New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

To follow up on my previous post, I thought it might be good to examine the paper:
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

Abstract: Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

If Dr. Landscheidt is correct about this, we are about to enter an extended period of much reduced solar activity and therefore an extended period of global cooling, which will offer the first real world test of the IPCC’s CO2 forced global warming claims. On the downside of this, a return to climate conditions not experienced since about 1670 by the year 2030 will bring much hardship to millions, as many of the world’s foodbowls fail due to extreme cold, while demand for fossil fuels will increase just so people can survive the extreme cold in higher latitudes.

Unfortunately, the current obsession with global warming pseudoscience combined with hefty increases in the price of carbon use being planned and/or implemented in various countries means that very few will be prepared for the sudden significant downturn in temperatures likely to begin manifesting during the next few years, and as is so often the case, the poor will be the ones that suffer most due to the incompetence of certain prominent scientists prepared to over state the soundness of their science on the basis of a prejudicial belief, combined with a well orchestrated media campaign that has convinced much of the public and policymakers of the need to make huge sacrifices in order to ‘save the planet’ from a human induced fever that in fact probably only exists in the minds of the ‘true believers’.

The rest of this post summarises this important paper, with a lengthy extract of what I consider to be the key part of the content – of course my summary is not a substute for reading the actual paper!

Dr. Landscheidt introduces this paper with discussion of the IPCC position on global warming and points to a growing list of publications showing a solar-climate connection.

He rounds up his introduction with a discussion of solar irradiance, and how eruptional activity and solar wind have a much stronger effect than irradiance, noting that the solar magnetic flux has increased by a factor of 2.3 in the 20th century corresponding with an 0.6C rise on global temperature, and how the solar flux energy is transferred to the Earth via magnetic and charged particle effects that cause circulation changes that propagate from the stratosphere downwards throough the atmosphere.

He goes on to further discuss the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate, presenting research from Vostok consistantly showing a strong rise in temperature usually accompanied by a decrease in pressure after forbrush events, and from Oman showing that d18o from a dated stalagmite as a proxy for monsoonal activity closely resembles C14 from dated tree rings as a proxy for frequency and strength of solar eruptions over a period of more than 3000 years.

Next he discusses the correlation of the length of the 11 year cycle and northern hemisphere temperatures as per Christensen and Lassen 1991, and the fact that nearly all Gleissberg minima back to 300 A.D. coincided with cool climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and that Gleissberg maxima went along with warm climate.

He moves on to the predictable relationship between solar eruptions and global temperature as per Adler and Elías (2000), and notes that: “Thejll and Lassen (2000) draw the conclusion that the impact of solar activity on climate, prevailing for centuries, suddenly is no longer valid. Jumping to such a conclusion is not justified. Thejll and Lassen do not take into consideration that temperature lags solar activity by several years.”

He continues with a discussion of the aa-index of geomagnetic activity and shows that global temperature follows the aa-index curve with a lag of about 4 to 8 years, the only exception being the period of increased volcanic activity in the 1940’s, and with the oceans being a possible candidate for where the energy is stored which creates the lag.

Here is Dr Landscheidt’s ‘Figure 6’ graph from the paper:

graph of aa-index with global temperature

Fig. 6: The solid curve shows the aa-index of geomagnetic activity, reflecting the effect of energetic solar eruptions near earth. The dashed curve plots a combination of global land air and sea surface temperature anomalies. The yearly data were subjected to repeated three-point smoothing. Temperature lags aa by 4 to 8 years, but follows the undulations of the aa-curve. The connection between the leading aa-extrema and the following temperature maxima or minima is highlighted by identical numbers. A disturbance around 1940 points to exceptional internal forcing.

And ‘Figure 7’ which extends the results of ‘Figure 6’:

graph of aa-index with global temperature - extended

Fig. 7: Extension of the data in Fig. 6. The aa-curve reaches

its highest maximum, marked by number 7, around 1990 and shows a steep decline afterwars. Allowing for a lag of 8 years, a maximum in the curve of global temperature should have occurred around 1998. This was the year with the highest temperature observed since the establishment of international meteorological services. This relationship points to protracted global cooling. As will be shown, solar activity is expected to decline for three decades. This contradicts the contention maintained by Thjell and Lassen (2000) and IPCC supporters that the sun’s impact on climate has faded away since decades.

