German Scientific Study Predicts Global Cooling till 2030
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Research based on over 100 independent expert studies points to a cooling Earth climate at least until 2030. Author, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity points to failures by climatologists to account for solar variation in their projections.
The study ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ comprises a rigorous analysis of leading peer-reviewed papers. It is a sharp retort to unfounded global warming alarm propagated by government-sponsored climatologists and discredits claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that had speculated alarmist and unfounded temperature rises this century.
Indeed, Dr. Landscheidt’s study points to statements by the editors of the journal Science (2002) admitting an increasing in the number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change. The German solar specialist advises:
"The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined best estimate projections of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes storylines to speculate about warming as high as 5.8 Degrees C till 2100.”
Strong Link Between Solar Variation and Earth's Climate Changes
The study further asserts, “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change.”
The evidence collated from the 100+ specialist papers shows that the IPCC incorrectly adjudged that the solar factor is negligible and is at fault for omitting to take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance.
In fact, “The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901, “ notes Dr. Landscheidt.
While the latest 11-year sunspot cycle 23 has shown noticeably weaker activity and appears to be a first indication of a cooling trend. The outcome of this change in solar activity may fatally impact the IPCC's hypothesis of man-made global warming.As Dr. Kleespies observed, “Dr. Landscheidt shows that temperature always lags those minima and maxima a few years. The next Gleissberg minimum will be 2030, thus meaning it will possibly get REALLY cold from then on.“
This expert study is a compelling analysis of the most up-to-date peer-reviewed solar science and serves as a reminder to climatologists to earnestly reassess the undeniable truth that our sun is the key driver of Earth’s climate, not human emissions of carbon dioxide.
Reference: Dr. Landscheidt, T., ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ (March 2012), www.schulphysik.de (accessed online: March 09, 2012)
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
The stated aims of the IPCC are :-
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation
The IPCC is not interested in exploring other scenarios.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Well this site has shown itself to be the bullshit, close minded site that it is. I want to see the climate change skeptic movement flourish, but the general mindset found in this website is NOT the way to do it.
You came here being aggressive and annoying while trying to claim it's everyone else.
You are right about one thing, and that is the mindset not to have, unfortunately you can't quite grasp that it is your own that is the problem.
Why were the comments deleted? You would have to ask the site owner, but given the trash I've seen from warmists doing a hit and run here that has never been deleted don't congratulate yourself that you are the reason those comments are gone.
They also delete those annoying watch and shoe selling spam bots...
However, it seems even the smallest criticism, no matter how factual, isn't welcome here. Words like "fascist" thrown around. People vehemently defending the citation inaccuracy as not being untruthful at all. Ridiculous statements and subject changing trying to question my beliefs/motives. Hell, you even asked me where does it say in Dr. Landscheidt's article that he was dead!? Now that's clutching at straws.
I'm not criticizing the climate change skeptic movement. I support it. I support people trying to make research like this public knowledge. But I dislike those portions of the movement that won't accept any opinion from any outside source no matter how basic and truthful it clearly is.
I didn't come here to start an argument. I was making a point where the article could be improved. The fact that it is dishonestly presenting old research as new does it a disservice.
However, the level of ignorance and closed-mindedness that my simple point was greeted with by readers of the site is absolutely amazing.
Think about how you stated what you claim is your "helpfulness."
Antagonistic and aggressive is what it was no matter how you try and spin it. The fact that you can't grasp that speaks volumes about your own ignorance and closed-minded behavior.
Quit projecting your own failings on the rest of us.
Calling the citation a 'flat out lie' wasn't being in any way aggressive or antagonistic.
1. If the person who wrote this article doesn't know how to cite something then he shouldn't be writing articles.
2. Besides that, it seems very odd to write an article purely about a piece of research and NOT mention when it was written. Then to cite it incorrectly in a way that suggests it is a new piece of research. Also to provide a copy of the research article which does not have proper info/abstract to say when the article was written.
