The Sun-Climate Effect

Global temperature has been cooling since 2016. As for the oceans:



Most Of The Pacific Ocean’s Volume Has Undergone Intensifying Cooling Since 1993

By Kenneth Richard on 19. September 2022

The Pacific Ocean is 5 to 6 km deep. New research indicates the bottom half (2 km to the bottom) of the Pacific has been robustly cooling since 1993. A new preprint details the “surprising” Pacific cooling pattern from two ocean heat content (OHC) datasets over the 1993-2017 period. Most OHC records only extend to […]

 

Easy. If any of their 50 years of failed projections had actually come true. You know, if say, Obama's house on Martha's Vineyard were underwater.

And I have no idea what you've listed so I can't imagine it was much of anything.

 

Yep: CO2-centered climate nonscience continues to be proved empirically wrong forever, but no amount of empirical falsification is enough to make anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers abandon their religion. They'll still be screaming about CO2 making the earth an oven when the next Ice Age has Toronto under a mile of ice.

Because this year has seen a dramatic and entirely unpredicted increase in solar activity.

No, it will depend on what the sun does.

No, because solar activity has exploded upward this year.

No, the sun has become extremely active, proving you wrong.

Why do you feel you have to pretend that the sun has not suddenly become far more active than predicted this year?

 

“Climate Economics” by Dr. Richard Tol.

“False Alarm” by Bjorn Lomborg

“Fossil Future “ by Alex Epstein

 

Then there's this.

What Happened to The Ice-Free Arctic?
Guest Blogger
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT By Paul Homewood I wonder how these predictions worked out? (Answers tomorrow!!) . Scientists in the US have presented one of the…

 

Again, what is being denied?

No, you are never hanging around long enough to debate just a hit and run style which is why you are considered a person without true convictions to bank on as your style is chronically dismissive and insulting.

People who understand what "real science" is would not be pushing dumb consensus and personal attacks stupidity since science runs on REPRODUCIBLE research that can be properly tested by others that generated a new direction in further research heading toward a viable new understanding level.

 

So when there was warming with a cooler sun, that proved the solar theory, and when there's warming with a warmer sun, that also proves the solar theory.

Needless to say "EVERYTHING PROVES THE SOLAR THEORY!" has not caught on in the world of science.

 

The climate predictions have been excellent. If your masters told you otherwise, your masters lied to you.

This is where you cut-and-paste a bunch of predictions that are either just faked outright by your side, not related to climate, or not made by climate scientists. Please proceed. It's not like we haven't seen it a thousand times before, but maybe you can come up with something new.

That would fall in the "faked outright" category.

So you were uanble to list any actual data that could disprove your religion, reinforcing that it's a religious belief on your part.

Here's an example of things that would disprove AGW theory (if seen even over the medium-term, about 10 years).

1. A decrease in CO2 levels
2. A decrease in temperatures
3. A decrease in sea level.
4. An increase in stratospheric temperature
5. A decrease in backradiation
6. An increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands.
7. A lack of increase in specific humidity
8. Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
9. Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
10. Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

Now, the "solar theory" does not explain the observed stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the polar amplification, or the decrease in OLR in the GHG bands. Since it fails to explain the directly observed data, that would rule it out as a theory.

 

Do I really need to post the escalator graphic again, so you can deflect by screaming about how much you hate the cartoonist?

That study was based on "dynamically-consistent syntheses."

That is, a model.

 

What you linked to flatly debunked your claim.

Did you even read it?

 

Oh, there it is. Models.

Thanks, I don't need to hear any more of that crap.

 

10. has happened 9 times previously in the Holocene followed by cooling periods. In the current warming period there have been cooling periods, warming periods, and constant temperature periods all occurring with increasing CO2.

And of course global warming is beneficial.

 

Cooling since 2016. Your chart shows it too.
The study methodology was valid.

 

No it did not debunk the claim. It confirmed that Hansen made the prediction, and specified the timeline.
You made the challenge. You were answered. You lost.

 

He doesn't realize that the misleading SS escalator chart supports the evidence that CO2 is a negligible warm forcer it is the El-Nino spikes that shows up in the charts then a flat to a cooling trend in between which I have posted before which he ignores:



LINK

 

Strawman fallacy. You simply made that up.

But... on your stove, medium is cooler than high, but it still heats the water in the kettle. Get it? Whether the sun is cooler or warmer, as long as the earth's surface temperature is below the equilibrium temperature for the current level of solar activity, the earth will continue to warm. If it goes above that temperature, it will cool.

You merely don't understand that because you don't know any actual science.

You also made that up. Proof is for math and logic, not empirical science.

Probably because you made it up.

 

Too funny....

 

Curiously the alarmists claim that every time the weather changes (which they claim is climate change) it’s the result of increasing CO2.

 

That happened from the 1940s to the 1970s, falsifying CO2-centered climatology.

Neatly sidestepping the fact that the sun has been known to be the earth's source of heat for a very long time.

That has happened several times just in the Holocene, falsifying CO2-centered climatology.

Sure it does. That's just the increase in the equilibrium emission altitude caused by increased CO2, and is virtually irrelevant to surface temperature.

To the extent that any of those are actually real, they are explained by other factors, and none of them is relevant to the solar mechanism.

No, those data are merely irrelevant to the mechanism of solar activity's effect on the earth's surface temperature.

 

Haw haw haw haw haw,

you failed to follow through in the SS article YOU didn't read that Jack posted because SS posted the link to WUWT which I post below:

A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly

LINK

In the link he shows that Hansens FOURTY year prediction (198 is going to fail very badly since it had been 23 years as of 2009 article (with 2011 edit inside) showing that sea level rise in New York was just 2.5 INCHES while Hansen predicted over TEN FEET sea level rise which is what is needed to cover over the west side highway in the 40-year period.

===

From WUWT:

Here’s the interview.

In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. Red emphasis mine.

"Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then."

===

Now it has been 34 years since his stupid prediction it hasn't gone up even 6" while he predicted it would be about 10 FEET in 40 years.

What SS posted about is just silly since it never got Hansen off the hook from his stupid sea level rise prediction in the first place, were you that easily mislead by Skeptical Science?

 

It really doesn't matter because the SS post concedes that Hansen made the prediction. That alone refutes mamooth's claim.

 

Agreed, I am showing how big an error Hansen's sea level prediction error is which Mamooth doesn't understand.

 

This isn't debatable. Your side is lying about Hansen.

Which the interviewer says he reported wrong. That's been pointed out to you before, but you still choose to repeat the bogus version of events.

40 years after a doubling of CO2. That is, 40 years after 560 ppm is reached. 560 ppm would be in another 50 years or so, so maybe 90 years from now.

Given how many years you've been lying, you really have no excuse for being so bad at it.

 

Which isn't at all like the current fast warming. The rate was way, way slower, and it didn't involved stratospheric cooling, polar amplificiation, an increase in backradiation, and a decrease in outoging longwave in the GHG bands.

None of the "It's a natural thing!" theories explain the currrent directly observed data, therefore those theories are wrong. No amount of handwaving or conspiracy theories can change that.

 

No. 40 years with a doubling of CO2. Your version is a willful (and perhaps desperate) misreading. In any case, I have answered your original challenge and refuted your squirming evasion.