Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Paging Norman Page - another "ice age cometh" to WUWT

Sou | 12:36 AM 23 Comments - leave a comment

Norman Page is a doctor.  Not a climate science doctor.  A petroleum geology doctor I believe.

Norman Page tells Dr Pauchari to use Google (early 2008)


In January 2010 Norman Page posted the following email he said he sent to Dr Pauchari, Chair of the IPCC, back in April/May 2008.  He suggested to Dr Pauchari that he "Google" to see what is happening with the climate.  He got a response to a previous email but not the one below.  Archived here - my bold and italics and hyperlinks:
Dr Pachauri
It is a month since my first e-mail and I thought I might draw your attention to a few more articles of interest.It is clear that temperatures correlate much better with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ( Controlled by solar activity) than with CO2 levels. Google - PDO cooling -and look at Easterbrooks graphs and comments.. Also google - Jason satellite cooling - for a discussion of the current situation.
Google -- ball UN structures - for an anlysis of how the IPCC came to distort the science for political ends. You are obviously in a better position to judge Ball's position than I am ,but what he says looks very plausible to me.
In the meantime Solar Cycle 24 continues to fail to appear making the cooling predictions more and more likely.
I do hope you will soon feel that you can speak out publicly on these matters in the near future to perhaps forestall damaging actioThank you for your careful consideration of my original e - mail.A useful discussion of the IPCC forcing and feedback factors can be found by googling - pielke monckton guest -
Best Regards Norman Page

Norman Page predicts a cooling spell - in January 2009


In January 2009 he wrote (archived here):
The Sun is entering a quiet phase - possibly a Dalton minimum - and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now in a negative phase. Both of these facts suggest a possible 20 - 30 year cooling spell during which cooler temperatures could produce shorter growing seasons and a serious drop in food crop production.

Twenty four months later 2010 was declared in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society to be the equal hottest year on record with 2005.


Norman Page today says the scientists don't know nuffin'


Norman continued on his merry way predicting all sorts of catastrophes, of the cooling kind.  His latest effort is today at WUWT (archived here), and he writes:
In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over  the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers. 
What cooling trend, you may ask...



Norman waffles on about models, showing he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  He tosses everything he can think of into the mix: cosmic rays, neutrinos, it's the sun, CO2 is too small to have an effect.  If there's a denier meme out there Norman's latched onto it.  At one stage he writes:
The simplest working hypothesis for forecasting future climate is that the change in the temperature trend from warming to cooling in 2003 (Figs 6 and 7) marked both the change in the PDO phase and the peak in the 1000 year cycle.
He wanders around saying that nights are colder than days and winters are colder than summers and making similar profound observations.  He summarises his "findings" a couple of times.  Here's his final summary, ending with a warning that a Little Ice Age may be imminent:
  1. Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
  2. Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
  3. Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
  4. Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
  5. Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
  6. General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
  7. By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
  8. The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
  9. Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
Norman finishes by writing an out clause:
 If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.
Here is that prediction.  It's not the most extreme by a long shot:




Good to see that Anthony Watts isn't neglecting other climate nutters.  He's been relying on stodgy but reliable in denial Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale a bit too much.  Too boring!  WUWT needed livening up and who better but an "ice age cometh" veteran, Dr Norman Page.


From the WUWT comments


Norman attracted quite a few conspiracy nutters (archived here), for example, Txomin says:
October 29, 2013 at 10:06 pm
UN global control over the World and National economies…?


Eve says, mysteriously:
October 29, 2013 at 11:02 pm
What the ICPP an governments have done is to drive everyone from the north to the south. Those that have legs, that is. Leaving for the Bahamas. Will chat with you later about how much cheaper it is to not have to heat your house.


albertalad says he cannot fathom how CO2 can have super powers:
October 29, 2013 at 11:51 pm
You touched on CO2 – as you know nitrogen and oxygen make up fully 99% of the atmospheric gases with all the other trace gases making up the final 0.01%. How in any sane universe can a tiny trace gas like CO2, as the IPCC and other AGW believers claim, so completely control the world’s heat content? That is insane. Illogical. No where near possible – yet they claim such super powers for CO2. Why can’t we defeat this ridiculous concept? Their entire warming fantasy is based on CO2. Everything.


