The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says

As i have always said we have natural climate change. GW is a scam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html

 

No no no, a couple dozen trees on Colorado tell us that the Medieval warm period wasn't global.

Wrap your head around that logic.

 

Speaking of logic....

the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 so human CO2 cannot be responsible for current warming.

 

And by the same token, people died before guns were invented, therefore guns cannot be dangerous!

The Alice-in-Wonderland logic of the deniers never ceases to amuse.

 

Retreating glaciers show the evidence of medieval villages that flourished before the Little Ice Age.

The IPCC has failed to show that any warming has been caused by human activity.

Non-human caused warming does not preclude human-caused warming, but until you absolutely know why the non-human caused warming occurred, how can you know it is causing it now?

Just a bringing a capital case causes a jury to psychologically "raise the bar," a "remedy" for global warming that sticks it to the US consumer and worker for the aggrandizement of cronied corporations, big government, the corrupt UN and ideologues raises the bar that the proponents must clear. So far, they have not come close.

 

Change in total solar irradiance, 1980-2011, according to PMOD:
-0.21 W/m².

Change in greenhouse gas forcing, 1980-2011, according to NOAA:
+1.05 W/m².

What about this is beyond your comprehension?

 

1980 had an anomalous solar event that caused an extremely high peek in TSI.

We are in a prolonged minimum so you idea that an 11 average cancels things out is also bull(*)(*)(*)(*). 11 years ago TSI was at its maximum. The current cycle is 4 years delayed which is why some people suspect we are headed towards another prolonged minimum similar to the maunder or dalton.

I'm sorry but your approach is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

That's why I used and 11-year running average: to eliminate such events.

So what you're saying is: solar output has declined. Agreeing with me. Thanks for that.

Oh, and the "prolonged minimum" ended three years ago. PMOD data for December (latest available) shows that we're already above 1366 W/m².

Solar cycle 23 started in May 1996 and ended in December of 2008. That's a 12.6 year span, which is longer than average but not hugely abnormal. And it's certainly nothing like the "4-year delay" you're pretending exists.

Since you're the statistical expert, perhaps you can enlighten us all. What is the correct procedure to obtain smoothed data from a dataset that contains a cyclical variation?

 

Here's another quote from Dr. Zunli Lu of Syracuse University, responding to the Daily Mail article:

“The reporter of that Daily Mail article published it anyway, after we told him the angle that he chose misrepresents our work. “

More dishonesty from the denier camp. Par for the course, it seems.

 

Shows human blame has no basis

 

What never seems to amaze is your lack facts. The fact is warming and cooling is an on going climate change of nature not caused by man

 

Which proves nothing other than you have no proof man has caused anything

 

There has also been no warming

 

Great a global warming propaganda blog. Funny how he could not explain it but will later. I see no credibility or proof here

Peter Sinclair is as credible as Al Gore

 

Solar cycles are not a perfect 11 year cycle genius. Like I said 11 years ago was the maximum. The same point in the cycle we are at now occured 15 years ago.



This is one of the reasons your 11 year running average does not work. Its not a perfect 11 year cycle.

This is what it looks like 11 years ago.



As you can see 11 years ago is the near maximum of the last solar cycle. We are still in the forward minimum of the current cycle.

The more you write the more clear it is that you don't understand what you are writing about.

Yes for the present cycle it has. Which has also corresponded to an absolute flatlining of temperatures.



You warmmongers seem to base all your ideas around the false notion that temperatures have continued to increase.

No look at the above graph. The last solar cycle ended 3 years ago but we are till in the forward minimum of the current cycle 4 years too long. We are therefore in a prolonged minimum.

You clearly do not understand the data you are looking at.

If the period is not consistent you have to compare point to point. If you just use an approximate period as you did you can make the mistake of averaging a minimum and a maximum as you have clearly done.

There is no simple answer. Its a complex problem because of the randomness in the period of the wave form. Your instance to simplify it is also a microcosm of your view on AGW. The atmosphere is complex. There is much we do not know about it. Yet you insist that in absence of a more complete theory we have to accept AGW theory despite the fact that AGW theory is not consistent with the data. You say if not this then what else??? An alternate explanation is not needed to falsify an existing theory. For example Newtonian physics was falsified well before Einstein. Nor does an alternate theory need be more complete. Clouds and ocean cycles are largely unknown. The fact that they are largely unknown doesn't make them any less likely to be the cause of the warming than CO2.

