• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Sun - Weather & Climate link Q & A :) read lower comment first.

On 21 Dec 2015, Bob Weber wrote:


On 21 Dec 2015, Gerry wrote:

Years have passed and you are still repeating the same poppycock you were schooled in this thread before. Remember? One of the many times you dissapear. You and your friends are naively ignorant. They are intellectually dishonest. Are you that too?

TSI today is about 1406.5 and it's completely normal. And tomorrow it will be about 0.5 more, and completely normal too.
 
The Sun - Weather & Climate link Q & A :) read lower comment first.



On 21 Dec 2015, Bob Weber wrote:





On 21 Dec 2015, Gerry wrote:



Haig, why quote these amateur numerologists? Bob Weber's comments aren't even coherent. He says TSI covers the spectrum from X-rays to infrared and then proceeds to talk about radio waves that are well outside that range. He then says 10.7 cm radio waves are "near" UV and X-rays which I suppose is correct if your definition of "near" is "energy differing by a factor of 10E6 to 10E8". Gerry starts off by discussing the price of coal. Is all of this just an excuse to pimp Corbyn's anti-science web site?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Exactly what relevance to science, do you perceive in posting random reader comments to some obscurant internet weather blog?

It's the explanation of how our variable star drives our weather and climate and it's predictable :cool:

tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png


Consensus is indeed not science Haig...
Agreed but it goes further ... the Climate Consensus is Political ! :(

I see you are another one with a Victorian age penchant for Capitals....something about the right wing mindset....they need the caps to cover a weak position.
Wrong on both points here :D I'm left wing with a passion and the position of the Skeptics is strong with natural forcing dominating AGW like an elephant to a flea :p

The body of knowledge about a particular field such as evolution and climate science is built on papers that tie evidence with theory.
Something you definitely fail to understand.
The thing is ... without the POLITICS the religion of AGW fails to impress. In the last couple of years alone, the Sun and it's various affects on the Earth has sparked ;) a lot of papers 200+ !!!

The greater the agreement on the theory in question the more difficult to overturn. In this case the basic premise was known in the same century your writing style is in tune with ....1890 or so....

Evolution overcame the religious nonsense of Creationism despite huge agreement and mass belief and so it is with the religious nonsense of AGW. The Alarmists have cried wolf too often and came up empty as COP 21 has clearly shown. ;)

The observation of C02 heat trapping was developed experimentally and the author theorized that the atmosphere would warm when we added C02.

It has. And has been proven by observation and more theory ever since.

Well macdoc we have CO2 climbing past 400 ppm and Global Temperature is stuck in the Pause. As has been shown before CO2 follows Global Temperature it doesn't lead it

You can't even get to the premise so your comments are fiction. Fruit from the poisoned tree.
You wish :p

38236567178198b0fd.gif


382364b8e6e69af1d0.jpg



Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity
pdf
Conclusions. The Sun is shown to operate in distinct modes - a main general mode, a Grand minimum mode corresponding to an inactive Sun, and a possible Grand maximum mode corresponding to an unusually active Sun. These results provide important constraints for both dynamo models of Sun-like stars and investigations of possible solar influence on Earth’s climate.


Chilly Temperatures During the Maunder Minimum
Many things can change temperatures on Earth: a volcano erupts, swathing the Earth with bright haze that blocks sunlight, and temperatures drop; greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, and temperatures climb. From 1650 to 1710, temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. During this period, very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun, and the overall brightness of the Sun decreased slightly. Already in the midst of a colder-than-average period called the Little Ice Age, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly—an event that is rare today.

The impact of the solar minimum is clear in this image, which shows the temperature difference between 1680, a year at the center of the Maunder Minimum, and 1780, a year of normal solar activity, as calculated by a general circulation model. Deep blue across eastern and central North America and northern Eurasia illustrates where the drop in temperature was the greatest. Nearly all other land areas were also cooler in 1680, as indicated by the varying shades of blue. The few regions that appear to have been warmer in 1680 are Alaska and the eastern Pacific Ocean (left), the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland (left of center), and north of Iceland (top center).

If energy from the Sun decreased only slightly, why did temperatures drop so severely in the Northern Hemisphere? Climate scientist Drew Shindell and colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies tackled that question by combining temperature records gleaned from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and the few measurements recorded in the historical record, with an advanced computer model of the Earth’s climate. The group first calculated the amount of energy coming from the Sun during the Maunder Minimum and entered the information into a general circulation model. The model is a mathematical representation of the way various Earth systems—ocean surface temperatures, different layers of the atmosphere, energy reflected and absorbed from land, and so forth—interact to produce the climate.



The Coming Solar Cycle(s)

3823654ba3eafdafb1.jpg
 
Years have passed and you are still repeating the same poppycock you were schooled in this thread before. Remember? One of the many times you dissapear. You and your friends are naively ignorant. They are intellectually dishonest. Are you that too?

TSI today is about 1406.5 and it's completely normal. And tomorrow it will be about 0.5 more, and completely normal too.

On the other hand aleCcowaN you are way out of date on Solar Variability and it's effect on our climate.

