I searched your document for both 1.1 and 1960. Neither one popped up. So I seriously doubt your claim. No, you think that because you don't understand simple math. If 3,500 experts do 10 experiments each, you will find 1,750 results that show global warming even if there is no trend to be found. This will occur by chance alone. Then, if these are the only ones published, people will falsely think that the theory has been corroborated many times over. So when you take information such as this and put it in the hand of a body such as the IPCC, a panel created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications, and potential future risks as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options, then you get the kind of nonsense that you are spewing. No panel dedicated to providing policymakers with the implications, adaptation and mitigation options of something, ever finds that said thing doesn't exist. For that simple reason, IPCC is not a valid source of anything. I googled solar activity peak. I googled solar activity peaked 1958. I googled a lot of other terms trying to find the source of the nonsense you are spewing. I couldn't find it. Look — you are a one trick pony. I have asked you repeatedly why I should think that warming is anything but beneficial to mankind. In response, you ask me to explain something that you have provided no documentation for. Why don't you just stick to the point and answer the question rather than reverting to trying to prove something that is non controversial? The Earth is slightly warmer than it was in 1988. So what? Quit changing the subject and just answer the question.
Nothing in this nonsensical post makes the case that fictitious runaway global warming is human caused, a problem, likely to cause a catastrophe, or worthy of government action.
The trend line is what matters, and Christy's removing warming and not cooling is appropriate b/c Hansen built in expected volcanic cooling that never happened.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Hansen built in a background level of aerosols that ended up being insufficient because Pinatubo erupted in 1991 with a VEI of 6. Aerosols put a negative radiative forcing on the climate system. If you underestimate them you will overestimate the warming trend. Hansen also factored in full CFC emissions as part of the business-as-usual scenario B. CFCs are a greenhouse gas. They were banned in the 90's via the Montreal protocol in the late 80's. Greenhouse gases put a positive radiative forcing on the climate system. If you underestimate them you will overestimate the warming trend. And think about what you're saying regarding the removal of the warming. You are trying to rationalize why Christy removes the warming from the observational record. That warming actually happened. There is no justifiable reason to remove ENSO caused warming unless you also remove an equal magnitude of ENSO caused cooling. And even then that's a questionable technique because there are a variety of legitimate methods for establishing trendlines without the removal of valid data.
lol!!! The two issues aren't connected. Inserting fake data in order to overcome some other factor you don't like is absolutely NOT acceptable.
Look again. Page 9347 Figure 3a. Solar Active data can be found here. http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles#total Total solar irradiance is documented here. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1 and here https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.05397.pdf I asked you what you thought was causing the warming. You said the Sun. I'm now asking follow up questions. I'll ask them again. If your theory that the Sun is the driver of the warming today then these should be easy for you to answer. How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985? Why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere warm? How could the Sun create that unique effect? How was it possible that the Earth got so much warmer in the distant past when the Sun was dimmer? Remember, the Sun brightens by 1% every 100 million years or said another way it was 1% dimmer for every 100 million years in the past. How do you solve the faint young Sun problem? There are a lot of reasons why the warming won't be net beneficial to mankind. There are too many to enumerate here. However I can briefly mention a few of the more well known items. These include rising sea levels, lower crop yields, suppressed GDP growth, a lowering of the Earth's carrying capacity for humans, migration of diseases to areas that haven't typically seen them in the past, drought and water shortages, increased wildfire risk, etc. My source is AR5-WGII.
Well, I can't make much sense of a raw series of numbers with no headings and no explanation, but I did take a look at the data you provided and noted that the number of sunspots (as far as I can make out) was 377 in 1957, a year that is relatively close to your claim of peak sunspot activity. However, I noted 410 sunspots recorded (as far as I can make out) in 1991. Accordingly, I reject your claim that 1958 was a point of peak solar activity. I can't help but laugh. You seriously think you know how much output the sun was producing 100 million years in the past? Don't be ridiculous. IPCC is not a valid source. And increased atmospheric carbon dioxide results in faster plant growth and greater crop yields not less.
