http://euanmearns.com/the-end-of-the-little-ice-age/

I've noticed that many true believers in here are very uniformed on the LIA and it's effect on current climate change and especially in climate change statistics and charts and graphs that include the LIA period to use as contrast to our climate today inferring the LIA era was the norm and we are the aberration. Good article in this that may enlighten you.

The end of the Little Ice Age
Posted on December 20, 2018 by Roger Andrews

​

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a recent and significant climate perturbation that may still be affecting the Earth’s climate, but nobody knows what caused it. In this post I look into the question of why it ended when it did, concentrating on the European Alps, without greatly advancing the state of knowledge. I find that the LIA didn’t end because of increasing temperatures, decreasing precipitation or fewer volcanic eruptions. One possible contributor is a trend reversal in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation; another is an increase in solar radiation, but in neither case is the evidence compelling. There is evidence to suggest that the ongoing phase of glacier retreat and sea level rise is largely a result of a “natural recovery” from the LIA, but no causative mechanism for this has been identified either."

"There’s still a lot we don’t understand about how the Earth’s climate works."

http://euanmearns.com/the-end-of-the-little-ice-age/

 

No mechanism has been identified, but solar activity is strongly implicated by simple correlation and the indisputable fact that the sun is the source of all our warmth. The LIA was associated with periods of low sunspot activity, while the 20th century warming was associated with the highest sustained sunspot activity in several thousand years. Sunspots themselves probably don't affect climate. But they are very likely an index or proxy for something about the sun that DOES affect climate.

 

So you're just waving your hands around and invoking unknown magic.

Meanwhile, the real scientists are putting forth testable theories that keep making correct predictions. You know, doing real science.

Golly, who to believe.

 

The LIA was due to high volcanism, low TSI, and low CO2 levels. Since the LIA was totally over by 1850, anyone claiming that the current fast warming is a "recovery from the LIA" must be some kind of wild-eyed religious fanatic.

The funny part is how they've been predicting a new ice age RealSoonNow for over 40 years running now. That new ice age never arrives, but their zeal is undimmed. They're the TrueBelievers of The Church of the Ice Age, and they still have faith that the HolyIceAge will arrive.

 

No, stop makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written. To state that an effect has an unknown cause is not hand waving or invoking magic. Before the discovery of DNA, we knew that traits were passed on from parents to offspring, we just didn't know how. Anyone who claimed geneticists of that era were "invoking unknown magic" was nothing but a stupid, evil liar. Before Einstein, no one knew the source of the sun's energy. 19th century astronomers who said it must have a source of energy were not waving their hands or invoking magic, and anyone who claimed they were was nothing but a stupid, evil liar.

What correct predictions? They said temperature would track CO2. It hasn't.

Unlike AGW screamers, I don't ask anyone to believe. I ask them to think it through for themselves instead of just believing.

 

Science is putting forth a theory that explains the observed evidence, making predictions based on that evidence, and seeing if the predictions are correct. AGW theory has met that challenge, so it's the accepted scientific theory. You haven't even reached the point of putting forth a theory, so what you're doing isn't science. "But you can't be absolutely certain!" isn't a theory, it's handwaving and deflecting.

But we _do_ know. You're in the category of someone saying, 66 years after DNA was discovered, "Since you can't absolutely prove that demons don't cause genetic ailments, we absolutely have to consider the possibility of my demon theory of disease, and only a socialist would disagree!". That's why you're ignored.

Delusional. Even the other deniers here admit that temperature tracks CO2, they just correctly state that correlation isn't causation. There is no debating that temperature is currently tracking CO2.

So when will you take your own yourself? After all, you get the most basic things completely wrong. You seem to know almost nothing on the topic, as if you'd been getting all your info from political conspiracy blogs.

 

Science is incapable of prediction... Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

AGW is not a theory of science. It outright rejects numerous laws of science, including the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, as outlined below:

** AGW attempts to trap heat. That is not possible. [See the laws of thermodynamics]
** AGW attempts to decrease entropy. That is not possible. [See the laws of thermodynamics]
** AGW attempts to heat a warmer surface (Earth) using a colder gas (CO2). That is not possible. [See the laws of thermodynamics]
** AGW attempts to decrease Earth's radiance while simultaneously increasing Earth's temperature. That is not possible. [See the stefan boltzmann law]

I think it's obvious by now that AGW rejects science...

