tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6554539418854244951..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: WUWT failed predictions: Nicola Scafetta and his astrological prediction from 2012Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21073399312013012732016-02-13T23:30:55.548+11:002016-02-13T23:30:55.548+11:00I don't know whether this has been mentioned e...I don't know whether this has been mentioned elsewhere, but <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/new-science-22-solar-tsi-leads-earths-temperature-with-an-11-year-delay/" rel="nofollow">David Evans is back with his solar/notch stuff</a>. And in the comments, he makes some predictions: <br /><br /><i>"Looking ahead a bit: cooler, possibly starting as early as 2017.<br /><br />Regardless of which of the TSI datasets or reconstructions most bandied about that you believe, there was a fall off in underlying TSI around 2004. The length of the current solar cycle is around 13 to 14 years, so sometime around 2017 (or maybe a couple of years after) this should result in global cooling.<br /><br />Prediction: There will be a sustained and significant fall in global temperature from about 2017 – 2022, of about 0.3 deg C. The 2020s will be cooler than the 1980s."</i> Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74313372357603907282016-02-09T20:24:55.825+11:002016-02-09T20:24:55.825+11:00I'm glad Mosher quickly noted the model means ...I'm glad Mosher quickly noted the model means calculated by Scafetta were wrong. It's immediately obvious to anyone who has been following the sneaky baseline manipulations of such clowns.<br /><br />Everything about Scafetta's nonsense is offensive, from the misdirecting chutzpah that his 'model' was a genuine alternative to GCMs, to the boneheaded climastrology.<br /><br />He's a natural pairing with the verbose oaf Monckton.<br /><br />Both useless.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68246251863756744502016-02-09T18:56:15.938+11:002016-02-09T18:56:15.938+11:00They will just blame it on the El Nino.
I have no...They will just blame it on the El Nino.<br /><br />I have not heard much from the ice people for the last 12 months or so. Apparently nature did not get their memo about increasing sea ice extent.<br /><br />We will just have to wait until the next 12 month "recovery" I guess.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55683531622069920502016-02-09T18:55:29.297+11:002016-02-09T18:55:29.297+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15315862167420162302016-02-09T18:52:51.140+11:002016-02-09T18:52:51.140+11:00Just a note of the global sea ice minimum record b...Just a note of the global sea ice minimum record by cryosphere todays' measurements that happened over the weekend. I think there should be something over at wuwt shortly. Or maybe not.Oalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032383453035968859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84966460131196403382016-02-09T18:49:09.612+11:002016-02-09T18:49:09.612+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Oalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032383453035968859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28611431297089957142016-02-09T08:36:15.387+11:002016-02-09T08:36:15.387+11:00Yes, I used to comment on WUWT from time to time, ...Yes, I used to comment on WUWT from time to time, in an effort to discuss _actual science_ rather than nonsense attempting to be 'scientifical'. I finally gave it up as a Sisyphean task in the face of absolute noise and abuse from the echo chamber, and because I started getting moderated more and more aggressively by Smokey/dbs and Anthony - I think I was getting under their skin a wee bit. <br /><br />Scafetta never did answer my questions, incidentally - just ranted on and on about <i>"read my papers"</i> without references. The sole discussion relevant reference he did give was clearly in error regarding solar changes over the last 50 years <i>(wrong sign, in fact, insolation is decreasing)</i>, so perhaps that's not surprising...KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54535204160140391142016-02-09T07:34:59.802+11:002016-02-09T07:34:59.802+11:001. I don't think 'retired' is the oper...1. I don't think 'retired' is the operant word, Sou. Scafetta is 40.<br />2. Beautiful astrophotograph, Bert.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30816741466433989132016-02-09T06:13:33.473+11:002016-02-09T06:13:33.473+11:00Bert said:
"They are no better than carnival ...Bert said:<br />"They are no better than carnival con artists using the usual methods to fool an incredulous public."<br /><br />The real con artists are people like Curry, Lindzen, Salby, and Pielke, as they write textbooks on atmospheric sciences geared toward educating students, yet can't get on board with the facts about GHG.<br /><br />This is a list of textbooks available on Amazon from this group:<br /><br />Judith Curry : <br />Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans $117.98<br />Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences $2,800.00<br />Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds $115<br />Interactions Between Arctic Sea Ice and Atmospheric Boundary Layer in the Presence of Leads $100<br /><br />Murry Salby : <br />Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate $96<br />Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (edited by Roger Pielke, Sr) $101<br />Stratospheric Constituent Response to Vertically Propagating Equatorial Waves $100<br /><br />Richard Lindzen :<br />Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics $180<br />Atmospheric Tides: Thermal and Gravitational $99<br />Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application. $114.70<br /><br />Roger Pielke Sr :<br />Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling $416.90<br />Climate Vulnerability: Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources $1596<br /><br />Those are actual listed prices!<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79993689550243498412016-02-09T01:03:26.660+11:002016-02-09T01:03:26.660+11:00The AGW denier Richard Lindzen thought that the at...The AGW denier Richard Lindzen thought that the atmospheric QBO was not due to the tidal cycles of the moon but there is now contrary evidence supporting gravitational pull. Who would have thought it!<br /><br />This is being vetted at John Carlos Baez's Azimuth Project site, who doesn't tolerate crank theories as you may have noticed from the previous post comments.