Ice Age on the Way!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Polux

You are wrong about that. The data is from NASA:

"Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998"
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

so you do agree that the wandering of the jet stream has to do with solar wind output .
At least we are finally getting somewhere.
Now all I have to do is break the Al gore hold.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As usual, Curry applies appropriate scientific analysis to another paper seeking to validate the MMGW meme and utterly destroys it. Which explains why she is persona non grata amongst MMGW trough feeders. Interesting to see if the author of the disputed paper responds to Curry's corrections to the published calculations, although I suspect they will continue to be ignored. Which is pretty much SOP for the alarmists.

I did the math and is correct they did make a major mistake in their math.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Polux

"Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998"

well of course it has, it's been warming up since the last Ice Age

[newhaul]

Oh and just to let everyone know we are in an ice age and have been for over 2 million years .
This is just the end of another interstadial period . ( they last about 10-12k years with colder iceier conditions that last approx 100k years.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by newhaul

lets get real shall we .
Explain this graph then.
Roy Spencer, PhD
Looks to me like we have cooled quite a bit .

Not sure it is fair to say that average global temps have been falling for some time. What is demonstrable from the data anyone can look up from York University that records all global temps results since the 1880's, is that the warming tend has significantly slowed since the 1960's while human emissions of CO2 have significantly increased. Meaning simply that the climate sensitivity constants used by MMGW enthusists are baloney, and their conclusions highly suspect.

[sepharad]

Im in Romania at a ski resort. I wore shorts and a t shirt today. There is no snow. Despite the deniers, we are headed into a future of serious atmospheric disruptions. It is going to get unpleasant ashore over the next 20 years. I'm not too sure what it's going to be like at sea. More cyclonic activity probably.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sepharad

Im in Romania at a ski resort. I wore shorts and a t shirt today. There is no snow. Despite the deniers, we are headed into a future of serious atmospheric disruptions. It is going to get unpleasant ashore over the next 20 years. I'm not too sure what it's going to be like at sea. More cyclonic activity probably.

actually overall cyclonic activity is on the decrease .
As to your snow it will come soon ( as in within the next 7 to 10 days.)
for the majority of Romania . ( don't know where you are located. )

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Exile

Standard practice around here Delfin. Attack the publication or author of a secondary article rather than the scientific data or opinion that supports it. Sometimes it's highly relevant, of course, but requires the ability to distinguish between scientific & lay opinion. In other words, the ability to recognize and then properly discount the pervasive bias (from all sides) which permeates the entire CC issue.

Since Felix, who may, or may not be a nut has nothing to do with Lynden La Rouche other than previously quoting a publication La Rouche is associated with - contrary to John's suggestion otherwise - this is an example of invalidation of data from a reliable source - NASA - based on the person referencing it having previously referenced totally unrelated data from another source associated with a person deemed unreliable. And people like this are lecturing us on what constitutes rigorous scientific enquiry? Wowser.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sepharad

Im in Romania at a ski resort. I wore shorts and a t shirt today. There is no snow. Despite the deniers, we are headed into a future of serious atmospheric disruptions. It is going to get unpleasant ashore over the next 20 years. I'm not too sure what it's going to be like at sea. More cyclonic activity probably.

And your wearing shorts is related to atmospheric sensitivity to human emissions of CO2 how, exactly?

[zeehag]

convince epac of the decrease in cyclonic events..cannot prove it by our need to use letter w for first time in many decades, or the intensity of our storms increasing not decreasing.

take bubbas fur growth seriously. north americas will be COLD this winter. cannot claim knowledge of rest of planet, but bubba is a good predictor of north american cold weather. fur trumps bare skin. critters prepare. humans freeze. humans can be incorrect bubba fur growth is never wrong. and to grow so much fur in tropics is a wonder. funny how maine coon genetics work for weather in northern cold areas.

and i am still waiting on that water rising issue predicted in 1958......

[danielamartindm]

I've always found it odd that the computer models used to predict global warming completely ignored the only source of global warming, the sun and its varying outputs of energy.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

I've always found it odd that the computer models used to predict global warming completely ignored the only source of global warming, the sun and its varying outputs of energy.

Me too. Maybe because it's an inconvenient truth.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since Felix, who may, or may not be a nut has nothing to do with Lynden La Rouche other than previously quoting a publication La Rouche is associated with - contrary to John's suggestion otherwise - this is an example of invalidation of data from a reliable source - NASA - based on the person referencing it having previously referenced totally unrelated data from another source associated with a person deemed unreliable. And people like this are lecturing us on what constitutes rigorous scientific enquiry? Wowser.

Not the only subject John and others like to lecture us about. Don't mind reading their opinions, but do mind their assumptions that their's are the only opinions which are "correct." But this is the unfortunate and inevitable result of a potentially serious scientific issue becoming so heavily politicized.

I think what might be threatening to the true believers is that, if this NASA scientist's observations & predictions about sun spots prove correct, then it could provide further evidence of what most of the "skeptic" community of climate scientists -- most notably Curry, Christie, Spencer -- have been saying. Namely that AGW exists and is real, and has likely been contributing to warming to some degree. BUT, there are many complex natural variables that are not well understood and which could override the anthropogenic contribution.

But that's the debate within the actual scientific community. The "debate" from the agenda-driven partisan crowd has devolved to dropping Lyndon LaRouche grenades, and using the ubiquitous "Denier" label to associate anyone who questions the mainstream science with those who deny the Holocaust, promulgated the Inquisition, or "Flat-Earthers." Seems to me that those who resort to that level of personalization & character assassination have already lost the debate.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As usual, Curry applies appropriate scientific analysis to another paper seeking to validate the MMGW meme and utterly destroys it. Which explains why she is persona non grata amongst MMGW trough feeders. Interesting to see if the author of the disputed paper responds to Curry's corrections to the published calculations, although I suspect they will continue to be ignored. Which is pretty much SOP for the alarmists.

Come again?


Quoting from the paper:

quick bit of mental arithmetic indicated that a change of 23.2 between 1991 and 2016 represented an annual rate of approximately 0.9, well below their 1.16 value. As that seemed surprising, I extracted the annual ΔAPO best-estimate values and uncertainties from the paper’s Extended Data Table 4[x] and computed the 1991–2016 least squares linear fit trend in the ΔAPOClimate values. The trend was 0.88, not 1.16, per meg per year, implying an ocean heat uptake estimate of 10.1 ZJ per year,[xi] well below the estimate in the paper of 13.3 ZJ per year.[xii]

I think that most people would translate that as "the ocean is not warming as quickly as the critiqued paper claims (specifically - rates of 0.88 vs 1.16, or 10.1 vs 13.3)" and not "utterly destroys it".

Further, Curry asserts that there is a wider degree of uncertainty than the paper claims. Which means it could be not as high as feared. Or it could be worse (higher).


Of course newhaul still thinks that same, much-maligned graph shows a long-term cooling trend , so maybe innumeracy is wider-spread than we think.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Come again?





Of course newhaul still thinks that same, much-maligned graph shows a long-term cooling trend , so maybe innumeracy is wider-spread than we think.

I said it shows a cooling trend I did not say long term .( ever in any of these threads)
.
I have said we will see in 10 years how long the trend is. ( actually I have just said we shall see jack .) normally I'm responding to him. )

also the graph keeps getting longer every month showing the cooling trend. ( in a month by month comparison year to year. )