He moves on to discuss Gleissberg cycles, climate changes as revealed by isotope anylysis of ice cores, and how there are strong indications of a dependable connection between minima and maxima in the Gleissberg cycle and cool and warm periods in climate, while noting that the cycle varies from 40 to 120 years making prediction difficult, however he also notes that the sun’s varying activity is linked to cycles in its irregular oscillation about the centre of mass of the solar system, and that these cycles are connected with climate phenomena and can be computed for centuries, so offer a means to forecast consecutive minima and maxima in the Gleissberg cycle and covarying phases of cool and warm climate.

He follows this with mention of the solar dynamo theory developed by Babcock, discusses the motion of the Sun around the Solar System Barycenter (or Center of Mass) and the consequent changes of angular momentum, and how this may explain observed changes in the spin momentum of the Sun.

Then he briefly revisits his remarkakable success (90%) with predicting solar flare activity, geomagnetic storms, his 1984 prediction that solar cycle 23 would be rather weaker than cycle 22 (as was the case), and various climate related predictions including drought and flood, global temperature extrema, and his largely successful ENSO forecasts – he finishes this section with the comment: “This forecast skill, solely based on cycles of solar activity, is irreconcilable with the IPCC’s allegation that it is unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.”

For the next section discussing the 166-year cycle in variations of the rotary force driving the sun’s orbital motion, I have included an extended excerpt from the paper, as it seems important to me that the details are included both verbatim and in context for a proper understanding:
7. 166-year cycle in variations of the rotary force driving the sun’s orbital motion

The dynamics of the sun’s motion about the centre of mass can be defined quantitatively by the change in its orbital angular momentum L. The time rate of change in L is measured by its first derivative dL/dt. It defines the rotary force, the torque T driving the sun’s motion about the CM. Variations in the rotary force defined by the derivative dT/dt are a key quantity in this connection as they make it possible to forecast Gleissberg extrema for hundreds of years and even millennia.

A cycle of 166 years and its second harmonic of 83 years emerge when the time rate of change in the torque dT/dt is subjected to frequency analysis (Landscheidt, 1983). Cycles of this length, though not well known, were mentioned in the literature before. Brier (1979) found a period of just 83 years in the unsmoothed cosine transform of 2148 autocorrelations of 2628 monthly sunspot numbers. Cole (1973) confirmed this result when he investigated the power spectrum of sunspot data covering 1626 – 1968. He found a dominant peak at 84 years. Juckett (2000) derived periods of 165 and 84 years from his model of spin-orbit momentum exchange in the sun’s motion. As the wave length of the Gleissberg cycle is not far from the second harmonic of the 166-year cycle, it suggests itself to see whether the Gleissberg cycle and the dT/dt-cycle have synchronized minima and maxima. This is actually the case.

Gleissberg (1958) found the cycle named after him by smoothing the length of the 11-year sunspot cycle, a parameter that is only indirectly related to the sunspot number R measuring the intensity of sunspot activity. As it could be that the smaller or greater values of the positive and negative extrema of the dT/dt cycle have a similar parametric function, the amplitudes of these maxima and minima are taken to constitute a smoothed time series covering 2000 years. The interval is from A. D. 300 to 2300. The data were subjected to moving window Gaussian kernel smoothing (Lorczak) with a bandwidth of 60.

Figure 9 shows the result for the sub period 300 – 1200. Up to the phase reversal around 1120, indicated by an arrow, zero phases of the 166-year cycle, marked by empty circles, coincide within a relatively narrow margin with maxima in the Gleissberg cycle, indicated by filled triangles. Only close to the phase reversal the deviation of the secular maximum from the zero phase is wider. The epochs of Gleissberg minima are indicated by empty triangles. Up to the phase reversal, they consistently go along with extrema in the 166-year cycle. It makes no difference whether the extrema are positive or negative. This is reminiscent of the 11-year sunspot cycle with its exclusively positive amplitudes though the complete magnetic Hale cycle of 22 years shows positive and negative amplitudes indicating different magnetic polarities in consecutive 11-year cycles.

