The Sun-Climate Effect

Still no evidence provided that the charts are false a concept you have a serious problem addressing.

Scientists use open-source software all the time, your ignorance is obvious.

Cheers

 

A new UAH6 chart updated for August:

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2022: +0.28 deg. C
September 1st, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Excerpt:

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2022 was +0.28 deg. C, down from the July, 2022 value of +0.36 deg. C.

Chart in the LINK

===

The data shows it is about .2C COOLER today than it was in 2015.6 based on running mean or about .42C COOLER from peak high in 2015 year.

 

This is just a rant.

 

LOL! Scientists know what they are doing. And, if they screw up, there are multiple levels of checking.

Nobody cares what woodfortrees does.

Well, except you.

 

Woodfortrees is often used as a research tool.

 

LOL.

 

• Graph examples - Wood for Trees
  https://www.woodfortrees.org › examples
  
  Put simply, Fourier analysis divides a series of data into its individual waves of different frequencies. We can then study this "frequency domain", or ...
• 
  Notes - Wood for Trees
  https://www.woodfortrees.org › notes
  
  Paul's thoughts on developing and using WoodForTrees, interesting results, and what they might mean... BEST updated; UAH6.0 vs UAH5.6; BEST and other land ...
• 
  Credits - Wood for Trees
  https://www.woodfortrees.org › credits
  
  Data sources. The data this site use comes from the following organisations: HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3 Global Temperature. Source: Climatic Research Unit ...

 

Why did you stop with just those??

You missed the parts concerning how it munges data, for instance.

But, that's just a part of the problem.


Overall, depending on woodfortrees as the foundation for eliminating the results of the entire rest of the
WORLD of climate science hits me as just plain silly.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on your "munges data" claim.
And no one but you has said anything about eliminating other data sources.

 

He is so ignorant of the software I posted because he doesn't realize that THIS forum uses some of the codes to run this place on the server.

Here is that list again:

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

===

This forum we post in uses PHP and Apache maybe Wget too

Meanwhile Debian is used by hundreds of organizations as shown HERE LINK

===

PHP is used all over the world that is updated by a team that updates the software over time as shown HERE LINK

PHP is commonly used in blogs and forums like this one as standard practice.

This is just one page of many showing the actual PHP software files in github:

LINK

Will read less thinks a single man can play PHP software to his own ends which is proof that he is profoundly ignorant.

===

Apache is used by many all over the world a software that is HUGE and complex that requires a large team to upgrade it in time here from this LINK:

THE WORLD'S LARGEST OPEN SOURCE FOUNDATION

• All volunteer community
• 271M+ lines of code in stewardship
• 4.8B+ lines of code changed
• 4.6M+ code commits
• 850+ individual ASF Members
• 8,200+ Apache Committers
• 49,000+ code contributors
• 640,000+ people involved in our communities

• 350+ Projects and Initiatives
• 300+ Top-Level Projects
• 37 podlings in the Apache Incubator
• ~2 Petabytes source code downloads from Apache mirrors
• 28M+ emails across 1,400+ mailing lists
• Web requests received from every Internet-connected country on the planet
• 286M+ weekly page views across apache.org

Will Read Less thinks a single man running wood for trees website who has no experience in dabbling with a software with 271 MILLION lines of code in existence can play with it to his own devious ends is hilarious idiotic ignorance as it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Some people don't when to quit after being corrected repeatedly.....

 

Notice that he completely ignores POST 52 showing another Temperature data site (UAH6) that also shows COOLING trend since 2015....

He is making up claims that are silly since he has no idea how large and complex most of the codes listed that are used to generate the charts successfully.

 

Same fallacy -- and objectively false claim -- as always....

You have offered, and will offer, no actual evidence that that site is not "legitimate" or has in any way compromised the integrity of its data.

 

How many people who work on open source code is NOT a measurement of accuracy of whatever it is that woodfortrees did. And, the fact that some code is used to run this server is also just plain ludicrous as an attempt to support the accuracy of charts, where what

And, I didn't say MOST of what you accuse me of saying.

Let's face it. The woodfortrees site have various charts that do not all say that Earth is cooling. And, saying that the last two years proves something is just plain antiscience nonsense.

Beyond that, woodfortrees does NOT make it clear what they did or did not do.


The idea of using one site, such as woodfortrees as a justification for ignoring the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and all international organizations of climate scientists is just plain SILLY.

 

?? The problem is that their interpretation, as presented by sunsettommy, is counter to the rest of the world of climate science.

And, there are clear signs of serious issues with the way woodfortrees handles data.

Beyond that, sunsettommy chose to search woodfortrees for a chart that HE thinks supports his personal view. That's not science. And, woodfortrees has charts such as the one I posted that show Earth warming at an alarming rate. Which of these various charts on their site underwent totally undocumented munging that has not been reviewed by mainstream climatology?

A strong reason for looking at IPCC is that right or wrong, their results come from a wide body of scientists from all over the world and the results are strongly reviewed by climatologists everywhere.

