[Truth To Power]

Down between 1940-1970. Are you for real?

?? It's indisputably lower in 1970 than 1940. It's not worth my while to dispute with people who deny the evidence of their own eyes.

What offset solar energy and atmospheric warming in that period was the PDO being in a cool phase.

Right. Which also shows the VISUALLY OBVIOUS ~60-year cycle.

What's happened since 2000?
Low solar cycles, your cycle supposedly falling, PDO largely negative and yet temperatures still rising.

Fabricated temperatures.

[BeesKnee5]

?? It's indisputably lower in 1970 than 1940. It's not worth my while to dispute with people who deny the evidence of their own eyes.

Right. Which also shows the VISUALLY OBVIOUS ~60-year cycle.

Fabricated temperatures.

It isn't visually obvious, the temperature was relatively stable throughout.

Yet you denied the PDO was responsible earlier.

The temperatures are using the same methods and methodologies. Why would you accept one set of temperatures as true and yet another as false. Unless of course you are trying to ignore the bits you don't like.

[Truth To Power]

The graph shows Angstom got his calculations wrong because he was unaware that the absorption wavelength widens with the density of the gas.

But his calculations were far more accurate than Arrhenius's, because he accounted for the saturation of absorption bands by water vapor. He was correct that additional CO2 will therefore have a very modest effect.

This means the rising CO2 levels have a significant impact he was unaware of, even if already saturated in a narrower band.

No. The effect is still insignificant, just greater than zero.

Then you would know three things,
a. There is no such country

That will be news to the Koreans....

b. Only North Korea borders China and China has no significant coal power stations on the border.

Which is irrelevant, as wind does not blow only over land borders. Duh.

c. China has some of the strongest exhaust pipe emission controls that were introduced in 2014 and have built the newer supercritical power stations. The bulk of their pariculate air pollution is transport and cities

Yes, and in northern China, millions of people still heat their homes with very dirty coal furnaces or even fireplaces that turn the air brown.

Yes, I chose the option of particulate air pollution.

Thus proving me right and yourself wrong.

You are desperate to choose 6 weeks of a year when the Arctic was hit by a huge storm. This is the ultimate in cherry picking.

No. The ultimate in cherry picking is pretending that arctic sea ice was never previously below the high level at the end of the 1940-1970 cooling trend that marks the beginning of modern satellite observations.

2019 was lower than 2012 in Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May Jun, Jul and is now much lower than 2012 in October with the month not yet finished. Sea surface temperatures are currently 2C higher and the gap is now over 900,000 km2.

So, like the 1940s.

Yet you have failed to provide one shred of evidence to support this.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim. I don't have to prove there is no climate crisis or climate emergency. YOU have to prove there IS one. And you can't, because there self-evidently isn't.

We have a feedback loop already happening, the lack of sea ice in the summer is allowing warmer waters to enter the Arctic basin from the Atlantic and the Pacific, the open sea is absorbing heat that ice previously reflected. Each year the freezing season moves a little later and progresses a little slower, this is why this year's ice extent is now much, much lower than 2012.

So, like the 1940s.

This image of the Bering straight in winter I posted on another thread shows how the extent is being reduced by the additional warmth in the ocean

This sort of variation has happened many times. Nothing whatever to do with CO2.

I don't know when the Arctic will go ice free in the summer, as 2012 shows that is very much in the hands of the weather during August when the ice pack is thin, but each year the chances increase and I would be surprised if we waited more than 30 years on current trend.

So it will take 30 years before you will accept that you are wrong?? Superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) is almost certain to prove it long before that.

We are currently 600,000 km2 lower than 2018, that's nearly 10%, and at this point in the season 2018 was 700,000 km2 lower than 2017. What you are showing is a clear denial of the evidence in front of you.

No. I'm just denying that a record that STARTS at the high point of a cycle is evidence of a one-way downtrend.

There is no guarantee next year will be higher or lower than this but it is highly likely that it will begin with the lowest ice extent in modern records.