Why not read the paper, all of the papers Hansen cites, and then all of the papers that Hansen? That's scientists are doing. Were you looking at daily data? The reason I'm asking is that solar activity is the product of sunspot count integrated over time. There is a difference between maximum sunspot count and a maxima in solar activity. Sunspots themselves aren't a good proxy for total solar irradiance. But, the activity over a sufficient period of time is a pretty good proxy for total solar irradiance. Again, it is a proxy which means it isn't perfect. That's why I gave you a link to measurements of the actual TSI as well. Anyway, here is a plot of the solar activity. Yes. Absolutely. Refer to Gough 1981. Yes and no. CO2 does aid in faster plant growth, but only up to a certain point. Crop yields may increase, but only up to a certain point all things being equal. And that brings me to the next point. All things aren't equal. CO2 also causes the planet to warm and as a result regional climates change. Crops grow in the regions they do because those regions have climates that optimize crop yields. If you change the climate in that region you change the growing behavior of the crops for reasons other than CO2. The aggregate total of all of the changes could be net beneficial or net harmful depending on the precise nature of how all of the variables change. For example, crop yields will likely increase in Canada, but decrease in the United States as a result of global warming and the climatic changes that occur as a result. Besides, why do you think the corn belt of the midwest is the most agriculturely productive region on Earth? Why was it not the southeast US or southwest US or some other country entirely? Afterall, CO2 levels aren't substantially different from one locale to another because it is a gas that disperses via Brownian Motion and agitation just like oxygen and nitrogen and every other gas molecule. Anyway, there is a whole realm of science related to the growing of crops.
Will rising carbon dioxide levels really boost plant growth? New research published in Science suggests that predicting the effects of increasing CO₂ levels on plant growth may actually be more complicated than anyone had expected. https://phys.org/news/2018-04-carbon-dioxide-boost-plantgrowth.html
Great addition! Even without that, one should expect that the idea behind "more CO2, more better" was never going to work out. Plants have more than one requirement and depend on a web of cooperating factors in the local environment. The change taking place isn't just in CO2. And food production is a local issue - more food in Canada isn't going to help with disasters such as the multi-year drought that disrupted Syria, or the food problems in Bangladesh, Somalia, and the rest. That study seems to add a strong point.
Apologies, I was in a hurry when I posted and did, in fact, misspeak. What Christy and Mckitrick did was, 1) remove the volcanic cooling from scenarios B and C that Hansen expected to occur - because the event never happened. 2) add the El Nino warming to all 3 scenarios that did happen - but that Hansen did not account for. ------------------------------ You cannot argue against these corrections b/c they reflect what happened in the real world. ------------------------------ When you make these needed adjustments, Hansen's predictions are not even close. I understand you guys need to defend your climatejesus, but the facts are the facts.
Problem with your graphic is the changes are measured in tenths of one degree.The graphic can indeed misrepresent. Take this year for instance. We are having record cold in the USA last year also was very cold. You know that this cold is not in tenths of a degree. This cold is some super serious cold weather.
I get it you would not argue against warming being very beneficial. And of course nobody has science to prove it will harm the USA or our crops.
And here's the problem. Christy and McKitrick removed the VEI 5 eruption that Hansen modeled. This VEI 5 eruption produced 0.2C of cooling. However, what actually happened was a VEI 6 eruption that caused 0.4C of cooling in 1991 (Pinatubo). So, if Christy and McKitrick wanted to use this technique instead of removing 0.2C of cooling to raise Hansens's prediction +0.2C they should have actually lowered his prediction -0.2C which is 0.2 (VEI 5 modeled) - 0.4 (VEI 6 not modeled). Actually, to be precise he should have dropped the scenario B line by 0.4C after 1991 and raised it by 0.2C after 2015. Again, this is misleading. Hansen's model was ocean-atmosphere coupled. It does model the heat fluxes that induce the ENSO cycles. What Christy and McKitrick take issue with is that Hansen's 30 year prediction got lucky in the sense that it happened to catch the 2015 El Nino. However, what they don't tell you is that 2016 was a La Nina and the 30yr prediction ends in 2017 which incorporates a full ENSO cycle. So, if they wanted to be honest they should have removed the 2016 La Nina induced cooling to offset the 2015 El Nino warming that they removed. But there is yet another problem. If they were so focused on figuring out what Hansen's model would have produced had it used the right inputs they should have also lowered his scenario B trend because of the reduced GHG effect caused by the Montreal Protocol.
