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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 13
» Latest member: Felipenig
» Forum threads: 90
» Forum posts: 170

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 8 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 7 Guest(s)
Bing

Latest Threads
Philf
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
11-01-2019, 09:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 54
Tom Abbott
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
10-31-2019, 03:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42
Climate data
Forum: Meteorological sources
Last Post: Sunsettommy
10-30-2019, 01:45 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,203
Don Easterbrook
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
10-29-2019, 06:11 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 56
Alarmist Claim Rebuttals
Forum: Climate and Weather
Last Post: Sunsettommy
10-23-2019, 07:13 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 75
Registration Closed
Forum: Site Announcement
Last Post: Sunsettommy
09-18-2019, 12:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 164
Willis Eschenbauch
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
09-15-2019, 03:12 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 139
Air & Water
Forum: Meteorological sources
Last Post: Sunsettommy
09-14-2019, 01:25 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,228
Bob Weber
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
09-05-2019, 08:56 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 170
Pablo
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
09-03-2019, 04:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 170

 
  Philf
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 11-01-2019, 09:30 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

Your web comments are good. But the following 6 links best describe the whole global warming situation.
————-
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
—————————-
Pangburn
Shows that temperature change over the last 200 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
https://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/
—————————–
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/...apers-1-3/

Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
——————————
Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00223/full
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/w...-is-wrong/
———————————
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/1...the-thing/

Print this item

  Tom Abbott
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 10-31-2019, 03:54 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

steven wrote: “psst. also, usa aint the globe”
err.. nope.

Actually, the USA *is* the globe, when it comes to temperature profiles. All other unmodified surface temperature records, from around the world and from both hemispheres, resemble the USA surface temperature profile, which shows the 1930’s to have been just as warm as today.

Here are some temperature charts from around the world. Look at how similar their temperature profiles are. They look nothing like the Hockey Stick chart that erases the warmth of the 1930’s for political purposes, because if it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today then that means we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, as the alarmists claim, and that means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere, not a threat. So the Data Manipulating conspirators had to get rid of that inconvenient truth.

Tmax charts

US chart:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2...ure-11.png

China chart:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2...e-12-1.png

India chart:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2...e-13-1.png

Norway chart:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2...e-13-2.png

Australia chart:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2...e-12-2.png

Print this item

  Don Easterbrook
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 10-29-2019, 06:11 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

I just competed a study of all warm and cold periods over the past 800,000 years and discovered what must be the cause of the Ice Ages and other climate changes. I looked at oxygen isotope temperatures, deuterium temperatures, CET temperatures, sunspot numbers, total solar irradiance, production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon, and cosmic ray intensity for every warm and cold period (for which data is available) in the past 800,000 years. The data is truly remarkable˗˗every cool period without exception was characterized by low sunspot numbers, indicating low strength of the sun’s magnetic field, and high production rates of beryllium˗10 and radiocarbon, indicating high intensity of cosmic rays. Every warm period was coincident with high sunspot numbers and low production rates of beryllium˗10 and radiocarbon. Thus, it is unequivocally clear that climate changes, large and small, are driven by fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field. A book, “The solar magnetic cause of climate changes and origin of the ice ages” with full documentation is available on Amazon.

Print this item

  Alarmist Claim Rebuttals
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 10-23-2019, 07:13 PM - Forum: Climate and Weather - No Replies

Acresearch

Alarmist Claim Rebuttals

May 20, 2019

Joseph D'Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

EXCERPT:

Alarmist Claim Rebuttal Overview[1]

Below are a series of rebuttals of the 11 most common climate alarmists’ claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report.[2] The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant

For each alarmist claim, a summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided below along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.

  • Heat Waves – have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally
  • Hurricanes – hurricane activity is flat to down since 1900, landfalls in the US are declining
  • Tornadoes – the number of strong tornadoes have declined over the last half century
  • Droughts and Floods – no statistically significant trends
  • Wildfires – decreasing since 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management
  • Snowfall – increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set.
  • Sea level – the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where it is increasing – local factors such as land subsidence are to blame.
  • Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice – the polar ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels
  • Alaska July 2019 heat records – this resulted from a warm North Pacific and reduced ice in the Bering Sea late winter due to strong storms. The opposite occurred with record cold in 2012.
  • Ocean Acidification – when life is considered, ocean acidification is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit.
  • Carbon Pollution as a health hazard – carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless invisible trace gas that is plant food and it is essential to life on the planet. It is not a pollutant.
  • Climate change is endangering food supply – the vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2.
Claim: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills.

