The Sun-Climate Effect

You really don't know the material.

 

False.

Your chart is labeled as coming from "wti", NOT uah6.

WTI is an index created by woodfortrees.org. It is an amalgam of many sources that is combined by a program that they appear to have written for munging datasets together.

I see NOWHERE that they describe what datasets were munged to form the chart that YOU chose.


So, there are several problems here.

First, YOU chose a chart that looked like what YOU wanted. You ignored the ones based on UAH6 or HADCRUT or other known datasets. Those charts clearly show a warming Earth - NOT what you wanted!

Next, you have NO IDEA what data your chart is based on.

Next, you have NO reason to accept the dataset munging software that WoodForTrees wrote to create their own index.


This is ample justification for the chart YOU chose to be so dramatically different that the data coming from the many groups of scientists who are actually measuring Earth's temperature.


Yes, the chart I showed ends before 2022. But, the thing is, that chart is based on KNOWN data and the last 2 years can not POSSIBLY counter the message that it clearly delivers.

 

Try reading with glasses as I stated:

Your earlier reply was:

"The green lines in that chart are being drawn by politicians, not scientists, plus you don't even bother to cite the source."

Which is why I then pointed out that I DID post the source and made clear it was based on UAH6 data as marked on the first chart while you never showed the chart is false at all.

Then I go on to state:

Then posted a clearly DIFFERENT chart how come you struggle so much over them?

Then you complain that woodfortrees doesn't explain how they use the data sets......

From the link you read poorly:

The analyse time series tool
The analyse tool (yes, folks, that's the British spelling!) is a (fairly) simple C++ program that can read a variety of time-series data formats and perform various processes on it, before outputting it to a format suitable for plotting - in particular, with gnuplot.

It's this tool which powers the interactive graph generator on this site; but feel free to make your own service with it.

Analyse is licenced under GPLv3. If you've added some sexy feature you think I should roll back into my source, send me a patch at 'paul' at this domain, but please check first to avoid duplication of effort.

What it can do
The analyse tool can perform any of the following steps on the data, in any order:

LINK

===

In the link is the LIST of database sources used to generate charts with.

Next time wear your glasses.

 

Your chart is labeled. It says the source is WTI.

You have posted nothing to positively identify what data is being presented.

Also, they point out that they have the source code and are modifying the software themselves:
"Analyse is licenced under GPLv3. If you've added some sexy feature you think I should roll back into my source, send me a patch at 'paul' at this domain, but please check first to avoid duplication of effort."

The comment about licensing just means they have the source code legally.


Plus, I pointed out that woodfortrees has a number of charts showing temperature data, and YOU chose one that you think supports your own personal beliefs.

 

Sigh,

I gave you the link already, but you sure have trouble getting the easy to find information from it:

Now go look at it in this LINK (Second time you are given the link)

===

WTI is explained in the link you keep reading poorly it is

WoodForTrees Temperature Index (WTI) Click on it and ALL of the data sources are on the list.

Look again HERE IN THE LINK! (Second time you are given the link)

 

Your chart does not show what you claimed it showed.

In fact, anything that is listed as "wti" being the source would require a further statement of what is being showed. And, the site says what CAN be included, but does not say what was included in that single chart. More importantly, nobody should accept their munging of data.

Beyond that, the site in your link shows a number of charts of Earth's warming.

YOU chose the one that is of unknown providence, while others, that DO show providence indicate a more rapidly and continuously warming Earth. So, it's clear why you chose what you did.

Why did you not show this one from the site YOU chose:

 

Your chart makes his point.

 

=====

Haw haw haw you can't try to be honest since I was all along talking about from 2015 onwards is a cooling trend and from YOUR data set YOU chose (Hadcrut4)



LINK

It IS indeed COOLING.

WTI is the sum of ALL of the temperature data sets in Wood For Trees, it is clear you didn't read the link I gave you twice on it.

I think it is time for you to try a new argument.....

 

Right: your claim of an extreme low was just false.

Oh, really? Why? Your "settled science" says the sun has almost no effect on climate.

All those purportedly independent data sets are calibrated on the NOAA/GIS sets, which have been massively altered to conform to CO2-centered climatology. You can see it in the graph you posted: the 1940s-70s cooling has been all but erased.

But it's not what determines global surface temperature, as the surface temperatures of the other terrestrial planets prove, and its variations are not primarily how the sun affects global surface temperature.

