Solar variability weakens the Walker cell

sun spot
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

An international team of researchers from United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany has found robust evidence for signatures of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the tropical Pacific. They analyzed historical time series of pressure, surface winds and precipitation with specific focus on the Walker Circulation—a vast system of atmospheric flow in the tropical Pacific region that affects patterns of tropical rainfall. They have revealed that during periods of increased solar irradiance, the trade winds weaken and the Walker circulation shifts eastward.

Stergios Misios, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford, said, "We deal with a very short record of observations in the tropical Pacific, and we must be very careful with how we filter out other interannual fluctuations. After a careful treatment of the data covering the last 60 years, we detected a robust slowdown of the Walker cell during years associated with solar-cycle maxima." The analysis shows that in tandem with changes in the wind anomalies, the dominant patterns of tropical precipitation shift to the central Pacific during solar-cycle maxima. As a result, rainfall decreases over Indonesia and in the western Pacific, and increases over the central Pacific Ocean.

Simple mechanisms amplify the solar signal

The issue of solar influences on climate is long and controversial, as there have been numerous claims that did not survive proper statistical scrutiny in most cases. But besides statistical verification lies an even more challenging problem: How could miniscule changes in incoming solar radiation produce significant climate signatures?

"Soon enough, we realized that the magnitude of the wind anomalies that we detected in observations simply could not be explained by radiative considerations alone. We thought that if it comes from the sun, there must be another mechanism that amplifies the weakening of the Walker circulation," said Prof. Lesley Gray of University of Oxford. With the aid of a global climate model, this mechanism was found in the dynamical coupling between the atmosphere and ocean circulation in the tropical Pacific.

Averaged over the globe, the surface temperature imprint of the solar cycle barely reaches 0.1 K in a solar maximum—almost eight times weaker than the global warming trends observed in the 20th century. Yet, even such a weak surface warming influences the Walker circulation through changes in global hydrology. As the surface warms, water vapor in the atmosphere increases at a higher rate than is lost by precipitation, necessitating a weakening of the Walker cell. This is a well-tested mechanism in model simulations of increased CO2 concentrations but it turns out that is operating under the 11-year solar cycle, too.

S. Misios said, "Our model showed westerly wind anomalies in the Pacific region even when we considered only changes in global hydrology, but the magnitude was far too weak. We hypothesized that atmosphere-ocean coupling, essentially the Bjerknes feedback, can amplify the solar signal."

Using a climate model forced by the 11-year solar cycle alone, researchers found the evidence to support their hypothesis. Their showed much stronger anomalies in the Pacific. They proposed that changes in global hydrology and the Bjerknes feedback mediate solar cycle influences on the Tropical Pacific. The researchers now hope that if the interplay between those mechanisms is properly represented by other climate models, it could give potential to improve the accuracy of decadal predictions in that region.


Explore further

Study of cloud cover in tropical Pacific reveals future climate changes

More information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1815060116
Provided by Aarhus University
Citation: Solar variability weakens the Walker cell (2019, March 29) retrieved 25 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-solar-variability-weakens-walker-cell.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
155 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 29, 2019
Another factor that is completely ignored in climate models. All climate models are woefully incomplete in the treatment of the Sun/Earth system, as such any and all conclusions based on those models are completely wrong. Those who claim the science is settled are lying and rely on the antithesis of scientific reasoning.

Mar 30, 2019
Another factor that is completely ignored in climate models. All climate models are woefully incomplete in the treatment of the Sun/Earth system, as such any and all conclusions based on those models are completely wrong. Those who claim the science is settled are lying and rely on the antithesis of scientific reasoning.


Nonsense. The Solar output is obviously taken into account in climate models. Stop lying.

Mar 30, 2019
Nonsense. The Solar output is obviously taken into account in climate models. Stop lying.

Obviously jonesdumb didn't read the article above which says this factor wasn't accounted for in previous models. There are numerous other factors that are also misrepresented or unaccounted for as well.
From the article;
"The researchers now hope that if the interplay between those mechanisms is properly represented by other climate models..."
And the paper;
"We show that this is initiated by a thermodynamical response of the global hydrological cycle to surface warming, further amplified by atmosphere–ocean coupling, leading to larger positive ocean temperature anomalies in the equatorial Pacific than expected from simple radiative forcing considerations."
So as usual, it is jonesdumb who is lying again.

Mar 30, 2019
@pseudoscience cult acolyte
didn't read the article above which says this factor wasn't accounted for in previous models
it doesn't matter what a singular article says when the evidence states otherwise

just searching for "solar irradiance variability in climate science" gives the following
Meehl (2002)
Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005)
Haigh (1996)
Shindell, Rind et al (1999)
plus "About 190,000 results" in the scholarly literature alone

so what about your "the Sun/Earth system"?
searching for "solar-terrestrial relations climate" reveals About 13,200 results, and that includes some of your denial site PDF's along with their debunking

it also demonstrated papers from history like Eddy (1977), Siscoe (1978), Anderson (1961), Schove (1964 - which deals with equatorial climates)

so as we can see, your comment is blatantly false

so, to use your own words: "as usual, it is cantdrive85 who is lying again"


Mar 30, 2019
Another factor that is completely ignored in climate models. All climate models are woefully incomplete in the treatment of the Sun/Earth system, as such any and all conclusions based on those models are completely wrong. Those who claim the science is settled are lying and rely on the antithesis of scientific reasoning.


Nonsense. The Solar output is obviously taken into account in climate models. Stop lying.


You said;

All climate models are woefully incomplete in the treatment of the Sun/Earth system,


Which is a total lie.

Mar 30, 2019
Another factor that is completely ignored in climate models. All climate models are woefully incomplete in the treatment of the Sun/Earth system, as such any and all conclusions based on those models are completely wrong. Those who claim the science is settled are lying and rely on the antithesis of scientific reasoning.


Nonsense. The Solar output is obviously taken into account in climate models. Stop lying.


You said;

All climate models are woefully incomplete in the treatment of the Sun/Earth system,


Which is a total lie.

No, it is completely accurate, per the above article. The article which describes but one example of the numerous deficiencies in climate models. To claim it is still settled science in the face of articles such as this is completely disingenuous.

Mar 30, 2019

No, it is completely accurate, per the above article. The article which describes but one example of the numerous deficiencies in climate models. To claim it is still settled science in the face of articles such as this is completely disingenuous.


Wrong. You don't understand the science, and your opinion is therefore worthless. We do not need wooists, who believe the Sun is powered by invisible currents, to tell us what is and isn't a good model. Stick to screwing up mythology.

Mar 30, 2019
So, let us inspect the abstract to see where cd is misunderstanding (deliberately?) this paper to press his anti-science agenda;

Blah, blah, blah, solar cycle, 11 years, Walker circulation, blah, blah,............................................
Demonstration of this mechanism acting on the 11-y SC timescale ***adds confidence in model predictions that the same mechanism also weakens the PWC under increasing greenhouse gas forcing***.


Comprehension is not a strong point for EU wooists. By definition. Otherwise, they wouldn't believe the rubbish that they do.

