Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

The accusation is the NOAA data had been adjusted to exaggerate warming, but in reality that original data was probably flawed because it wasn't validated by other data sets.

Yep, they just adjusted upwards to match the other data sets. Nothing wrong with that.

[mondeoman]

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/11/3-recent-studie...

Bugger me, its the son wot dun it!

[durbster]

mondeoman said:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/11/3-recent-studie...

Bugger me, its the son wot dun it!

Careful now, straw men and the sun are a dangerous combination. Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

Honestly, you must be absolutely desperate to keep relying on that website. It is deliberately misleading you, stop falling for it.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Careful now, straw men and the sun are a dangerous combination. Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

Honestly, you must be absolutely desperate to keep relying on that website. It is deliberately misleading you, stop falling for it.

30 seconds with google...

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213

plus

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

this is settled science

[robinessex]

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

The latest excuse for "the pause"

Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-globa...

I despair.

Thanks for posting, however you're mistaken that the paper tries to explain "the pause".

Are those the (very important) trees, that when they recounted them a while ago, found they had an error by a factor of 10 !!! Opps!!

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Careful now, straw men and the sun are a dangerous combination. Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

Honestly, you must be absolutely desperate to keep relying on that website. It is deliberately misleading you, stop falling for it.

30 seconds with google...

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213

plus

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

this is settled science

Which proves what I said: the site is misleading you.

The papers linked on NTZ are nothing to do with AGW yet you've made that connection. That's exactly what they want you to do. It is propaganda.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Careful now, straw men and the sun are a dangerous combination. Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

Honestly, you must be absolutely desperate to keep relying on that website. It is deliberately misleading you, stop falling for it.

30 seconds with google...

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213

plus

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

this is settled science

Which proves what I said: the site is misleading you.

The papers linked on NTZ are nothing to do with AGW yet you've made that connection. That's exactly what they want you to do. It is propaganda.

I have never even visited the notrickzone website, I had to go back in the comments to even find out what "NTZ" might mean. Their propaganda needs some improvement.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

This scientist has...

Michael Mann said:

The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record

and also

Michael Mann said:

Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians, people who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

This scientist has...

Michael Mann said:

The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record

and also

Michael Mann said:

Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians, people who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity

But that's not the same thing. NTZ is not referring to global warming - they're basically just saying: here's scientific proof that the sun affects the Earth's climate.

Of course it does. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

But the "trick" is, they're using that to imply it is also proof that the sun explains global warming, but that's a non sequitur.

It's like claiming the fact that bush fires can begin naturally is proof that bush fires are never started by people.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

It's like claiming the fact that bush fires can begin naturally is proof that bush fires are never started by people.

No, it's like saying that if bush fires can begin naturally, then man made fires cannot be to blame for all fire damage

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

This scientist has...

Michael Mann said:

The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record

and also

Michael Mann said:

Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians, people who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity

But that's not the same thing. NTZ is not referring to global warming - they're basically just saying: here's scientific proof that the sun affects the Earth's climate.

Of course it does. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

But the "trick" is, they're using that to imply it is also proof that the sun explains global warming, but that's a non sequitur.

It's like claiming the fact that bush fires can begin naturally is proof that bush fires are never started by people.

I have never read the NTZ info, I'd prefer not to comment on it.

The sun determines our climate, agreed.

Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

I have never read the NTZ info, I'd prefer not to comment on it.

The sun determines our climate, agreed.

Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?

I don't know and need to look into it. The Milankovitch cycles suggest it the sun has a significant effect over longer periods but I don't know what solar mechanism would explain the rapid warming we've seen over the last century. I've not seen anything that explains it, but I'm curious.

And I'm glad you haven't read the NTZ site.

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

It's like claiming the fact that bush fires can begin naturally is proof that bush fires are never started by people.

No, it's like saying that if bush fires can begin naturally, then man made fires cannot be to blame for all fire damage

Except nobody is suggesting human activity is responsible for all temperature changes.

[Toltec]

durbster said:

Except nobody is suggesting human activity is responsible for all temperature changes.

