Harry Marks wrote:If you don't have anything useful to say, let the grownups get on with making good policy.

What would that good policy be, I wonder.

geo wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:If you don't have anything useful to say, let the grownups get on with making good policy.

What would that good policy be, I wonder.

Anything the EPA dictates, I guess.
They still havent fined themselved for spilling all that toxic waste on August 5

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55d8f1afe4b0a40aa3ab32e3

We need to be cautious about just how accurate are satellite atmospheric temp measurements are.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -estimates

Say they did underestimate the temp of the lower atmosphere significantly as the referenced study suggests (although its admitted it's still not known because of the complexities involved). Why is there an acknowledged warming hiatus if it's allegedly hotter because the satellites might be saying it's in fact hotter? Sounde bizarre huh?
And if it is hotter than once thought, why are we experiencing a "hurricane drought"?
I thought there was supposed to be MORE storms?

And we're supposed to be letting "the adults" dictate to us what to do.

Here's where the alarmists avoid the question and insist you just listen to them rant on about doomsday and setting "good policy"

Isnt it a bit peculiar how after 17 years of a warming hiatus, a climate study has "proven" it to be a false reading?
How do the models match with observation?

Harry,

Why do you disagree (i assume you will) with this published study?

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/stud ... 6PWWa.dpbs

Let me guess: because the science has been settled that solar activity does not have a great enough impact to influence climate change.

You will dismiss findings like these because of the power of disconfirmation bias.

ant wrote:Harry,
Why do you disagree (i assume you will) with this published study?

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/stud ... 6PWWa.dpbs

ant,

I don't disagree with the study, though to some extent I disagree with its conclusions. If they have cherry-picked data, that will be uncovered and addressed. They use spectral analysis, but I could not tell from the summary in "no tricks" website what test they used to verify whether the recent pattern departs from the cyclical components they are comparing to. When there is a real cyclical source, with a physical basis, it will have a strong signature in the data with spectral analysis. A departure in one relatively small part of the data would normally be treated as random noise by statistical analysis, unless its scale seriously departed from that of any noise in the past. In other words, we should worry that their time frame is so long that the signature of warming is simply not strong enough and dramatic enough to show up with standard statistical analysis in the frequency domain - yet. Remember that it is a cumulative effect.

I am guessing that others have done this kind of analysis before them, and that there is something they omitted to analyze, but I am happy to let scientists sort that out.

You should give some thought to the implications if they are correct. We have GHGs blanketing the earth, driving a warming process. There may be a solar source off-setting it with cooling on a cyclical basis. That means when the solar source turns to the up part of the cycle, we are going to have all the GHG warming their model has to treat as random, plus an effect as strong in the heating direction as the offsetting part has been in the cooling direction. So the "pause" will be followed by a "surge".

We certainly cannot afford to wait 30 years to see if their prediction of cooling takes place (it won't, because they are wrong to treat recent departure from cycle as random). Because the effects are cumulative, our goose would be cooked by then.

ant wrote: Let me guess: because the science has been settled that solar activity does not have a great enough impact to influence climate change.
You will dismiss findings like these because of the power of disconfirmation bias.

No, solar variation is factored into most climate models these days. The sunspot cycle has even been used in economic models which have no climate modelling at all, and it is too strong a force to be ignored. That is probably why the analysis of the "pause" which I cited above included it in the factors which are working to hold down the rising temps over the last 15 years.

I am not familiar with the analysis of the 200 year DeVries/Suess cycle, but eyeballing the data they give on their plots tells me that the recent "errors" or "random fluctuations" are quite large, are on the warm side, and thus represent something to worry about. I simply do not believe the quote combined with graph ("figure 4") that implies there is literally "no trace of aperiodic effects". The website implies, without explanation, that there is no random variation around the cyclical components in the data. That would be such a strong conclusion that an honest presentation would explain figure 4 to make the point stronger, instead of leaving it as an inference without explanation.

Again, if they are right that the DV/S force will hold down temperatures, but wrong that the recent difference from cycle is random, then we may get a reprieve from catastrophe but, if we do nothing, will get hammered when both effects coincide. And since we have every scientific reason to think that a non-random basis is the truth, and only their modelling assumption to say otherwise, we still have a strong and urgent reason to limit CO2 concentrations.

Consider the science that has been done to distinguish between GHG-based warming and solar-based warming. If recent warming is due to solar variation, then the upper atmosphere would be warmed as much as the lower atmosphere, close to earth. In fact what happened instead is what the GHG-based model predicts - the upper atmosphere is cooled by the reduction in returning infrared rays (blocked by GHGs) and the warming happened only to the lower atmosphere.

I am sorry your worldview leads you to discount real science and grasp at straws to hope all those scientists are wrong. You are confused, and sadly so. But the rest of us cannot afford to wait until the proof is strong enough to satisfy you, much less the shills who run your website sources for the corporate money it brings in, and the cranks like Gosselin of "no tricks zone" who seem to do it for the thrill rather than the money.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/deni ... arity.html

Interestingly, Gosselin seems to have gone on the record with his ice age worries (he is a psychologist, and thus knows squat about spectral analysis or climate science). In 2020 we will see a sudden drop of more than 2 degrees in world temperature, according to our friend the psychologist. Well, you have to say this about Gosselin, he is not shy about falsifiability. My question is why anyone would wait five years to see if a psychologist is correct and the scientists are wrong, when we know there will be another crank popping up by then to say, "Wait a little longer, I have a different theory!" It looks exactly like those predictions of the end of the world "before Haile Selassie dies" or "12 years after the Middle East war" etc., etc. that we all forget afterward but some people get worked up about beforehand.

That means when the solar source turns to the up part of the cycle, we are going to have all the GHG warming their model has to treat as random, plus an effect as strong in the heating direction as the offsetting part has been in the cooling direction. So the "pause" will be followed by a "surge".

Is this a prediction based on past observation? Has it been tested? Is this your opinion?

If recent warming is due to solar variation, then the upper atmosphere would be warmed as much as the lower atmosphere, close to earth. In fact what happened instead is what the GHG-based model predicts - the upper atmosphere is cooled by the reduction in returning infrared rays (blocked by GHGs) and the warming happened only to the lower atmosphere.

This is an excellent point you've made and perhaps the best fingerprint evidence there is. It's the one that convinces me the most, as a layman.

I am sorry your worldview leads you to discount real science and grasp at straws to hope all those scientists are wrong. You are confused, and sadly so.

You don't know what the F*** my worldview is.
As it relates directly to climate change, I'm already on records as stating I agree we need to cut emissions.
I'm not hoping anyone is wrong.
You're losing it here like some crazy-ass cult leader.

. My question is why anyone would wait five years to see if a psychologist is correct and the scientists are wrong, when we know there will be another crank popping up by then to say, "Wait a little longer, I have a different theory!" It looks exactly like those predictions of the end of the world "before Haile Selassie dies" or "12 years after the Middle East war" etc., etc. that we all forget afterward but some people get worked up about beforehand.

I can list (and have linked to a list) all the crazy climate disaster predictions that have NOT come to pass, that were made by climate "experts"
You've ignored them.
Don't throw stones in a glass house.

Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)

ant wrote:Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)

Jesus, how much time do you spend every day just looking for stuff like this? It boggles the mind.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)

Jesus, how much time do you spend every day just looking for stuff like this? It boggles the mind.

About 5 minutes.

It boogles the mind just how much isn't reported in mainstream ideologically biased news, huh?