Then yes, this article is written so deceptively it is perfectly justifiable to label it as a flat out lie. I wasn't being aggressive. I was making a simple point.
Making a simple point would have been:
"You realize that the author published that 4 years earlier don't you?"
Or:
"You need to correct the citation on that reference."
Polite and accurate.
Instead you chose arrogant and abrasive, i.e. aggressive. for someone who spouts off so much about how you dislike that in others you don't seem to be bothered by it in yourself.
Spin it however you want, those are the facts.
No one writes PURELY about a research article and not mention when it was written, and THEN cite it in a way to present it as new. The article was clearly spun in such a way so as to be presented old research as new research. It was a lie, and it It was perfectly reasonable to call the author out on that.
But then again that wasn't WHY readers of the site aggressively jumped on me at first. Originally, you were disagreeing with my point, against all logic, you were questioning my motives, calling my methods 'fascist'. It was an utterly ridiculous reaction.
Now though it seems you've finally seen the point that i was trying to make, as you've moved on from these ridiculous accusations and now you're merely criticizing the WAY in which i made my point. I guess that's probably as good as i'm ever going to get.
But just at least TRY and look at it in context. I called a lie a lie. That's all i did. Not aggressive, factual.
Also, I'm SURE if an article was written by someone saying that man made global warming is real you wouldn't just come out and say "oh, i'm sorry i think you might have made a mistake there". You'd probably point out any lies made by them as 'flat out lies' and feel perfectly justified in doing so.
That's all i did. Make a point. You have no right to be lecturing me on the virtues of politeness after the reaction i was given.
Remind you of any accusations you've been making here? As I said, pot meet kettle.
Quote:That is a "flat out lie" as I never used the word. I still question your motives, though it was someone else who called you a fascist.
What ever your opinion is, or what doubts you have are of little concern to me.
I have followed this for some time and was well aware of the good doctors demise when i read John's article. I was also aware it was from 2002ish and never for an instance thought he was trying to hide it or be in any way deceptive.
It's only an issue for you so get over it. No one really cares.
Logic dictates that you must self destruct!
Oh and calling me "boring", yes that's a valid point, resorting to a personal insult... Look, my point has been made more than once. it's a simple point. Short, sweet and based in fact. I was pointing out a deception in the article. I wasn't insulting anyone on the site. I wasn't discrediting Dr. Landscheidt's work, i wasn't discrediting the climate change skeptic ideology.
All that happened was you and the other poster responded absolutely ridiculously. That's it.
Hahaha, WOW. A new level or clutching at straws just to make an argument. So sentences don't link up do they? Once you use a full stop, the next sentence takes on an entirely new meaning? Give me a break....
1. I don't know where this response from 'Doug Cotton' has come from and what it's relevance is.
2. He criticizes my understanding of the "key points in the paper" when i didn't actually discuss the content of the research paper at all. Again, avoiding my actual point.
And what "pseudo-science" did i use!? What the hell are you talking about? I consistently made ONE point, ONE. That the article is deceptive because it CLEARLY presents old research as new. How can you possibly accuse ME of ducking and dodging when you post responses like this?
But you know what, forget it. I've made my very simple point very, VERY clearly multiple times, but i'm just talking to a brick wall of ignorance.
You are the one who is accusing others of pseudoscience, in other words you are guilty of insulting others yet take offense when you think you have been insulted.
Why don't you read all of your comments here and think about the arrogant attitude you come across with then ask yourself why you don't receive warm, fuzzy comments from readers.
God are you thick, claim everyone else is ignorant all you want, you are the one who sees what you want to see, and can't open your own mind to how anyone else might perceive you. You're a legend in your own mind.
I thought this website looked encouraging when i first stumbled across it, but i am DONE.
He could have been polite about pointing out what he perceived to be an error but had to be an arrogant prick instead. With no questioning of why he decides what the author's motives are making claims of lies and deception then he whines because it isn't appreciated.
Based on his quotes of elsewhere regarding PSI and the "Slayers" it appears obvious he doesn't care what the message actually is, he just doesn't like the messengers. It's his "open-minded" nature you know.