LINK

Print this item

  Registration Closed
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 09-18-2019, 12:37 PM - Forum: Site Announcement - No Replies

Due to numerous spammers trying to register to join, with no valid people wanting to join, I will CLOSE the registration section for a while.

Cheers.

Print this item

  Willis Eschenbauch
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 09-15-2019, 03:12 AM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

By chance I’ve been looking at the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and the Palmer Modified Drought Severity Index (PMDI) lately. I’ve used data from the NOAA CLIMDIV

Mssrs. Christy and McKitrick are correct that Palmer drought have high Hurst exponents. I have found the same in the CLIMDIV data. The CLIMDIV data for the PMDI is monthly from 1895, with 1495 monthly records (often expressed as N = 1495). The Hurst exponent of that CLIMDIV PMDI data is 0.86.

However, when adjusted for autocorrelation the effective N for that dataset is not 1495. Instead, the effective N is equal to 8. And with only 8 independent data points, statistical significance is … well … elusive.

The problem is that as an article in Nature magazine was headlined, “Nature Is Naturally Trendy”. Any dataset with a high Hurst exponent will naturally have many more trends than we’d expect from independent random data. And many climate datasets, including temperature and sea level datasets, have high Hurst exponents.

I’ve been beating this drum for a while. In 2015 I wrote a post called “A Way To Calculate Effective N” in which I discussed and experimentally verified the effect of high Hurst exponents on the statistics of things like the Nilometer data. Let me shamelessly recommend that post as an overview of the subject and the size of the effect of high Hurst exponents on statistical significance.

My thanks to the authors for highlighting what I see as a very important and frequently overlooked issue in the statistics of climate. It’s a hard nettle to grasp because it shows that many claimed trends, when adjusted for autocorrelation, are not even approaching statistical significance.

w.

Print this item

  Bob Weber
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 09-05-2019, 08:56 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

I liked your calculation of odds. So much of this is familiar but you found a unique way to describe it.

A few years ago I independently confirmed Landscheidt’s observations by identifying a ‘solar cycle onset’ El Nino (ascending) and El Nino(s) after monthly F10.7 surpasses 120sfu for a sufficient time towards/after the cycle maximum (TL’s descending), and used my finding in 2014 to predict that the pending El Nino was contingent upon the return of higher solar activity, described in my 2018 AGU poster, with a clear TSI solar cycle influence on equatorial heat content and ENSO indices. [Correlations aren’t very high because TSI is very aperiodic over 12 years.]

Since ENSO activity is clearly directed by solar activity (figure 2), it is likely that the long-term correlation between both has a physical basis. If the effect of long-term changes in solar activity has to account for this lagged long-term effect on ENSO, its effect on global temperature must be much higher that the effect detected over a single solar cycle. By altering ENSO frequencies, solar activity might alter the decadal rates of warming, leading to periods of increased warming and periods of reduced warming (pauses).

This is precisely true. Long-term sunspot activity controls Nino1234 to a very high correlation, and 30-year integrated MEI drives a very strong linear correlation to 30-year HadSST3. It’s absolutely deterministic via solar activity.

These relationships together with the others I independently developed are the core of a reliable sun-climate prediction system that is ENSO-centered. I also predicted since last year the impending Nino34 drop we are finally seeing now from very low solar activity, then onto the next cycle, where solar cycle strength models based on my F10.7cm 120sfu solar-ocean warming threshold show the expected possible top of cycle and descending phase cycle warm pulse outcomes.

The goal 5-6 years ago was to make it into a practical solar-based data-driven climate science. We’re there!

