EnviroLink Forum

Really, and if we were to take your word on it, is 11 years is sufficient time to show such a trend in your opinion?

Look at all of the flatlined temperatures:





I will repeat the question as you seemed to have missed it in the support song and dance routine. What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Actually, you said this dataset was contaminated, whcih was the conclusion with which I disagreed.



We "pretty much" again?



I repeat the graph does not indicate a flatline, so we know it has not flatlined. It does not matter if it has slowed since we have the slope of the current level of increase showing the increase.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

viewtopic.php?p=179424#p179424




Note the bold portion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Not really:



Scale on the Y Axis equals the amount of floats measuring the heat content in the 0-2000 m range.

_________________
B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018
M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

So if I argue that Global Warming is natural, that automatically makes me not concerned? Interesting hypothesis. Eventually, if we do warm at the rate of what the IPCC projects, the negatives will soon outweigh the positives. If CO2 starts to become a driver of Climate due to excess amounts of it being pumped into the air in the future, making the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise to unprecedented proportions, then we need to be concerned. If CO2 as a driver accelerates in concentration in the atmosphere, then temperature itself will accelerate.

Just because of that possibility, I'm concerned.



Yes, which is what makes GCM forecasts very unreliable, because the climate system is a chaotic system.



I don't think so.

I'm siding with ACRIM on this issue, only because PMOD uses uncorrected ERBE/ERBS data during the ACRIM gap, which had a totally different slope with the TSI than the higher quality data sources like ERB/NIMBUS7 that were also measuring TSI at the time. This means that the PMOD dataset is in question, because of the data choices it used during the ACRIM Gap, and its lack of corrections for the faulty data.



That's what science is about, testing other alternate theories, and seeing which one seems the most plausable. Given the impressive correlation to temperature and TSI over the past 400 years, (including the last 30 years if you use ACRIM) I'm willing to go with a higher Solar influence on Climate than most AGW Advocates would.

_________________
B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018
M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

See the graphic above, it is a sporadic and possibly contaminated dataset, with very few floats, even in 2003. The increase in floats could have contaminated the dataset as well, by measuring heat content in depths where sensors were not measuring heat before.

_________________
B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018
M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

According to Dr. Santer, 17 years is needed to claim a new "trend" in the temperature data, but I have no clue how he gets that number.

I don't think there is a number for GCRs, I could be mistaken though, the evidence for a significant GCR influence on Cloud Cover rests with FDs, because it is the HIGH ENERGY GCRs that impact Low Cloud Cover. We have not been able to separate the two yet, but we can observe the effects that High Energy GCRs have with Cloud Cover during FDs where sudden decreases in GCRs are observed.

_________________
B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018
M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

So you are saying there are NO measurements over any period of time to support your belief in that hypothesis? How can that be when you were so adament that the 2003 to the present data was insufficient evidence for anything? It seems to be a double standard to me.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The first tic is 2000 so there are how many floats? That would indicate a number greater than zero.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

That's not sufficient enough on a Global Scale.

_________________
B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018
M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

No, that's a misrepresentation.

The FD data all points strongly to a strong GCR influence on Cloud Cover.

_________________
B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018
M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

Which is belied by your actions in so many attempts to claim there is no warming due to human influences over the time I have known you.



You do a good job of dancing away from the point. You take the forecasts at a yearly track and claim failure at the scentury mark. That is not accurate nor very realistic.



That would be due to you making up your mind before looking into the issue. You have already claimed others were "cherry-picking" by using the PMOD dataset .....



Of course you are ..... and there is a problem with insufficient data unless you happen to believe in it ....



You do not research, you leap to conclusions after reading one version.



So the temperature record for the last 400 years is now accurate eventhough the accuracy past 150 years is questionable to everyone else?

A model works if you believe in it, right?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

If it is a misrepresentation give us the measured data that you required from others.

Honesty is a two way street.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Correlation is not causation and there needs to be a mechanism which can be shown to relate the cause to the effect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Alot of data, not alot of knowing what to do with it.

_________________
TANG SOO!