Two articles and comments
- View SourceNew 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
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