I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

 

Keep reading your link:

 

 

 

Oh I've read it all and then some

 

what year did they start that chart in the post before mine?

[PeterMP]

Oh I've read it all and then some

 

what year did they start that chart in the post before mine?

China's graphic.

 

1850 because that's when the HadCrut data starts.

[twa]

coincidentally the same time as the solar minimum, the actual data goes back further than that though doesn't it, HADCRUT simply being a later compilation of records.

[PeterMP]

coincidentally the same time as the solar minimum, the actual data goes back further than that though doesn't it, HADCRUT simply being a later compilation of records.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Did you even look at your own graph?

 

The Maurder minimum ended in the early 1700s.  The Dalton minimum (which was not as extreme) had clearly ended by 1850.  The time right before 1850 is one of the higher peaks on your own graph.

 

If you look at the average sun spot number/year, 1850 is ranked 249 (1 being the year with the smallest number (0 sunspots) and the largest year being 316 with 269.3 sunspots)). 1848 is ranked 303 and 1849 is 289.

 

These years are all above the average and the median.

Edited May 12, 2016 by PeterMP

[tshile]

on the one hand i respect the amount of detail you both are able to speak to the topic

 

on the other i have no idea where you find the time

 

unless you work in a field relevant to it...

[twa]

What are you talking about?

 

Did you even look at your own graph?

 

 

Warming/cooling is simultaneous with solar events now?

 

records clearly show 1850 unusually cold and then followed by the volcanic winter you mentioned earlier to about 1890

 

just seems a odd starting place, the HADCRUT reconstruction had data preceding that time.

[PeterMP]

Warming/cooling is simultaneous with solar events now?

 

records clearly show 1850 unusually cold and then followed by the volcanic winter you mentioned earlier to about 1890

 

just seems a odd starting place, the HADCRUT reconstruction had data preceding that time.

 

One of us appears to have issues with the definition of the SAME TIME.

 

If you want to start to make the argument that:

 

1.  It was unusually globally cool in 1850.

2.  That globally cool condition was tied to PREVIOUS minimums in solar output.

 

I'll be happy to look at your results.

 

I don't know why HadCrut starts when it does.  I don't know what data they were able to get from where that they thought that was a good starting place, but certainly based on their data, there were years in the late 1850s or early 1860s that were cooler.

 

If I were purposely looking to start a data series to maximize the effects of global warming, I would have started then.

 

The slope going back to 186X is almost certainly greater than starting when they did.  The line would have to climb more over a shorter period of time.

[twa]

solar minimums have a lag time of 10-30 yrs on impacts.....which would be where on my chart?

there is of course variability since the nature of solar activities impact varies(equal solar flares can have very different impacts on earth)

 

add

 

sorry ,I thought I was clearer before the climate impact of the solar minimum was at the same time frame(1850)

 

 a change in the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation takes a bit both to change and revert

Edited May 13, 2016 by twa

[PeterMP]

solar minimums have a lag time of 10-30 yrs on impacts.....which would be where on my chart?

there is of course variability since the nature of solar activities impact varies(equal solar flares can have very different impacts on earth)

 

add

 

sorry ,I thought I was clearer before the climate impact of the solar minimum was at the same time frame(1850)

 

 a change in the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation takes a bit both to change and revert

 

I'm going to need a link for that because things like this seem to disagree with you.  Oh and the 1850s don't look so cool.

 

 

I think you've really jumped the shark into just completely making stuff up in this case.

 

(Now, things are more complex than that because the little ice age was not really totally caused by the solar minimum.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm

 

)

Edited May 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

a link for the lag or that it was cool in 1850?

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/

 

 

 

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/04_3.shtml

[PeterMP]

a link for the lag or that it was cool in 1850?

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/

 

 

 

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/04_3.shtml

 

From your link:

 

""Global average temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite large." Shindell said that his climate model simulation shows the temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO)."

 

Doesn't look like much of an effect globally, and the coldest period was well before 1850.

 

"During the Little Ice Age, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s. At the same time, canals in Holland routinely froze solid, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and sea-ice increased so much that no open water was present in any direction around Iceland in 1695."

 

Your graph looks like mine where there was significant warming before 1850, and starting before that was most likely to create cooler years unless you go back to the early 1000s and the MWP.

 

You aren't claiming that there are man made temperature measurements going back to cover the globe back to the MWP in 1200 are you?

Edited May 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

 

 

 

 

(Now, things are more complex than that because the little ice age was not really totally caused by the solar minimum.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm

 

)

 

that co2 sink theory is rather questionable, but many factors were in play....as usual 

volcanic activity as you mentioned being another

From your link:

 

""Global average temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite large." Shindell said that his climate model simulation shows the temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO)."