Henry Galt is a regular at WUWT.  He is a conspiracy theorist of the 'climate science is a hoax' variety and says much the same thing each time IIRC:
October 30, 2013 at 12:35 am
Now all we have to do is find some investigative journalists to start the truth ball rolling. Ethical politicians will read about the contortions the IPCC scientists have gone through to produce their robust projections and command some honest judges to duly process the team and their cause.
Oh, and the UN, NGOs, formerly respected academies and societies, government departments, windmill farmers, PV fiefdoms, carbon traders, chief scientists, activist organizations, ecoloonies and uncle Tom Cobbley and all will soon see the error of their ways, awake to the murder and damage being committed worldwide in the name of their beloved environment, fold their tents and bother the rationalists no more.
There is no /sarc tag. There is despair in my soul.
There are a number of oxymorons in my first paragraph and millions of morons in my second.


Jean Parisot is under some illusion (delusion?) or other, maybe thinking that developing countries would all be developed if not for climate science and says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:52 am
The Treasury decision infuriates me. It is one thing for we, the rich and comfortable, to delude ourselves and pursue asinine energy policies. But, for us to deny developing economies the access to the cheap energy that they desperately need, is morally vacant.


Scarface doesn't know the simplest thing about the world and says (my bold italics):
October 30, 2013 at 1:34 am
“g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.”
Exactly the reason I stopped believing one word of the warnings about Global Warming.
Up to that point I thought that CO2 was about 15% of the air, based on the alarming news! When I started to look things up for myself, I turned into a skeptic and will be one until proven wrong.


RMB says those silly scientists ignore the fact that water can't get hot because of surface tension.  RMB has never dipped his or her toe in a body of water:
October 30, 2013 at 1:35 am
The key to the fact that the models don’t work is dead simple, they ignore surface tension. If you attempt to put heat into water through the surface you will find that the heat is rejected. Radiation penetrates surface tension, physical heat does not. There is no such thing as climate “sensitivity” to co2 because of this simple fact. I would recommend that everybody try getting heat through the surface of water using a heat gun, the complete rejection of the heat tells the story. In short radiation yes, heat no.


Rob gives a conventional WUWT response and says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:19 am
Excellent perspective!


herkimer isn't counting the days but says (excerpt, my emphasis):
October 30, 2013 at 5:43 am
...Now that it has been clearly shown that during the last 16.8 years rising levels of CO2 do not raise global temperatures... 


Greg Roane seeks clarification and asks, very politely:
October 30, 2013 at 5:56 am
Dr. Page, thank you! One small question, for clarity: Conclusion 1 states “…Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.”
.
Is it possible to be both + and – 0.25 degrees colder? Or do you mean “up to 0.25 degrees colder” instead?
.
Thank you sir.

23 comments:

  1. Hi,
    Do you know if the "Norman" posting on Roy Spencer's site is the afore mentioned Dr Page?

    It's just that earlier this year I took a lot of effort (vis 3+ hours on one post relating to a particular weather setup) to converse with him and all the time said nothing about an agenda - I got the impression he was just interested.
    PS I'm a retired Forecaster with UKMO.

    Tony Banton
    TonyB on that site ( No not Brown) - changed to Toneb latterly after his moan.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony, it's hard to say. I just went and read some of Norman's comments at Roy Spencer where he was talking about the effect of gravity on air molecules and supporting Doug Cotton's crankery.

      The style of writing looks a bit different and the particular wacky ideas do too. So I think they are two different people. Both fit into the "utter nutter" category.

      Delete
    2. I just did a search and Norman Page comments as Dr Norman Page at Curry's place and at Roy Spencer's place. So I'd say they are two different people.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Sou,
      Ah Doug Cotton....
      I had a long "conversation" with him and after he started to basically call me a fraud I complained to Spencer and he said that was the last straw and banned him - he came back a few times after and was banned again each time. This was back in April I think. Truely "away with the fairies".
      There's someone on there call Dr No and I wondered again but I reckon You're right.
      PS: I try to fend off the nutters on Phys.org when they spam climate related threads. ( runrig).
      Tony
      PS the Cotton thread is ...
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/#comments

      Delete
  2. It's telling that even Leif Svalgaard didn't waste his time commenting at WUWT this time...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
    -- Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
    -- Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
    -- Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
    -- Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scarface doesn't have a carbon monoxide detector in his house, because how could 0.01% concentration have any effect on an 80kg+ adult?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try putting 0.01% concentration of cyanide into a drink my friend. Get my drift?

