Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 10
» Latest member: Jenifer john
» Forum threads: 67
» Forum posts: 137

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 5 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 4 Guest(s)
Bing

Latest Threads
Bill Illis
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
8 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1
The Utter Stupidity of Cl...
Forum: Science Presentations
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-13-2019, 10:29 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 6
Does Surface Area Determi...
Forum: Science Presentations
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-13-2019, 10:25 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 7
Longview
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-11-2019, 05:04 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 12
Javier
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-08-2019, 07:13 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 22
The Holocene Sea Level Hi...
Forum: Science Presentations
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-06-2019, 03:46 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 33
Maunder Minimum
Forum: Published Science Papers
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-06-2019, 03:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 34
Climate and Weather Carto...
Forum: Charts and Cartoons
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-06-2019, 03:01 PM
» Replies: 28
» Views: 3,756
Javier
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-05-2019, 07:33 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
The Climate-Change Derang...
Forum: Climate Change Politics
Last Post: Sunsettommy
05-28-2019, 04:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 51

 
  Bill Illis
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 8 hours ago - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE


Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.
The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.
Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png
We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png
Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png
Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did.

Print this item

  The Utter Stupidity of Climate Scientists
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-13-2019, 10:29 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies

Alan Siddons

LINK

Print this item

  Does Surface Area Determine Temperature?
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-13-2019, 10:25 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies

by Alan Siddons

Excerpt:

Anyone keeping pace with the global warming debate has undoubtedly seen the claim: The Earth is 33 degrees warmer due to the extra thermal radiation that Greenhouse Gases provide. Acceptance of this basic claim is so ingrained that it's nearly an article of faith. But it does have a rationale behind it, which we'll examine here. Briefly, the argument runs as follows.

LINK

Print this item

  Longview
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-11-2019, 05:04 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

Should we plug in their range? let's see?
2011 range 1.13 Wm-2 to 3.33 Wm-2 or .34 C to .999C
1950 range .29 Wm-2 to .85 Wm-2 or .087 C to .255 C
Same .797 C of 2011 observed warming,
and the same .287 C of pre 1950 warming
We have to compare low to low, and high to high, because it is unlikely the physics of forcing changed in the 61 years between
1950 and 2011.

on the low end, in 2011 we have .797C - .34 C = .454 C of warming that is not from Anthropogenic forcing,
and .287 C - .087 C= .2 C for pre 1950 natural warming, so we have forcing warming of .34 C and natural warming of .2 C,
for a total of .54 C of attributable warming. this leaves, .797 C - .54 C = .257 C of warming from unknown causes.
Of course the low end only represents 2XCO2 forcing of 2.33 Wm-2.

Now for the high end, which if the mid range did not work, neither will the high end, but oh well!
.797 C - .999C = -.202 C of warming that is not from Anthropogenic forcing,
and .287C - .255 C = .032 C of pre 1950 warming, which means that we have - .234 C of warming that is not coming from unknown causes.
So whatever those causes are, they are not causing any warming!

The only way to show any positive feedbacks from the observed data,
would be to lower the 2XCO2 forcing number, but the feedbacks are responding to that CO2 forced warming.
If the warming caused by added CO2 is lower, then we have even less to worry about.

Also my logic has nothing to do with oil companies, and I do not work for one.
I like Physics, and the way the numbers work, the core concept of AGW does not work, as it is currently defined.

Print this item

  Javier
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-08-2019, 07:13 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

Some illustrations I have put together
The Rhône glacier during the second half of the 18th century:
https://i.imgur.com/fa9yhHJ.png
The Jakobshavn Isbræ in Greenland:
https://i.imgur.com/WlHOigo.png
Most melting took place under very low CO2 forcing, but notice the huge melting from 2003 to 2007, a time when temperatures were not increasing.
Several points can be made:
– Glacier melting is a post-LIA feature.
– No clear link to CO2
– No linear immediate response to temperature increases. The response appears delayed.
– The decrease in global glaciers goes against Neoglacial trends and it has proceeded beyond what should be expected based on previous trends for this time in the Holocene.
https://i.imgur.com/ro2mcq0.png
Two non mutually exclusive possibilities:
– Temperatures as high or probably higher than during the MWP.
– CO2 has specifically a stronger effect on the cryosphere.
In both cases an effect of GHGs on global warming is the most likely explanation for the excessive glacier retreat. At this time in the Holocene our glaciers shouldn’t be this short. It is however a good thing that they are, because we have a better climate than we were entitled to.