This graph consists of random numbers, thus it is meaningless. It is not possible to accurately measure global CO2 nor global temperature. We don't have near enough CO2 stations nor thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis, which requires raw data btw. The stations and thermometers we DO have are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer, thus allowing for location and time biases.

 

And AGW theory is falsifiable in many ways, so what's the problem?

Delusional. This should be fun.

So, by your "science", it's impossible for a blanket to make you warmer. As a blanket will make you warmer, your science is obviously kind of dumb.

No, it doesn't. Where did you get such a crazy idea?

Of course it is. You don't understand the 2nd law, which speaks only of net heat flow on a large scale. There's nothing that stops IR photons from a cold object from heating a warm object. Happens everywhere, all the time. The walls are cooler than I am, but the walls are emitting IR photons that heat my body.

No, S-B doesn't forbid that at all. it only forbids it in an equilibrium state. But since the earth is warming, it's not in equilibrium.

I think it's obvious that your understanding of thermodynamics is poor.

This graph consists of random numbers, thus it is meaningless.

No it doesn't. You're just babbling nonsense now.

As we do both, you're clearly wrong on both counts.

Because you say so? Very impressive logic.

You can remove 90% of the measurements, and the result will still be the same. That shows temperature is sampled far more than it needs to be to get a consistent result.

And those biases are accounted for. I see you're ignorant of statistics as well.

 

No, it's not. In order to falsify a theory, the null hypothesis testing needs to be available, practical, specific, and produce a specific result. The theory of AGW does not fit this.

Blankets do not make people warmer. For instance, putting a blanket over a rock will not make the rock any iota warmer than it was before. Blankets work by reducing the coupling between the air underneath the blanket and the outside air. The existence of that coupling reduction means that less energy is required from the thermal energy source (ie, our bodies) to keep them warm. That's how blankets actually work.

You will notice here that heat is not being trapped in any way. Heat is still flowing from hot to cold, from one's body into the outside air, per the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Not my idea; it is what AGW proponents argue.

No, it isn't.

Yes, I do understand it.

There is no such thing as "net heat". There is only "heat".

Additionally, molecules will not absorb photons which have energy greater than that which the molecule already has. Such a molecule appears transparent or reflective.

A colder object cannot heat an already warmer object.

It happens nowhere.

Walls are not heating your body. Your body is warmer than the walls.

Yes, it does. See the SB law equation. It has radiance on one side and temperature on the other side. The rest of the equation consists of constants. Thus, radiance and temperature are directly proportional.

It forbids it in ANY state. There is no way to measure global temperature, so there is no way of knowing whether or not the Earth is warming. The other problem is what time periods are you using? Why is that time period significant and other time periods not significant?

Inversion Fallacy.

Yes, AGW does reject science, as I have shown.

Statistical Mathematics is NOT "nonsense". That graph is claiming to be able to measure things which cannot be accurately measured. Those readings used in that graph did not adhere to the axioms of statistical mathematics. They are meaningless random numbers. Arguing based on those numbers is otherwise known as the Argument From RandU Fallacy.

We do neither. I have explained why this is. You have ignored my argumentation regarding that bit.

No, because Statistical Mathematics says so.

No, they are not.

 

By that definition, most science is unfalsifiable, thus it's a dumb definition to use.

Wow. Just wow.

So in other words, a blanket makes a person warmer, and your claim goes kaboom.

Exactly the same as AGW theory, hence your objections to it on that account look especially senseless now.

Nonsense. I have never heard anyone besides you say "AGW attempts to decrease entropy". It appears to be entirely your idea, so you're the one who needs to explain what it means.

Quibbling. Say "net energy flow" instead. Individual photons of energy happily flow from warm to cold, and from cold to warm. The second law only states that the net energy flow has to be from warm to cold. Individual photons care nothing about the second law.

That makes no sense. You haven't even defined terms. What does "energy which the molecule already has" even mean?