Modern records that conveniently begin at a cyclical high.

[Truth To Power]

It isn't visually obvious, the temperature was relatively stable throughout.

Talk about climate change deniers!! You even deny what your own eyes tell you: 1940 was visibly warmer than 1970.

Yet you denied the PDO was responsible earlier.

When? Responsible for what? The PDO is the main reason the 1970-2000 warming was too great to be explained by solar activity.

The temperatures are using the same methods and methodologies.

Nonsense.

Why would you accept one set of temperatures as true and yet another as false.

Because the false ones have been altered, fabricated, and manipulated.

Unless of course you are trying to ignore the bits you don't like.

I'm suspicious of any manipulated and altered data, but especially when it supports the Officially Approved Narrative.

[BeesKnee5]

But his calculations were far more accurate than Arrhenius's, because he accounted for the saturation of absorption bands by water vapor. He was correct that additional CO2 will therefore have a very modest effect.

This is simply untrue for four reasons.
Firstly as already mentioned Angstrom assumed the absorption wavelength was unaffected by increasing density.
The reason you are failing to understand this is significant is because the graph has a logarithmic scale and so what looks like a relatively small band is highly significant.

Secondly by assuming the chemical composition is unchanged as you rise through the atmosphere when in fact water vapour reduces faster and the upper troposphere and stratosphere are much drier than at ground level leaving an even larger area of the spectrum available for CO2 absorption of energy.
Thirdly the two spectrums do not wholly overlap as you have claimed, the spectrum of water has gaps in it at wavelengths that CO2 is active.



And finally the spectrum isn't saturated at higher levels, if it was then heat wouldn't be able to reach the surface and be reflected out into space.

That will be news to the Koreans....

Would that be the North or south Koreans. Unless I assume you visited 70 years ago.
.

Which is irrelevant, as wind does not blow only over land borders. Duh.
Yes, and in northern China, millions of people still heat their homes with very dirty coal furnaces or even fireplaces that turn the air brown.
Thus proving me right and yourself wrong.

Just what do you think soot is?

No. The ultimate in cherry picking is pretending that arctic sea ice was never previously below the high level at the end of the 1940-1970 cooling trend that marks the beginning of modern satellite observations.

Let's get this right, I have never pretended that August and September 2012 wasn't below any other recorded years low.
By cherry picking those two months when the ice was hit by an exceptional weather pattern and ignoring every other month/ year and day since you show an inability to understand the data and the trend.
Sea Ice extent now 955,000 km2 lower than 2012 and still you think 2012 marks a low water point. Utterly bizarre.

So, like the 1940s.

Want to show evidence of this.
.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim. I don't have to prove there is no climate crisis or climate emergency. YOU have to prove there IS one. And you can't, because there self-evidently isn't.

I provide the evidence there is available, if you want to be taken seriously then I suggest you do the same.

So, like the 1940s.

I'll await the evidence to support this claim

This sort of variation has happened many times. Nothing whatever to do with CO2.

I suggest you read the title of the images and then come back with evidence to disprove it.

So it will take 30 years before you will accept that you are wrong?? Superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) is almost certain to prove it long before that.

A BOE is not the point at which something is proven true or false. If ice continues to melt at an increased rate and trend lower over time then it is evidence of warming.

.

No. I'm just denying that a record that at the high point of a cycle is evidence of a one-way downtrend.

Yes and supposedly your uptrend started three years ago. Where is it today?

.

Modern records that conveniently begin at a cyclical high.

They begin when satelites became powerful enough to record and transmit data electronically but we have data going back further and it doesn't help your case

[BeesKnee5]

Talk about climate change deniers!! You even deny what your own eyes tell you: 1940 was visibly warmer than 1970.

When? Responsible for what? The PDO is the main reason the 1970-2000 warming was too great to be explained by solar activity.

Nonsense.

Because the false ones have been altered, fabricated, and manipulated.

I'm suspicious of any manipulated and altered data, but especially when it supports the Officially Approved Narrative.