graph of smoothed dT/dt  AD 300 to 1200

Fig. 9: Smoothed time series (A. D. 300 – 1200) of extrema in the change of the sun’s orbital rotary force dT/dt forming a cycle with a mean length of 166 years. Up to the phase reversal around 1120, set off by an arrow, zero phases in the cycle, marked by empty circles, coincide within a relatively narrow margin with observed maxima in the Gleissberg cycle indicated by filled triangles. Minima in the Gleissberg cycle, marked by empty triangles, go along with extrema in the 166-year cycle. The phase reversal explains the outstanding Medieval sunspot maximum. The secular maximum around 1100 was followed by another maximum around 1130 without an intermittent minimum. As Gleissberg maxima coincide with warm climate and minima with cool climate, the Medieval sunspot maximum was related to exceptionally warm climate.

The assessment of the epochs of minima and maxima by Gleissberg (1958) is based on data of auroral activity by Schove (1955). Hartmann (1972) has derived mean values of the epochs from data elaborated by Gleissberg, Schove, Link, and Henkel. These dates were used in Figures 9 and 10. An analysis covering 7000 years of data confirms not only the mean cycle length of 166 years, but also a mean interval of 83 years between consecutive positive and negative extrema. The phase reversal by [pi]/2 radians around 1120 had the effect that a Gleissberg-maximum around 1100 was followed by another maximum around 1130 without an intermittent secular minimum. This explains the Medieval sunspot maximum indirectly confirmed by radiocarbon evidence (Siscoe, 1978).

Figure 10 shows the 166-year cycle in the period 900 – 2300. After the phase reversal around 1120 all Gleissberg maxima, marked by filled triangles, rather closely coincide with extrema of the curve for hundreds of years, but around 1976 the pattern changed again because of a new phase reversal by [pi]/2 radians. After a Gleissberg maximum around 1952, a second Gleissberg maximum occurred around 1984 without an intermittent secular minimum. Only the single 11-year sunspot cycle 20 in the middle between the secular maxima showed lower sunspot activity, whereas cycles 18, 19, 21, and 22 reached very high levels of activity. The mean of the maxima of the five cycles 18 – 22 is R = 156, a value not directly observed before. We have to go back to the Medieval maximum, based on proxy data, to find a similar pattern. The phase reversals, indicated in Figure 10 by arrows, heuristically explain these special features occurring only twice in nearly 17 centuries. The recent Gleissberg maximum around 1984 is the first in a long sequence of maxima connected with zero phases in the 166-year cycle, four of which are marked by empty circles in Fig. 10. The following Gleissberg maxima should occur around 2069, 2159, and 2235.

graph of smoothed dT/dt  AD 900 to 2300

Fig. 10: Same time series as in Fig. 9 for the years 900 – 2300. After the phase reversal around 1120, maxima in the Gleissberg cycle, indicated by filled triangles, consistently go along with extrema in the 166-year cycle, whereas Gleissberg minima fall at zero phases of the cycle. Another phase reversal around 1976 changed the pattern again. After a secular sunspot maximum around 1952, a second maximum followed around 1984 without an intermittent minimum in between. The effect was a grand sunspot maximum comparable to the outstanding maximum around 1120. The phase shift around 1976 reversed the pattern created by the phase reversal around 1120. The Gleissberg maximum around 1984 is the first in a long sequence of maxima going along with zero phases in the 166-year cycle. The following maxima should occur around 2069, 2159, and 2235. After 1976, Gleissberg minima will again go along with extrema in the 166-year cycle. The next secular minimum, indicated by an empty triangle, is to be expected around 2030. The following minima should occur around 2122 and 2201. The figure shows that the Gleissberg cycle behaves like a bistable oscillator. The current phase should last at least through 2500. Because of the link between Gleissberg cycle and climate, future periods of warmer or cooler climate can be predicted for hundreds of years. The next cool phase is to be expected around 2030.