Mar 30, 2019
They are discussing this model which includes this variable that previous models didn't consider, and yes of course they are framing it under AGWite perspectives, else the paper wouldn't have been published. Regardless, the crux of the story is this previously unreported variable, for which it would be anti-scientific to claim this being the only unreported variable.

Mar 30, 2019
They are discussing this model which includes this variable that previous models didn't consider, and yes of course they are framing it under AGWite perspectives, else the paper wouldn't have been published. Regardless, the crux of the story is this previously unreported variable, for which it would be anti-scientific to claim this being the only unreported variable.


Wrong. You lied about their conclusions. They are only working on a decadal model, based on the solar cycle. And they say it also agrees with the models looking at longer term trends based on increased AGW. If you can't understand a simple paper, and have to lie about it, it is no wonder you follow the Saturnist loons.

Mar 30, 2019
.....searching for "solar-terrestrial relations climate" reveals About 13,200 results....

Hey Cap'n StumPid, how's that search for a single pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, the AGW cult preach about.

Mar 30, 2019
.....searching for "solar-terrestrial relations climate" reveals About 13,200 results....

Hey Cap'n StumPid, how's that search for a single pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, the AGW cult preach about.


Why wouldn't it be? CO2 is a GHG. Even an idiot could figure out that increasing the amount in the atmosphere is going to cause warming.

Mar 30, 2019
@cantdrive85.

In this instance @Castrogiovanni is correct and you incorrect, mate. The study merely uncovers a new correlation in shorter term cycles. This just adds another such to the many already known to result in the short term variability in climate patterns which is already a feature of climate on Earth over millennia. This newfound short term variable factor in NO WAY changes the LONGER TERM TRENDING observed in reality NOW all over the globe. So, please try to not jump to conclusions and attribute longterm significance to short term factors which already factor into the Earth's previous/current dynamical patterns. The reality is that the LONGER TERM PATTERNS are being DESTABILISED by additional retained energy which would otherwise have escaped to space. It is this extra energy that, regardless of its TEMPORARY cycling through various TRANSIENT BUFFER systems (ie, ocean/land/air and chemical/biological processes etc) creates more violent mixing/storms etc.

Mar 31, 2019
Nonsense. The Solar output is obviously taken into account in climate models. Stop lying.


Oh BS, The Sun is not in climate models.Stop being a fool just to argue with cantdrive85.

Mar 31, 2019
Nonsense. The Solar output is obviously taken into account in climate models. Stop lying.


Oh BS, The Sun is not in climate models.Stop being a fool just to argue with cantdrive85.


Yes it is. Want some links? Check your facts before commenting.

Apr 02, 2019
I distinctly remember that one of the UN IPCC reports on climate change claimed that variations in the sun's output were non consequential. No mention of the effects of the 11 year sunspot cycle have been included in the models either.

These computer models are nothing but propaganda tools that were hacked together to "predict" the desired results.

Apr 02, 2019
As every new weather catastrophe presents itself another few lines of code are added to an existing model which then "predicts" said catastrophe.

Apr 02, 2019
I distinctly remember that one of the UN IPCC reports on climate change claimed that variations in the sun's output were non consequential. No mention of the effects of the 11 year sunspot cycle have been included in the models either.

These computer models are nothing but propaganda tools that were hacked together to "predict" the desired results.


Stupid comment. The 11 year cycle is irrelevant to long term predictions. And will be included in models anyway. The total solar irradiance is measured and plotted. As are reconstructions from the past based on proxy data. You really should check your facts before spouting conspiracist crap such as you have.

https://www.skept...nced.htm

Apr 02, 2019
"Stupid comment. The 11 year cycle is irrelevant to long term predictions."

Not really, long term sunspot cycles are though to have created long term climate change by some.

Apr 02, 2019
Stupid comment. The 11 year cycle is irrelevant to long term predictions

This is the stupid comment, almost as stupid as the one where you claimed you aren't ignorant of anything.

Apr 02, 2019
Stupid comment. The 11 year cycle is irrelevant to long term predictions

This is the stupid comment, almost as stupid as the one where you claimed you aren't ignorant of anything.


Elucidate. You know nothing about the science, so back up your lies with facts.

Apr 02, 2019
"Stupid comment. The 11 year cycle is irrelevant to long term predictions."

Not really, long term sunspot cycles are though to have created long term climate change by some.


Then you'll be able to link to the relevant papers, yes?

Apr 02, 2019
here is a whole lotta solar
https://www.youtu...OcaqCzxo

Apr 02, 2019
@mr
Not really, long term sunspot cycles are though to have created long term climate change by some
in all fairness, it's also believed by some that going outside with a wet head leads to the flu

IOW - just because it's believed doesn't mean there is any evidence supporting the belief (see also: any religion, anywhere)

my historical conversation to you about the Sun (and the IPCC report) was something like
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
to which I provided at least a dozen studies like:
Huber and Knutti (2011), Svensmark (1998), Meehl (2004), Schurer et al. (2013), etc


Apr 02, 2019
here is a whole lotta solar
https://www.youtu...OcaqCzxo


Papers, please. I don't do youtube.

Apr 02, 2019
@snooze
here is a whole lotta solar
https://www.youtu...OcaqCzxo
here's a legit question:
Why is it that all the "fatal flaws" you present about the science are only in the form of speculation?

you (and others) argue that climate science is flawed or biased and it's not legit, but you can't actually provide scientific evidence for this. you have youtube, speculation, conspiracy, and other claims, but you have yet to actually provide studies and subsequent validation from the science

that speaks volumes

IOW - it demonstrates that your argument is one of faith or belief, not of science

Apr 02, 2019
here is a whole lotta solar
https://www.youtu...OcaqCzxo


Papers, please. I don't do youtube.


Nope, don't bother! Just clicked on it to see who was saying this - Ben Davidson! Lol. A lawyer with no science qualifications. The electric universe morons are fond of him. Tells you everything you need to know.

Apr 02, 2019
Hey Cap'n StumPid.
here's a legit question:
Why is it that all the "studies" you present about the science are only in the form of speculation?

Stumps, you keep bragging about the thousands of studies, yet you cannot provide a single one that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.

that speaks volumes
IOW - it demonstrates that your argument is one of faith or belief, not of science

Apr 02, 2019
Stumpers , i see your world view , human affairs [do?] proceed in an orderly manner based on as much rationality as we can muster, a defense against chaos.
My world view , such an effort is only ever partially successfull given that vested interests are sometimes affected by possible outcomes

Apr 02, 2019
That was a great presentation that you linked Snooze. An open minded person would want to at least look at it.

Apr 02, 2019
@antig the trolling illiterate
you keep bragging about the thousands of studies, yet you cannot provide a single one that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for
asked and answered multiple times in multiple threads

just because you can't read doesn't mean they don't exist

.