Huh?? You have a real problem with reading comprehension, don't you? My point is and has always been that CO2-centered "climatology" deliberately misses everything about the sun except irradiance.

No, the equilibrium between heat inflow and outflow is maintained. The heat is all still radiated back to outer space with more GHGs, just from a higher average altitude. The issue is how GHGs affect surface temperature.

But those spectra are irrelevant as long as you refuse to know the fact that the sun can affect global surface temperature through its effects on albedo, atmospheric heat transfer, etc., not just irradiance.

No, you do:

See? It is actually the assumption that CO2 is causing the heating that necessitates getting people concerned about climate change.

You again have it backwards. Just because we can change GHGs does not mean they are significant or that changing them can change the climate.

 

How do you explain the difference between the chart you posted above and the chart I posted of the same dataset from woodfortrees above?

What I'm saying is that I don't believe we know what we're getting from that site.

 

My comments are not about distant history. There were other changes in those distant times - more volcanism, the advent of oxygen emitting biota, etc. During the time of humans there were the two main ancient methods of dealing with it - moving and dying. The issue today has more to do with the change. Humans aren't as able to deal with the rapid change that is taking place.

That doesn't mean it doesn't contribute. See the measurements by the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and others.

That is a serious charge. Cite evidence that.

Cite that.

Not according to the vast majority of climate scientists.

 

Mine starts at 2015 and yours starts in 1850 which is why it looks different but the cooling from 2015 onwards on YOUR chart is obvious which Jack Hayes already pointed out at POST 32

You really do need glasses badly.

It appears you are running on nothing now suggest you give it up to end your embarrassing repeatedly inability to read the material provided.

 

There is no difference.

 

No, that is not an excuse. You can see the time periods that are shared.

What you have not seen is that the same period from the same dataset is resulting in charts from that site that do not compare as equal.

THEY did some kind of munging.

I'd STRONGLY suggest looking at other sites.

I know that overall we disagree, but I'm just objecting to this site.

 

His site and yours show the same data.

 

The comparison I disliked is between the to charts from his site - one he posted and one I posted, where I believe the dataset is the same.

As for the rest, I totally reject the chart he posted based on their munging tool.

 

It's not the same dataset.

It's actually just you who does not know.

 

You have not explained the differences in charts from that site.

AND, you have not explained the differences in charts from that site when compared to the numerous other charts from IPCC, NOAA, NASA and the numerous other centers of climate science.

 

There has been no extreme low. You simply made it up.

OTC, the change is no more rapid than such natural changes have been in the past, and we are far more able to deal with it -- if we choose to deal with it rather than to waste our attention and resources on futile and misguided efforts to stop it on the false assumption that we are causing it.

The IPCC claims it contributes 2%. Two.

This has been shown many times. Here are some explanations:

https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record/
https://realclimatescience.com/understanding-noaa-us-temperature-fraud/
https://realclimatescience.com/no-excuse-for-data-tampering/

If you don't know that, you don't actually know any climate science.

"Climate scientist" being defined as someone who gets papers published by genuflecting to the CO2-centered climate narrative...?

 

What part of, "It's not the same dataset," are you having trouble understanding?

Not. The. Same. Data.

 

The two charts present the same data. You will find the same data in any chart of global temperature.

 

Your objection is noted, but you keep forgetting that OUR charts are using the same HadleyCrut4 temperature database from the same website using the same software program which both shows obvious COOLING in both charts.

You are running in circles now.

 

I see NO reason to give that site that level of credibility.

They actually claim they are munging their data. And, their charts do not compare.

Please find a reputable site - one that scientists review.

 

You write:

Which you never show the evidence to support that hilarious claim.

You haven't backed up your claim that the charts are false you just made that up since it shows cooling the last 7 years which is why you are running in circles against it.

Here is the CREDITS page LINK showing where the temperature data is coming from.

Here are the details on the software used to make the charts with:

Software
The site is entirely built from open-source software:

Data analyser: analyse
Graph plotter: Gnuplot
Audio encoder: TwoLAME
Script language: PHP
Web server: Apache
C++ toolchain: GCC
Automatic data fetch: Wget
Operating system: Debian GNU/Linux

===

You should stop digging a deep hole since you keep fighting against the evidence and facts of the website.

 

Open source means they can modify that source. The claim to do that.

I'm tired of discussing this site. There is NO possibility of seeing this site as the experts that counter the entire world of climatology.

If you can't find a legitimate site to support your personal opinion, then you should start questioning what it is that you believe and why you choose to believe it.