Let NASA clue you in to their latest thinking :D

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
NASA said:
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

How'd you like them apples? :p

Haig, why quote these amateur numerologists? Bob Weber's comments aren't even coherent. He says TSI covers the spectrum from X-rays to infrared and then proceeds to talk about radio waves that are well outside that range. He then says 10.7 cm radio waves are "near" UV and X-rays which I suppose is correct if your definition of "near" is "energy differing by a factor of 10E6 to 10E8". Gerry starts off by discussing the price of coal. Is all of this just an excuse to pimp Corbyn's anti-science web site?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well ferd if you drop the anti-science jibe then you might have a point ;)

Does that make me a bad person ? :covereyes
 
[qimg]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0895c136970d-pi[/qimg]

LOL.

:dl:
Nice woo-woo chart. It’s pretty funny that you think it actually says something. Any skeptic can immediately recognize the scale choices were made to deliberately hide any useful information, but for someone lacking basic a analytical skills I suppose it seems impressive.
 
LOL.

:dl:
Nice woo-woo chart. It’s pretty funny that you think it actually says something. Any skeptic can immediately recognize the scale choices were made to deliberately hide any useful information, but for someone lacking basic a analytical skills I suppose it seems impressive.


There is a lot more to bother about than that if it's pointing out the problems for AGW believers that's getting up your nose :p

Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus
CLOSING

It appears that NOAA is attempting to eliminate another pause in the warming of global surfaces, this time the mid-20th Century slowdown/cooling period.

It definitely cannot be argued that NOAA improved the way they process sea surface temperature data to get scientifically better results, because:

NOAA’s results oppose the scientific findings of Thompson et al (2008) and
NOAA overlooked the concerns expressed by the supplier of their reference night marine air temperature data during the post-World War 2 period.

The Pause will NOT be denied :cool:

3823656486e1a76889.png
 
Years have passed and you are still repeating the same poppycock you were schooled in this thread before. Remember? One of the many times you dissapear. You and your friends are naively ignorant. They are intellectually dishonest. Are you that too?

TSI today is about 1406.5 and it's completely normal. And tomorrow it will be about 0.5 more, and completely normal too.


On the other hand aleCcowaN you are way out of date on Solar Variability and it's effect on our climate.

Let NASA clue you in to their latest thinking :D

That's your reply? Aren't your sure you want to reconsider? Give it a thought while I enlist an army of laughing dogs to what I think is going to be your final answer. If you have no problem embarrassing yourself many times a day ...
 
ROFLOL

The more qualified professional individuals in a specified field of learning agree with a finding, the less legitimate that agreement is? That certainly makes sense!


Yeah. These attempts to spin the consensus as proof of the "lie" are pretty ridiculous. It's like some bizarre form of hipsterism ("Everybody likes it, so it must suck!").
 
No. Those are not the values of TSI. And I assure you LASP didn't make a mistake.

Your tea leaves a la your alter ego Ben Davidson will never make sense, but at least have the decency of calling them what they are and not something else.

Hadn't you notice how infantile are your figures?

That's your reply? Aren't your sure you want to reconsider? Give it a thought while I enlist an army of laughing dogs to what I think is going to be your final answer. If you have no problem embarrassing yourself many times a day ...


I'll let NASA answer as YOU clearly still can't comprehend their words :p

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.


What's your answer to NASA ? cat got your tongue ?

:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

That was fun :p
 
Haig, why quote these amateur numerologists? Bob Weber's comments aren't even coherent. He says TSI covers the spectrum from X-rays to infrared and then proceeds to talk about radio waves that are well outside that range. He then says 10.7 cm radio waves are "near" UV and X-rays which I suppose is correct if your definition of "near" is "energy differing by a factor of 10E6 to 10E8". Gerry starts off by discussing the price of coal. Is all of this just an excuse to pimp Corbyn's anti-science web site?


Judging by Haig's past responses, I wouldn't hold your breath for a detailed answer. He tends to simply copy/paste links to blogs, almost none of which are based on climate science, then when someone calls him out on it, he doesn't discuss it. Instead he moves on by copy/pasting another link to something else which ends up also usually being to a blog and not a climate science study/article... which he then doesn't discuss when called out on. Rinse and repeat. It is frustrating because he doesn't stay focused on one thing to have a discussion over and just repeats the same few things time and again.

Frankly, I'm not sure how his behavior stays on topic of this thread which is the "discussion of global warming" and the science behind it. There is little or no discussion going on with Haig. It is all hit and run junk. The mods don't seem to mind even though this is clearly stated here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8851415&postcount=5

When a member posts something that gets to the basics that has been discussed before, point that member to the place it was discussed. Do this once. If they continue, do not respond to them but rather report them.


I've reported it and yet the same repeated blog links without discussion keep getting posted. All I can encourage is for others to try reporting him until a mod can come along an explain why Haig is allowed to continue with his hit and run tactics.
 

Reported as spam.

Note for moderators:

We already explained and dismissed this (and other concoctions of Haig's) and have him silent and not rebutting anything. But he keeps dropping them here again on a regular basis to make us repeat the same explanations which he'll in turn ignore again, to post the same figures, videos and links, again and again.

