|
Post by blustnmtn on Mar 2, 2019 12:20:06 GMT
The cosmic ray increase may or may not be increasing clouds in the atmosphere but it is clearly increasing clouded brains.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2019 17:30:17 GMT
www.wunderground.com/cat6/Weirdly-Quiet-Sun-May-Get-Even-Quieter-and-BTW-Earth-Still-Warming?cm_ven=cat6-widgetSomeone who’s long been familiar with the cosmic ray hypothesis is John Cook (George Mason University), the creator of skepticalscience.com and one of the world’s leading researchers on public knowledge and attitudes around climate change. The skepticalscience.com entry “Are we heading into a new Ice Age?” deals with a question that pops up from time to time in tabloid newspapers, various corners of the Internet, and some peer-reviewed science. According to Cook: “Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis is more an intellectual curiosity than having any real consequence for the climate debate. Even if he was right and there was a mechanism for cosmic rays to influence climate through cloud formation (that's a big if), the trend in cosmic radiation is going in the wrong direction. In other words, if cosmic radiation did affect climate change, it should be imposing a cooling effect right now - implying that human activity has an even greater warming effect than currently understood.” Indeed, even with the sun at its quietest in more than a century during the 2010s, the last five years (2014-2018) have been the warmest globally in records going back to the late 1800s. It’s a striking juxtaposition as we continue hurtling into what many are calling the Anthropocene epoch—a time in which humans are having far-reaching impacts on the natural world.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 3, 2019 18:53:11 GMT
www.wunderground.com/cat6/Weirdly-Quiet-Sun-May-Get-Even-Quieter-and-BTW-Earth-Still-Warming?cm_ven=cat6-widgetSomeone who’s long been familiar with the cosmic ray hypothesis is John Cook (George Mason University), the creator of skepticalscience.com and one of the world’s leading researchers on public knowledge and attitudes around climate change. The skepticalscience.com entry “Are we heading into a new Ice Age?” deals with a question that pops up from time to time in tabloid newspapers, various corners of the Internet, and some peer-reviewed science. According to Cook: “Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis is more an intellectual curiosity than having any real consequence for the climate debate. Even if he was right and there was a mechanism for cosmic rays to influence climate through cloud formation (that's a big if), the trend in cosmic radiation is going in the wrong direction. In other words, if cosmic radiation did affect climate change, it should be imposing a cooling effect right now - implying that human activity has an even greater warming effect than currently understood.” Indeed, even with the sun at its quietest in more than a century during the 2010s, the last five years (2014-2018) have been the warmest globally in records going back to the late 1800s. It’s a striking juxtaposition as we continue hurtling into what many are calling the Anthropocene epoch—a time in which humans are having far-reaching impacts on the natural world. The same people who readily admit that " the climate is a coupled, non-linear, chaotic object" expect simple linear response to inputs? For all we know the heat loss to space (which is what a warm atmosphere is), is the response of the chaotic system to a reduction in shortwave energy to the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Mar 3, 2019 22:00:45 GMT
www.wunderground.com/cat6/Weirdly-Quiet-Sun-May-Get-Even-Quieter-and-BTW-Earth-Still-Warming?cm_ven=cat6-widgetSomeone who’s long been familiar with the cosmic ray hypothesis is John Cook (George Mason University), the creator of skepticalscience.com and one of the world’s leading researchers on public knowledge and attitudes around climate change. The skepticalscience.com entry “Are we heading into a new Ice Age?” deals with a question that pops up from time to time in tabloid newspapers, various corners of the Internet, and some peer-reviewed science. According to Cook: “Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis is more an intellectual curiosity than having any real consequence for the climate debate. Even if he was right and there was a mechanism for cosmic rays to influence climate through cloud formation (that's a big if), the trend in cosmic radiation is going in the wrong direction. In other words, if cosmic radiation did affect climate change, it should be imposing a cooling effect right now - implying that human activity has an even greater warming effect than currently understood.” Indeed, even with the sun at its quietest in more than a century during the 2010s, the last five years (2014-2018) have been the warmest globally in records going back to the late 1800s. It’s a striking juxtaposition as we continue hurtling into what many are calling the Anthropocene epoch—a time in which humans are having far-reaching impacts on the natural world. Is that right that "the last five years (2014-2018) have been the warmest globally in records going back to the late 1880s?" What about the 1930s?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2019 22:43:36 GMT
The 1930's were warm, but the past few years have been warmer. In the USA, nothing to date compares to the 1930's. Worldwide, 1930's have fallen to recent temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 4, 2019 0:27:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 4, 2019 0:35:26 GMT
The 1930's were warm, but the past few years have been warmer. In the USA, nothing to date compares to the 1930's. Worldwide, 1930's have fallen to recent temperatures. But if you look at "the chosen stations" in N America (those that contribute to climate models), the 1930s have been "cut down" to less than monumental size. Do you really believe them in regards to other areas of the World? You must have greater faith in them than me. I can believe in redemption ... but there is gonna have to be a cross in there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 4, 2019 0:39:15 GMT
Did you expect perhaps Shirley Temple?
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Mar 4, 2019 1:41:58 GMT
Is there a temperature data set that hasn't been repeatedly homogenized? A pure cream data set, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 4, 2019 2:24:22 GMT
Is there a temperature data set that hasn't been repeatedly homogenized? A pure cream data set, so to speak. You have to pick and choose from the old records. When I assembled my grain belt cross section stations, I selected all the stations from the National Climate Data Center with records preferably going back to at least 1900. I plotted the time series, looking specifically at the 1930s. There are still stations that seem to show the old unadjusted pattern. And there are those that have apparently been "changed". They are obvious. So it seems you can find data that may have escaped the hands of the "cleansers", but you have to choose wisely and assemble them yourself. They are usually stations that are part of the climate modeling base set. Funny that. And that is just for the American Midwest. I don't know what the distinctive markers might be for checking other stations either in the US or elsewhere for "adjustment". The adjusters are lazy however. And being lazy, they are not thorough. You could probably design an algorithm to find distinctive, consistent temporal difference between stations in close geographical proximity. But we are talking a large job. Perhaps I'm jaded from experience, but I wouldn't recommend any existing known data bases to be certified free from fraud. Maybe somewhere ... Perhaps Toto knows one or two.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Mar 4, 2019 15:48:03 GMT
Is there a temperature data set that hasn't been repeatedly homogenized? A pure cream data set, so to speak. You have to pick and choose from the old records. When I assembled my grain belt cross section stations, I selected all the stations from the National Climate Data Center with records preferably going back to at least 1900. I plotted the time series, looking specifically at the 1930s. There are still stations that seem to show the old unadjusted pattern. And there are those that have apparently been "changed". They are obvious. So it seems you can find data that may have escaped the hands of the "cleansers", but you have to choose wisely and assemble them yourself. They are usually stations that are part of the climate modeling base set. Funny that. And that is just for the American Midwest. I don't know what the distinctive markers might be for checking other stations either in the US or elsewhere for "adjustment". The adjusters are lazy however. And being lazy, they are not thorough. You could probably design an algorithm to find distinctive, consistent temporal difference between stations in close geographical proximity. But we are talking a large job. Perhaps I'm jaded from experience, but I wouldn't recommend any existing known data bases to be certified free from fraud. Maybe somewhere ... Perhaps Toto knows one or two. Thanks, Mr. Moboy. One thing I know for certain--I'm not the guy to design the algorithm! I'm less certain if Toto knows of an unadulterated data set. My guess from reading the posts of Toto's master is that he trusts nothing to do with climate data anymore. Finally, I'm not certain at all about where this solar minimum will take us. It will be interesting to see if Theo's pretty clear predictions verify.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Mar 4, 2019 16:26:43 GMT
You have to pick and choose from the old records. When I assembled my grain belt cross section stations, I selected all the stations from the National Climate Data Center with records preferably going back to at least 1900. I plotted the time series, looking specifically at the 1930s. There are still stations that seem to show the old unadjusted pattern. And there are those that have apparently been "changed". They are obvious. So it seems you can find data that may have escaped the hands of the "cleansers", but you have to choose wisely and assemble them yourself. They are usually stations that are part of the climate modeling base set. Funny that. And that is just for the American Midwest. I don't know what the distinctive markers might be for checking other stations either in the US or elsewhere for "adjustment". The adjusters are lazy however. And being lazy, they are not thorough. You could probably design an algorithm to find distinctive, consistent temporal difference between stations in close geographical proximity. But we are talking a large job. Perhaps I'm jaded from experience, but I wouldn't recommend any existing known data bases to be certified free from fraud. Maybe somewhere ... Perhaps Toto knows one or two. Thanks, Mr. Moboy. One thing I know for certain--I'm not the guy to design the algorithm! I'm less certain if Toto knows of an unadulterated data set. My guess from reading the posts of Toto's master is that he trusts nothing to do with climate data anymore. Finally, I'm not certain at all about where this solar minimum will take us. It will be interesting to see if Theo's pretty clear predictions verify. Some interesting background here: wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/03/anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-a-tangled-web-strangling-its-creators-and-proponents/
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 4, 2019 18:24:19 GMT
One would think something is afoot. Los Angeles just recorded the first February in 132 years where the thermometer didn't reach 70F at some point in the month. Not that a 132 year record is all that remarkable in the study of climate, I think what makes it really interesting is we are in the midst of an El Nino. ENSO typically has a big effect here in Socal as it seems the currents that are part of ENSO transit our coastline. El Ninos typically bring warm conditions to Socal and La Ninas cold conditions. It does so via the warmth of the water the currents bring here. The SSTs directly off our coast shows the typical El Nino pattern of a current of warm water extending from the ENSO 3.4 region directly to the Socal and Northern Baja coastlines (the state of Mexico on the Pacific Coast directly south of San Diego). Its not particularly strong but it does have a central line of about one degree C warmer than normal. In a La Nina the same SST gradient tends to exist but its colder than normal. The strength of the El Nino push is apparently weak as it typically reaches up into the Gulf of Alaska but the water up there is pretty cool right now which is the opposite of El Nino typical conditions. Result is a very cool month here in Socal but a record cold seems surprising. Whats in store next when this flips to a La Nina?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 7, 2019 20:32:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 8, 2019 0:57:03 GMT
Do you suppose they will play this for the final implosion? Perhaps Jean-Claude and Angela in a tango.
|
|