After the phase reversal around 1976, secular minima are expected to coincide with extrema in the 166-year cycle. So the next Gleissberg minimum should occur around 2030, as indicated by an empty triangle. The following minima are to be expected around 2122 and 2201. The forecast of a secular minimum around 2030 is corroborated by a different approach. Sýkora et al. (2000) have found that variations in the brightness of the coronal green line are a long-range indicator of solar activity. They hold that “we are at the eve of a deep minimum of solar activity similar to that of the 19th century.�

8. Forecast of phase reversals in the 166-year cycle

The presented results indicate that the Gleissberg cycle is a bistable oscillator capable of assuming either of two states. The transition between these states seems to be triggered by special phases in the 166-year cycle which induce phase reversals. It attracts attention that the phase reversals shown in Figure 10 occur just before the deepest negative extrema relative to the respective environment. This points to quantitative thresholds which are confirmed by an additional case. The outstanding negative extremum preceding the Medieval maximum falls at A.D. 50. Just around this time the climax of the third grand sunspot maximum in the past two millenia occurred as indicated by strong 14C decreases (Eddy, 1977). Revealingly, this period coincides with the Roman climate optimum, as warm or even warmer than the Medieval optimum (Schönwiese, 1979). There are additional arguments of a more technical nature how to foresee phase reversals in the dT/dt–cycle (Landscheidt, 1983). All indicators show that the next phase reversal will not occur before 2500. So the current pattern should continue for hundreds of years and the next Gleissberg minimum should be linked to the next zero phase in the dT/dt-cycle in 2030.

9. Forecast of deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate around 2030 and 2200

An even more difficult question is whether future Gleissberg minima will be of the regular type with moderately reduced solar activity as around 1895, of the type of very weak activity like the Dalton minimum around 1810, or of the grand minimum type with nearly extinguished activity like the nadir of the Maunder minimum around 1670, the Spoerer minimum around 1490, the Wolf minimum around 1320, and the Norman minimum around 1010 (Stuiver and Quay, 1981). Fig. 11 offers a heuristic solution. It shows the time series of unsmoothed dT/dt-extrema for the interval 1000 – 2250. A consistent regularity attracts attention. Each time when the amplitude of a negative extremum goes below a low threshold, indicated by a dashed horizontal line, this coincides with a period of exceptionally weak solar activity.

graph of unsmoothed dT/dt  AD 1000 to 2250

Fig. 11: Time series of the unsmoothed extrema in the change of the sun’s orbital rotary force dT/dt for the years 1000 – 2250. Each time when the amplitude of a negative extremum goes below a low threshold, indicated by a dashed horizontal line, a period of exceptionally weak solar activity is observed. Two consecutive negative extrema transgressing the threshold indicate grand minima like the Maunder minimum (around 1670), the Spoerer minimum (around 1490), the Wolf minimum (around 1320), and the Norman minimum (around 1010), whereas a single extremum below the threshold goes along with events of the Dalton minimum type (around 1810 and 1170) not as severe as grand minima. So the Gleissberg minima around 2030 and 2200 should be of the Maunder minimum type. As climate is closely linked to the sun’s activity, conditions around 2030 and 2200 should approach those of the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1670. As explained in the text, the IPCC’s hypothesis of man-made global warming is not in the way of this forecast exclusively based on the sun’s eruptional activity. Outstanding positive extrema have a similar function as to exceptionally warm periods like the Medieval Optimum and the modern warm period.

Two consecutive negative extrema transgressing the threshold indicate grand minima of the Maunder minimum type, whereas a single extremum below the threshold goes along with an event of the Dalton minimum type. The grand minima in Fig. 11 are indicated by their names. The single negative extremum around 1170 is of the Dalton-type. At this time solar activity caved in, but this lull was not long-lasting. According to Lamb (1977), who looked at the oxygen isotope record from north Greenland provided by Dansgaard, a period of sudden cooling occurred at the end of the 12th century. So I call this deep Gleissberg minimum after him.

Fig. 11 shows that solar activity of outstanding intensity and corresponding warm periods on Earth, too, are indicated by the extrema of dT/dt. As an example, the Medieval Optimum is marked by an arrow. It should be noted that the outstanding positive amplitude around 1120 is greater than the amplitudes around 1952 and 1984 indicating the modern Gleissberg maxima linked to warming not as high as around 1120 (Schönwiese, 1979). More details of this relationship will be presented elsewhere.

Without exception, the outstanding negative extrema coincide with periods of exceptionally weak solar activity and vice versa. So there are good reasons to expect that the coming Gleissberg minimum around 2030 will be a deep one. As there are three consecutive extrema below the quantitative threshold, there is a high probability that the event will be of the Maunder minimum type. This is also true as to the minimum around 2201, whereas the minimum around 2122 should be of the regular type, as can be seen in Fig. 11.

It has been shown that there is a close relationship between deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate. So the probability is high that the outstanding Gleissberg minima around 2030 and 2201 will go along with periods of cold climate comparable to the nadir of the Little Ice Age. As to the minimum around 2030, there are additional indications that global cooling is to be expected instead of global warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) will show negative values up to at least 2016 (Landscheidt, 2001), and La Niñas will be more frequent and stronger than El Niños through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000).

The heuristic results derived from the 166-year cycle are not yet corroborated by a detailed chain of cause and effect. Progress in this respect will be difficult as the theories of solar activity and climate change are still in a rudimentary stage of development, though there is progress as to the physical explanation of special solar-terrestrial relationships (Haigh, 1996; Tinsley and Yu, 2002).Yet the connection with solar system dynamics, the length of the involved data series covering millennia, and the skilful forecasts of solar activity and climate events based on the same foundation speak for the dependability of the forecast of the coming Gleissberg minima and their climatic impact.
He then goes on to discuss various problems with the IPCC version of CO2 warming, gives a brief ‘outlook’, and finishes with a list of sources cited.

Advertisements

14 comments on “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

  1. Early in 2005 I referred this paper of Dr Landscheidt to a blogger on the NZ climate science blog now closed. I later found he was one of Realclimate’s moderators. His response was a vitriolic attack on the Dr’s qualifications, including, horror of horrors, he had once studied Astrology, and wasn’t ‘peer reviewed’.
    That shows me the reasoning abilities of Realclimate, bigoted and closed minded. No comment on the successful forecasts, the long history of correlation of solar cycles and climate and proxy evidence, just Ad Hominem attack.
    The chickens are coming home to roost though, I look forward to cycle 24 for vindication, but not for the climate for the following 30 yrs or so.

  2. It is interesting to note that the usual separation of transits of Earth as (hypothetically) seen from Jupiter is 83 years and the usual separation of transits of Earth as (hypothetically) seen from Uranus is exactly double, 166 years. This symmetry seems to corroborate the periodicity seen in Dr. Landscheidt’s work. Has anyone seen this connection ( or similar) made previously. I am trying to find other repeating patterns in planetary positioning that may be involved in ( or at least reflect) underlying solar system/solar dynamics.

  3. This all endorses Svensmark and Calder’s excellent work that link sunspot activity to temperature, only link missing is effect of passage of our solar system in universe and effect from exploding black holes on yet more cosmic radiation.

  4. Love this article .. and I’ve always been intrigued by Dr. Ls. Work. OK .. I too dabled in Astrology, purely out of curiosity, and found “some” of it to be rather interesting. However, my true interest in it was purely scientific. To think that the magnetic pulls of the giant planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have absolutely no effect on earth and properties of the solar system is just unfounded. It speaks to the dogma that persist in human socieity. We can’t seem to recognize that our ability to make inferences about the Universe is limited by our own technological state and abilities.

    I too am waiting impatiently to see if Dr. Ls predictions come true. If for no other reason to vindicate science from the political gods that have highjacked it regarding Climate Studies. GISS tends to be proving Dr. L right to this point. There has been no warming since the maximum in 1998, and with La Nina upon us, [the second one this decade], the global temp readings are already plumeting, and are expected to plumet more.

    Even as a scientist, I have gut feelings. That gut feeling says that the Sun, and its cycles are what drives our climate, and the CO2 is just a political facade set up by political activist who are anti-captialistic, and anti-corporatist.

