The Solar Impact on Climate

Threegoofs said:

I'll just point out that the MWP is really just a myth.

The definitive point here is made by the most comprehensive and largest paleoclimate study done to date, Pages 2k, which pretty clearly states:
"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years."

Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:

I just saw Chris Wallace keep referring to it that way.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

A single study can't really be said to overturn half a dozen previous studies, unless you actually have the experience and qualifications necessary to make that assessment. That's always been the case, whatever one's opinion of the conclusion. Maybe the P2K conclusions will be validated by ongoing research, but going by the best and most comprehensive summary currently available, there seems to be more evidence favouring the MWP than not.

IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 5.7:

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

So you are promoting a single untested model - sorry, a "trend analysis" predicting a complete reversal of the past half-century's trend - from 2017, rather than for example the family of models building on work from 1981 (Hansen et al), 1989 (Stouffer et al) and 1991 (IPCC) which have correctly projected not only the sign but with considerable accuracy both the magnitude and spatial distribution of global warming, and (from IPCC 2013) likewise accurately hindcasted over a century of global temperature variation.

I buy the occasional lottery ticket myself, so I'm no stranger to backing the long odds, but to openly promote this stuff without any kind of caveats or disclaimers?

This could end up being almost as embarrassing as that time you promoted the assertion that it's "impossible" for atmospheric CO2 increases to be a result of fossil fuel emissions. Almost.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

So you are promoting a single untested model - sorry, a "trend analysis" predicting a complete reversal of the past half-century's trend - from 2017, rather than for example the family of models building on work from 1981 (Hansen et al), 1989 (Stouffer et al) and 1991 (IPCC) which have correctly projected not only the sign but with considerable accuracy both the magnitude and spatial distribution of global warming, and (from IPCC 2013) likewise accurately hindcasted over a century of global temperature variation.

I buy the occasional lottery ticket myself, so I'm no stranger to backing the long odds, but to openly promote this stuff without any kind of caveats or disclaimers?

This could end up being almost as embarrassing as that time you promoted the assertion that it's "impossible" for atmospheric CO2 increases to be a result of fossil fuel emissions. Almost.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

So you are promoting a single untested model - sorry, a "trend analysis" predicting a complete reversal of the past half-century's trend - from 2017, rather than for example the family of models building on work from 1981 (Hansen et al), 1989 (Stouffer et al) and 1991 (IPCC) which have correctly projected not only the sign but with considerable accuracy both the magnitude and spatial distribution of global warming, and (from IPCC 2013) likewise accurately hindcasted over a century of global temperature variation.

I buy the occasional lottery ticket myself, so I'm no stranger to backing the long odds, but to openly promote this stuff without any kind of caveats or disclaimers?

This could end up being almost as embarrassing as that time you promoted the assertion that it's "impossible" for atmospheric CO2 increases to be a result of fossil fuel emissions. Almost.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

Yes, as I said it indicates A) a higher probability of a single year escaping the proxy limitations and B) the possibility that the lower average incorporating years before the late 90s may have been historically exceeded. Hence it's the past 15-20 years in particular which have a greater than 80% probability of exceeding medieval temperatures, since they have averaged above the 1996-2006 average.

Not sure why my pdf version screws up the spacing when I copy it, but here's a fuller quote if you're interested:

Another advantage of our method is that it allows us to calculate posterior probabilities of various scenarios of interest by simulation of alternative sample paths. For example, 1998 is generally considered to be the warmestyearonrecordintheNorthernHemisphere.Usingourmodel,we calculatethatthereisa36%posteriorprobabilitythat1998wasthewarmest yearoverthepastthousand.Ifweconsiderrollingdecades,1997-2006isthe warmestonrecord;ourmodelgivesan80%chancethatitwasthewarmest in the past thousand years. Finally, if we look at rolling thirty-year blocks, the posterior probability that the last thirty years (again, the warmest on record) were the warmest over the past thousand is 38%.​

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

The point is that if factors other than CO2 are important in climate change the temperature increase between 1970 and 1998 are of no significance at all. They are the product of normal variation in climate plus some impact of CO2.

That means that the upper range of the IPCC's predictions are out.

So all the fuss goes away.

You may be wedded to your doom cult but the real world will safely ignore it.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Scary jargon? LOL. It's a 'definition'. Look it up sometime.

List of pollutants vital to life?

Well, sure.

Most trace metals are essential to life- Chromium, Molybdenum, Arsenic, Lithium, Zinc, which are also classified as pollutants. I could probably lost ten more.

Nitric Oxide is a pollutant, yet one that is absolutely essential for life given its critical role in cellular signaling. But I wouldn't want to breathe it.

I can think of lots more, but this is probably enough, if not too much, for you to process.

Emission of anthropogenically created CO2 from fossil fuels is clearly leading to adverse environmental consequences, and therefore classifying it as a pollutant is appropriate, even in context of the wailing by yourself, Polgara and all the other deniers.

Click to expand...