@Snooze
i see your world view
no, you don't, actually
My world view , such an effort is only ever partially successfull ...
[sic] - invalid argument

your argument only works under the assumption that climate science is isolated to a specific few sequestered in a small area of influence - it's not. it's global and spans countries and cultures that can't agree on the tastiness of bacon

Science is based upon evidence
given that neither you nor any other anti-AGW believer has presented an evidentiary argument then it stands to reason you're arguing from dogma and belief, not evidence
res ipsa loquitur (a legal term, but relevant nonetheless)

Apr 02, 2019
@mr
That was a great presentation
not really
it's an opinion wrapped in a conspiracy and other misleading or false claims
An open minded person would want to at least look at it
what makes you think I've not seen it?

more to the point: what makes you think he's correct?

because youtube has such strict standards of peer review?

or is it because it resonates with what you believe already and you're seeking a means to justify your beliefs?

Apr 02, 2019
@antig the trolling illiterate
you keep bragging about the thousands of studies, yet you cannot provide a single one that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for
asked and answered multiple times in multiple threads

just because you can't read doesn't mean they don't exist

LMAO.
More like, asked and brayed.
Multiple times in multiple threads and yet you can't produce a single one.
Try again, StumPid.

Apr 02, 2019
@antig the trolling illiterate Equus africanus asinus
More like, asked and brayed
thank you for finally admitting that not only have I posted these to you but that you didn't read them, you don't understand them and you won't read them even if I repeat the links for you *yet again*

enjoy your trolling


Apr 02, 2019
That was a great presentation that you linked Snooze. An open minded person would want to at least look at it.


Not if it was the idiot Ben Davidson it wasn't! Lol. A complete crank. Tell the idiot to write it up, like real scientists have to do.

Apr 02, 2019
@antig the trolling illiterate Equus africanus asinus
More like, asked and brayed
thank you for finally admitting that not only have I posted these to you but that you didn't read them, you don't understand them and you won't read them even if I repeat the links for you *yet again*

enjoy your trolling


LMAO.
All this HAWW...HEE...from the Cap'n StumPid, just to deflect from the truth.
All you ever did was post one, which, from its opening paragraph, proved my point. You then disappeared down your cesspool of ignorance, only to surface days later, to soil the forum with your LYING shite.
Keep LYING and BRAYING, StumPid, you're only fooling yourself.

Apr 02, 2019
''it's global and spans countries and cultures that can't agree on the tastiness of bacon''

belief in a god is also global does that make it true , or climate skepticism is also global does that make it true ?

''Science is based upon evidence''

your science is based on rejecting evidence


Apr 02, 2019
@antig the trolling illiterate Equus africanus asinus
Keep LYING and BRAYING,... you're only fooling yourself.
erm... you mean lying like, perhaps, saying
you can't produce a single one
but then turning around and admitting, in your very next post, that
All you ever did was post one
LOL

you've literally just proven that you're "LYING and BRAYING just to deflect from the truth", which "proved my point"

thanks!

Oh, and BTW: no validated studies have ever been linked proving your point

I guess this is where you disappear "down your cesspool of ignorance, only to surface days later, to soil the forum with your LYING shite"?

Given that you can't produce evidence for your claims, and you've literally just proven me correct in your own words, I'll not need to respond further
LMFAO

Apr 02, 2019
@snoose
belief in a god is also global does that make it true , or climate skepticism is also global does that make it true ?
great examples because that is exactly my point

Neither of the above examples you stated is true (as in: real, factual, etc); they're only believed

hence my point of res ipsa
your argument only works if there is a conspiracy
neither your belief nor proof of a conspiracy exists, much like proof for a religion
therefore it speaks for itself that neither can be true as no proof exists to validate either belief
your science is based on rejecting evidence
actually, no

it is logical to reject that which cannot be proven and subsequently validated
dismissal of unvalidatable evidence is smart, otherwise, you end up a belief system like a religion, like the eu or other conspiracy theories


Apr 02, 2019
''it's global and spans countries and cultures that can't agree on the tastiness of bacon''

belief in a god is also global does that make it true , or climate skepticism is also global does that make it true ?

''Science is based upon evidence''

your science is based on rejecting evidence



What evidence? Come on woo boy - show us. Not some crap arse video from a non-scientist - real scientific evidence from real scientists. Otherwise take a hike back to lala land.

Apr 02, 2019
@snoose
''Science is based upon evidence''

your science is based on rejecting evidence
I've posted this in the past in other threads, but it's relevant so I will post this yet again:

If you make a claim without evidence, then the counterclaim (reciprocal) without evidence holds the exact same validity. If you say something *is* without being able to prove it with evidence than simply saying something *is not* is equally valid and holds the same truth.

the claim PLUS physical evidence supporting claim PLUS it must be compatible with observation AND past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudiced, biased or wrong, it is *required* by the scientific method

.

see also: http://www.auburn...ion.html


Apr 02, 2019
S , then you have confirmed that your world view is one of uncorrupted order in the world of science at least , also you have often cited US law as though that is how it actually works or that bureaucratic mandates are always followed.

''it is logical to reject that which cannot be proven and subsequently validated
dismissal of unvalidatable evidence is smart, otherwise, you end up a belief system like a religion, like the eu or other conspiracy theories''

exactly the state of climate science [ is the EU a conspiricy theory !! ? ]

Apr 02, 2019
@Captain,
The problem here is that we seem to be dealing with scientific illiterates. I've recently had this 'discussion' elsewhere. All they can provide are links to videos and websites. No science. Usually well known cranks. It is easily shown to be wrong, but takes time, because we'll scour the literature, and read it, whilst they'll just carry on posting crap.

Apr 02, 2019
@snoose
then you have confirmed that your world view is one of uncorrupted order in the world of science at least
no, I haven't
I'm not ignorant of corruption, I just have the perspective of:
1- evidence over belief
2- the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

given the two together, I cannot accept your argument of conspiracy without compelling evidence equivalent to the scientific evidence presented in the studies that directly refute your claims
also you have often cited US law as though that is how it actually works or that bureaucratic mandates are always followed
and the legal system as a whole isn't driven by evidence - it's driven by the rule of law, culture and societal rules. Adjudication is driven by evidence and the rule of law

To quote wiki: "The phrase "the rule of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule"

Apr 02, 2019
is the EU a conspiricy theory !! ?


Electric universe? It sure as hell isn't science. Mostly Velikovskian crap. And they do have a conspiracist mindset. In other words, anything that shows their puerile, mythology-based nonsense to be wrong, must be due to scientists (who have never heard of their cult) fiddling the data. They score high on the Crackpot Index. And low on IQ scores.

Apr 02, 2019
castro , lol, my error , wasn't thinking of that [ i never do ]

Apr 02, 2019
@snoose
exactly the state of climate science
and again: no it's not

you're assuming that the state of climate science isn't influenced by other fields whereas it requires other fields to exist: physics, thermodynamics, maths, biology, geology, etc ad nauseum

to assume that all fields have been successfully infiltrated and accepted a global conspiracy is nonsensical, especially in light of the nonexistence of evidence
is the EU a conspiricy theory !! ?
capital EU is the European Union

small eu, as in electric universe: they believe and repeatedly claim that modern mainstream science suppresses their ideological belief. they would be classed as a religious sect with a belief in conspiracies (this is demonstrably so with cantdrive)

now, if you want to provide evidence that demonstrates the failure of climate science it must be equivalent to the science that is being repeatedly validated - that is how *all* science works


Apr 02, 2019
S, i never said the legal system was driven by evidence [ ?]