I'm sure some proponents of CC* are, just not the climate scientists.

The other day I was reading a facebook post about El Nino and La Nina and that EN caused the global surface temperatures to warm by 0.2 C for a few years by transferring heat from the deep ocean to the atmosphere. It made me wonder what is really meant by Climate and Global Temperature. As far as I can tell EN is a heat pump and simply shifts heat from one place to another it does not change the amount of heat in the system. Having said that if you increase the surface temperature then radiation to space will also increase so EN by shifting heat from the ocean to the air/surface should reduce energy in the system over a full cycle.

Add in the specific heat for state changes in water and it is clear that an average global surface temperature is not a particularly good measure of heat in the system. Anybody know of a site that discusses this? All I have found is climate sites talking about alternative/renewable energy. It occurs to me that part of my scepticism about CC* and AGW is that I am not using the same criteria to measure change.

* Yes, climate change, no caps has been a continuous process since the planet formed what can be called a climate, Climate Change does not appear to be quite the same thing.

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

I'm sure some proponents of CC* are, just not the climate scientists.

The other day I was reading a facebook post about El Nino and La Nina and that EN caused the global surface temperatures to warm by 0.2 C for a few years by transferring heat from the deep ocean to the atmosphere. It made me wonder what is really meant by Climate and Global Temperature. As far as I can tell EN is a heat pump and simply shifts heat from one place to another it does not change the amount of heat in the system. Having said that if you increase the surface temperature then radiation to space will also increase so EN by shifting heat from the ocean to the air/surface should reduce energy in the system over a full cycle.

Add in the specific heat for state changes in water and it is clear that an average global surface temperature is not a particularly good measure of heat in the system. Anybody know of a site that discusses this? All I have found is climate sites talking about alternative/renewable energy. It occurs to me that part of my scepticism about CC* and AGW is that I am not using the same criteria to measure change.

* Yes, climate change, no caps has been a continuous process since the planet formed what can be called a climate, Climate Change does not appear to be quite the same thing.

Best way would to determine the energy in the system would be to measure the ratio of ice to Water to water-vapour given the earth's distance from the sun allowing all 3 states of water to exist simultaneously.
Unfortunately we have no good way of doing that - maybe some form of global satellite monitoring of micro waves?

[Gandahar]

For your amusement.

No guessing which country the blog was from where this was written


Oliver K. Manuel says:
February 25, 2017 at 12:53 am
The global climate scam is the direct result of a decision after WWII to unite nations and national academies of sciences under the UN on 24 OCT 1945 to save frightened world leaders from possible worldwide nuclear annihilation.

After P.K. Kuroda’s death in 2001, BBC’s report on Mrs. Kuroda’s return of Japan’s successful design for atomic bombs in 2002, and the release of Climategate emails in 2009, I went back and re-read more carefully two of my research mentor’s reports:

1. Kuroda’s 1982 book:
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642686696
2. Kuroda’s 1992 autobiography:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiogra...

Then I realized Kuroda probably risked his life to keep a personal copy of Japan’s atomic bomb design because he knew false nuclear models were promoted after WWII to hide the source of nuclear energy in atomic bombs and in cores of:

1. Heavy elements like Uranium
2. Gaseous planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
5. The expanding Universe . . .

NEUTRON REPULSION

Yukawa later became the first Japanese Nobel Laureate in physics in 1949 for the Standard Nuclear Model that ignored NEUTRON REPULSION.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Yukawa

[wc98]

Toltec said:

I'm sure some proponents of CC* are, just not the climate scientists.

The other day I was reading a facebook post about El Nino and La Nina and that EN caused the global surface temperatures to warm by 0.2 C for a few years by transferring heat from the deep ocean to the atmosphere. It made me wonder what is really meant by Climate and Global Temperature. As far as I can tell EN is a heat pump and simply shifts heat from one place to another it does not change the amount of heat in the system. Having said that if you increase the surface temperature then radiation to space will also increase so EN by shifting heat from the ocean to the air/surface should reduce energy in the system over a full cycle.