The new cycle climate response should cement all these learnings of everyone’s here for everyone else. I hope SC25 is at least as strong if not stronger than SC24, as Leif forecasts, so we can see it more clearly. SC24 has provided so many examples of solar forcing; the next one will have similar analogs to compare.

Speaking of the solar minimum and the next cycle if we haven’t reached the minimum, this cycle is now 129 months long, one month shy of the SC23 length. It’s evident SC24 slowed down very early, a record early low level.

Solar wind effects on the magnetosphere have been known for long, and solar-wind-induced changes in the global electric circuit affect weather parameters at the troposphere (Lam & Tinsley 2016).

I think these effects (and cosmic rays) have comparatively negligible climate impacts.

Print this item

  Pablo
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 09-03-2019, 04:43 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

“How the “Greenhouse Effect” Is Built upon Arrhenius’ Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation.

Arrhenius’ first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.

2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found

Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air’s optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius’ claims about Fourier’s ideas:

“In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth.”

A statement to the same effect can be found in Fourier (1827, p. 586). This demonstrates the sheer dissonance between these statements and what proponents of the “Greenhouse Effect” claim that Fourier says in their support. Moreover, I am not the first author to have discovered this fact by reading Fourier for myself (e.g. Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). Furthermore, in his conclusion, the optical effect of air on heat is dropped by Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 17-18) and Fourier (1827, pp. 597-598) which both state:

“The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth.”

Fourier’s fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:

“Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences.”

As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between radiative and, for example, “kinetic” heat transfer, because the means to tell the difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow. What this tells us is that Fourier’s Law, and only Fourier’s Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier’s Law. However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.”

from… Timothy Casey

The Shattered Greenhouse: How simple physics demolishes the ” Greenhouse Effect”

Print this item

  David Middleton
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 08-26-2019, 10:22 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

From HERE

You’re absolutely right… And you are probably also missing some humor. I can’t type without being at least a little sarcastic.

I have numerous posts dealing with Neoglaciation. Glaciers are always advancing or retreating. Advancing is always bad.

The Holocene Sea Level Highstand
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/t...highstand/

A Geological Perspective on Arctic Sea Ice Extent (AKA PIP25: “Miracle on Ice”)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/08/206154/

A Geological Perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/a...ice-sheet/

President Trump says our climate is “fabulous” and that “the climate, the hottest in modern human history, can change back on its own.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/07/p...n-its-own/

“Terrifying Sea-Level Prediction Now Looks Far Less Likely”… But “marine ice-cliff instability” is “just common sense”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/05/t...mon-sense/

“The end for small glaciers” or anthropogenic circular reasoning?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/t...reasoning/

Print this item

  The Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 08-26-2019, 10:18 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies

From Watts Up With That?

Guest geological note by David Middleton

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

[Image: wg1figts-5.gif?w=700&ssl=1]
                                       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.
What is a highstand?

A highstand is one phase of the sea level cycle (AAPG Wiki)

  • Rising
  • Highstand
  • Falling
  • Lowstand
The highstand is the maximum sea level achieved during the cycle.

The Holocene Epoch

The Holocene Epoch was recently formally subdivided into three stages:

  1. Greenlandian Stage = Lower or Early-Holocene. 11.70 ka to 8.33 ka
  2. Northgrippian Stage = Middle or Mid-Holocene. 8.33 ka to 4.25 ka
  3. Meghalayan Stage = Upper or Late-Holocene. 4.25 ka to present
The abbreviation “ka” refers to thousands of years ago. Lower, Middle and Upper are generally used when referring to rock-time units. Early, Mid and Late are generally used when referring to time units (Haile, 1987). Prior to the formal subdivision, Lower/Early, Middle/Mid and Upper/Late were commonly used; however there was no formal nomenclature. The fake word, “Anthropocene” is not used by real geologists.

There is also an informal climatological subdivision of the Holocene:
  • Preboreal 10 ka–9
  • Boreal 9 ka–8 ka
  • Atlantic 8 ka–5 ka
  • Subboreal 5 ka–2.5 ka
  • Subatlantic 2.5 ka–present

Source: Wikipedia


=============

Lot more in the link with numerous charts and a full reference section on published papers.

Print this item