myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 239, 240, 241 ... 335, 336, 337  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3370

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may be that you are accepting a conclusion that the Russians do not wholly make.
Each little small bit is not meant to be a comprehensive evaluation.
Many good scientists ,when handed a new bit of data will reverse themselves completely in days, unlike the simplified political version.
That is why they call them theories.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1347

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the head of the Russian research team DID, in his original statement quite specifically state that a long term cooling phase of perhaps 200 years duration was imminent, and would take hold by 30 years time. He stated that it would not necessarily be as severe as the previous mini-ice age, but that there were already indications of it happening.

That was the announcement he made to the worlds press.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5222

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--whatever I may hope, I do want credible sources. Dr. Habibullah Abdussamatov is being flogged by such irreputable sources as Marc Morano at climate depot, a non-science based denier outfit, iceagenow, which has a single employee, Robert Felix, and is a denier outfit, etc.

Abdussamatov is less than well received in the scientific world, according to this:

Quote:
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov
March 2, 2012 in scientists
Tags: ice age, principia scientific international
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

has interesting views that defy science such as CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

And yet another expert expecting a coming cold period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov

From his paper [2009]

Excerpts: Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.

Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. [...] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. [...] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. [...] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.



“Scientists a now predicting an Ice-Age” meme probably derives from press publicity of Habibullo Abdussamatov. Two articles cover recent resurgence of ‘the Ice Age is coming’.

The Australian newspaper recycled the ‘news’ from an article from 2007 and is reviewed here and here.

The prediction is – any day now or ‘next year lasting until 2040′, so why isn’t the World listening to this ‘leading Solar Physicist’.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo — at the pinnacle of Russia’s space-oriented scientific establishment — is one of the world’s best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo’s space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world’s chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

the head of space research at the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St Petersburg, and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo — at the pinnacle of Russia’s space-oriented scientific establishment — is one of the world’s best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo’s space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov

Even the denier ‘pal-review’ online ‘science’ journal Principia Scientific International admits

Principia Scientific International has already issued a correction saying that in fact “Dr Abdussamatov is actually head of space research of the Sun Sector at the Polkovo Observatory and head of the Selenometria project on the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

Dr Abdussamatov’s stature is of importance to deniers -

the prestigious National Geographic Magazine published a ground-breaking article by Habibullo Abdussamatov in 2007, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.

When in reality the news item of Abdussamatov’s views is hardly sympathetic.


http://denierlist.wordpress.com/tag/principia-scientific-international/

Like I said, give me a peer-reviewed technical piece by either of your sources and I will take them more seriously. Until then...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1347

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the Russian claim was made by Vladimir Kett Yakov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, with input from scientists at Pulkev Observatory, NOT Dr. Abdussamatov. You are doing just what you accuse others of doing, and cherry picking to ridicule. (I am not a Google specialist, so don't go in for character assassination.)

Pointster.... Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the arguments, opinions, and conclusions on the site you highlighted all appear to be predicated on the previous (2008?) IPCC report(the one which claimed 95% certainty) rather than the later downgraded (i.e. we were wrong) report just published.

How, therefore, can those conclusions be given validity? (The one in particular which claims the cooling effect will be less than the warming effect.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5222

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--I would be happy to be corrected--if you gave me a source or a name that led to a publication or CV behind it. The name you gave me comes up empty, and this source, a denier debunker, says that the Russian Academy of Science, supports the consensus view: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Wikipedia only lists Abdussavmatov as a member of the Russian Academy as a skeptic, but the rest of the story matches the ice age claim:

Quote:
Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[4] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.[5][6][7] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[8] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[9][10]
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[11] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.[12]


Judith Curry is a more moderate skeptic, not a denier. However, her web page does not show any recent peer-reviewed publications that are on point for either the question of ocean warming or the argument that we are headed into an ice age. I would welcome a more specific citation and a peer-reviewed journal piece. http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/modeling.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1347

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac. ..(I'm having difficulty posting = computer keeps freezing and wiping out my reply.)

The original statement from the Science Academy given by Yakov and reported in the papers, was quoted as I stated a couple of posts back.

The paper I most remember was the Mail on Sunday which carried a two page spread by a science correspondent (he is pro sceptic ) which backed up the article by asking Curry her opininon, which she gave, and was quoted on

(continued).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1347

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A month or so later, Curry was also reported by the science correspondent of that paper as stating that, she and her associate were going further, and claiming that the cooling reversal had already begun, and would last for at least 20 years. In the course of that statement she stated that their work had been subject to peer review (she did not specify which work, and the correspondent didn't add his own slant by claiming anything she hadn't admitted to).

(continue)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1347

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not believe that everyone who 'pushes' scepticism to the global warming consensus has an ulterior motive. (The Russians, by the way, were NOT claiming that warming was not underway, and seemed to accept the consensus in that respect, but they claimed that the cooling phase would override the warming. That was clearly stated in the original announcement.) Sceptics do not have to be in the pay of others, and if they accept funding from such sources it may be just that those sources like what they are hearing, and are jumping on it.

To suppose that those such as Abdussanatov, who hold important and critical positions, is either a fool (for his against the orthodoxy stance regarding the effect of atmospheric CO) or a buffoon, or worse, that he is corrupt and perverting the course of science for ulterior motives is a gross insult. (I'm not referring to your criticism, but the internet ridiculing of his views.)

I know no more than I have stated and read about the situation. Scientific not! But I don't see bogey men beneath every upturned stone, and, sometimes illogically, FEEL when things seem to make sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1347

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

P.S. Computer has to be replaced, and internet provider changed. Cannot reply for a while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5222

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The source is: .Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/

I can't find his article, or any evidence of peer review. What he seems to have done is analyze the past trends of solar activity, finding three cycles, with periods of 11 years, 90 years, and 200 years. He states that the 200 year cycle could have a major impact on climate--but won't start until 2030 to 2040.

Statistical analysis of past data, looking for patterns in what seems to be chaos, is a very valid and powerful tool. However, its accuracy depends, absolutely, on the accuracy or precision of the data. I'm not sure how Nagovitsyn has back cast enough data on solar activity to find, with any level of confidence, a 200 year cycle. That would mean reconstructing something more than 1000 years of data from indirect evidence, since we weren't measuring solar activity directly, or with precision, until recently.

This, of course, is the purpose of peer review. Test the theory and the underlying data and see if it can be replicated, and have a discussion on the error bounds. Still waiting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 239, 240, 241 ... 335, 336, 337  Next
Page 240 of 337

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group