NOBODY cares what woodfortrees blogs. Thus, the verification process is nonexistent.

 

Every chart, including the one you presented, shows cooling since 2016.
The charts at Woodfortrees all come from NASA, NOAA, HADCRUT, UAH, etc.

 

The chart you posted also shows cooling since 2016.

 

He is too busy being silly to notice that inconvenience.

I posted the UAH6 data, and he completely ignores it because he can't dispute it which also shows COOLING.

This is why warmst/alarmists are so ignorant.

 

Haw haw haw, you didn't counter anything I stated, and YOU ignored facts that all those "open source" is legitimate and can only work if used as published because they are used in many applications that depends on them which this Xenforo software based political forum that we post in using PHP, Apache and Wget scripts

Your replies make it clear you NEVER worked with computer software because your ignorance is deep and damaging to your low credibility while I have actually dealt with them in running forums and a blog I once ran.

 

Same false claim you have made multiple times without supporting it.

Name one. So far, you have only proved you don't understand how woodfortrees handles the data.

Sure it is, when his personal view is that data are best collected and presented impartially, without dishonest manipulation, and the resulting chart presents empirical data that refute false claims like yours.

That depends on what you consider "alarming." Personally, I am not alarmed that increased solar activity has returned the earth's surface to more normal Holocene temperatures over the last 200 years, following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Periods of above-average global surface temperature were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically unacceptable.

What a preposterous question.

And those who disagree are blacklisted....

Anyone can verify it by taking the same official data and using the same open source graphing software to produce the same graphs.

 

And now the conclusion. A new climate hypothesis has been presented.
The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VI). Meridional transport as the main climate change driver
Posted on September 4, 2022 by curryja | 19 comments
by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“No philosopher has been able with his own strength to lift this veil stretched by nature over all the first principles of things. Men argue, nature acts.” Voltaire (1764)

Continue reading →
". . . Modern climate science has allowed itself to be contaminated by activism without protest. Activist climate scientists are doing a great disservice to science by abandoning Popper’s goal of objective knowledge and allowing themselves to get emotionally involved with their subject and married to a chosen result. The history of science is not kind to scientists that allow themselves to become misguided servants of social or political goals. Lysenkoism and eugenics come to mind as dark examples. As Joel Hildebrand (1957) said of the scientific method, “there are no rules, only the principles of integrity and objectivity, with a complete rejection of all authority except that of fact.” The question is: Does research in climate science meet the standards of scientific objectivity? This is increasingly important in framing public debates about science and science policy (Tsou et al. 2015).

Over this series, we have presented some of the evidence that solar activity has an outsized effect on climate change, together with a proposed explanation for the observed effect. The scientific literature is full of additional evidence for a solar effect on climate. To deny that evidence can only delay progress in climate science. The search for a solar-climate effect has had the unexpected result of showing that modern climate theory is missing a crucial component. Changes in the poleward transport of energy cause the planet to change its climate state. It appears to be the main climate change driver.

Opposite of what is generally believed, when less energy is transported poleward the planet gets warmer. The planet warmed after 1850 from a a reduction in MT, followed by the increase in GHGs since the mid-20th century. While global warming is likely to continue over most of the 21st century, the rate is unlikely to increase, and might even decrease, disproving nearly every climate projection. Recent warming appears multicausal, caused by changes in solar activity and MT, besides GHGs. It is thus very unlikely that the decarbonization of the economy will have any significant effect on climate, although it could have a great effect on the transfer of wealth from some agents in the global economy to others, even if its total effect on wealth creation is negative."

 

They CLAIM that they munge the data. And, they do NOT make it clear how they do that.

And, yes. The chart that was first presented is significantly NOT like the data analysis of NASA, IPCC, NOAA, et al around the world. So, why should I choose this site rather than the scientists of the world?

Nobody is blacklisted. That's no more than conspiracy theory.

Those serious scientists who have comment or doubts, such as Dr. Curry, are featured prominently and get review by the world of science, as she reviews others.

Places like WUWT fully deserve to be ignored, because they are blogs. Scientists aren't going to read blogs like WUWT and comment on it. There is no reason for them to care. So, Anthony posts what matches his personal and totally unprofessional view, and gets the eyes of Hays and others who happen to have the same personal opinions.

That's not being "blacklisted". That's just what one has to expect when one has zero credentials and doesn't write ANY papers or otherwise take part in science.

 

Both of those statements are false.

 

That's another false statement. Not only are the WFT data "like" the other data, they are exactly the same data.

 

Notice that he NEVER back up his absurd claims with evidence?

He continues to IGNORE the UAH6 chart that also shows a COOLING trend since 2015.

 

Wow. "Open source" is a legitimate way of communicating software modifications. "Open source" lets anyone modify the software, with the community deciding if modifications can be added to the mainstream.

>>>But, that does NOT mean, IN ANY WAY that the result is sound science. Plus, NO scientist would accept open source software merely on the grounds that it is open source. Being open source says NOTHING about results. It's purely a feature of how the software is developed.

It's your misunderstanding of software that is critical here.