The Sun-Climate Effect

But they do not say what you claim they say.

Nope.

 

Nope.

Nope.

 

Your problem, maybe.

That's not scientists' job.

 

Sorry, an algorithm is only a plan of attack. It means nothing if not implemented in the software. There isn't any other way for the algorithm to become operational.

 

Bull. I posted the HadCRUT5, and I'll do it here again.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis.pdf

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

It is their dataset.

That does NOT show cooling since 2015. It shows Earth has been steadily warming since the beginning of the industrial age - which makes sense, since that is when humans began emitting CO2 in huge amounts.

I've been TOTALLY correct about what woodfortrees does.

 

LOL. They were copied and pasted from the woodfortrees site.

How about going to that site and searching on what I posted.

 

Yes, it actually is.

Science doesn't get published without review.

And, you should not be basing your argument on a toolset that has not been reviewed.

 

No doubt to the minds of skeptics, when the temperature rebounds again to fresh highs it will simply be the beginning of another cooling period... Let's mark this thread.

 

Here's a decent account that's not too complex for amateur scholars 1, 2 and 3 to understand:

However, the blog is misleading. It cherry-picks data from a short time frame that does not reflect the overall warming trend documented by multiple climate monitoring agencies. It also leaves out key context that explains the downward trend in the last few years...../

Blog references warm, recent "baseline"
The blog references data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) dataset, which reports temperatures recorded by instruments on a collection of satellites from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and European. UAH houses data dating back to 1978...../


The blog says February 2022 temperatures did not exceed that of the UAH dataset's "30-year baseline." This is accurate – with a caveat.

It is common practice for climate data agencies to report global temperatures as variations from a stated baseline, rather than reporting actual temperature values. Different baselines may be used depending on both the agency and the context in which the data is being reported.

The UAH dataset currently reports monthly temperature changes compared to a 1991-2020 baseline.


This timeframe – which itself reflects temperatures demonstrably higher than the pre-industrial era – is currently recommended by World Meteorological Organization as a "standard reference.


However, contrary to the blog's claims, this finding does not contradict the overall warming trend reported by multiple climate science agencies.

This is because, while global temperatures are rising due to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, the climate is also subject to natural variability, Ahira Sánchez-Lugo, a NOAA climatologist, previously told USA TODAY.


One example of this variability is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation – a natural phenomenon that can cause short-term warming or cooling of global temperatures.

These warming and cooling phases are referred to as El Niño and La Niña, respectively.

In 2016, a very strong El Niño contributed to record high global temperatures. Since then, four La Niñas have contributed to comparatively lower temperatures, Sánchez-Lugo said.


Even though the years since 2016 have been among the warmest on record, the fact that most are not as warm as 2016 itself results in the appearance of a "downward trend."

Similar short-term "downward trends" occurred in global temperatures after the 1998, 2007 and 2010 El Niños, Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told USA TODAY. However, these were merely fluctuations in a consistent warming trend that continues to the present.


The existence of a statistically significant warming trend does not require that every month or year be warmer than all previous months or years, he said in an email.

Defending the blog post, author Cap Allon attributed temperature changes to low solar activity.

"Earth's lower tropospheric temperatures have fallen dramatically since their 2016 peak, in line with historically low solar activity, while all the while CO2 levels have been increasing exponentially," Allon told USA TODAY in an email.

Some critics of the human-driven climate change concept say that fluctuations in sun intensity are actually responsible for global warming. However, the sun's irradiance has decreased over the past few decades while temperatures have risen sharply.

According to both NASA and NOAA, solar fluctuation could only account for a small fraction of warming since the pre-industrial era.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...oling-influenced-el-nino-la-ninas/7067688001/

 

Not exactly, as explained here.
Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

 

Not exactly, as explained here.
Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

 

Based on the correct baseline, there is no cooling period.

 

As you wish.

 

No, it actually isn't.

Thanks for proving you know nothing whatever about it. Science is a method, not some editor's publication criteria.

My argument is not based on any "toolset." You just proved you don't know any science again.

 

What baseline do you claim is "correct," and on what basis?

 

But they still do not say what you claimed they say.

How about comparing what you said it said with what it actually said?

 

Classic RED HERRING LINK post since no one disputes it has been warming since the mid 1800's or that no one disputed that it has been warming since the late 1970's either what you are doing is being dishonest when you do this useless tripe since there isn't dispute in the first place the problem YOU have is you can't accept the well supported fact that it has been COOLING the last 6+ years.

Your own charts don't agree with you as the last few years on the charts YOU post show no warming on it the last 6+ years.

Why don't YOU post a Hadcrut5 chart that starts in 2016?

Here is a chart from climate4you



Math reality for you to agonize over:

2016 peak was 1.2C to August 2022 current level of .75C which is about .7C COOLER today than it was in 2016 and the running average doesn't show any increase after 2016 either.

UAH6 shows a change DOWNWARD trend since 2016:



Which is a .42C COOLING change and the running mean showed a drop since 2016.