• Date: 15/03/17
• Global Warming Policy Forum

​

Jack Hays said:

Russian Scientists Predict Global Cooling In The Next Few Decades [link]…

[h=1]RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS PREDICT GLOBAL COOLING IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES[/h]

• Date: 15/03/17
• Global Warming Policy Forum

[h=2]In a new paper published by the Russian Academy of Sciences, seven senior scientists analysed the monthly average and annual average data of charged particle fluxes in the lower atmosphere, concluding that “a rise in the charged particle flux in the lower atmosphere in the next few years” would lead to “a decrease in the global temperature of the near-surface air layer.”[/h]

​

One of the most important problems facing humanity is finding the physical mechanism responsible for global climate change, particularly global warming on the Earth. Figure 1 presents the data on changes ΔT in the monthly average values of global temperature (averaged over the globe) in the near-surface air layer [1, 2]. The ΔТ values, shown as the fine curve, are counted from the average value of the global temperature acquired over the period 1901–2000. It can be seen that the changes in the ΔT values are irregular in character. A more or less smooth increase in temperature has been observed from around 1970 to the present. The thick curve represents calculations based on a spectral analysis of the monthly average data on ΔT for the period 1880–early 2016. The calculations show that the experimental data contain four main periodic components. Their characteristics (amplitude А in relative units; phase Ф and period P in years) are А1 = 0.406, Ф1 = 125.81, P1 = 204.57; А2 = 0.218, Ф2 = 31.02, P2 = 69.30; А3 = 0.079, Ф3 = 17.14, P3 = 34.58; and А4 = 0.088, Ф4 = 10.48, P4 = 22.61. The amplitudes of other spectral components with periods of less than 22 years are negligible. Summation of these periodicities for the future (after 2015) allows us to forecast the next few decades. The solid heavy line in Fig. 1 shows that cooling (a drop in ΔTvalues) is expected in the next few decades. The first harmonic А1 has the highest uncertainty in the considered method, due to the shortness of the series of ΔT values. [...] . . . .

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

I'm sure you can quote the post where I said it was impossible for atmospheric CO2 increases to be a result of fossil fuel emissions.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays in his thread 'CO2 Doesn't Matter' said:

Here's Murry Salby taking down the CO2 lobby. . . .


He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Other factors being important doesn't just automatically reject CO2s influence. Math doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

=
If the warming between 1970 and 1998 - [/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Hang on. This is a new goalpost.

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

No. The argument put forward by the alarmists is that we should be worried because the warming between 1978 and 1998 was unprecidented and massive and if you draw a line curving upwards to the ceiling from there it looks very scary!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

:roll: If you think that's a fair characterization of the climate change debate, there's nothing more to discuss here. If you'd like to discuss the actual argument like an adult, let me know.

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

Well, OK tell me what the fuss is about!!

You will find that that is exactly the basis of the argument.

Click to expand...

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

I already linked previously in this thread to where you promoted that view, in an opening post where you praised Murray Salby as "taking down the CO2 lobby":



Personally I would say it's impossible for your posts to have any credibility after that and numerous similar examples :lol:

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

Well, OK tell me what the fuss is about!!

You will find that that is exactly the basis of the argument.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

So you are promoting a single untested model - sorry, a "trend analysis" predicting a complete reversal of the past half-century's trend - from 2017, rather than for example the family of models building on work from 1981 (Hansen et al), 1989 (Stouffer et al) and 1991 (IPCC) . . .

Click to expand...

Université de Montréal.
​

For a long time it was thought the first people arrived in the Americas around 13,000 years ago. Jacques Cinq-Marc found a set of caves in the Yukon called the Bluefish Caves laden with bones marked with cuts from human butchering. They were radiocarbon dated as 24,000 years old. Cinq-Marcs published a series of papers between 1979-2001.
This is a topic that doesn’t have a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry riding on it. No political careers are made or broken if humans arrived in the Americas millenia earlier. Yet still, the smug scoffing of the consensus slowed progress in science for decades.
What Happens When an Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking?
Heather Pringer, Smithsonian.com
Cinq-Mars… work at Bluefish Caves suggested that Asian hunters roamed northern Yukon at least 11,000 years before the arrival of the Clovis people. And other research projects lent some support to the idea. At a small scattering of sites, from Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania to Monte Verde in Chile, archaeologists had unearthed hearths, stone tools and butchered animal remains that pointed to an earlier migration to the Americas. But rather than launching a major new search for more early evidence, the finds stirred fierce opposition and a bitter debate, “one of the most acrimonious—and unfruitful—in all of science,” noted the journal Nature.
But relatively few of Cinq-Mars’s peers shared his confidence. And as I began regularly attending archaeological conferences in the years following that trip to Bluefish Caves, I saw what Cinq-Mars was up against. Sitting in halls with Canadian and American researchers, I witnessed what happened when archaeologists presented data that contradicted the Clovis first model. Often a polite bemusement spread through the room, as if the audience was dealing with some crackpot uncle, or the atmosphere grew testy and tense as someone began grilling the presenter. But once or twice, the mask of professional respect slipped completely; I heard laughter and snickering in the room. Tom Dillehay remembers such conferences well. “Some Clovis first people had a suffocating air of defiance and superiority at times,” he says.
Stung as he was by the criticism, Cinq-Mars refused to back down. None of the explanations for splintered bones, he noted, could account for the complex chain of steps that produced the mammoth-bone flake tool his team found. But by then, serious doubts about the Bluefish Caves evidence had been sown, taking firm root in the archaeological community: Hardly anyone was listening. Cinq-Mars couldn’t believe it. At one presentation he gave, “they laughed at me,” he says angrily today. “They found me cute.” Embittered by the response, he stopped attending conferences, and gave up defending the site publicly. What was the point? To Cinq-Mars, the Clovis first supporters seemed almost brainwashed.
For Mackie and others, the protracted battle over the Clovis first model now stands as a cautionary tale for archaeologists. Notes Mackie, “Clovis first will, I believe, go down as a classic example of a paradigm shift, in which the evidence for the collapse of an old model is present for many years before it actually collapses, producing a sort of zombie model that won’t die.”
Keep reading →

Deuce said:

"Draw a line and it looks scary," as if someone just randomly drew a curve with a crayon based on no information. You know that's horse****, and until you can admit to it there's nothing to talk about.

Click to expand...