate", there would be
      no recognizable pattern from the solar changes in the first place!!
      The very fact that changes in sun spot activity and so forth has
      climate implications is related to the biosphere's ability to make
      cloud feedback "signals" in the first place.

      4. The little ice age is moon related. See the Keeling Whorf paper
      I have posted here 100 times again:


      There is some excellent posts by "Fin" or Steven Mac on the subject
      over at the tropics thread. Think of it this way. When a "tide" in
      the AIR is created above clouds, the capacitive value, which is
      dependant on DISTANCE and dielectric, will be alerted! Then there is
      the issue of hydrate instability as a source of EMF insulation.

      I could go on and on, but this is enough to reject this politically
      motivated garbage out of hand (he's a regular John Daly contributer).
      And, of course, fundimentally as well CO2 is electrically and
      biologically significant. So is changes to hydrology w/ things like
      dams near the deltas . . .


      Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
      By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
      (Filed: 06/04/2003)

      Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global
      warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows
      that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

      From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s,
      environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and
      faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that
      greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing
      these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

      Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme
      said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began"
      and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human
      activity is here and it's accelerating."

      This announcement followed research published in 1998, when
      scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
      Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period
      for 1,000 years.

      Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most
      comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000
      years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that
      today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past
      millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
      stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

      The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined
      the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as
      tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists
      to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

      The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period
      between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures
      significantly higher even than today.

      They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300,
      during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has
      begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy
      temperatures of the Middle Ages.

      The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially
      significant, as it implies that the records used by climate
      scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold,
      thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

      According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that
      today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of
      examining temperature change over too short a period of time.

      The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and
      Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say
      it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now,
      suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had
      been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-
      made global warming.

      Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the
      University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in
      all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

      According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden
      predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During
      the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and
      history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

      In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse
      followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When
      the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine
      industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of

      The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
      the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the
      possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at
      least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold
      period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural
      changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes
      still remain mysterious.

      Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the
      Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus
      among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could
      not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.

      Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not
      unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a
      global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

      He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of
      temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture
      the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.


      This study is FUNDIMENTALLY flawed, again, because it fails to look
      at the biological context. It is not chaos then, chaos now, burn
      fossil fuels, but modulation then, modulation now, maintain a living

      The ignorance in this kind of story is, from my view, now quite
      remarkable. But it gives me a full time occupation of making fun of
      ignorance involved.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.