 

Doesn't look like much of an effect globally, and the coldest period was well before 1850.

 

and HadCRUT 1 measured temps mainly where?

 

averaging is somewhat lacking at times....kinda like modeling.

 

add

 

something more on the lag(though focused on the increased input)

 

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/decadal-lag-of-temperature-response-to-solar-input-a-qualitative-summary/

 

and more variables of course.

Edited May 13, 2016 by twa

[PeterMP]

that co2 sink theory is rather questionable, but many factors were in play....as usual 

volcanic activity as you mentioned being another

 

and HadCRUT 1 measured temps mainly where?

 

averaging is somewhat lacking at times....kinda like modeling.

 

add

 

something more on the lag(though focused on the increased input)

 

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/decadal-lag-of-temperature-response-to-solar-input-a-qualitative-summary/

 

and more variables of course.

 

Lag 11.1 years.  1839 ranks 264 out of 316 (low is 1, high is 316).   The number is greater than the mean and the median.

 

1838 is ranked 280.  Greater than the mean and the median.

 

I don't know.  Do you?

 

But why are we talking about Hadcrut 1 anyway?  We're onto 4.  Clearly, if they were trying to make global warming as bad as possible, and they had the data, they'd be better off pushing it back closer to the LIA.

 

You initially suggested that they started in 1850 because it was globally cool.  Their data specifically shows that there were years that were cooler if they move forward 10 years, and you and I have both posted graphs that essentially agree and show if the moved back a few decades things were cooler.

 

Your argument that there was some sort of bias in starting in 1850 is just wrong.  They would have been better off starting before or after that.

Edited May 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

there is bias in any arbitrary starting point, I do agree the bias would be more obvious at a even cooler point though 

 

HadCrut 1 was the starting point....a arbitrary one

 

Why not ask regions sampled in a period you agree had wide regional variation?

 

you act like you have something better to do.

[PeterMP]

there is bias in any arbitrary starting point, I do agree the bias would be more obvious at a even cooler point though 

 

HadCrut 1 was the starting point....a arbitrary one

 

Why not ask regions sampled in a period you agree had wide regional variation?

 

you act like you have something better to do.

 

I'm sorry, but the words arbitrary and bias don't go together.

 

bias: "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

 

arbitrary:based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

 

Now, I doubt the starting at 1850 was really arbitrary.  I suspect it was a nice even number (vs. starting at 1848), and it was based on what temperature records they could get from around the world.

 

But it was almost certainly not based on maximizing the appearant warming as you originally tried to suggest.

[twa]

you are choosing the usual definition of bias, rather than the one I explained as choosing ANY point introduces bias in trends

 

 

 

 

I don't suggest anything, I state they started at a clearly cooler period, whereas you say Well, they could have chosen a cooler one as a rebuttal  and say the solar chart doesn't align(since you did not allow for lag) 

 

I can choose another to change the trend....neither change reality (if such a thing exists)

[PeterMP]

you are choosing the usual definition of bias, rather than the one I explained as choosing ANY point introduces bias in trends

 

 

I don't suggest anything, I state they started at a clearly cooler period, whereas you say Well, they could have chosen a cooler one as a rebuttal  and say the solar chart doesn't align(since you did not allow for lag) 

 

I can choose another to change the trend....neither change reality (if such a thing exists)

 

Really?  You didn't indicate that there were older records that were ignored:

 

"coincidentally the same time as the solar minimum, the actual data goes back further than that though doesn't it, HADCRUT simply being a later compilation of records."

Why would they ignore older records?

It wasn't the same time as the solar minimum, and it wasn't close to the coldest time affected by the solar minimum. AT BEST 1850 is considered the very very edge of the little ice age, and the Earth had warmed considerably by then.

The vast majority of any cooling related to the solar minimum had been eliminated by the 1850s.

The only way that going back further is likely to produce less apparent warming is if they had data that goes back to the 1200s or so.

Your post clearly suggested that they ignored older data to start at a cool point. I don't if they did ignore older data, but if they did, it is most likely that data would even bee cooler. The 1850s were not a particularly cool period and GLOBALLY the Earth had warmed significantly from the LIA.

(And Europe and North America has warmed too.)

And the charts don't align. Based on the data we have the globe (and the US Europe) were clearly colder during the actual solar minimums than by 1850.

(Now, part of that is because the solar minimum isn't really that important of a driver of climate.)

Edited May 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

my point on the earlier data HadCrut had was that 1850 was a arbitrary starting point, the base data they used began earlier AND there was other data sources available.

 

The minor temperature rise over the time chosen is undoubtedly influenced to a degree by the below average starting point.