I HATE that i am grouped in with morons like you when i say i am a climate change skeptic. Though at least when discussing climate change with people I manage to prove myself as a skeptic trough critical thinking, examining evidence from both sides of the story and coming out the other side the better of it. I'm not a skeptic through just picking a side and religiously following it, calling anyone who disagreed with you even the SLIGHTEST bit a "leftist", "fascist", "chicken little" oh and a shit slinging monkey. Yeah, nice insight there. That's not what you do when people disagree with you, you debate it. You make a counter argument.
It's shameful, but by all means keep posting. Keep embarrassing yourselves. I had a good chuckle reading through my emails just there at the sheer ridiculousness of some of these comments.
Must be hard to chuckle when you're throwing a tantrum.
And this whole not "believing me" thing is so stupid. It just makes you sound like the cliché, paranoid, conspiracy theorist skeptic that i personally try to separate myself from as much as possible.
"oh wait, he disagrees with something the website said! He must be a warmist just PRETENDING to be a skeptic here to sabotage the website and our movement."
Please... It's ridiculous. and when you counteract anyone who differs in opinion from you even slightly with that argument, it makes you look like a moron.
From the MLA:
Quote:The APA doesn't even require the date of publication, just the date of access.
www.easybib.com/reference/guide/mla/website
O'Sullivan appears to have used the form of citing an article on a website, so what was your problem that you had to claim it was a lie?
and here:
www.google.com/search?q=inurl:www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm&as_qdr=y15
The date of publication was 22 Aug 2003.
Therefore this is very old research being presented as new research.
Christ you can't read or think can you? Keep on yapping, you're inability to see exactly what is presented to you accurately says more about you than any little jibes you make at me.
22 Aug 2003
Date of actual journal publication was:
May 2003
Again, what's your point? We are talking about the reference given here, if it was not listed then his assumption of 2012 for electronic publication would not be the great issue you appear to see it as.
I have instructors who will accept MLA or APA, and others who will only take one of the two but not the other.
Not one of them would call me into their office and say my citation was a flat out lie or deceptive as you have done. The would knock points of my work and expect me to correct it but not one would react as you did.
Again, grow up.
Of course your instructors would not need electronic publication AND actual journal publication. Because you would be just because you would be using ONE source. I'm sure the journal source would be recommended as opposed to a website of unconfirmed, academic legitimacy.
Though O'Sullivan used NONE of these. He merely stated the date of the article as (March 2012). It's CLEARLY suggesting that it was published in 2012, and why?
Well because there would be no point making research that was published in 2003 a headline! So he made it look like it was from 2012. Even if he didn't reference it properly he could have EASILY said "an article from 2003" but he CHOSE not to. THAT is why it is dishonest.
Also, if he doesn't know basic information such as WHEN the research was published, he has no right publishing an article about it.
The thing is, presenting research as being from 2003, which is the truth, doesn't have as much impact as presenting research as being from 2012 does it.... but dishonesty is never the right way to go about making an argument.
All while you claim it is we who are doing that to poor you.
Grow up.
And i NEVER claimed that you or any of the other readers here were being dishonest. Just misguided and/or ignorant.
Now if you wouldn't mind, go troll somewhere else because that is all you appear to be.
You began with the "flat out lie" accusation. No matter what you have convinced yourself of, that was being antagonistic and was more in keeping with the type of comment we see from alarmist trolls around here.
Now I'm tired of beating you over the head with things you are just to dense to get.
When a website puts an article up, the date of electronic publication on that site can be use in citations. Because there are lots of websites aren't there? How does one know when it was first published electronically somewhere else if it isn't listed in the article itself? Mind reading?
This is a piss ant little detail that gave you something to howl about. Okay you've howled, we don't care. You aren't proving anything other than that you don't have an open mind and can't see any way of looking at the issue other than your own.
Reply if you must as I'm sure you will but I'm finished with you, you are just to dense to get through to.
And the electronic publication ON THAT SITE was August 2003!! Jesus... talk about not being able to get something through a dense skull.