''Adjudication is driven by evidence and the rule of law ''

not always and sometimes with dire result , u are a trusting fellow aren't u ?

Apr 02, 2019
@snoose
not always and sometimes with dire result
the biggest problem with the legal system is that it's *not* solely evidence-based and allows for subjective arguments to be presented as factual

the process of adjudication is: https://en.wikipe...dication

(so adjudication isn't representative of the entirety of the legal system)

the scientific community has fought against eyewitness testimony having the considerable weight it does in the legal system simply because it's so flawed, but it's still "trustworthy" in the eyes of the law

the process of determining guilt is not solely evidentiary, which means there is plenty of room for the introduction of subjectivity and belief via argument, especially from procedure

this is the reason guilty go free and innocents are incarcerated
u are a trusting fellow aren't u ?
actually, no. I am not trusting at all
this is the main reason I disagree with climate deniers

Apr 02, 2019
I'm not ignorant of corruption, I just have the perspective of:
1- evidence over belief

More HAWW...HEE...from Cap'n StumPid.
You're an ignorant LIAR.
Now provide the evidence. Give us a single, pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the doom and gloom the AGW Cult preach.

Apr 02, 2019
''allows for subjective arguments to be presented as factual''

once again the trusting fellow , the legal system can be absolutely corrupt , the 'Smollet affair' a minor example

Apr 02, 2019
@snoose
... trusting fellow... 'Smollet affair' a minor example
and again: not a trusting sort at all

however, I also don't have all the information, so how can I make an informed judgement?

on the face of it, the Smollet situation *seems to be* about as corrupt as you can get

but we also don't have all the information, nor do we have the now-sealed case to be examined, so there is that to consider

from what I understand there is not only a call for a federal investigation but also a lawmaker's request to review the prosecutors' decision - given that neither of those will be able to release information (excepting that which is approved) during the investigation then we're back to not knowing

I don't dispute there is corruption. I will state there are ways to find and eliminate it, both in law and the scientific method (Wakefield comes to mind)

because corruption exists doesn't mean it exists here or in climate science, especially with no evidence

Apr 02, 2019
S, fair enough ,,,

''so how can I make an informed judgement''

sometimes we don't have that choice , we make a best guess and treat it with caution

Apr 02, 2019
@snoosebaum
@antigoracle
@MR166
@cantdrive85.

So far, here and elsewhere, you all have just been trolling and denying and baiting; without any real new info that would support any of your denialist claims. Unless you want to look stupid in front of the internet world, please provide more substantive/tenable evidence/info to support your claims than denialist garbage/links. Your family and friends are probably being adversely affected to some degree already by CO2-related AGW disasters now more frequent, widespread, persistent etc. It is affecting everyone to some degree. It will get worse if we don't take reasonable measures to reverse LONGTERM warming/destabilising TREND. Anyone who still comes on the internet to repeat denialist garbage/links is not only betraying his/her family/friends now and in the future, you are also being obvious Fossil/Nuclear/GOP/Russian troll-factory stooges/employees taking 'blood money' thirty pieces of silver for your stupid/mercenary actions.

Apr 02, 2019
So now we have two articles, one arguing the Walker Cell is weakening, and one that it's strengthening. In the same week.

The question is, who's full of shit?

Apr 02, 2019
" Unless you want to look stupid in front of the internet world, please provide more substantive/tenable evidence/info to support your claims than denialist garbage/links."

RC the problem with your statement is that you call anything that contradicts your beliefs a denialist garbage/link!

Apr 02, 2019
@ RC , here's one that should enhance your case , LOL [ soon to appear @ phys.org ]

https://www.cbc.c...OoSg8R8E


Apr 02, 2019
@MR166.
Unless you want to look stupid in front of the internet world, please provide more substantive/tenable evidence/info to support your claims than denialist garbage/links.
RC the problem with your statement is that you call anything that contradicts your beliefs a denialist garbage/link!
Mate, I am probably the most objective observer/researcher you know. I don't just take one side or other's word for anything; nor do I let personal/political/mercenary self-interest intrude in the objective scientific assessment/understandings informing my conclusions. Whereas the denier links/garbage is RIFE with delusional/criminal/political/fossil etc self-interested biases/twisting. Remember the Big Tobacco falsification of science data?....that is the sort of anti-science/anti-humanity garbage you and your fellow unconscionable/stupid/mercenary nitwits have been condoning/promulgating in attempts to do likewise obfuscation re AGW-related climate change causes/dangers.

Apr 02, 2019
@snoosebaum.
more solar

https://www.scien...18301469
You're kidding, right? The RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT commissioned/funded this patently obvious bit of obfuscatory nonsense. They are FOSSIL fuels EXPORTERS (also taking American 'Trumpiasts' for fools and dividing America). So it's a load of politically/criminally/mercenarily compromised 'science' and 'conclusions' from the get-go. Firstly, the solar variations have been playing a part of the Earth system heat/energy 'budget' for billions of years. The only real salient variations NOW are what the atmosphere is doing that will exacerbate any variation that ALREADY happens. If you can't see the obvious propaganda crap trying to use science-sounding 'studies' of such solar variations, then you are indeed too stupid or too crooked to be of any good to science or humanity in the immediate or long term. Good luck anyway, mate; you and your family/friends will need it. Wise up, mate.

Apr 02, 2019
@snoosebaum.
@ RC , here's one that should enhance your case , LOL [ soon to appear @ phys.org ]

https://www.cbc.c...OoSg8R8E
Nothing really new there, mate. We have all been aware of studies/observations which indicated that BOTH polar regions were arming faster than the rest (they are still cold per se, but warming from their previous longterm cold temps). And we have all seen reports about the Arctic region warming waters/ice-loss and flora/fauna etc 'moving north' etc. So, again, there's nothing really new in that study that we didn't already know/strongly suspect anyway (except maybe the faster rate of warming for CANADA compared to other countries surrounding the arctic waters which are also warming relatively fast.

PS: Keep an eye out for April fools joke reports; the above might be one; or at least superfluous. :)

Apr 03, 2019
@snoose
sometimes we don't have that choice , we make a best guess and treat it with caution
something to consider:

when you want to make an informed judgement you seek out evidence

by definition, this means seeking out evidence from trained professionals who are working in the field with expertise that you don't have

when you don't have specific training to determine what is legitimate and what isn't, you rely upon those professionals, just like taking a commercial aircraft, going to the Dr or seeking legal advice

given climate change to date and the sheer volume of observational and experimental data, this means that a denier actively seeks to ignore the evidence for non-evidentiary purposes (like a political belief), regardless of the overwhelming volume and its validation

to leap to the conclusion of a global conspiracy without evidence while ignoring evidence that directly refutes your belief is ????


Apr 03, 2019
given climate change to date and the sheer volume of observational and experimental data, this means that a denier actively seeks to ignore the evidence for non-evidentiary purposes (like a political belief), regardless of the overwhelming volume and its validation...HAWW...HEEE...

Yet, Cap'n StumPid cannot provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the doom and gloom preached by the AGW Cult.
Keep LYING StumPid.