 

Or Dr. Zunli is just intimidated to take a side. Its true that his study only points to Antarctica but it also contradicts previous climate reconstructions. Others can use his data as they see fit. After all Dr. Mann used tree rings specifically chosen by someone else because there were not influenced by temperature to show that the medieval warm period did not exist.

 

So you're saying the rise in greenhouse gases is not manmade?

What caused it then?

 

I'm surprised that a statistical guru such as yourself resorts to the eyeball-and-guess method. I asked you earlier for the correct procedure for smoothing a dataset with a cyclical term, and you have avoided the question.

Is your statistical expertise a sham?

I know of no proven method for predicting Wolf cycle length, so while it's possible cycle 24 will be as long as 15 years, as far as I'm concerned it's wait-and-see for that. If you're right, all you have done is to prove my point, which is that solar activity is declining (because longer cycle length = lower TSI).

Then the question becomes, since TSI is declining, why haven't temps declined too? In other words, what is holding temps steady in the face of declining TSI?

The answer, of course, is increasing greenhouse forcing.

Not at all. Temps have continued to increase, sea ice continues to decline, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt, OHC continues to rise, downward IR continues to increase, upwelling IR continues to decrease, the stratosphere continues to cool, winter continues to warm faster than summer, and nights continue to warm faster than days.

That's the data we're dealing with, and that's the data the consensus can explain.

Your side can't explain a bit of it.

This makes no sense. You want to average a min and a max, to eliminate the highs and lows.

Sounds like a sham to me. You could have specified moving average, exponential, double exponential, triple exponential, cubic spline, or gaussian smoothing. You could have specified Butterworth, Kalman, Laplacian, Savitzky-Golay, or any of half a dozen other smoothing techniques.

Instead, you punt and claim it's an impossible problem. I assure you, data smoothing is not only possible, it's done routinely at all levels of science.

The problem is, you don't know how to do it, so as far as you're concerned, it's impossible.

AGW is perfectly consistent with the data. And you have presented no data otherwise.

That statement may have been true 20 years ago, but not any more. Hundreds of papers on clouds and ocean cycles have been published in the past few decades, most of them increase our understanding, and none of them provide an explanation for the current warmth that's not based on greenhouse gases.

 

Fool, you want to average over the full cycle maximum to maximum or minimum to minimum or any two like points in between. Your 11 year average clearly averages over maximum to minimum so of course the trend is down. You are averaging over a 3/4 cycle.

Your method only works for a perfect sinusoid. TSI especially right now is not behaving like a perfect sinusoid.

And no its a hard problem because there are only 3 periods in the satellite record with one deviation. That isn't enough data.

 

You got a hot spot??? Nope!

Sorry AGW falsified. It cannot in theory warm the earth from the ground up. It warms from the tropopause down.

So TSI rising rising wasn't enough to cause the rising temperature but decreasing TSI is enough to totally counteract the greenhouse gas effect.

 

Fair enough, but if you average over the entire cycle regardless of length, here is what you get:

Cycle 21 (June 1976 through August 1986, 123 months): 1366.001 W/m²,
Cycle 22 (September 1986 through May 1996, 117 months): 1365.982 W/m².
Cycle 23 (June 1996 through December 2008, 151 months): 1365.828 W/m².

Which means solar activity has indeed declined by about 0.2 W/m² over the past 3 decades, as the moving average method indicates.

The SATIRE method has been validated to very tight tolerances compared to satellite data. It's pretty much standard nowadays for TSI reconstruction, and it's what I used above for the early part of cycle 21. Data is here.

 

Are there really any people trying to say that the earth can't warm naturally, or is that just a strawman argument?

Either way, past natural warmings don't prove that current warming trends can't be caused by, or compounded by, human activity.

 

Sorry, but you've been misinformed: the so-called hot spot is not a feature specific to AGW. You have still presented no data.

When was TSI rising?

 

LOL. I was pointing out how abysmal your logic was. Obviously you are too stupid to get it

 

I am saying many sources cause greenhouse gas. There is no proof greenhouse gas causes warming. What greenhouse gases caused warming in Medieval times?