Quoting Robert:
I love that you've being going on and on and on about projection, and being exactly what i profess to dislike, whereas this accusation defines you perfectly. You're so uber defensive about your beliefs that you started a HUGE argument about the point i made without actually thinking it through or accepting any of the EVIDENCE i presented that O'Sullivan was being dishonest.
Plus, i am SURE, 100% certain that If an author who was SUPPORTING the idea of man made global warming wrote an article with the same level of dishonesty as O'Sullivan showed here, you would be ALL OVER HIM THAT's having a closed mind, that's being overly biased and having no way of looking at the issue other than your own.
Oh but nevermind. Even if you don't have a leg to stand on, i guess you can just call me a "fascist" or a "warmist" and that'll disregard any argument i have, no matter how factual. At least if it makes you feel better.
My point was that the way this article dishonestly referenced the research article it's talking about. Unless the person reading looks into it further, the article presents Dr. Landscheidt's article as new research, especially in the reference at the end "'New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ (March 2012)" with that method of citation generally suggesting it was published in 2012. It also seems odd that the author wouldn't mention WHEN Dr. Landscheidt's research was published seeing as he's writing an article about it, and he provides a link to the research article which does not state when it was published.
All these things combined seems like a deliberate attempt to present old research as new research, when Dr. Landscheidt has been dead for 8 years, and this research was published back in 2003. Whatever the validity of the research, as i know Dr. Landscheidt is very respected in his field, it SHOULD definitely be noted when presenting this story that the research is almost 9 years old, and not to hide this fact which it looked like O'Sullivan was doing here.
That was all.
Given the nitwits we've had here who respond similarly to anything just because O'Sullivan wrote it I've been trying to convey to him that it was how he said it that makes him look like just another alarmist troll. He still doesn't get it.
To immediately accuse someone of being a troll/warmist/leftist/fascist and whatever else i got here for pointing out how the citation was deceptively presented was a ridiculous reaction, and does not make for healthy debate.
AGW is Crap.
Gator et al. 2012
The End.
Quote:How the response was made is why the impression was given that it was just a troll comment.
Notice the individual has commented ONLY on articles which are by O'Sullivan or deal with PSI, does not deal with the actual content, i.e. the science, but instead nitpicks the format of the reference, accuses the author in the case of Doug Cotton of pseudo-science, not writing an actual paper, being afraid to publish in a "proper" publication, and various other personal opinions.
None of which make for healthy debate or even indicate that this person is interested at all in healthy debate.
As I have said before, apparently spewing his opinion as fact is okay, but anyone who disagrees with it is being "ridiculous."
One has to wonder why this person claims O'Sullivan is being deceptive yet is blind to his own deceptive behavior.
So I'll leave you with the deceptive child who has claimed we are all "f-ing morons" and after saying he was done with us still can't shut up.
So much for honesty eh?
Look, i seriously don't know WHAT the **** your problem is, and i have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. This is the only article i've commented on. You're talking absolute nonsense, but hey, at least you're consistent in that regard.
Unfortunately for you that doesn't negate the valid points I have made that you consider your OPINION as fact, began with a comment that doesn't do anything to indicate you are interested in "healthy debate" and continuously yammer on accusing others of things that, were you to look in the mirror, you would see yourself just as guilty of.
Now, as I said before, since according to you, in another of your OPINIONS, we are all a bunch of f-ing morons and you're done here, why are you still here?
journal.ccsenet.org/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/14754/10140
"The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse
gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect
will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional
drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum
of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11."
For god's sake. I wasn't trying to show anything wrong with the science. You mentioned (in all your comments) but it's clear you didn't properly read any of my comments. Half of you actually read what i said and accepted/debated my point as the relatively minor criticism that it was, and half of you, like you are here, just got super defensive over nothing. Just because i made a criticism of the way the article was presented, does not mean i'm trying to disprove the research the article was referring to. If you want to confront what i said, then actually read what i said.
Just a suggestion.