NCDC chart:



You ignored the NCDC chart Jack posted showing a distinct drop since 2016 which means YOU are batting 0-4 on charts as they all show a drop since 2016 even PISS does as they show a .45C drop since 2016.



LINK to the charts

 

Those who publish serious science require all papers submitted to meet various criteria. One such criterion is that they be reviewed by serious scientists not involved in the paper.

That IS part of the process of science.

If there were a serious science paper that countered the common understanding, it would be FAMOUS.

The greatest rewards in science come from that kind of discovery.

In fact, the superconducting super collider that verified the Higgs particle was built to BREAK the standard model of physics. That is an indication of how serious scientists are about falsifying even the most thoroughly accepted theory.

 

You are missing stuff like the fact that atmospheric temperatures (such as what some of your charts show) is not the same as surface temperatures.

I have NO idea of who these folks at climate4you might be or what credentials they might have.

So, again, suggesting that what they say should be accepted as a reason to reject the entire world of climatology is just plain ridiculous.

In fact, their "About This Website" statement shows a number of serious problems here.



How come you can not find serious, accredited climatologists to back your personal views? Why are you constantly looking for those who do NOT have serious credentials or who actually admit that portions of what they say are "constructed around some of the webmaster's personal interpretations of certain data series" - as climate4you states?

Aren't you just searching for self confirmation?

 

You can find many 5-year periods in this graph where the temperature drops - yet the overall trend is clearly positive.

As I said before, maybe its dozens of times now, let's check back again in 5 years and see how that graph is going.

 

Your ignorance is horrid, and you didn't bother to click on the link where all the charts came from which has links to the database websites.

"In the temperature diagrams below, the thick line represents the running 37 month average and the thin line the monthly temperature. Both values are the result of a number of mathematical manipulations with the original temperature data, and especially so the running average. In the text below each diagram you will find a link enabling you to download and analyze the data yourself. All diagrams below are using the same temperature scale, to enable easy visual comparison."

bolding mine
=====

This is the entire Hadcrut5 chart and the supporting links below it as shown at climate4you.com LINK




Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The thin line represents the monthly values, while the thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. An introduction to the dataset has been published by Brohan et al. (2005). Lower down the present page you will find a graph showing the entire series since 1850. Base period: 1961-1990. Last month shown: July 2022. Last diagram update: 8 September 2022.

• Click here or here to download the series of estimated HadCRUT5 global monthly surface air temperature anomalies since 1850.
  
  
• Click here to read a description of the data file format.
  
  
• Click here to see a maturity diagram for the HadCRUT data series.
  
  
• Click here to read about data smoothing.
  
  
• Click here to open a web interface to all the weather station data used by the Hadley Centre, a very useful facility developed by Clive Best, also known for his blog. Please note that the stations are split into 3 groups. 1) those going back to before 1860 2) Those going back to between 1860 and 1930 3) Those with data going back later than 1930. The last option is all stations together - but is very slow to load (>5000 stations). Drag a rectangle to zoom in. Click on a station to see the graph of temperatures and anomalies.

October 2, 2014: Please note that HadCRUT4 was released in a new version (HadCRUT.4.3.0.0). The main changes introduced by this new version is a decrease of temperatures 1850-1875 and an increase affecting observations since 2005. For further details of this version change click here.


===

The Scientist himself:

Ole Humlum

• 
  
  
  • Professor of Physical Geography at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, since 2003.
  
  
  • Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), since 2003.

LINK

 

All those charts are from standard databases accepted by all climate scientists everywhere.
UAH measures lower troposphere temperature. The lower troposphere begins at the surface.

 

Suits me. My prediction has always been that CO2 will continue to increase, and temperature will not. I also predict that the sustained high solar activity of the 20th century will ultimately be accepted as the main cause of the increase in global surface temperature. The mechanism Jack's posts have described may be the reason, or there may be something else going on.

But I repeat: What baseline do you claim is "correct," and on what basis?

 

Yet another red herring claim you made since NO ONE here disputes a long-term warming trend which I myself stated several times in the thread.

The current COOLING trend is 7 years long which so many warmist/alarmists quickly deny as if the word COOLING is a haunted word to them, they reject it on sight then post a chart covering last 150 years which your fellow member did several times in the thread and say it has been warming which no one here disputes.

At least Melb_muser acknowledges a number of short cooling trends, good for you!

Meanwhile it is strong El-nino phases is where the step up warming comes in then flat to cooling trend for a few year until the next strong El-nino comes along which I showed earlier in the thread at POST 98 LINK that is continually ignored that shows the clear SUN/Ocean driver of warming spikes and this according to Dr. Trenberth.

CO2 isn't driving the warming it is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that is doing it clearly evident by CERES Satellite data LINK



From NASA/Ceres LINK

"Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. These quantities–together with their difference–define Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project provides satellite-based observations of ERB and clouds. It uses measurements from CERES instruments flying on several satellites along with data from many other instruments to produce a comprehensive set of ERB data products for climate, weather and applied science research."

 

I know a rabbit hole when I see one.

YOU are saying there is a cooling trend. If only it weren't based on cherry-picked data.