Unambiguous Scientific Data Says That The Climate Used To Be Better. Period.

ScreenHunter_988 Mar. 25 10.29

https://twitter.com/PaulSmithTO/status/448437779274670080

screenhunter_96-jun-25-07-11 (1)

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Unambiguous Scientific Data Says That The Climate Used To Be Better. Period.

  1. BobW in NC says:

    Well, well, well… Since the “climate used to be better,” I, who am certainly not the smartest guy in the world, nor the most knowledgeable, must ask a very simple question of the climate alarmists (ooops, sorry!), the CAGW “supporters.”

    Question: Please tell this uninformed person, “What is the NORMAL global temperature that we should all seek, so that we might have a basis for reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions?”

    Simple question, right? I await your answer (not holding my breath, though).

    Thank you.

  2. Actually, vacuous appeals to authority used to be better based on unambiguous scientific data. Period.

    Actually, patently false value judgements used to be better based on unambiguous scientific data. Period.

    Actually, hair shirt & sandwich board doom evangelism used to be better based on unambiguous scientific data. Period.

  3. D. Self says:

    Paul Smith is 16-18 years old and attends Public schools. What else can we deduce from these absurd comments?

  4. Hugh K says:

    We have no reason to think that climate change is harmful if you look at the world as a whole. Most places, in fact, are better off being warmer than being colder. And historically, the really bad times for the environment and for people have been the cold periods rather than the warm periods. –
    Freeman Dyson

  5. Gail Combs says:

    There are times when I really want an Ice Age (Little or the BIG ONE) to descend just to get the idiots to STFU!

    I am retired and have no children so a cleansing of the Gene Pool via cryogenics has a certain appeal if it could be limited to all the Chicken Littles, politicians and Neo-luddites. Moreover it looks increasingly likely I may get my wish within my lifetime.

    The Holocene is scheduled to end and the Little Ice Age was right on time. It seems that either Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct, and the ONLY thing keeping us out of the next ice age is Carbon Dioxide OR the recent Grand Solar Maximum was doing the deed. (http://www.space.com/484-sunspot-activity-8-000-year-high.html ) The Eemian, the interglacial just before the present one had two thermal pulses (warm periods) before the Big Drop. Earth is now exiting that second thermal pulse, the Modern Warm period.

    If the second thermal pulse was caused by the Grand Solar Maximum we are in a world of hurt. As William McClenney, a geologist who has following the subject recently said:

    …The most recent grand solar maximum and the recent decline either represents a second Holocene thermal peak or something more akin to what seems to happen at the half-precessional age of all post-MPT interglacials with the sole exception possibly being MIS-11…

    The famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (1999, Cambridge Conference Network) probably stated it best:

    “This is why the past million years has been essentially a continuing ice-age, broken occasionally by short-lived interglacials. It is also why those who have engaged in lurid talk over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth’s temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both demented and dangerous. The problem for the present swollen human species is of a drift back into an ice-age, not away from an ice-age.”

    The argument at this point among geologists is whether the Holocene will duplicate MIS-11, the only interglacial to extend over two insolation peaks, or not. Either way, Global Warming is not in the cards. As Sirocko et al (2005) put it “.. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above ** the inception [of glaciation] for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” Also as McClenney put said ” Please do note, however, that MIS-11 was not all that stable a climate ride………” Not surprising since “slightly above inception” suggest a rather unstable climate given the climate seems to be bistable -chaotic with two Strange Attractors.

    So time to move south and beat the rush… That is what the elite are doing. Buying up farmland in Africa, South America and even Australia. I wonder if they know something they are not telling the rest of us.
    ……………..

    **More recent data shows the following on glacial inception from the paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions:

    NOW (Modern Warm Period) 479 W m−2

    MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
    MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
    MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
    MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
    MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2,

    Depth of the last ice age – around 437 W m−2 @ 60N June
    NOW (Modern Warm Period) – 476 Wm-2 @ 60N June)
    From (www)1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

    As Tzedakis (2010) concludes

    “On balance, what emerges is that projections on the natural duration of the current interglacial depend on the choice of analogue, while corroboration or refutation of the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” on the basis of comparisons with earlier interglacials remains irritatingly inconclusive.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      If the Climastrologists ever took a basic physics course (It is not required) they would realize.

      1. Warmer means more evaporation.

      2. The temperature at the equator is relatively stable thanks to the oceans (When it gets too hot water evaporates and clouds block the sun. Only in the deserts does it get really hot.)

      3. Warmer poles means the temperature differential is less and the heat engine that is the climate is not working as hard (Less tornadoes and hurricanes.)

  6. Dave N says:

    Perhaps Mr Smith would like to define what “better” is? My guess is he’d respond that global average temps were lower; you know, like when Chicago was under a mile of ice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s