• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

mhaze said:
Check the presumptions you have regarding y variable scaling please. Scale Y(ak) by 2 or 0.5 just for fun. Note the two lines are set by convention to a common start point. Also not the effect on the graphic of the 30 year decadal averages.

Then discard Megalodon's argument.
Click to expand...

Scaling has nothing to do with it. Changes in slope are what's important. The graph clearly shows changes in temperature that precede or lag changes in solar activity by at least a decade. I realize that you won't understand why this is a problem, but I'm sure that all the other readers do.

Focusing on GCRs? That is a derail from the subject of the paper, isn't it? Yes GCRs interact with the solar wind and a comprehensive index of solar activity might (should) include more than irradiance or sunspot counts.

The paper addresses what constitutes a good measure of solar activity, and why. The clear conclusion based on solar physics does not seem disputable.
Click to expand...

However, it makes no attempt to quantify the effects on the Earth.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
Scaling has nothing to do with it. Changes in slope are what's important. The graph clearly shows changes in temperature that precede or lag changes in solar activity by at least a decade. I realize that you won't understand why this is a problem, but I'm sure that all the other readers do.

However, it makes no attempt to quantify the effects on the Earth.
Click to expand...
True. Neither did I do so in post #911, except in a positive and non zero direction:

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".

The solar ak index tracks PDO quite well, as well as temperature.

Loosely coupled resonance?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
True. Neither did I do so in post #911, except in a positive and non zero direction:

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".

The solar ak index tracks PDO quite well, as well as temperature.

Loosely coupled resonance?
Click to expand...

In what way does the sun have a coupled resonance with the earth?
 
Now that satellites are measuring the temperature of every square mile of the surface of the US it opens up some interesting possibilites. For instance, if we could expand that to measure temps in every square mile on Earth we could have a globe globe that glows the color of all the square miles combined. Pick a time at random and make that the base color. You could then see minute by minute if the Earth is cooling or heating, and come up with equations involving the varibles that caused it to do so in real time. You could even see latent energy systems at work such as evaporation and condensation. You could correlate it with sunspots. You could correlate it to the Asian Brown Cloud, you could correlate it with cloud cover, ocean currents, recessions using less energy, orbital position and on and on in real time. Have a "warning" Globe to accompany it that flashes blue when the Earth is cooling and red when it is warming, by continent or ocean if you like
 
I do find the latest maps that show the temps of every square mile of the Us fascinating. You can actually see the Rockies as an island of blue in an ocean of orange, red and searing white. You can see the cool summer of the NE and mid west and the white hot blister that is normally the providence of the Desert SW expand to encompass the Pacific NW to cause the worst heat wave on record. You can see the cool air of the Rockies pour down over the Great Plains in the evening. You can see the vocanoes jutting up in the PNW as concentric circles of bluish hues vs Seattle's orange. Want to know the temps on top? Just take a look. I would think the atmospheric scientists would be elated at their new, more precise tool
 
I have often wondered: Does all the extra soot injected into the upper atmosphere by many tens of thousands of jet aircraft on a daily basis constitute the same effect as the consistent eruption of a small volcano? Does the soot mitigate or enhance the effects of CO2
 
Soot in the stratosphere behaves differently than a volcano where the SO2 is the major player.....

Now you might ask about the 500 container ships burning high sulphur bunker fuel - their output is equivalent to 2 medium volcanoes worth each year - it appears that 20% of that reaches the stratosphere.......:boggled:

Aerosols depending on type and location have both positive and negative driving impact on energy gain.....

It's a hot spot for ongoing studies and I think a new satellite is going up for that purpose in addition to the CALIPSO already in plac
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9613-drifting-volcanic-plume-snapped-by-climate-satellite.html

The sensing progresses
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312134635.htm
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
No, the article states the problem with divergence by using Figure 1. The improved correlation is shown with Figure 6. As for the 2C issue, I don't claim it. Hadley Center states it (and my reason for mentioning it to you was that GISS/Hansen thinks they have much higher accuracy and precision. Quite likely they have much less).
Click to expand...
This is not an acceptable answer. You are not explaining the error margin in temperatures regarding those figures. Both figures 1 and 6 use climatic normals. You simply find likable a high correlation between temperature and "spots" (though an indirect marker) but you find ugly other correlations with temperature and attack wildly such temperature records and techniques.