Once again, you're confusing weather with earth's warming trend. One has to remember that Australia has been having problems with melting roads. So, one must account for all regions. And, since there are various cycles going on, one must look at 5 or 10 year running averages, not 2 day averages in one single region.
I've noticed the big increase in Poison Ivy growth over my lifetime. It wasn't that plentiful, large and vicious when I was a kid. And the science backs that up. https://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.abstract In general, more CO2 affects tree growth very little, but it makes vines grow much faster, which will have the effect of slowing tree growth because of more choking vines.
Sorry, but the data is AVERAGE temperature (climate) so comparing it to a single data point (weather) is nonsensical. And you get this kind of weather when the polar vortex breaks up on both tropospheric and stratopheric levels. Its going to get worse as the ice cap melts.
When I studied Physics in both levels of school, college and high school, things made perfect sense to me. For instance, my first class in high school physics the teacher decided for some odd reason to ask the class just beginning to explain why things float in water. Kids came up with all sorts of reasons. I am the sole student that correctly explained it to the class. Sure, simple as this is, it was the day we got books and such. I have a natural instinct for things like Physics. Add to my study as a pilot of global weather. Longer term called climate. For instance nobody would expect the Arctic to suffer a temperature on any day of the year of 125 degrees. It would not make any sense. But to always chant, see it is warmer today, proving global warming, yet on very cold days telling the public to ignore the cold, makes no common sense. But if one is a devoted Democrat, suddenly to them it makes perfect sense. I have discussed global climate for over 20 years yet this current discussion of the polar vortex is brand new. Nobody who believes humans manage climate mentioned it previously. Suddenly today it is the talk of the town.
So really, Hansen's prediction is so fundamentally flawed that it's completely useless to give it any consideration. That conclusion works for me
How was it fundamentally flawed? And remind me again...who did better...Hansen or Lindzen? Hansen or Easterbrook? Hansen or <insert-any-skeptic-prediction-here>?
All right — it's obvious that we need to start very basic because you don't know anything about anything. Back in the 18th century, there was this guy named David Hume. He is credited with discovering the problem of induction. The crux of the problem is this: Imagine that you have a bag filled with items. You pull out the first item, and it's a black piece of candy. You taste it, and it's licorice. You pull out another item, and it's another black piece of candy. You taste that one, and it's licorice. Then, you pull out a third item. You see that it's a black piece of candy. You conclude that: 1. The piece of candy will be licorice flavored. 2. The bag is filled with pieces of licorice-flavored candy. But are these conclusions justified and, if so, by what? After a good deal of thinking and reasoning Hume, and everyone else, has pretty much come to the realization that these types of conclusions are not and cannot be justified. Of course, this doesn't stop idiots from getting on the Internet and claiming that "science" can tell us what the Sun was doing 10^9 years ago. So, if science cannot even tell us what happened in the past, you'll forgive my skepticism about science's ability to tell us about the future. All the information that any of us has indicates that optimum plant photosynthesis carbon dioxide concentration is about 1500 ppm, whereas we're running at about 400 ppm. So I'm hardly worried about the-sky-is-falling types of predictions that humans will suddenly starve to death because things are getting better. Granted, there may be places that are adversely affected by foreseen and unforeseen changes in climate. Farms in some areas may become unprofitable, and farms will open in new areas. That's the advantage of a free economic system — it adapts to changes on the fly. It takes a company like Nokia out of obscurity, raises it up into the king of cell phones, and then shoves it back down again. So what? You place far too much faith in science. Remember this: If you believe in science, then you shouldn't believe in science.
First, licorice has little if anything to do with climate change or what the Sun was doing in the past. Second, take the plunge down the right side of Mount Stupid (Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias) and educate yourself about what science knows and doesn't know about the behavior of the Sun and main sequence stars in general. Different plants use photosynthesis in different ways and CO2 isn't the only thing that modulates a plant's propensity to grow. Most of the sky-is-fallying predictions are coming from skeptics as a way creating strawman arguments that they can then tear down. That's what you're doing here. I never said humans will suddenly starve to death. What? Oh, and don't think I've forgotten that you are still deflecting and diverting away from questions related to your belief that the Sun is the only thing that causes climate change. I'm still waiting for those answers. Remember, I'm the idiot and you're the mega-genius that is smarter than the entire world so these questions should be very easy for you to answer.