<br /><br />Like I said people such as Girma and Scafetta have kind of poisoned the environment for outsider research. If it wasn't for them we could probably have more healthy discussions that actually advance our scientific understanding, instead of advancing a political agenda.<br /><br /> @whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49081893278699884922016-02-08T20:32:29.379+11:002016-02-08T20:32:29.379+11:00I will put this link in here as it has no relevanc...I will put this link in here as it has no relevance to the thread. <br /><br />It is just an image of a bit of Carina which is above the Southern Cross.<br /><br />I used well known scientific methods to tease the signal out of the noise.<br /><br />Maybe I should give the game away as we now have the Hubble Telescope. This is nonsense as my system shows a far wider picture than Hubble. It is not in competition but it is complementary.<br /><br />All of science works this way! 16MB<br /><br />http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2016_01/Car_2P_Mos_N.jpg<br /><br />Bert<br /><br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16306916678495753212016-02-08T20:17:06.422+11:002016-02-08T20:17:06.422+11:00When someone is as spectacularly wrong as Nicola ...When someone is as spectacularly wrong as Nicola was (as shown above) I've no qualms about mocking them. When they argue that it's not CO2, it's Jupiter and Saturn - doubly and triply so.<br /><br />Patterns like the PDO and similar that aren't founded on utter nuttery but on observations - I don't mock, I follow where the science leads.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66266051200720265672016-02-08T20:11:06.132+11:002016-02-08T20:11:06.132+11:00Hmmm. How did I miss that, John. So he's retir...Hmmm. How did I miss that, John. So he's retired to become a full-time anti-science/anti-scientist activist. Shame, really. I figured he was probably a nice if nutty fellow. I was wrong.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21488279916722886252016-02-08T19:45:33.957+11:002016-02-08T19:45:33.957+11:00Solar and Lunar induced cycles are obvious as we k...Solar and Lunar induced cycles are obvious as we know the mechanisms. Cycles induced by planets far away can only interact by their gravitational effects. These are insignificant compared to the influence gravitationally of the Sun and Moon.<br /><br />The Sun of course has a bit of heat to add to the driving forces.<br /><br />I have seen stable systems oscillate due to so called chaos theory. This happens when the imaginary numbers rear their ugly head such as in electronic amplifiers that oscillate. This sort of stuff has been known for a long time.<br /><br />They think they invented it with all their other crap!<br /><br />They are no better than carnival con artists using the usual methods to fool an incredulous public.<br /><br />We have these same sort of charletans rife in our politics and finance industries. Captains of 'industry' are another dubious lot.<br /><br />I won't even mention the various religious mobs that do the same thing.<br /><br />Bert<br /><br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61731670235295629302016-02-08T16:03:13.703+11:002016-02-08T16:03:13.703+11:00Note that climastrologer Scafetta has departed fr...Note that climastrologer Scafetta has departed from his longtime job at Duke U:<br /><br />SCAFETTA, Nicola, Ph.D, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Science, University of Naples Federico II, Italy, Former research scientist of Physics at Duke University. 87 Publications in complex systems and climate change (ITALY)<br /><br />(for the recent "300 scientists" petition.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48948041589315503922016-02-08T15:51:24.744+11:002016-02-08T15:51:24.744+11:00I would be careful about scoffing at models that l...I would be careful about scoffing at models that look at cyclic behavior. For certain phenomena, such as ocean tides, its all about composing models via well known luni-solar periods. As it turns out, atmospheric tides also occur and there is evidence that the moon forces the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) of stratospheric winds. Its a little more complicated than just looking up the lunar periods, but correlation is striking. So there is still room to improve on existing models.<br /><br />The problem I think with Scafetta is that he is looking for something that matches his agenda as opposed to taking an unbiased approach and finding what shakes out.<br /><br />So I do agree that the deniers are poisoning the discussion with their rather capricious matching of anything that relates to measured oscillations, yet the underlying math is solid. <br /><br />For wave equations, the forced response is often similar in response to the forcing, completely overriding the natural response. That math model is solid.<br /><br />Please look at what Robert Grumbine is looking at over at his moregrumbinescience blog. <br /><br /> <br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58540404601405740372016-02-08T14:57:29.783+11:002016-02-08T14:57:29.783+11:00That's because you were looking at it. A watch...That's because you were <em>looking at it</em>. A watched ocean never boils. Or some such.Garystarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04805308737366199017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45390441148796674952016-02-08T09:47:23.779+11:002016-02-08T09:47:23.779+11:00A prediction that has clearly failed because I saw...A prediction that has clearly failed because I saw the Arctic Ocean in 2011 and it was not boiled yet.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48896322611400476092016-02-08T08:38:08.049+11:002016-02-08T08:38:08.049+11:00Having written about one failed prediction, I was ...<i>Having written about one failed prediction, I was prompted to investigate another. </i><br /><br />The Wattites are right: you <i>are</i> mean. You'd never catch them stooping so low as to go back four or five years to dig up old predictions, especially in context, quoting the predictors' own words and with links.<br /><br />That's just cruel. Can't we let bygones by bygones and focus on the important things, like Algore's claim that the Arctic Ocean would have boiled dry by August 26, 2023?Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9447794422311137882016-02-08T07:14:06.086+11:002016-02-08T07:14:06.086+11:00Sou, you could have won a farm. Getting Monckton ...Sou, you could have won a farm. Getting Monckton to pay up might have been difficult.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.com