Evidence Showing Climate Change Models Wrong in 2008, Sunspot Predictions Correct

KingCondanomation

New member
Logic relates to what the professor at the end says, the sun is the ultimate source of energy on this planet, so why should the findings be so surprising?

"2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

The Little Ice Age has been a problem for global warmers because it serves as a reminder of how the earth warms and cools naturally over time. It had to be ignored in the calculations that produced the infamous and since-discredited hockey stick graph that showed a sharp rise in warming alleged to be caused by man."

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712
 
Shhh....

Things that show that tests prove their models incorrect will be met with more predictions from the same models.

Now quiet down, you heathen.
 
This is what you do? Bail on other climate threads where you've been embarassed, and just start new ones?
 
This is what you do? Bail on other climate threads where you've been embarassed, and just start new ones?


LOL wow you really debunked the theory!

I notice you steer clear of my threads about warming because I post references you can't refute. HadleyCRU and GISS are sources you can't touch.

Solar sunspot theorists predicted the cooling we've seen the last few years. I've posted them before so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

CO2 thoery is failing big time. The correlation is falling apart.

Continued rising of CO2 concentration and no warming. You lose, lorax. Climate change is natural
 
LOL wow you really debunked the theory!

I notice you steer clear of my threads about warming because I post references you can't refute. HadleyCRU and GISS are sources you can't touch.

Solar sunspot theorists predicted the cooling we've seen the last few years. I've posted them before so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

CO2 thoery is failing big time. The correlation is falling apart.

Continued rising of CO2 concentration and no warming. You lose, lorax. Climate change is natural

I don't usually respond to your climate threads, because you're obsessed with the topic, and it's all you post about. I also throroughly debunked your frequently-posted ice core study, and once I did, you never responded to me about it, or returned to that topic.

As I posted to Dano on his other thread, it completely doesn't matter to me anymore, because there are about a dozen great reasons to accelerate the transition to renewable sources of energy. AGW can never be proven 100% or disproven 100%; there will always be variables, dissenters, disagreements and alternate theories. For me, the important thing has always been to see an America committed to investing in alternative technology, and developing sources of energy that don't pollute or send billions overseas.

And guess what, stirfry? I didn't lose. I won.

Ha ha.
 
You realize that Dano's thead was about 2008, and whatever you posted (I don't even have to read past the title of the document to know it doesn't apply) is something about 2007, right? Are you trying to be a moron? You exceptionally good at it.

LOL

you're an idiot. You asked for peer reviewed study. There it is. Like I said before, you're an asshole and you didn't even read anyway
 
I don't usually respond to your climate threads, because you're obsessed with the topic, and it's all you post about. I also throroughly debunked your frequently-posted ice core study, and once I did, you never responded to me about it, or returned to that topic.

As I posted to Dano on his other thread, it completely doesn't matter to me anymore, because there are about a dozen great reasons to accelerate the transition to renewable sources of energy. AGW can never be proven 100% or disproven 100%; there will always be variables, dissenters, disagreements and alternate theories. For me, the important thing has always been to see an America committed to investing in alternative technology, and developing sources of energy that don't pollute or send billions overseas.

And guess what, stirfry? I didn't lose. I won.

Ha ha.

You believe CO2 drives climate, correct? If you do, you're wrong. The evidence is stacking up against your belief.

Enjoy your ignorance
 
I also throroughly debunked your frequently-posted ice core study, and once I did, you never responded to me about it, or returned to that topic.

what exactly did you debunk? You posted some pro global warming statement made by one of 7 authors of a study. I responded by saying it's not suprising when a scientists joins the climate fear mongering since it's the only way to get funding. There are numerous examples of scientists be reprimanded for speaking out against climate change so it's bnot suprising when a scientists says something to pass tyhe AGW test and save their job. LOL

Ted Kulongowski ring a bell?
 
Back
Top