Please, dear moderators, explain how we have to deal with this kind of behaviour of Haig's.

Should I repeat exactly what I wrote here weeks ago? "The graphic shows a trend of warming ... that's why the blue line is in +0.2x°C and not in 0.0°C ... the person concocting the figure changed the first month until they got a slope close to 0 ... that's why it starts in February 1997 ... the slope 0 means «it's warming, but it's not warming faster than before» ... even to get that, they had to touch the initial month", or should I not repeat it?

The matter here is not the content itself. As you see it's easy to dismiss and Haig's is very funny to debunk. But, why is he getting a free pass to spam instead of engaging debate or at least get some fresh garbage to post?
 
What part of NASA don't you get??? (All of it it seems) Don't you know it's rude to shout ?


:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

NASA is not the answer. In fact you don't get what TSI is, and you're just playing your "didledy-dee, NASA!" game when clearly there's no NASA both in your figures and your understanding. NASA is just a buzzword you use in the hope to "be right". There's no number of laughing dogs to illustrate the way you're making a fool of yourself here with your replies.

The fact is NASA knows TSI is today 1406.5 and tomorrow it will be about 1407. It seems you don't know your nose from your thumb.


 
Judging by Haig's past responses, I wouldn't hold your breath for a detailed answer. He tends to simply copy/paste links to blogs, almost none of which are based on climate science, then when someone calls him out on it, he doesn't discuss it. Instead he moves on by copy/pasting another link to something else which ends up also usually being to a blog and not a climate science study/article... which he then doesn't discuss when called out on. Rinse and repeat. It is frustrating because he doesn't stay focused on one thing to have a discussion over and just repeats the same few things time and again.



Thanks, foothill, I'm under no illusion that Haig will respond with anything more than a dodge and yet more linkspam. I posted just to point out to any lurkers the vacuity of the material he quotes; that Haig makes no effort review what he posts for coherence, let alone scientific validity. His Gish Gallop is the laziest possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Thanks, foothill, I'm under no illusion that Haig will respond with anything more than a dodge and yet more linkspam. I posted just to point out to any lurkers the vacuity of the material he quotes; that Haig makes no effort review what he posts for coherence, let alone scientific validity. His Gish Gallop is the laziest possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Foul! I gave you an honest answer here ;)


Satellites show no ‘global warming’ for 18 1/2 years – No N. Pole warming for nearly 14 years – No S. Pole warming for 37 years!
U.S. has had no warming for 18 years
South Pole sees no warming for 37 years. 'For the whole of the satellite record, the South Polar region has had a negative trend. So much for a fingerprint of warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect being greater warming at the Poles!'


Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12...no-s-pole-warming-for-37-years/#ixzz3uzCAbBBY
nov-s-pol2.jpg
 

Your hotlinked image -a violation of the MA- shows the only subset of that debunked set of temperatures that stays about constant. From the same source the rest of the regions (Arctic, Northern Hemisphere -land, ocean and total-, Tropics -land, ocean and total-, Southern Hemisphere -land, ocean and total-, US48, US49 and Australia) are going up, up, up, up, up...

So, puerile cherrypicking of yours, and nothing else. As always, your posts sound - plock! plock!- hollow.

Haig, you're now posting at a rate of one foolish statement each 20 minutes and one MA violation each about three hours. Why don't you try to make it 15 minutes and one hour?
 
Your hotlinked image -a violation of the MA- shows the only subset of that debunked set of temperatures that stays about constant. From the same source the rest of the regions (Arctic, Northern Hemisphere -land, ocean and total-, Tropics -land, ocean and total-, Southern Hemisphere -land, ocean and total-, US48, US49 and Australia) are going up, up, up, up, up...

So, puerile cherrypicking of yours, and nothing else. As always, your posts sound - plock! plock!- hollow.

Haig, you're now posting at a rate of one foolish statement each 20 minutes and one MA violation each about three hours. Why don't you try to make it 15 minutes and one hour?


So you're NOT disputing the fact that the South Pole hasn't warmed in 37 years (in direct contradiction of the Alarmist beliefs of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) just the way I post the information on here ! :eye-poppi

:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:
 
Consensus isn't Science .... something macdoc has difficulty with
Anthony Watts and Tim Ball lie to Haig and he swallows the lie entirely. Lies are not true .... something Haig has difficulty with :eek:.
  • Idiotic cherry picking of irrelevant comments from James Lovelock.
  • Total lie about "There’s no consensus in science" that even Haig should know - try asking NASA scientists about the validity of Newton's laws!
  • Lies abut RealClimate articles, e.g.
    Just what is this Consensus anyway? is lied about as saying that consensus is only needed in climate science!
    The article states the obvious. Science does not depend on consensus. The IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed, consensus climate science.
  • A lie of "The earth is not warming any more."
  • A lie of "The only evidence people are the cause is in their computer models".
  • A lie of "Temperature increase precedes CO2 increase in every single record anywhere" because current global warming is CO2 increasing and then temperature increasing!
Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or three.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom