|
Post by Ratty on May 3, 2019 1:05:23 GMT
So many questions ... Perhaps the pay-walled article definitively explains the "science" that establishes the signal and "robustly" eliminates other possibilities? Why do I doubt that? In recent decades (1981 to present), the signal of greenhouse gas forcing is present but not yet detectable at high confidence.
What are the components of this signal? And why would they be absent in a period of increasing human emissions? Observations and reconstructions differ significantly from an expected pattern of greenhouse gas forcing around mid-century (1950–1975), coinciding with a global increase in aerosol forcing. So the signal is suppressed in a period of cooling, where data may have actually been adjusted upward? In the first half of the century (1900–1949), however, a signal of greenhouse-gas-forced change is robustly detectable.
This is amazing. The effects of "disease" are robustly detectable in its early stages, but disappear in its "terminal phase". Perhaps I am missing something. Could someone please help me? The answer lies in the surname of the first-listed researcher?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 3, 2019 1:55:17 GMT
So many questions ... Perhaps the pay-walled article definitively explains the "science" that establishes the signal and "robustly" eliminates other possibilities? Why do I doubt that? In recent decades (1981 to present), the signal of greenhouse gas forcing is present but not yet detectable at high confidence.
What are the components of this signal? And why would they be absent in a period of increasing human emissions? Observations and reconstructions differ significantly from an expected pattern of greenhouse gas forcing around mid-century (1950–1975), coinciding with a global increase in aerosol forcing. So the signal is suppressed in a period of cooling, where data may have actually been adjusted upward? In the first half of the century (1900–1949), however, a signal of greenhouse-gas-forced change is robustly detectable.
This is amazing. The effects of "disease" are robustly detectable in its early stages, but disappear in its "terminal phase". Perhaps I am missing something. Could someone please help me? The answer lies in the surname of the first-listed researcher? That's Marvelous Ratty. The lead author directs the pack. It bothers me that they can blatantly state that the signal is present but not yet detectable. It smacks of collusion that cannot be found ... except in dogma. But never fear. It is there.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 3, 2019 2:15:45 GMT
I will have to get a copy of this paper. There are several hypothesis of why the early 20th century warmed. Not sure if the authors are consistent with current understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 3, 2019 5:29:48 GMT
[ Snip ] That's Marvelous Ratty. The lead author directs the pack. It bothers me that they can blatantly state that the signal is present but not yet detectable. It smacks of collusion that cannot be found ... except in dogma. But never fear. It is there. Kinda reminds me of this where the interviewee is the man who is about to become Australia's PM: The Talented Mr ShortenPS: It seems to be a bit exciting up your way, weatherwise. Are you OK?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 3, 2019 6:47:49 GMT
[ Snip ] That's Marvelous Ratty. The lead author directs the pack. It bothers me that they can blatantly state that the signal is present but not yet detectable. It smacks of collusion that cannot be found ... except in dogma. But never fear. It is there. Kinda reminds me of this where the interviewee is the man who is about to become Australia's PM: The Talented Mr ShortenPS: It seems to be a bit exciting up your way, weatherwise. Are you OK? Yeah, thanks for asking. We just got all of April's rainfall in two days and there's a long wiggling line of earthworms demanding entry to my daylight basement. Very wet. And forecast is more to come. Gopher wood is in short supply. But the birds are fat and a new family of squirrels have moved into the vacant tree next to the house.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 3, 2019 6:50:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2019 6:38:18 GMT
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmSolar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 8, 2019 10:47:15 GMT
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmSolar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation. Does this come under the heading of Svensmark was right?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 8, 2019 10:54:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 8, 2019 11:18:16 GMT
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmSolar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation. Does this come under the heading of Svensmark was right? Sven has made his mark, Henrik.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 9, 2019 3:43:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on May 9, 2019 10:28:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by walnut on May 9, 2019 12:32:03 GMT
I think that some of them do know, somewhere in the back of their minds, that their scam will run out of time at some point.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 9, 2019 14:41:09 GMT
I think that some of them do know, somewhere in the back of their minds, that their scam will run out of time at some point. Will justice be waiting?
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 9, 2019 19:11:48 GMT
they control the narrative so no.
|
|