  5. I followed with interest Stephen Hare’s deduction of a “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” from an analysis of cold-water fish catches off the California coast, and note that another cold phase of the Oscillation has been trying to get going in earnest since about 1984. Perhaps it will make it this time…
    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest Note the latest value is -1.45
    It will be just in time to reinforce a weak Cycle 24!
    =>J

  6. 2122 and 2201 AD on a 179yr look ahead, equates to the years 1943, and 2020. There was a short run of cold years in the early 1940`s, and 2015 to 2020 is looking cold, on the basis of a 179yr look back, and also confirmed by positional rules that I have identified. The return of these configurations will be mitigated to some degree by two very long cycles that are still on the rise over the next 2 hundred years.
    One shorter cycle of just under 200yrs is reaching its coldest phase around 2065, leading to probably the longest run of cold years in the coming century, from 2058 to 2071. The 2030`s does have a negative Gleissberg phase, but it is offset by the position of Jupiter, resulting in only a few cold years for that decade, 2032, 2034 and 2039.
    The next window for a LIA group of minimums is from around 2450AD, some major maximums are set to take place before that.

  7. The Space and Science Research center sent a letter to all US leaders of impending immediate long term cooling. http//www.spaceandscience.net/id16.net

  8. I would like to thank Carl for the statements indicating the dangers of scientists and governments focusing on global warming rather than alternative scenarios. I have written extensively on that topic among my entries are;

    One blog entry titled “Science – Ethic and Responsibility”
    http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=254

    Another titled “Is ignoring potential dangerous climate non-specific genocide?”
    http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=3

    Allow me to be clear…. I am not a scientist, but, I am also not uneducated or of limited intelligence. I have been oft told by others that even if the sun went into a Dalton or Maunder type minimum the climate would not cool. One reason cited often was insolation. So I, in my own way, set out to investigate the truth of those claims. That led to a series of blog entries dealing with (in part) the Milankovitch Cycles and insolation. I later compiled them on to one page titled:

    “A New Glacial Period; When?”
    http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?page_id=394

    My findings were that present and near future insolation would not prevent cooling, even dramatic cooling. I also determined that the claims of a potential double inter-glacial were not supported by the patterns in insolation / precession. The Holocene is ending. How many cycles of relative warmth we may have in the future I cannot say. I do believe however that we will most likely not see the extreme warmth of the late 20th century again for a very, very, long time.

    Thanks for the landscheidt,auditblogs…. they are very informative.

    Sincere Regards,
    Lee Kington

  9. Examination of the coldest winters on the Central England Temperature series, including those in the Maunder and Dalton minimums, reveals that later in each of these years, average monthly temperatures regularly reach above average, and often high or near record levels, Very few years stay at depressed temperature levels all year long. This long record clearly shows that what we regard as climatic change, is composed of a string of 1-3 month +ve and -ve temperature features. Sometimes more -ve than +ve, as in the LIA, and sometimes more +ve than -ve, as in recent decades, and in the MWP. These features obviously also range in intensity. At what time of year that they fall is critical to not only yearly average temperature, but also to flood and drought cycles, because of the inverse relationship between temperature and precipitation at summer or winter months. So a grand minimum is a period when, a) frequent and strong enough -ve temperature events occur, caused by a range of extremes of heliocentric planetary configurations, and b) that these occur in N.H. winter months, where they can reduce temperatures by twice as much as would in summer months.
    Beyond this, oceanic heat accumulation and loss needs to be considered and factored in.

  10. You demonstrate [~snip] ad hominem comment.
    To wit, you try to demonstrate that the Sun’s velocity and its AM are correlated. Since AM = mass * distance * velocity, it is no wonder that the Sun’s velocity is correlated with its AM. You are trying to show that a person’s height in inches correlates with his height in centimeters.

  11. I don’t think you understand the definition of ‘ad hominem’. It refers to attacking the man rather than the issue. The issue is your lack of knowledge. That is a fact or at least is something that can be respectfully investigated, f. ex. by you submitting to a test or quizz, so my comment that you have demonstrated such lack is not an ad hom attack but an issue that can be objectively resolved.

    REPLY: I snipped your comment because I judged it as attacking the person. You have a long record of ad hominem on WUWT and it wont be tolerated on here.

  12. Censure is, indeed, the safest way to deal with this. But people can make up their own mind here as to the depth of your ignorance, and the validity of your ‘analysis’.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s