Print this item

  The Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-06-2019, 03:46 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies

Watts Up With That?

The Holocene Highstand

June 6, 2019

Guest geological note by David Middleton

EXCERPT:

Most skeptics are familiar with the Warmunist efforts to erase the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

[Image: wg1figts-5.gif]

Figure 0. Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick (IPCC, 2001)

However, many skeptics may not be aware of efforts to erase another paleoclimatological feature: The Holocene Highstand.

LINK

Print this item

  Maunder Minimum
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-06-2019, 03:15 PM - Forum: Published Science Papers - No Replies

Science Direct

Cause of Global Climate Changes

D.J. Easterbrook, in Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition), 2016


1.3 Maunder Minimum

The Maunder Minimum is the most famous cold period of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures plummeted in Europe (Figs. 14.3–14.7), the growing season became shorter by more than a month, the number of snowy days increased from a few to 20–30, the ground froze to several feet, alpine glaciers advanced all over the world, glaciers in the Swiss Alps encroached on farms and buried villages, tree-lines in the Alps dropped, sea ports were blocked by sea ice that surrounded Iceland and Holland for about 20 miles, wine grape harvests diminished, and cereal grain harvests failed, leading to mass famines (Fagan, 2007). The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over during the winter (Fig. 14.3). The population of Iceland decreased by about half. In parts of China, warm-weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.


The rest in the LINK

Print this item

  Javier
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-05-2019, 07:33 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE


Quote:During this period the climatic periodicity transitioned from 41,000 to 100,000 years between ice ages. Why this change happened is the mystery scientists want to resolve

There is no mystery. There is no transition. They are just not looking properly at the data. The world has been cooling relentlessly since the Oligocene. Orbital changes have been responsible for the alternation of warm (interstadials or interglacials) and cold (stadials or glacials) periods by increasing or decreasing high latitude insolation. Interstadials took place every obliquity oscillation (41 ky), but as the planet cooled the amount of extrapolar ice during glacials grew to a point when obliquity alone was not enough to melt the ice. Then an obliquity oscillation was skipped and the time between two interglacials became 82 ky. At times of high eccentricity the planet returns briefly to a 41 ky period (MIS7 and MIS15 at 200 and 600 ka). The result is that interglacials take place with an average periodicity of 73 ky. That’s why there are 11 interglacials in the past 800 ky. If it was a 100 ky periodicity there should be only 8, but there are 11. During the past glacial two obliquity oscillations were skipped. That glacial lasted then 123 ky. The reason was that the second obliquity oscillation did not have the correct orbital configuration to produce an interglacial. Eccentricity was low and the peaks in obliquity and precession were not properly aligned.

The planet is so cold that it has become tricky to escape glaciation, but that is not a mystery. It is all in the data. We can predict that the next interglacial will take place in about 70 kyr. Once the Holocene is over we should have over 60,000 years of ice age.

Print this item

  The Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome: Undermining Science and Demonizing Skeptics
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 05-28-2019, 04:42 PM - Forum: Climate Change Politics - No Replies

From Watts Up With That?

The Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome: Undermining Science and Demonizing 

September 4, 2018

Guest essay by Vijay Jayaraj

EXCERPT:

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is fairly popular. Even people in far eastern countries like India and Australia know about it.
But little do we hear about [i]Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome[/i] (CCDS) and another new syndrome emerging from it.

CCDS is a behavioral pattern in which a section of our society responds irrationally to any trend in global temperatures that contradicts its narrative of a dangerous rise in global temperatures, without regard to the actual data.

For example, recently a group of 60 scientists, journalists, politicians, activists, and others signed an open letter saying they won’t debate anyone who denies either that climate change is human induced or that it is dangerous and needs to be prevented, even if preventing it costs trillions of dollars otherwise available to solve other problems.
In the past 20 years, those with CCDS have used all means to attack those who do not share their views on climate change.

Rather than accurately representing what skeptics think and presenting evidence to the contrary, sufferers of CCDS caricature skeptics as denying any human contribution to warming or even as denying any warming at all.

Those who are new to the climate controversy might be surprised to learn that almost 100% of climate skeptics within academia acknowledge the current warming trend in our world.

Print this item

  Longview
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 05-28-2019, 03:53 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

The Scientist do not really agree with you, they agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and most agree that doubling the level of CO2 would cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere
and force warming of about 1.1 C. If you have evidence that Scientist are in agreement about level of amplified
feedback, you would need to cite that, because I have not found it anywhere, and the IPCC still says the range is
still where it was at in 1979.

Print this item