The Sun-Climate Effect

Nonsense. The first chart from them that was posted used a dataset that they had munged with open source software that they had modified.

Yet, you want that source to counter the analysis of the world of climatological science, both here and abroad???

And, please note that SOME of their charts do show the warming that YOU deny.

 

That's not clear, as they claim they munge the data with open source software that they have modified.

That's not science unless scientists have reviewed it and agree.

But, that step has not happened.

 

This is what NASA says:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

Similar charts are available from numerous other groups that study climatology.

Why should I decide that all these sites are lying?

Why should I throw out all these sites and believe the open source munged woodfortrees charts when some show a rapidly increasing land&sea surface temperature of Earth and other charts that don't seen to show that.

Here's what Hadcrut data looks like (southern hemisphere, northern hemisphere, global as labeled):

That certainly does NOT show cooling since 2015.

 

Your dishonesty is off the charts because you start from 1850 while I start from 2015 onwards secondly your GISS chart show no warming from about 2016 onwards shown HERE LINK

You need to see an eye doctor as you keep shooting yourself in the foot by YOUR own charts which keeps supporting my claim over and over look at the black square blocks from 2021 going backwards to 2015.

Which is lower 2021 or 2015?

Snicker......



===

This is Hadcru4 based chart with data from the Met Office:



LINK

You failed to post the link to Hadcrut5 chart.

I haven't once disputed the current warming trend which is .12C/decade by UAH and about .18C HadCrut4 since 1979 date.

Your accusations against wood for trees software and the charts it generates from the official databases are absurd since you never made a case against at all just a few vague words about "munging" claims which haven't explained at all.

You still didn't address UAH6 at all either.

 

The same open software he doesn't change they are used as it is, you really need to stop promoting falsehoods over and over as they hurt you badly.

 

2021 is clearly higher than 2015 in that chart.

More importantly, one has to look at the average over some period of time, such as is shown by the red line.

I don't know what hadcrut4gl means. I've shown hadcrut5, the current dataset. I don't know what the "gl" is.

It appears that the gl is big, as the difference between hadcrut4 and hadcrut4gl is huge.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I got that by googling hadcrut.

Remember that woodfortrees states that they use open source software that they have modified.

UAH is NOT surface temperature.

 

The primary evidence is that they post charts of known datasets where the chart looks nothing like what other sites show.

The only issue is knowing exactly what they did.

The catch with that is that they don't label their charts well enough to follow that up, and they don't state their process well enough to determine that, either.

They do say they use open source software that THEY have modified. That might be OK if they got their software changes reviewed by an independent agency that knows these datasets.

The bottom line is that I'm not likely to accept woodfortrees if it means tossing out the product of all other climatologists. Who has reviewed woodfortrees? Why are their charts of the same datasets different?

 

False from front to back.

 

Yes, they all do, since 2016.

 

Will Read More writes in the quotes:

Your claim is false as you never show this, and you haven't made a case that wood for trees is cheating or lying with the software either and you still show complete ignorance on those software's as they are made to work in a specific way not subject to code changes except to upgrade it to a newer version over time as PHP has done over the years when I started using a forum in 2009 it was at the version 3 level now it is at 7.5 level.

Excellent proof that you didn't look in the link I posted, it means GLOBAL (gl)

No 2021 is LOWER than 2015 and the chart makes it clear here:



Go backwards starting with 2021 and end up in 2015 that is HIGHER on the chart.

It was on YOU to provide the link for the charts YOU posted.

True but it is misleading because surface temperature measuring stations only measure at the 5-foot level and that is all while Satellite data covers almost all of the atmosphere where weather forms in a far more comprehensive coverage of the atmosphere than a single 5 foot above ground layer which is also in the atmosphere.

The AGW conjecture states that a lower troposphere should see a predicted after 30 years of a hot spot in it which surface temperature stations can't measure but satellites and Radio Sonde does, and it still doesn't show up.... haw haw haw a definitive failure of the AGW twilight zone prediction club.

Wikipedia LINK

"The troposphere is the first and lowest layer of the atmosphere of the Earth, and contains 75% of the total mass of the planetary atmosphere, 99% of the total mass of water vapour and aerosols, and is where most weather phenomena occur.[1] From the planetary surface of the Earth, the average height of the troposphere is 18 km (11 mi; 59,000 ft) in the tropics; 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) in the middle latitudes; and 6 km (3.7 mi; 20,000 ft) in the high latitudes of the polar regions in winter; thus the average height of the troposphere is 13 km (8.1 mi; 43,000 ft)."

Satellites are far superior to surface-based stations because they cover most of the atmosphere to within 15-degree Latitude of North and South Polar regions.

You seem to rely on the very worst temperature data sets from PISS who has repeatedly changed their data for many years now heck their own charts they have published showed it obviously.

 

I showed you several time that you can't alter most of the listed codes or they quickly fail your abject ignorance is fast becoming legend heck YOU can't even show where these alleged modifications are you accuse wood for trees website and that PHP is a specific software that can work in only one way but your ignorance doesn't allow you to realize it.

Wikipedia LINK

bolding mine

My forum is using PHP 7.41 version.

No, it is your total absence of evidence on your part that is destroying your credibility where is it fella waiting, waiting, waiting for YOU to back up your claim for many postings now.

You go on and on and on with your falsehoods which have been pointed out by several people and you are ignoring it.

 

Uh, no. Opensource software doesn't mean anybody can get into the code base and "munge" about. The code base, often two or more levels, is carefully protected and to get commit permission requires quite a bit of work - usually a resume'/CV examples of your work, etc.

 

He doesn't realize how exhaustive open source software is, and that changing stuff requires a solid understanding on the coding effect which the owner of wood for trees website admits he lacks.

 

Yeah, he keeps using this word "munge" but he hasn't explained what was munged and how. Can't be the data - the charts show same cooling, nor can it be the codebase.

 

It depends who's looking....

 

Cooling since 2016 is undeniable.

 

Whichever you want it to be

Of course it is. Wave that wand ~!

 

I prefer this presentation.



I'd prefer even more for you to engage the theme of the thread.

 

Of course you do.

Speak for yourself. The last page was all about cooling between 2016 and 2021.

If I see anything worth commenting on regarding The Sun-Climate Effect, I'll be sure to chime in.

I'll get even more excited if any future title says something a little more specific

 

It's about the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis, presented in six parts in Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. The six parts are presented in the thread. The first post in the thread is Part One.

 

There's no need. All I need to keep track of is the Earth's temperature and solar activity. If there are any notable changes that question AGW then we can discuss alternative theories.

 

From the concluding (sixth) part of the presentation:
". . . 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. . . ."

 

LOL,

You can't even line up the years with me as you start in year 1998 which is indeed warming while I started in 2015 which is COOLING your friend starts at 1850...... Haw haw haw you people can't start at 2015 for some reason.

The skeptical escalator is dishonest and misleading as skeptics KNOWS it is warming since 1979, here is an expose of it here LINK

Bob Tisdale

SkepticalScience Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator”

and this showing what else SKS leaves out and that the Solar connection is real:

SkepticalScience Needs to Update their Escalator



LINK

El-Nino's are the cause of warming and flat to cooling in between them, that is the reality of a sun fueled warming.

 

Nonsense. You have provided no evidence for such a claim. There are different datasets, and different ways of graphing them, but if you read the labels, the graphs of the same datasets are saying the same things.

No, the issue is knowing what you are looking at.

Nonsense.

Do you think they have "modified" the graphing software to change the data in the graph??

There is no such implication.

They aren't different in what they say, just how they look. And that's just a matter of fine-tuning the parameters of the graphing software to make the most relevant features of the data more visible.

Not rocket science.

 

There are many different measures of both, and they give different results and have different implications. AGW theory requires use of cherry-picked measures and dismissal, elimination, or alteration of measures that are not consistent with AGW theory.

As climate change has always been natural in the past, the scientifically responsible and legitimate approach is to assume that it is also natural now. AGW is therefore a hypothesis that requires natural factors be ruled out. The claims by AGW proponents that all natural factors have been ruled out are actually unscientific nonsense. For example, they have not ruled out solar factors, merely demanded that all of them other than TSI be ignored.