Absolutely wrong. IR photons from the colder environment are warming my body.

I could type out the S-B equations for you, that show how my body is radiating 16,000 Calories of heat a day, yet I'm only consuming 2,000. Where did the other 14,000 come from? From the heat radiated into me by the colder environment

The S-B law says that all matter above absolute zero will radiate IR photons. Our environment is saturated with low energy IR photons that came off of colder objects. And when those photons hit a warmer object, they are absorbed by that warmer object, and the energy turns into heat.

And how does that prevent greenhouse gases from slowing down heat loss until the temperature climbs enough to push heat out faster? It's a red herring.

So, by your claim here, if a 100 mile thick physical blanket materialized around the earth, transparent to visible light but not IR, it wouldn't cause some warming underneath. That's absurd.

As we're measuring global average temperature very well now, that's clearly an incorrect claim. Your refusal to accept the obvious doesn't change the obvious.

By that logic, every time average of any sort anywhere is useless. Again, nonsense on your part.

Agreed. And you're failing at it.

Fallacy of Incredulity on your part, your irrational refusal to believe something can be done, even though it plainly is being done.

And you know that ... how? This should be good.

You're using your own special definition of "random" which is shared by nobody else on the planet, so you going to find that nobody else will pay attention to it.

So, you're making up fallacies to go along with your bizarre revisionist language. Again, don't expect anyone else to pay attention to the rules of your alternate reality.

 

The LIA is associated with numerous factors and it's dishonest to pick out one or two in order to say case solved.

 

No, it is not, and you are being despicably disingenuous to claim it is. The sun is the first, second, and third place anyone should look for an explanation of changes in global temperature for self-evident and indisputable scientific reasons. And in fact, it turns out to be the best explanation.

 

No, it has repeatedly failed that challenge, and will continue to do so.

Accepted by hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists.

That is a bald falsehood. My theory is the one that actually accords with the facts: climate variation on the century-to-millennium timescale is driven by solar variation on a similar timescale, which is overlaid on decadal ocean circulation cycles and the secular trend of rising CO2, whose effect is modest and entirely beneficial.

Yes, it is.

That's not what I said, and you know it.

No, we do not. To the extent that we do, what we know does not support anti-fossil-fuel hysteria,

The causation is the other way around: higher temperature causes the oceans to release CO2.

Garbage. There was only one period in history when temperature tracked CO2, and that was ~1970-1998. Temperature didn't track CO2 before that, and it hasn't since.

That graph is a cherry-picked period, and based on systematically falsified data. Temperature was not rising from 1964-73, it was falling.

 

Cherry picking is not science it's agriculture.

 

There is no law that says thermal barriers cannot exist. That should be obvious since insulation is actually a thing. I think what you actually meant to say is that the 2LOT says heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warm body by its own means or in an isolated system. The effect GHGs have on the climate system does not violate the 2LOT because the climate system is not isolated and because GHGs aren't warming the planet by their own means.

The entropy of the atmosphere is decreasing though. The troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. That does not violate the 2LOT. See above.

GHGs act as a thermal barrier. At the most fundamental level these GHGs aren't actually warming the surface. What is warming the surface is the Sun. GHGs impede the net flow of energy from the surface to space. This reduced rate of cooling augments the heating of the Sun. The best analogy here is that of the insulation and furnace in your home. The insulation does not heat your home. That's the job of the furnace. But your home is still warmer because of the insulation because it is slowing the rate of heat loss thus augmenting the furnaces ability to warm the inside. This is not a violation of the 2LOT because an external energy source is being applied to both the climate system and your home. Interesting...the entropy of both the home and climate systems would begin increasing again if the furnace or Sun were no longer present.