So you want to claim minor changes over a thirty year period which ends with a difference of 0.05C change and with the variation marked as clearly overlapping is significant. I will add straw clutching to your special abilities.

I now want to see the research paper that proves that PDO is the main reason for warming from 1970 to 2000. Your story is changing as the last time this came up you claimed it was the sun. You still haven't explained why it's still warming since 2000 by the way, all you have is denial and a lack of evidence.

How can you be sure the false ones aren't the ones that show cooling?
Once you start to cherry pick then you start the journey down the rabbit hole.

[Truth To Power]

It isn't visually obvious, the temperature was relatively stable throughout.

That statement proves you are a climate change denier: you DENY that the climate changed -- became cooler -- between 1940 and 1970. The fact that you deny the clear evidence of your own eyes makes your anti-CO faith essentially religious.

Yet you denied the PDO was responsible earlier.

Quote?

So you want to claim minor changes over a thirty year period which ends with a difference of 0.05C change and with the variation marked as clearly overlapping is significant.

It is significant because it shows the cycle is stronger than the modern warming trend caused by solar activity, which is why Solanki said solar activity could not be the principal cause of the 1970-2000 warming. And that refutes PoD's claim that the Solanki paper says solar activity can't be the dominant cause of the 20th century warming trend.

I now want to see the research paper that proves that PDO is the main reason for warming from 1970 to 2000.

<sigh> LOOK AT THE GRAPH. The amplitude of the 60-year cycle is more than half the 1970-2000 increase.

Your story is changing as the last time this came up you claimed it was the sun.

Nope.

You still haven't explained why it's still warming since 2000 by the way, all you have is denial and a lack of evidence.

It's not still warming. There are some phase issues because different temperature measures show different degrees of inertia, but I see no credible empirical evidence of warming.

How can you be sure the false ones aren't the ones that show cooling?

I can't be sure, but my own experience says it's cooling.

Once you start to cherry pick then you start the journey down the rabbit hole.

OTC, exercising discernment as to which data are good and bad is essential to empirical science.

The temperature obviously did not go down from 1940 to 1970.

It self-evidently and indisputably did, showing that the cycle is stronger than the solar warming trend. Which refutes your claim that Solanki said the sun could not be the principal cause of 20th century warming.

The fact that you deny climate changed from 1940-1970 despite the evidence of your own eyes proves your anti-CO2 faith is essentially religious.

[BeesKnee5]

That statement proves you are a climate change denier: you DENY that the climate changed -- became cooler -- between 1940 and 1970. The fact that you deny the clear evidence of your own eyes makes your anti-CO faith essentially religious.

Quote?

Yawn!
What was the variation throughout that 30 years and how big was the difference between 1940 and 1970?
Are these figures statistically significant?

Your straw clutching continues.

<sigh> LOOK AT THE GRAPH. The amplitude of the 60-year cycle is more than half the 1970-2000 increase.

I'll take that as you having no scientific research that supports your claim.

It's not still warming. There are some phase issues because different temperature measures show different degrees of inertia, but I see no credible empirical evidence of warming.

It most certainly is warming, even on the graphs you've shared as evidence of temperature changes. You are so trapped by your belief that you have to deny the reality set before you. You have no evidence that the earth isn't currently warming and I've supplied plenty, the only reason you don't accept it is because it would require you to revaluate.

I can't be sure, but my own experience says it's cooling

Your experience is your own backyard. It's why we have scientists and researchers to see the bigger picture.

OTC, exercising discernment as to which data are good and bad is essential to empirical science.

Data is simply data. If it doesn't fit your belief system and you have no evidence it is false then you have to factor it in and understand why your narrative doesn't fit.

So what evidence do you have that the weather stations are providing false data?

[Pants-of-dog]

It self-evidently and indisputably did, showing that the cycle is stronger than the solar warming trend. Which refutes your claim that Solanki said the sun could not be the principal cause of 20th century warming.

