Climate Change... its the sun... again.

gwb-trading said:
futurecurrents is living this AGW alarmist fantasy that everyone who is skeptical about global warming does not believe CO2 is not a GHG.

FC apparently can not differentiate this from the reality of what we are telling him.
1) GHG regulates air temperature - not only increases it.
2) The amount of CO2 added by mankind is so minimal compared to the overall CO2.
3) There is no evidence that AGW is causing significantly increased global temperatures, increased ocean temperatures, raised ocean levels, increased severe weather, polar melting, or any other damage to the earth.

AGW is not a threat to man's existence or our habitat; "climate change' is not something that we need to take urgent action on.
More...


So why do you think that CO2 is not a GHG?
 
1. first of all, upon putting a bit of thought into this... your chart must be quite stale.. because if the 11 year average was on recent data it would be flat or down...
so it is deceptive to use it and not disclaim that issue. cherry picked would be a nice word... misrepresentation is another. (that is unless 2014 data changes things... because I have only seen one chart which includes 2014.)

2. No... you know damn well I spoke about using the 11 year moving average of land - ocean temps.

which is a very long moving average when your baseline is the 35 years of solar decline and inside the data we see 19 years of flat land ocean temps and recent decline in land temps.

i

stu said:
Instead of throwing a bunch of different charts around when you are challenged, deal with the first one you threw and made the topic of the thread.

You're saying a chart showing yearly temperature from NASA GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index spanning 120 years.... is fudged.
You're saying taking 11 year period-moving average spanning 120 years from 1880 to 2010 of NASA data.... is fudged.
You're saying moving average is a fudged mathematical construct.

You're saying it's cherry picking :rolleyes:



You're saying your chart showing a NOAA anomaly index Nino3.4 generated by the climatology method spanning only 25 years... is not a fudge!?
You're saying overlaying that with a couple of 2 and 3 year periods with something called a Low frequency index aSST3.4... is not a fudge!?

You're saying that isn't cherry picking :rolleyes:
More...
 
jem said:
Two new papers suggest solar activity is a ‘climate pacemaker’
Anthony Watts / 3 days ago January 9, 2015




Fig.3.a. Low frequency index aSST3.4(red) and NOAA anomaly index Nino3.4generated by the climatology method (blue).

Here are some highlights of these two new papers published in Physics Letters A by David H. Douglass & Robert S.Knox:

  • Central Pacific region temperature dataset SST3.4 from 1990 to 2014 is studied.
  • SST3.4 contains a sustained signal at 1.0 cycle/yr implying solar forcing.
  • SST3.4 also contains a signal (<1 cycle/yr) showing El Niño/La Niña effects.
  • This signal contains segments of period 2 or 3 years, phase locked to the annual.
  • A 12-month moving average improves on a “climatology” filter in removing annual effects.
  • Global ocean temperatures at depths 0–700 m and 0–2000 m from 1990 to 2014 are studied.
  • The same phase-locked phenomena reported in Paper I are observed.
  • El Niño/La Niña effects diffuse to the global oceans with a two month delay.
  • Ocean heat content trends during phase-locked time segments are consistent with zero.


The papers, the link downloads the full PDF:



Paper 1 Abstract
Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper). The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data. This is found to be significant for understanding the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon.

The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures David H. Douglass & Robert S.Knox Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.057

Conclusions and summary

Phase-locked sequences are found in Pacific Ocean SST3.4tem-perature data during the periods 1991–1999, 2002–2008 and in 2009–2013. These three sequences apparently being separated by climate shifts. It is asserted that the associated climate system is driven by a forcing of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1)A direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2)A phase-locked response at either the second or third sub-harmonic of the putative solar forcing between 1991 and 1999; 2001–02 and 2008; and again between 2008 and 2013.
This study confirms the results of [1]that some of the largest maxima/minima in the oscillations of the phase-locked state corre-spond to well-known El Niños/La Niñas. For example, the sequence 1996 La Niña – 1997/98 El Niño – 1999 La Niña corresponds to a minimum–maximum–minimum portion of phase-locked segment #9. The climate system is presently (June 2014) in a phase-locked state of periodicity 3 years. This state, which began in 2008, con-tains a maximum (El Niño) at about 2010 followed by a minimum (La Niña) followed by a maximum (weak El Niño at about 2013). If the climate system remains in this phase-locked state, the next maximum will not occur until about 2016 – i.e., no El Niño before that date. On the other hand, if a maximum occurs before then, it will signal the end of the phase-locked segment (and therefore a climate shift).
On its web site [15]the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration asks: “How often does La Niña occur?” Answer: “El Niño and La Niña occur on average every 3 to 5 years. However, the histori-cal record the interval between events has varied from 2 to 7 years. …” Our findings show that duringphase-locked time segments the period is either 2 or 3 years. If a longer interval is observed, this is notrepresentative of a variable ‘period,’ but indicates the occur-rence of a climate shift between phase-locked segments.