Add in the specific heat for state changes in water and it is clear that an average global surface temperature is not a particularly good measure of heat in the system. Anybody know of a site that discusses this? All I have found is climate sites talking about alternative/renewable energy. It occurs to me that part of my scepticism about CC* and AGW is that I am not using the same criteria to measure change.

* Yes, climate change, no caps has been a continuous process since the planet formed what can be called a climate, Climate Change does not appear to be quite the same thing.

the biggest elephant in the room when talking of any notion of "global temperature" is humidity . a parcel of air at near 100% humidity contains a lot more energy than another parcel of air at 20% humidity. as this is a variable changing constantly all over the planet i have a hard time believing anyone has a clue what the "global temperature" is.

this is before you even look at why the argo bouy data producing cooler results than expected were thrown out whilst retaining other bouys that were reporting ocean temps from the middle of africa at one point. climate science data selection techniques appear to be a little out of sync with other disciplines , to put it mildly.

[XM5ER]

Gandahar said:

For your amusement.

No guessing which country the blog was from where this was written


Oliver K. Manuel says:
February 25, 2017 at 12:53 am
The global climate scam is the direct result of a decision after WWII to unite nations and national academies of sciences under the UN on 24 OCT 1945 to save frightened world leaders from possible worldwide nuclear annihilation.

After P.K. Kuroda’s death in 2001, BBC’s report on Mrs. Kuroda’s return of Japan’s successful design for atomic bombs in 2002, and the release of Climategate emails in 2009, I went back and re-read more carefully two of my research mentor’s reports:

1. Kuroda’s 1982 book:
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642686696
2. Kuroda’s 1992 autobiography:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiogra...

Then I realized Kuroda probably risked his life to keep a personal copy of Japan’s atomic bomb design because he knew false nuclear models were promoted after WWII to hide the source of nuclear energy in atomic bombs and in cores of:

1. Heavy elements like Uranium
2. Gaseous planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
5. The expanding Universe . . .

NEUTRON REPULSION

Yukawa later became the first Japanese Nobel Laureate in physics in 1949 for the Standard Nuclear Model that ignored NEUTRON REPULSION.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Yukawa

Oliver has been flogging this stuff for at least 10 years that I know of and on any forum you can think of. He's an odd chap but entertaining, as you say.

[mko9]

Gandahar said:

For your amusement.

No guessing which country the blog was from where this was written


Oliver K. Manuel says:
February 25, 2017 at 12:53 am
The global climate scam is the direct result of a decision after WWII to unite nations and national academies of sciences under the UN on 24 OCT 1945 to save frightened world leaders from possible worldwide nuclear annihilation.

After P.K. Kuroda’s death in 2001, BBC’s report on Mrs. Kuroda’s return of Japan’s successful design for atomic bombs in 2002, and the release of Climategate emails in 2009, I went back and re-read more carefully two of my research mentor’s reports:

1. Kuroda’s 1982 book:
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642686696
2. Kuroda’s 1992 autobiography:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiogra...

Then I realized Kuroda probably risked his life to keep a personal copy of Japan’s atomic bomb design because he knew false nuclear models were promoted after WWII to hide the source of nuclear energy in atomic bombs and in cores of:

1. Heavy elements like Uranium
2. Gaseous planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
5. The expanding Universe . . .

NEUTRON REPULSION

Yukawa later became the first Japanese Nobel Laureate in physics in 1949 for the Standard Nuclear Model that ignored NEUTRON REPULSION.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Yukawa

Not really sure how this is in the Science thread, but whatever. I am guessing that was written inside of a small shack in the woods, completely lined with aluminum foil.

[mondeoman]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Careful now, straw men and the sun are a dangerous combination. Nobody has ever said the sun is not a very powerful climate driver.

Honestly, you must be absolutely desperate to keep relying on that website. It is deliberately misleading you, stop falling for it.

30 seconds with google...

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213

plus

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

this is settled science

So 2% change in solar output isn't enough, but 0.01% change in composition of the atmosphere is too much? Hmmmm...