      Delete
    2. Botulin, anyone?

      (When you think about it, it's the only truly effective homeopathic intervention!...)

      Delete
  5. You touched on CO2 – as you know nitrogen and oxygen make up fully 99% of the atmospheric gases with all the other trace gases making up the final 0.01%.

    Priceless. This is indeed the level of competence we're dealing with.

    Also, try this one in court: 'Your Honour, these so-called 'scientists' cannot possibly expect us to believe that the laughably tiny, trace amount of alcohol that they openly admit is all that they, and their police henchmen, were able to detect in my bloodstream could possibly have impaired my ability to handle the Daimler in any way. The real tragedy is that that child's parents should simply have better taught it not to lurk on zebra-crossings."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can tell you're not a scientist Bill. It's a good job we have them or we'd all be alongside you ... in the Stone Age.
      Try Googling GHG science. And take your ideological blinkers off or else put 0.01% cyanide in a drink.

      Delete
    2. Um, mocks arithmetical incompetence, then mocks the idea that 'trace amounts' of something cannot possibly make any difference. This is problematic because?

      Delete
    3. You're in Line for a Nobel prize my friend for gainsaying ~150 years of known physics. And no, you don't know more than Climate experts - sorry. Look up Dunning- kruger syndrome.
      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/greenhouse-gases

      Delete
    4. Banton you need rewiring!

      Delete
    5. Erm... Tony. bill was being sarcastic, and I think you took him exactly the opposite way. He's actually mocking the fake skeptics' argument from incredulity.

      Delete
    6. If that was the case - I apologise. My first on this site today. See above. The nuances in the post were beyond me. I came back checking on a reply to my Cotton post and jumped to conclusions. Seems we're all on the same side.

      Delete
    7. Tony, here at HotWhopper I and others often use snark and sarcasm to point out the obvious. It can take a bit of getting used to.

      You're not the first to take comments on this board the wrong way :)

      Delete
    8. No offence taken. Glad to be on the same side.

      (And I'm not as cryptic as Eli!...)

      Delete
  6. We've had a negative PDO switch and a sharp drop in solar output since 2000. Yet UAH shows a 0.1C/decade warming trend since 2000.

    A question for skeptics is what they think the UAH trend since 2000 would have been if the PDO and solar output hadn't dropped. It's an interesting one for them to answer!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog."

    We can test this hypothesis, i.e., that such a small fraction of something can have no controlling effect, through simple experiments. All it takes is a few facts and some basic arithmetic:

    1. CO2 is 400 ppmv (i.e., 0.04% by volume) of the atmosphere).

    2. The molecular weight of CO2 is about 44 and the molecular weight of air is about 29, so 400 ppmv works out to 400 x (44/29) = 606 ppm by mass, or 0.06% (with slight rounding to simplify).

    3. A typical adult male weighs around 70 kg (some more, some less).

    4. If we take the same mass fraction of this adult male as CO2 is to air, we get 0.06% of 70 kg, which works out to 0.042 kg or 42 grams.

    The hypothesis is that just 0.06% of something -- or 42 grams of some substance, for an adult male -- cannot have a large effect. Dr. Page can easily test this hypothesis by consuming any of the following:

    1. Swallow 129 standard size aspirin tablets (325 mg each).

    2. Take 410,000 doses of LSD ("common" dose 100 micrograms, see http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml )

    3. Eat 41 grams of strychnine (300 to 400 times the estimated LD50 for a 70 kg human, per U.S. Centers for Disease control, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/57249.html ).

    I do not know if Dr. Page is of slender build or more substantial proportions, so he is welcome to adjust the dose upward or downward so that it totals 0.06%. If Dr. Page wishes to conduct any of these tests of his hypothesis he is welcome to report his results here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'such a small amount couldn't have much of an effect' argument didn't offer a lot of comfort for an in-law who had an Orixine prescription (for an underactive thyroid) incorrectly filled at a pharmacy. Instead of taking 50ug of sodium thyroxine per day, they were taking 500ug per day. End result was a heart attack which was ameliorated by a pacemaker. So 500 millionths of a gram for an 80 kg person or a daily 6.25 x 10exp-7 per cent of body weight was sufficient to have a noticeable effect within a month.

      Delete
  9. Maunder Minimums have happened before, Dr Page, and humanity took it in its stride. Enough with the alarmism already.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.