It is pointed out that the 12-month moving average filter is demonstrably superior to the climatology method of removing sea-sonal effects in data. This is seen to be the case for interpretation of El Niño/La Niña data, which contains spurious annual effects when treated under the climatology scheme.

An extension of these results to global data will be presented in a second Letter [16]. It will be shown that patterns of sub-harmonics identical to those described here occur throughout the oceans.

Paper 2 Abstract
In part I, equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature index SST3.4 was found to have segments during 1990–2014 showing a phase-locked annual signal and phase-locked signals of 2- or 3-year periods. Phase locking is to an inferred solar forcing of 1.0 cycle/yr. Here the study extends to the global ocean, from surface to 700 and 2000 m. The same phase-locking phenomena are found. The El Niño/La Niña effect diffuses into the world oceans with a delay of about two months.

The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures David H. Douglass & Robert S.Knox Physics Letters A; ©2014 Elsevier B.V.; doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.058


Fig.2.Plots associated with T100. a. T100(black) and aT100(red). The 24-month and 36-month phase-locked segments are indicated by green shaded rectangles. Climate shifts are indicated by black horizontal segments. b. Autocorrelation of aT100in-dicating, in the three periods noted, periodicities of 24 months (2002–08) and 36 months (1990–99 and 2008–14). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Conclusions and summary

Global ocean temperature time series from the surface to depths of 2000m since the year 2000 are found to agree in detail with those of other diverse climate indices. It is asserted that these systems are driven by a forcing unquestionably of solar origin that has two manifestations: (1) a direct phase-locked response to what is identified as a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0cycle/yrfor the whole time series; (2) a second phase-locked response at a period of two years or three years.
With these findings it is becoming clear that the entire cli-mate system is responding to the varying incident solar radiation, and is subject to interactions, most likely nonlinear, thatproduce the subharmonics of two or three year period, and is moreover evolving non-continuously, as evidenced by breaks in the pattern whose timing can be identified with known climate shifts. The most prominent manifestations of the pattern are found in the El Niño/La Niña phenomena. As emphasized in [2], the “natural” pe-riodicity of El Niño/La Niña is two or three years, and observations of longer intervals should be considered probable evidence for an intervening climate shift.
More...
Years ago, not long after Hansen made his splash, a group of National Academy members published a graph showing strong correlation between solar activity and what is now called the temperature anomaly. I'm glad to see this more recent paper has followed up on what seems like an obvious connection that one expects should be there -- keeping in mind that correlation does not prove cause. This seems to be very nice work by Douglass and Knox published in the highly regarded Physics Letters. Thank you Jem, for turning this up. (Interestingly, if I recall correctly, I think that long-ago graph of solar activity versus temperature was circulated in a letter, before Hansen himself was invited to become a member of the Academy sometime in the late 1990s.)
 
Last edited:
here was my quote for reference.

jem said:
your 11 year average is the cherry picked to mislead. temperature over land has gone down since 2001. Your 11 year average hides the decline.
More...
 
thanks, but it was not great effort... lets give the most viewed climate website in the world the credit.



piezoe said:
Years ago, not long after Hansen made his splash, a group of National Academy members published a graph showing strong correlation between solar activity and what is now called the temperature anomaly. I'm glad to see this more recent paper has followed up on what seems like an obvious connection that one expects should be there -- keeping in mind that correlation does not prove cause. This seems to be very nice work by Douglass and Knox published in the highly regarded Physics Letters. Thank you Jem, for turning this up.
More...
 
futurecurrents said:
Humans are responsible for the 40% increase in CO2. There is no question about that. CO2 is responsible for most of the long term greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be much much colder. There is no question about that either.

Can you put two and two together? A ten year old can. But not a righty.
More...
Hey dipshit

CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly long before humans ever burned fossil fuels for energy. Look it up you ignorant fuck

And yes humans are only responsible for three percent of CO2 emissions!!!!!! Look it up!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top