The radiance of the surface increases but the radiance at TOA (top of atmosphere) decreases. This is what creates the imbalance on the planet. This state persists until the 340 W/m^2 equilibrium is reestablished at TOA once again. The imbalance on the planet is currently around 0.7 W/m^2. The net incoming surface flux is +0.7 W/m^2 while the outgoing TOA flux is -0.7 W/m^2. The surface radiance continues to increase with a lot of that energy being returned back to the surface. Once the equilibrium climate response plays out these flux perturbations will return back to 0 W/m^2. For now most of the 0.7 W/m^2 imbalance goes into the oceans. And by the way, this 0.7 W/m^2 imbalance is right there in the ballpark of what the transient climate response is predicted to be. However, our understanding of the distribution of this imbalance in the climate system could still use some work. The hydrosphere and cryosphere are taking up more of this imbalance while the atmosphere is taking up less as compared to what was expected, but globally the heat uptake is a pretty good match with predictions. The SB law is perfectly happy with all of this.

 

Being that temperature has been rising as solar activity drops, your theory is contradicted by reality, and is therefore wrong. The fanaticism of your belief doesn't change that.

And now the backpedaling. First you said temperature doesn't track CO2. Now you admit it does.

Oops. And now you're back to saying it doesn't. Can you make up your mind?

Again, the graph. It's wildly delusional to claim that temperature doesn't track CO2 post-1998, and anyone making such a bizarre claim will be laughed at.

That's because aerosols and solar effects dominated over the low CO2 effect at that time.

It's also impossible to explain paleoclimate without invoking the effects of CO2. 500 million years ago, when the sun was 5% dimmer, the earth would have frozen at low CO2 levels.. Come to think of it, the earth _did_ freeze when CO2 levels were low. Then the CO2 rose, and the earth warmed.

"All data which contradicts cult dogma is falsified" is something I also hear from flat-earthers, antivaxxers and scientologists.

No, that's not what the data says. If started at the 1964 data point, which is a colder than average year, then it's definitely a warming trend. If a smoothed average is used, then the period will be shown as level in temperature. However, no statistical technique can cause it to show cooling.

 

It hasn't.

Nope. Falsified data don't prove anything but the dishonesty of the falsifiers, sorry.

No, CO2 tracks temperature. See the difference? The trailing indicator is the one that tracks the leading indicator.

Wrong again. The simple present tense is used to indicate a timeless regularity ("CO2 tracks temperature."), the simple past to indicate an event completed in the past ("Temperature tracked CO2.").

No, it clearly doesn't, as temperature declined while CO2 increased:



See?

Ah, no.

Of course: doubling CO2 will add roughly 1C to temperature, so CO2 an order of magnitude greater would add about 3.3C. This is well understood physics of radiative heat transfer. Not propaganda model building that assumes absurd and impossible levels of water vapor feedback.

Yes, because CO2 was more than an order of magnitude higher than the pre-industrial level. Not 1/3 higher as it is today.

Nope. The earth warmed, and the oceans released CO2.

Because the data were retroactively altered to show warming.

 

As your response to everything is now a kneejerk "ALL THE DATA THAT CONTRADICTS CULT SCRIPTURE IS FAKED!", there's no point in engaging any more. You're not rational, that's the point I'm trying to prove, and you've proven it for me.

 

So, no matter how blatant the falsification of data, no one is allowed to question it?? And you call that science?

 

There is a very detailed discussion of this and many other things such as the fact that SST (surface sea temperature) has nothing to do with air temperature but is dependent on global water currents and wind patterns and using SST data to "calculate" global average temperature is ridiculous in this free book available for download in pdf format:

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-print.pdf

So far none of the many global warming alarmists have bothered to read it. Telling.

 

This guy has questioned everything and shown the myriad of holes in the bogus global warming alarmist story.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-print.pdf

 

Global average temperature calculated including SST is a joke. SST has nothing to do with air temperature.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-print.pdf

 

Like I said in the other thread, we will always call out the blatant falsification that your sides uses every single time. You're mocked because you just make everything up, and you'll keep being mocked for that reason.

 

That's absolutely dopey, being how the oceans warm the air. Where does Curry find these clowns?

 

Are you claiming that the air temperature at the water surface controls the ocean water temperature ??? That’s moronic. Take a heat transfer class some time.

The temperature of the air above the ocean depends directly on the water temperature. This air temperature has nothing to do with CO2. The temperature of sea water is a function of cyclical ocean currents, cyclical wind patterns, and cyclical solar irradiation.

That’s science. You have the free pdf link with over 600 footnotes of peer reviewed scientific papers. How is your reading coming along ??