Comments on: Natural Variation – 60 year cycle

By: Niche Modeling » Natural Variation – 60 year cycle PV online

Niche Modeling » Natural Variation – 60 year cycle PV online — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:43:30 +0000

[...] the original post: Niche Modeling » Natural Variation – 60 year cycle By admin | category: principle variation | tags: agw, australian, funds, jump-the-most, [...]

By: davids99us

davids99us — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:15:49 +0000

Alan, Quite possibly, but I am focussing on what can justifiably be inferred
from these data alone.

By: Alan Cheetham

Alan Cheetham — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:51:17 +0000

The 60-70 year cycle is clearly evident in the data (see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArcticCycles.htm and http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm

There is also a longer cycle with an unknown cycle length that is resulting in a net warming after each 60-year cycle.

An analogy: We have been measuring data each minute for two days now -- it went through two warming and cooling cycles and today was warmer than yesterday (the warmest yet observed!). We haven't observed long enough to see that the days are also on a yearly cycle -- each daily cycle is getting warmer in this spring, but eventually there will be net cooling in the longer term cycle.

By: davids99us

davids99us — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:26:25 +0000

Peter, I wonder what would be the distinguishing feature(s) that produce the
difference in response between those domains?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:09:44 +0000

This fits well with my previous identification of two identical warming periods in the twentieth century. I still think an AGW signal could be isolated, but definitely one first has to explain why the 1911-1941 warming occurred at the same rate as the 1978-2008 one.

By: Peter Gallagher

Peter Gallagher — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:59:36 +0000

Thanks, David. A very nice round-up of the studies. Your comment speculation is a mugs game is apt. But the world is rewarding the "mugs".

The AGW thesis is a special case of the 'precautionary principle': when you have insufficient data, jump the most alarming conclusion (because that's where the funds/votes are).

It's interesting that the Australian government has been at the forefront of rejecting the 'precautionary principle' as a decision-function in agreements such as the WTO's 'Sanitary and Phytosantiary Measures' agreement (on quarantine barriers), in the U.N's 'Biosafety Protocol' (on trade in GMOs) and in the Codex Alimentarius (on international food standards and safety). They have repeatedly pointed out in those forums that the 'precautionary principle' is non-scientific and amounts to a refusal properly to evaluate available evidence and to take rational measures proportionate to the available evidence.

Rationality in one domain does not translate, evidently, into another.

Best wishes,

Peter