Apr 03, 2019
'' you rely upon those professionals, just like taking a commercial aircraft, ''

u mean like the new 737 ?, they couldn't make the jackscrew work

like i said u r way to trusting in 'experts

@RC pfft ! lol

Apr 03, 2019
@snoose
like i said u r way to trusting in 'experts
so, when the experts all agree, and the evidence all points to one direction, and one understand the science and evidence, then it's obviously false or some grand conspiracy?

how, exactly, does that work out?

if you don't understand the evidence or the science, how can you then make the leap that it's a conspiracy, let alone fake or false?

more to the point, why would you accept the argument from a debunked few when the overwhelming evidence points against what they state?

does your tactic work when you go to the Dr? do you prefer cupping to antibiotics? or acupuncture? I mean, using your logic, it would be advocated by a lot fewer than taking antibiotics, and Dr's cause a lot of deaths, therefore modern medicine must be a conspiracy, right?


Apr 03, 2019
Capt. for almost 50 years "Science" has "Proven" that a low fat high carb diet was more healthful. Well today the truth has come out that just the opposite is true. On top of that the so called heart healthy diet was made popular by our government and it's biased research grants.

The climate science fraud is just history repeating itself once again.

Apr 03, 2019
The climate science fraud is just history repeating itself once again.


Oh really? References please. You sound like one of those conspiracist nutjobs.

Apr 03, 2019
After WW2 the German Socialist party and the German Green party merged and created today's ecological movement. The intent of this new party was the distraction of western capitalism using ecology as a weapon.

Apr 03, 2019
After WW2 the German Socialist party and the German Green party merged and created today's ecological movement. The intent of this new party was the distraction of western capitalism using ecology as a weapon.


The German Green Party are not the scientists conducting the scientific research. I was slightly wrong; you seem to be a right-wing conspiracist nutjob.

Apr 03, 2019
"The German Green Party are not the scientists conducting the scientific research. I was slightly wrong; you seem to be a right-wing conspiracist nutjob."

These "watermelons" hold a lot of political power in the West. They are using it to direct government grants to the scientists that share their goals.

Apr 03, 2019
"The German Green Party are not the scientists conducting the scientific research. I was slightly wrong; you seem to be a right-wing conspiracist nutjob."

These "watermelons" hold a lot of political power in the West. They are using it to direct government grants to the scientists that share their goals.


Liar.

Apr 03, 2019
so, when the experts all agree, and the evidence all points to one direction, and one understand the science and evidence, then it's obviously false or some grand conspiracy?

Cap'n StumPid LIES again.
All the experts and all the evidence, eh, StumPid?
Yet, you cannot produce a single pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.
Keep LYING StumPid.

Apr 03, 2019
Castro anyone in academia knows that the quickest way to end your career is to publish research that contradicts AGW!!!!


Apr 03, 2019
Castro anyone in academia knows that the quickest way to end your career is to publish research that contradicts AGW!!!!



Really? According to whom?

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
for almost 50 years "Science" has "Proven" that a low fat high carb diet was more healthful...
Jordan endorsed Nike, but will that make you a better basketball player?

also note: science is self-correcting
On top of that the so called heart healthy diet was made popular by our government
Our government not only isn't a consortium of scientists, it's also run by mostly lawyers...
The climate science fraud is just history repeating itself once again
1- you still haven't been able to produce a shred of evidence it's a fraud

2- climate science is *global*, not local or US only

3- using your logic: wakefield proved there is fraud in *his* medical studies, therefore, when you next break a leg, will you just shoot yourself or die of related injuries or will you go to a hospital?

just because you think it's true doesn't mean it is, especially since you can't actually provide evidence it's true

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
anyone in academia knows that the quickest way to end your career is to publish research that contradicts AGW
calling bullsh*t on this
the science is just published - it doesn't have an agenda
Politicians have an agenda, that's why the argument against AGW is one of politics or belief, not one of science

following the evidence means you follow it where it leads, and so far, it's overwhelmingly leading towards AGW and problems

you want to argue there is fraud in a *global* scientific community, and you think it's serious, and yet you can offer zero evidence other than what you believe

So you have a foundational premise that has no evidence and you want people to believe it and do something about it while spreading the news, and for those who don't believe your way, ostracise them and ignore anything they produce that factually proves you're wrong...

sound familiar? Yup: religion 101

Apr 03, 2019
following the evidence means you follow it where it leads, and so far, it's overwhelmingly leading towards AGW and problems

Cap'n StumPid, LIES again..
Overwhelming, eh StumPid.
So, why can't you produce a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.

sound familiar? Yup: CULT 101

Keep LYING StumPid.

Apr 03, 2019
Cap'n StumPid, LIES again..
Overwhelming, eh StumPid.
So, why can't you produce a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.

sound familiar? Yup: CULT 101

Keep LYING StumPid.


Unqualified cranks can't do a simple search on Scholar;

carbon dioxide; anthropogenic global warming


238 000 results.

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

Apr 03, 2019
''and the evidence all points to one direction''

it doesn't all point in one direction , YOU point in one direction

''if you don't understand the evidence or the science,''

says who ? and coming from someone who can't summerize the science he promotes

''why would you accept the argument from a debunked few''

the old catch 22, and who does the debunking and who is debunking who ?
'
'' and Dr's cause a lot of deaths, therefore modern medicine must be a conspiracy, right?'

sometimes Dr's are wrong sometimes scientists are wrong , thats life , but Dr's don't try to cover their mistakes with massive propaganda


Apr 03, 2019
@castro
Unqualified cranks can't do a simple search on Scholar;

carbon dioxide; anthropogenic global warming


238 000 results.

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=
LOL

Yeah, but if you look at the above posts about 20 hours ago you'll see where he readily admits that he is lying

given that he *literally* just proved he was a liar and can't read then I figured I don't have to respond

of course, it's annoying that the site only half-*ssed partially moderates and randomly deletes posts without bothering to actually abide by their guidelines, *unless* you're a crank, religious, liar, troll or pseudoscience poster, it seems

I think they're protecting the latter in order to drive up posts and give a false sense of interest

Apr 03, 2019
it doesn't all point in one direction , YOU point in one direction


Yes it does. Check the scientific literature.

says who ? and coming from someone who can't summerize (sic) the science he promotes.


He doesn't need to. There is an overwhelming amount of literature supporting it. Try reading it.

the old catch 22 who does the debunking and who is debunking who(m) (sic) ?


The arguments from the antis are easily debunked and the pieces doing that are not difficult to find. Most of the anti stuff isn't even published. It tends to show up on crank websites and Youtube. Not many are going to bother debunking crap like that. However, some do.

but Dr's don't try to cover their mistakes with massive propaganda


No propaganda. I would get that anti-science, conspiracist crap dealt with medically, if I were you. Or get an education.

Apr 03, 2019
@snoose
it doesn't all point in one direction , YOU point in one direction
no
I follow the evidence, and the evidence is leading to AGW
says who ?
it's demonstrative considering your posts and content
and coming from someone who can't summerize the science he promotes
[sic] not being redundant isn't the same thing as not able to summarise
if the science is written in a manner that a US 9th grader can read and understand it, why summarise it?
the old catch 22
not really
in science, it's about evidence, so it doesn't matter "who does the debunking"
but Dr's don't try to cover their mistakes with massive propaganda
neither have Climate scientists
again, it's a *global* situation where you still have *no proof at all*

thus the crux of the problem is that you *want* to not believe, so you're willing to accept anything that is against what you believe

IOW - AGW is science and has evidence whereas you have a religion

Apr 03, 2019
thus the crux of the problem is that you *want* to not believe, so you're willing to accept anything that is against what you believe

IOW - AGW is science and has evidence whereas you have a religion

LMAO.
Cap'n StumPid LIES again.
I don't just believe, I KNOW, Cap'n StumPid is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, since he CANNOT provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.

Keep LYING, StumPid.

Apr 03, 2019
he CANNOT provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.

Keep LYING, StumPid.


Unqualified lying cranks can't do a simple search on Scholar;

'carbon dioxide; anthropogenic global warming'

238 000 results.

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

Apr 03, 2019
'''carbon dioxide; anthropogenic global warming'

238 000 results. ''

thats why they have to construct black box models to 'prove' the claim

Apr 03, 2019
he CANNOT provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom, preached by the AGW Cult.

Keep LYING, StumPid.


Unqualified lying cranks can't do a simple search on Scholar;

'carbon dioxide; anthropogenic global warming'

238 000 results.

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

Ignorant jackass, who cannot read, far less comprehend, so it brays,

From the very first in that list of AGW Cult tripe that they call "science".
rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the "dust bowl" era

The dust bowl era, a time of global extreme weather the likes of which the world hasn't even come close to, despite all the "warming" the AGW Cult brays and LIES about. The dust bowl era, when human CO2 emission was insignificant compared to the years since.
Keep braying jackass.

Apr 03, 2019
''I follow the evidence, and the evidence is leading to AGW ''

define 'evidence'

'' neither have Climate scientists''

who's al Gore?

''is that you *want* to not believe ''

but YOU do , and its not about belief

Apr 03, 2019
@snoose
thats why they have to construct black box models to 'prove' the claim
really?
I wonder what the science says: "observed evidence for carbon dioxide in anthropogenic global warming"
About 107,000 results (0.25 sec) [G-scholar]

Hmm... so, observed evidence is not something you want... but let's work on what you want based on your history:

modelling isn't what you want, even though it's based upon physics, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, etc ad nauseum, and they've been proven correct *as well as* they're being readjusted with newer, better data making them more predictive (or "correct", in colloquial terms)

experimental evidence on CO2, even modern evidence supporting AGW, is right out simply because it doesn't fit your narrative

physics isn't wanted, even though it's repeatedly proven to be factually accurate and representative of reality

so, Honest Question:
given what you won't accept, what will it take to convince you that AGW is real?


Apr 03, 2019
@snoose cont'd
define 'evidence
Ok but it should be "scientific evidence"
colloquial OED for "evidence" = The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
for "science" = Based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science

Therefore, scientific evidence is
evidence which serves to either support *or counter* a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method
-wiki [emphasis mine]
who's al Gore?
LMFAO
he's a politician - Absolutely NOT a climate scientist!
but YOU do , and its not about belief
like you said "its not about belief" [sic]
I don't "believe" - I can "prove"

see above for details
or search google scholar

your choice

Apr 03, 2019
''prove''

quote close quote indeed

''The results of a test may either support or contradict—oppose—a hypothesis. Results that support a hypothesis can't conclusively prove that it's correct, but they do mean it's likely to be correct. On the other hand, if results contradict a hypothesis, that hypothesis is probably not correct.''

so says googley eyes

'given what you won't accept, what will it take to convince you that AGW is real?''

10 yrs


Apr 03, 2019
I wonder what the science says: "observed evidence for carbon dioxide in anthropogenic global warming"
About 107,000 results (0.25 sec) [G-scholar]

LMAO.
Conclusive evidence that Cap'n StumPid is the stupidest of the Chicken shite.
All that "evidence" yet, StumPid cannot provide a SINGLE one that conclusively show, anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the doom and gloom preached by the AGW Cult.
Keep LYING StumPid.

Apr 03, 2019
@snoose
The results of a test may either support or contradict—oppose—a hypothesis
I already quoted that above
10 yrs
calling BS on this

you won't look at the past ( http://www.woodfo...60/trend ) but somehow 10 yrs is a magic number?

based upon your historical denial of the evidence, the reason you chose 10 yrs is that:
1- you want [x] "claim" to be proven false to give you justification for your belief (see "al gore" quote above)

2- you don't understand what error bars are (see "black box model" quote above)

3- you don't like the implications of the scientific evidence (see *any* post where you've ignored the studies, like above and google scholar)

so... what quote are you waiting to see "debunked" in 10 yrs?
is it from the idiot gore?

Apr 03, 2019
you asked

''given what you won't accept, what will it take to convince you that AGW is real?''

i answered

10 yrs

''you won't look at the past''

i often look at raw temp data from any location i can find , its mostly flat


Apr 03, 2019
@snooze
i often look at raw temp data from any location i can find , its mostly flat
calling you out on that because the woodfortrees link above proves you're lying
i answered

10 yrs
why?

what, exactly, will yet another 10 yrs prove?

especially considering the link above regarding the last 50+ years

Apr 03, 2019
you won't look at the past ( http://www.woodfo...60/trend ) but somehow 10 yrs is a magic number?

LMAO.
Cap'n StumPiddest LIES again.

http://www.woodfo...45/trend
Hey StumPid, explain why when the globe came out of the Little Iceage, and human CO2 was insignificant, it warmed faster from 1915 to 1945 than from 1975 to 2018?
Or you can just keep LYING StumPid

Apr 03, 2019
http://www.woodfo...45/trend

and thats about .8 degree from 1860 - present . and all these avg's are a bit dodgey
glaciers in my area started melting [a lot ] in around 1860 implying a huge c02 sensitivity

Apr 03, 2019
WOW. The Chicken Littles on this thread has dried up faster than a turd in the desert. Well, what is a Chicken turd to do when faced with FACTS, other than hide in their cesspool of ignorance. Perhaps, when they resurface they can answer the following --
http://www.woodfo...45/trend
Why when the globe came out of the Little Iceage, and human CO2 was insignificant, it warmed faster from 1915 to 1945 than from 1975 to 2018?

Apr 03, 2019
The interesting thing about Snooze's chart is the slope of the 2 averages. They look to be identical despite large changes in Co2 level deltas. The rate of change of Co2 levels in the first segment is a lot less than the modern rate of change in the second.

Apr 03, 2019
@snoosebaum.
@RC pfft ! lol
Hehehe. Has your 'conclusion' been peer reviewed, mate? (...I'm just 'channeling' Stumpy, snoose; no offence, CS; just a humorous dig in the ribs!) :)

Apr 03, 2019
@MR166.
After WW2 the German Socialist party and the German Green party merged and created today's ecological movement. The intent of this new party was the distraction of western capitalism using ecology as a weapon.
And NOW it is PUTIN playing the American RIGHT-WINGnut GOP/Trumpian DENIERS for fools to 'weaponise' their (your?) STUPIDITY.
@Captain Stumpy, for almost 50 years "Science" has "Proven" that a low fat high carb diet was more healthful. Well today the truth has come out that just the opposite is true. On top of that the so called heart healthy diet was made popular by our government and it's biased research grants. The climate science fraud is just history repeating itself once again.
Much like Big Tobacco corrupted 'the science' for MERCENARY gain, the DIETING INDUSTRY has been corrupting 'the science' for like gain. Whereas GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC community made OBJECTIVE observations/conclusions LONG BEFORE CO2 issue was politicised by...? :)

Apr 03, 2019
@snooze
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:50/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2018/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1915/to:1945/trend

and thats about .8 degree from 1860 - present . and all these avg's are a bit dodgey
glaciers in my area started melting [a lot ] in around 1860 implying a huge c02 sensitivity
I almost laughed at your graph... especially considering this GIF
"How contrarians view global warming vs how realists view it"
https://static.sk...r500.gif

.

@mr
The interesting thing about Snooze's chart is
how much the tactic resembles the gif above
see also: "Beware sharp tools" - http://www.woodfortrees.org/

Apr 04, 2019
LMAO.
Hey look, it's Cap'n StumPiddest, back from his cesspool of ignorance and as expected, soiling the forum with shite.
So, why won't you answer the following StumPid --
http://www.woodfo...45/trend
Why when the globe came out of the Little Iceage, and human CO2 was insignificant, it warmed faster from 1915 to 1945 than from 1975 to 2018?

Or, you can keep deflecting or just hide in your cesspool.
Beware, shite filled Chicken Little.

Apr 04, 2019
All of these discussions about Co2 vs temperature change are meaningless because the data has been corrupted by the government.

https://realclima...mpering/

Garbage in equals garbage out!!!!

Apr 04, 2019
All of these discussions about Co2 vs temperature change are meaningless because the data has been corrupted by the government.

https://realclima...mpering/

Garbage in equals garbage out!!!!


Stop talking crap, you conspiracist loon.

Apr 04, 2019

So, why won't you answer the following StumPid --
http://www.woodfo...45/trend
Why when the globe came out of the Little Iceage, and human CO2 was insignificant, it warmed faster from 1915 to 1945 than from 1975 to 2018?

Or, you can keep deflecting or just hide in your cesspool.
Beware, shite filled Chicken Little.


Instead of asking on here, why don't you check the scientific literature instead? Start with the papers referenced in this article;

https://www.skept...nced.htm

If it's too difficult for you to understand, just say so.

Apr 04, 2019
LMAO.
Yup, skepticalscience, that bastion of "truth" and "science".

First, I won't bother going into the details of the LIE about the rate of temperature change, since the hadcrut data clearly proves it.

Second, the planet was coming out of a deep freeze from the Little ice age, yet the temperature rose faster.

Third, there is CO2 and then there is anthropogenic CO2. From 1975 to 2005, the rate of increase of CO2 emissions was at least 6-7 times that for the 1910 - 1940 period. Yet, for the earlier period, the temperature rose faster.
https://ourworldi...missions

If it's too difficult for you to understand, just BRAY so.

Apr 04, 2019
LMAO.
Yup, skepticalscience, that bastion of "truth" and "science".

First, I won't bother going into the details of the LIE about the rate of temperature change, since the hadcrut data clearly proves it.

Second, the planet was coming out of a deep freeze from the Little ice age, yet the temperature rose faster.

Third, there is CO2 and then there is anthropogenic CO2. From 1975 to 2005, the rate of increase of CO2 emissions was at least 7 times that for the 1910 - 1940 period. Yet, for the earlier period, the temperature rose faster.

If it's too difficult for you to understand, just BRAY so.


I told you to read the papers referenced in the article. You clearly didn't, no doubt because you are too stupid to understand them. Take your idiocy elsewhere, you clown.

Apr 04, 2019
Anti in climate science circles all data and conclusions must be approved by The Ministry of Truth before they are worthy of being included in the debate. Gee, I don't even know if debate is allowed since by definition the other side is termed a denier.

Apr 04, 2019
Anti in climate science circles all data and conclusions must be approved by The Ministry of Truth before they are worthy of being included in the debate. Gee, I don't even know if debate is allowed since by definition the other side is termed a denier.


Stop lying you conspiracist idiot.

Apr 04, 2019

Yup, skepticalscience, that bastion of "truth" and "science".

First, I won't bother going into the details of the LIE about the rate of temperature change, since the hadcrut data clearly proves it.

Second, the planet was coming out of a deep freeze from the Little ice age, yet the temperature rose faster.

Third, there is CO2 and then there is anthropogenic CO2. From 1975 to 2005, the rate of increase of CO2 emissions was at least 7 times that for the 1910 - 1940 period. Yet, for the earlier period, the temperature rose faster.

If it's too difficult for you to understand, just BRAY so.


I told you to read the papers referenced in the article. You clearly didn't, no doubt because you are too stupid to understand them. Take your idiocy elsewhere, you clown.

LMAO.
Well, at least the jackass can follow instructions. I told it to BRAY and it went HAWW...HEEE.
Now, run along jackass, and get someone who can read and comprehend, to explain the above to you.

Apr 04, 2019
"Although there was a significant increase in global temperature in the early 20th Century, the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was lower than the rate of warming from 1975 to 2005, at about 1.3 vs. 1.8°C per century, respectively. That being said, it's worth taking a look at what caused the early century warming. Several different factors contributed."

Castro that was from your site. It seem there is a contradiction with the WFT graph posted here. Perhaps they are using an "Adjusted" data set. Oh did I say adjusted, I meant fraudulent.

Apr 04, 2019
Castro that was from your site. It seem there is a contradiction with the WFT graph posted here. Perhaps they are using an "Adjusted" data set. Oh did I say adjusted, I meant fraudulent.


No, it just means that you are a conspiracist idiot, who understands nothing about science.

Apr 04, 2019
LMAO.
Well, at least the jackass can follow instructions. I told it to BRAY and it went HAWW...HEEE.
Now, run along jackass, and get someone who can read and comprehend, to explain the above to you.


Clueless idiot. Couldn't understand the article, let alone the papers, could you little boy? Lol. Go back to school you posing clown.

Apr 04, 2019
You see I have read many articles showing the differences between "adjusted and unadjusted temperature data sets. It seems that in most cases the adjustments lowered historical temperatures while leaving modern temperatures the same or raising them a little. Some groups historical temperatures were lowered multiple times in some cases. They even tried to deny the existence of the Medieval Warming Period for a while.

Apr 04, 2019
They even tried to deny the existence of the Medieval Warming Period for a while.


Really? Links, please.

Apr 04, 2019
As proof of unprecedented warming and glacier retreat they presented newly exposed Viking grave sites. What more proof does one need than that this warm period is not unique.

Apr 04, 2019
As proof of unprecedented warming and glacier retreat they presented newly exposed Viking grave sites. What more proof does one need than that this warm period is not unique.


What are you prattling on about now?

Apr 04, 2019
Climate Scientists are trying to get rid of cows in order to save the planet.
They say that prostitution is the oldest profession.
I disagree and claim that climate science is the oldest profession.
Climate scientists of old claimed that the weather would be more favorable if livestock were sacrificed. Things have not changed much in 5000 years.

Apr 04, 2019
Climate Scientists are trying to get rid of cows in order to save the planet.
They say that prostitution is the oldest profession.
I disagree and claim that climate science is the oldest profession.
Climate scientists of old claimed that the weather would be more favorable if livestock were sacrificed. Things have not changed much in 5000 years.


Stop talking rubbish, you weird conspiracist loon.

Apr 04, 2019
@mr
You see I have read many articles showing the differences between "adjusted and unadjusted temperature data sets
this is actually your problem: you're reading articles (most likely being supplied by your political bias)

the only way to understand what they're doing and why is to read the studies
Climate Scientists are trying to get rid of cows in order to save the planet
no, they're not
idiots like AOC are, mostly because she's an *idiot*, but also because she has a socialist agenda
They even tried to deny the existence of
in the studies? Calling bullsh*t
links/references
Things have not changed much in 5000 years
so long as people like you appeal to politics, religious belief or personal opinion, things cannot change

show me the science instead of appealing to your beliefs about what it says, otherwise, you're the "prostitute" selling your body for coin, not the scientists

Apr 04, 2019
deleted

Apr 04, 2019
more on this
Climate Scientists are trying to get rid of cows in order to save the planet.
endorsement for any reason isn't the same thing as being science

*people* endorse things, ideologies, beliefs, other people or products, and an endorsement is an argument from authority

an argument from authority isn't an argument from science, evidence or even logic

moreover, elimination of Bovidae from our food chain only creates a worsening problem as then the cows can reproduce freely and there are no real predatory controls

I'm personally fighting to remove specific Bovidae (Bison bison) from the planet, but I can only do so much, especially considering the complimentary family of artiodactyl mammals called Suidae... :-D

Apr 04, 2019
"endorsement for any reason isn't the same thing as being science"

I call BS here Capt. I have seen lots of peer reviewed papers claiming that cows are a danger due to their methane emissions.

Apr 04, 2019
@mr
I call BS here Capt. I have seen lots of peer reviewed papers claiming that cows are a danger due to their methane emissions
1- links and references

2- I've seen studies on estimates of animal methane emissions [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment] quantifying the amount, source and volume, but I've also seen a sh*tload of studies on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production [ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)]

point being: what, exactly, do those so-called "peer reviewed papers claiming that cows are a danger" [sic] actually state because there are feed options as well as other means of mitigating methane emissions in ruminants

Apr 04, 2019
@MR166.

Why do you even bother, mate? Since the Industrial Revolution humanity has been burning fossil fuels previously sequestered by nature away from the Earth's Carbon Cycle for millions of years. What do you suppose happens when all that extra Carbon is burnt? No matter what skewed propaganda lies and variables you try to insert in the discussion, the reality is the long term trend continues as it started with Industrial Revolution UNLESS we can stop much of the fossil fuel burning and replace them with renewables/storage etc alternatives which are already on the march despite you 'weaponised stupids' being played for fools by Putin to divide America and protect his fossil fuel exports/profits by delaying prudent and necessary climate action. Your 'weapons grade stupidity' that Putin is exploiting for his own agenda is not a good look for you or your fellow stupids, mate. Wise up, for your and your family/friends' sake if not for science's sake. Good luck to us all.

Apr 04, 2019
"What do you suppose happens when all that extra Carbon is burnt? "

Well I will tell you what has been proven. The deserts get greener and trees and crops grow better and need less water.

Apr 04, 2019
@MR166.
What do you suppose happens when all that extra Carbon is burnt?
Well I will tell you what has been proven. The deserts get greener and trees and crops grow better and need less water.
If you really believe that garbage then you have a bigger problem than climate change, mate. If you had been in OZ and seen the devastation in all states from extreme record-breaking fires, floods, winds and general mayhem/costs caused by AGW-related disasters which even the former deniers here are now admitting is a real consequence of CO2 increasing in atmosphere, then you wouldn't still believe that garbage you 'weaponised stupids' have been primed with by Putin who is playing you for fools to do his dirty work for him. Give it up, mate, and start thinking about joining the rest of us non-stupids in reality. Good luck.

Apr 04, 2019
Blaming every weather anomaly on Co2 is nothing but primitive superstition. Here in the US they present every event as unprecedented but they are not. The earth goes through a lot of cycles most of which are not well known. Just a few years ago California was going into a "permanent" drought caused by Co2 and now they have flooding caused by, wait for it, Co2.

Apr 04, 2019
@MR166.
Blaming every weather anomaly on Co2 is nothing but primitive superstition. Here in the US they present every event as unprecedented but they are not. The earth goes through a lot of cycles most of which are not well known. Just a few years ago California was going into a "permanent" drought caused by Co2 and now they have flooding caused by, wait for it, Co2.
What is it about the terms extreme, record-breaking, more frequent, persistent, back-to-back disasters that you don't get, mate? If you really are as stupid as your recent posts demonstrate, then your stupidity is the perfect 'weapons grade stupidity' that Putin is seeking for his army of 'weaponised stupids' to keep doing his dirty work dividing America and delaying climate action to protect his profits from fossil fuel exports. Get wise, mate, not stupider. Good luck.

Apr 04, 2019
Blaming every weather anomaly on Co2 is nothing but primitive superstition. Here in the US they present every event as unprecedented but they are not. The earth goes through a lot of cycles most of which are not well known. Just a few years ago California was going into a "permanent" drought caused by Co2 and now they have flooding caused by, wait for it, Co2.

Apr 04, 2019
Yup RC the tribe members are the same, the high priests are the same and the weather problems are the same. Nothing has changed in 5000 years except for the sacrifice to the gods. In this case it is fossil fuels instead of virgins.

Apr 04, 2019
Yup RC the tribe members are the same, the high priests are the same and the weather problems are the same. Nothing has changed in 5000 years except for the sacrifice to the gods. In this case it is fossil fuels instead of virgins.


Yada, yada, yada.................. and an unqualified clown posting crap and lies on here is going to have zero effect on the scientific consensus. Why do you bother, you saddo?

Apr 05, 2019
@MR166.
RC the tribe members are the same, the high priests are the same and the weather problems are the same. Nothing has changed in 5000 years except for the sacrifice to the gods. In this case it is fossil fuels instead of virgins.
Mate, haven't you been reading me in other threads? If you had, you wouldn't have made that "tribal' remark at me. I have proved that I am independent, objective and follow the reality not political/tribal etc propaganda like you apparently have been 'primed' with by Putin's troll-factory 'trainers' who have so easily 'weaponised stupids' in America to do Putin's dirty work of dividing America and delaying/sabotaging action on climate change because Putin wants to keep the 'hard currency earnings' from his fossil fuels exports which will be threatened as renewables etc continue to replace them in Europe/Globally. Are you really so 'brainwashed' to be so willing a 'weaponised stupid' for Putin's profits over global reality? Sad if so.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more