The fact that you deny climate changed from 1940-1970 despite the evidence of your own eyes proves your anti-CO2 faith is essentially religious.

You are nitpicking at words. The temperature went down very slightly during that time.

By that I mean that the difference in temperature was less than the uncertainty in the study.

If that is your only evidence for this trendless sixty year cycle, then you have failed to provide good evidence.

And since Solanki explicitly said that solar activity is not the main cause of global warming, your claim that he did not is weird.

[SSDR]

You are nitpicking at words. you have failed to provide good evidence.

You "nitpick" at words a lot.

When do you ever provide good useful evidence?

[BeesKnee5]

The disappearing sea ice.

[Truth To Power]

You are nitpicking at words.

No, I am being accurate and honest.

The temperature went down very slightly during that time.

Because the down-phase of the 60-year PDO cycle was opposed by the multi-millennial high in solar activity, as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, multiple times.

By that I mean that the difference in temperature was less than the uncertainty in the study.

No.

If that is your only evidence for this trendless sixty year cycle, then you have failed to provide good evidence.

The 60-year cycle is well known, not controversial, and VISUALLY OBVIOUS in the graph I posted. You are just denying the evidence of your own eyes because you are a climate change denier.

And since Solanki explicitly said that solar activity is not the main cause of global warming, your claim that he did not is weird.

You are again just misrepresenting what Solanki said. He DID NOT SAY that solar activity was not the main cause of global warming. That is just a bald falsehood on your part. He said solar activity could not have been the PRINCIPAL cause of the rapid warming seen in the last 30 years of the 20th century. As I already explained to you so very clearly -- but less and less patiently -- multiple times, the combination of a strong but trendless cycle overlaid on a weaker long-term effect could result in the long-term effect being the ONLY cause of the long-term tend, yet not the principal cause of a short-term variation. You are not so stupid that you cannot understand such a relationship. Why are you pretending that you are?

[BeesKnee5]

No, I am being accurate and honest.

Because the down-phase of the 60-year PDO cycle was opposed by the multi-millennial high in solar activity, as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, multiple times.

No.

The 60-year cycle is well known, not controversial, and VISUALLY OBVIOUS in the graph I posted. You are just denying the evidence of your own eyes because you are a climate change denier.

You are again just misrepresenting what Solanki said. He DID NOT SAY that solar activity was not the main cause of global warming. That is just a bald falsehood on your part. He said solar activity could not have been the PRINCIPAL cause of the rapid warming seen in the last 30 years of the 20th century. As I already explained to you so very clearly -- but less and less patiently -- multiple times, the combination of a strong but trendless cycle overlaid on a weaker long-term effect could result in the long-term effect being the ONLY cause of the long-term tend, yet not the principal cause of a short-term variation. You are not so stupid that you cannot understand such a relationship. Why are you pretending that you are?

[BeesKnee5]

Solanki 2013
Quote clearly attributing GHG to the recent increase in global temperatures.

[Sivad]

there is evidence that they are intensifying faster and becoming stronger due to warmer sea surface temperatures.

"there is evidence" now that's a sleight of semantics.

[late]

...semantics.

Science.

More energy in, more energy out. Don't strain your brain trying to figure that out.

[BeesKnee5]

"there is evidence" now that's a sleight of semantics.

It's not, there is evidence as detailed by a recent paper
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... MBLnrHf-oQ

[Truth To Power]

Uh-huh. "Observations" from which the 1940-1970 cooling has been erased, and "natural factors" from which the 20th century's multi-millennial high in solar activity has been erased.

The disappearing sea ice.

This graph is self-evidently a fabrication.

[Rancid]

I started a tire fire in my bad yard to help accelerate this.

[BeesKnee5]

Uh-huh. "Observations" from which the 1940-1970 cooling has been erased, and "natural factors" from which the 20th century's multi-millennial high in solar activity has been erased.

Nothing has been erased, as previously pointed out the 1940-1970 barely changed, either up or down.