 

the fact they could have chose one even lower does not change that fact.

 

Solar's impact is still not fully understood, and not to be dismissed...the Heliophysics fleet and improved sensing is going to add a great deal to the story imo

[PeterMP]

1850 was essentially average, especially at the time it was selected (in the time frame humans reasonably kept real temperature data).  You'd have a hard time picking a single year that was closer to the average.

 

Now, if you want to start to include ice ages, I suspect 1850 was well above average.

Edited May 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

essentially average, yet unusually cold?

 

ya wanna have fun do a spiral graph from 2000 yrs ago 

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/friday-funny-another-look-at-ed-hawkins-scary-temperature-spiral/

 

don't know how to embed it

 

as a aside.....do you think the earths magnetic field weakening about 10% since the 19th century has a impact?

[PeterMP]

essentially average, yet unusually cold?

 

ya wanna have fun do a spiral graph from 2000 yrs ago 

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/friday-funny-another-look-at-ed-hawkins-scary-temperature-spiral/

 

don't know how to embed it

 

as a aside.....do you think the earths magnetic field weakening about 10% since the 19th century has a impact?

 

Yes, if you cheery pick your area (the arctic is used in your link), you can find some place that might have been warmer in the past.

 

Yes, but I suspect it is more effect than cause:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/5/19/1300509/-Magnetic-Field-Effects-On-Ocean-Currents

 

Now, I don't suspect it things will be necessary as extreme as suggested there.

 

There was some questions about where the energy is going.  The energy is affecting the movements of things we aren't measuring 

Edited May 14, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

How so a effect?....I'm assuming you mean from climate change?

 

not a bad article for KOS,though a bit sensationalized

 

We know solar events change the currents,as I linked earlier

[PeterMP]

How so a effect?....I'm assuming you mean from climate change?

 

not a bad article for KOS,though a bit sensationalized

 

We know solar events change the currents,as I linked earlier

 

No,  what you linked before showed there was a correlation.  Correlation does not equal causation.

 

And I'm not even sure it did a good job of that.

 

Climate affects ocean and wind currents.  Oceans are made of charged species that interact with the magnetic field and can create electric fields (I don't suspect they do to the extent that has been recently suggested by some), and to the stuff in the Earth's core.  Oxygen is paramegnetic.  It interacts with the magentic field.  Oxygen movement is affected by wind curents.

 

Ocean, wind, and liquid metal core currents all interact through the Earth's electrical and magnetic field (where the electric field causes the magnetic field).

 

If you warm the Earth and affect ocean and wind currents, you will affect the currents of the liquid metals in the core through interactions in the magnetic and electrical fields, which we will measure as changes in the magnetic field.

Edited May 14, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

odd the threat of prosecuting the AG's and collaborators seemed to bother them 

 

 

The imploding cabal to criminalize climate dissent

http://nypost.com/2016/06/30/the-imploding-cabal-to-criminalize-climate-dissent/

 

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and his fellow greenies are getting a lesson about the dangers of believing their own propaganda.

These know-it-alls claim there’s a “consensus” on climate change and what to do about it. And they believe that consensus is so broad that even prosecuting dissent would be a slam dunk. Claude Walker’s monumental crash-and-burn this week blew up that theory. Schneiderman and his ideological pals, from Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, would be wise to take note.

Walker is the attorney general for the US Virgin Islands who launched a ludicrous racketeering probe of ExxonMobil and sent sweeping subpoenas to the company and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ostensibly, his suspicion, like that of a similar probe by Schneiderman, was that Exxon fraudulently downplayed climate change’s dangers to the public and its investors.

But Walker sought Exxon’s correspondence with some 90 groups suspected of the “crime” of questioning climate-change orthodoxy. The obvious point was to make these groups think twice about the findings their research produces and their positions on the issue. It was also meant to scare off donors, like Exxon.

Yet Wednesday, Walker withdrew his Exxon subpoena. He’d already taken back his order to CEI.

So his probe, it seems, is kaput.

Walker & Co. miscalculated. Schneiderman launched his investigation in November. In March, he held a presser with attorneys general from nearly 20 other states, promising a cooperative effort against Exxon. Al Gore even appeared.

Yet only a few AGs actually launched probes and issued subpoenas. Massachusetts AG Maura Healey this week delayed her own subpoena of Exxon. Schneiderman is quickly becoming odd man out.

No surprise: The climate-change “consensus” isn’t as widespread as greenies claim.

Indeed, the claim itself is just another attempt to silence debate. The science is settled, they say. Anyone who disagrees must be a kook, a “denier.”

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Hope Mike is OK. Hasn't been on here since October.

(Sorry to hijack your bump twa.)