In the end your epistemological foundation is that you find true what you like and you find a lot of objections on what you dislike. That is called epistemological hedonism and it is as old as the world itself.
 
In the end your epistemological foundation is that you find true what you like and you find a lot of objections on what you dislike. That is called epistemological hedonism and it is as old as the world itself.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

ain't that the truth....:garfield:
 
In the end your epistemological foundation is that you find true what you like and you find a lot of objections on what you dislike. That is called epistemological hedonism and it is as old as the world itself.[/quote

In plain English you are saying the guy is prejudiced. But both sides to any unfinished argument are prejudiced. A proponent of any idea in sciece is considered biased. Hence peer review
 
Tumbleweed said:
In plain English you are saying the guy is prejudiced. But both sides to any unfinished argument are prejudiced. A proponent of any idea in sciece is considered biased. Hence peer review
Click to expand...
I only pointed inconsistencies: The proponent finds temperature anomaly values based on records to be pretty bogus, but he also finds a high correlation between the very same temperature values and Sun's freckles. That is the epistemological faux pas, constantly repeated. Other things like using resonance in the place of synchronization or other concept may be understandable, but colouring in a different way the same variables, facts and patterns as they help his own or other's proposition is not acceptable.
 
Tumbleweed
In plain English you are saying the guy is prejudiced. But both sides to any unfinished argument are prejudiced. A proponent of any idea in sciece is considered biased. Hence peer review
Click to expand...

mHaze speculated
Loosely coupled resonance?
Click to expand...

It's this kind of nonsense that puts it in the "trash" category.

Peer review means the person being critical has fundamental understanding of the science involved - not scraping for ridiculous counter arguments founded in pure speculation....."well it MIGHT be this" purely for the purpose of manufactured controversy.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

It's why the main perps here won't answer direct questions based in known science.....as their attempted case would crumble.

So they "deny" basic physics.....this is not "peer review" it's blatant attempt to provide the appearance of controversy and uncertainty when in reality there is little or none in the climatology community.

bears repeating.....look at the denidiots post focus here and you'll see the truth of the following - my hiliting

The AGW denialists rules for discussion

Category: Global Warming
Mercurius has listed the things AGW denialists will accept as evidence:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along...

3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can't trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.
Click to expand...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

and to add to the avoidance of reality......analogue signals such as critter responses are ignored or ridiculed.....mainly because the critters are immune to the denidiot nonsense.....they get on with coping and adapting to the reality of AGW.....as we all should.....:garfield:

If you look through the posts - you'll see ample evidence of points 1 though 4 by the usual suspects.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
This is not an acceptable answer. You are not explaining the error margin in temperatures regarding those figures. Both figures 1 and 6 use climatic normals. You simply find likable a high correlation between temperature and "spots" (though an indirect marker) but you find ugly other correlations with temperature and attack wildly such temperature records and techniques.....
Click to expand...
I would suggest then that you contact Hadley Center (Phil Jones) and ask him why the difference in error margin between Hansen's numbers and Hadley. Have fun! I only brought the matter to your attention, while you were wildly thrashing trying vainly to substantiate unsubstantiable statemetns related to the US temperature networks.
 
mhaze said:
I would suggest then that you contact Hadley Center (Phil Jones) and ask him why the difference in error margin between Hansen's numbers and Hadley. Have fun! I only brought the matter to your attention, while you were wildly thrashing trying vainly to substantiate unsubstantiable statemetns related to the US temperature networks.
Click to expand...

You are the one calling them liars; YOU make the call. Report back by Wednesday.
 
And the corollaries are a must:

"A) Any previous errors in climate science are automatic proof that new data is also wrong. For example, if you produce results which show a reduction in ice coverage, or a warming of ocean temperatures, all I have to do is shout ‘Hockey Stick!’ and the new data is instantly dispelled."

Source: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/01/the-rules/
Click to expand...

Chapeau!!
 
Looks like we have an Alinsky vs Mercurius bout shaping up.

The 12 rules of leftists, or something, versus the denialists rules of discussion.

Let the fracas begin....

:jedi:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom