20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: ErosA433

French Winemakers Weathering Worst Frost in 25 Years
Vintners are reporting widespread damage in Bordeaux, Burgundy and Champagne, with some losing their entire 2017 crop

Link

a reply to: Justoneman



LOL your commentary is reminiscent of the folks in past history who ridiculed powered flight.

In that you really have no idea what you are talking about but seem to believe for some weird reason that you do.

And if you cannot see that because of that little box you live in that is not really relevant to me.

Your words in this thread'....

Sorry, but I literally am an Environmental Scientist and do truly believe in preserving the land and water for the future. My most important goal here is to put pollution into proper perspective.

This one was directed at my first response.

And you are a rocket scientist or Chemist or Physicist?

And you want to be taken seriously?

a reply to: Kashai

C02 is beneficial to plant life.

a reply to: D8Tee

The real meaning of 450-550 ppm CO2 targets

There is little evidence the IPCC reports have taken the full implications of 450 -- 550 ppm targets for the terrestrial environment and survival of civilization into account, writes Andrew Glikson.

www.crikey.com.au...

Further reading..

An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences

dels.nas.edu...

a reply to: Kashai

Posting a link to an alarmist site that says Antartica is going to melt and another link to a 40 page question and answer report does not do much.

Is there anything in particular in those links you would like to discuss?

They cover a lot of ground.

Try to read the links and focus on something contained within them.

Are you aware you first link references a paper that is discussing the year 2400?

If fossil-fuel emissions continue unabated, in less than 300 years pCO2 will reach about 1,800 p.p.m.v., a level not present on Earth for roughly 50 million years.

a reply to: D8Tee


I did read them and hoped you would put aside your "convictions" read the articles and then respond.


In one of your posts you brought up the issue of taxation in relation global warming and it seems what alarms you?

You should have at least read the conclusion that ended by stating the article had covered not only the Facts but the Uncertainties as well.

But I guess despite you working in the Weather Service it more important to stereotype Scientists. Who are qualified to work at the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences?

Without even taking the time to review the data in a debate forum titled Science & Technology.

Clearly you have never read this and if you had well that would be different.

Information is just that and anyone who would label information without reviewing it?

These are the ones who others need to be alarmed about.

One cannot blame a machine. Because one does not know how to build it from scratch and calibrate it to the proper specifications for exacting results.

What is being used are machines that test the air in the ice core samples, in example.

We use the same technology on Mars every day and so does the military to test air for chemical weapons and radiation etc.

So do a lot of other vacations otherwise and for a while.

With all due respect that you lack such skills is really not relevant either.

If you want to insist upon refuting the evidence do the work.

Otherwise if you want to insist the proverbial cup is have empty

a reply to: Kashai

I did read them and hoped you would put aside your "convictions" read the articles and then respond.

Respond to what? You linked two articles with not even any comments as to their contents. I read the articles, i quoted one of the papers pointing out it was looking down the road to the year 2400.

But I guess despite you working in the Weather Service it more important to stereotype Scientists.

You have me mistaken for someone else.

Without even taking the time to review the data in a debate forum titled Science & Technology.
Clearly you have never read this and if you had well that would be different.
Information is just that and anyone who would label information without reviewing it?
These are the ones who others need to be alarmed about.
One cannot blame a machine. Because one does not know how to build it from scratch and calibrate it to the proper specifications for exacting results.
What is being used are machines that test the air in the ice core samples, in example.
We use the same technology on Mars every day and so does the military to test air for chemical weapons and radiation etc.
So do a lot of other vacations otherwise and for a while.
With all due respect that you lack such skills is really not relevant either.
If you want to insist upon refuting the evidence do the work.
Otherwise if you want to insist the proverbial cup is have empty

Rather hard to respond to any of this really.
LIke you say, this is the Science and Tech forum, your ramblings, while amusing, have no real substance.
If you want to talk to the technological aspect of testing, I could likely help you out. I worked for five years in an ISO accredited environmental lab operating instrumentation and doing wet chemical analysis.
Can I ask you, do you drink alcohol at the same time as posting on here?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?

Not to your satisfaction I am certain......

Have you at least learnt the difference between weather and climate yet?

Weather models differ from climate models in that they have to work and are verified every hour of every day around the planet. If a weather model is broken, it becomes obvious immediately. By contrast, climate modelers have the advantage that they will be long since retired when their predictions don’t come to pass.

Well in my case i have always known the difference... Your implication is insulting.

Not nearly as insulting as someone claiming credentials they clearly do not possess because hey... its the internet and nobody will know. Except that there are quite a few people on ATS who actually do have degrees and credentials. Based on the middle school level errors you have perpetuated in this thread, youre lying out your a$$.

I would add that my generation was taught correctly, that the Earth is affected by the Sun both in above ground weather and geological affects (considered weather also by some scientists).

The volcanism (spell checker on ATS doesn't have this word) appears to be affected by objects in the Solar system and therefore, cooling occurs.

citation showing the effects of other bodies within our system acting upon volcanism on Earth?

It might very well be that the cycles we have documented from geological study is related to other bigger cycles.....

And this postulation is based on what?

And if the Climate models that we have had failed to produce one accurate prediction, then we have a failed model, period. The facts are those presenting the data from the failed models failed to adapt a new theory. Meanwhile any scientist not agreeing to approve the failed models is being shamed by the likes of Dr. Tyson, Bill Nye who both want debate the Climate Scientists who study and present differing opinions, and the MSM. That appears to be the reality we live in.

another clear example that you do not have the background you claim because were you really an environmental scientist or had a scientific degree of any type, you would embrace challenges to data. It is a fundamental part of the Scientific Method to present your data for others to review and yes, pick apart for errors. If people are so thin skinned that they are incapable of, or unwilling to defending their work, typically its an indication that their work has little merit. You would know that had you ever defended a thesis or dissertation and nobody is working as any type of scientist with just a Bachelors degree.

But back to your above quoted statement...



Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:



Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)


Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

Mainstream climate models have also accurately projected global surface temperature changes. Climate contrarians have not.

a reply to: D8Tee


Do you label everyone who disagrees with you outside of this forum as well?

Music Break..




You can continue to talk about how much you know about this.

In an environment such as this that really is irrelevant.

There would just be to many post just in this forum of members who have claimed all kinds of things.

It would probably take more than a year just to skim though all of them and working on it every day for at least two hours.

To be succinct if that the case you apparently seem very passionate about your opinion?

There is always setting up your own lab and presenting an article for peer review.

There are plenty of really good researchers that have a lab in their Garage for the sake of discussion.

If you feel there is something wrong with how the samples in general are an accurate representations of valid results then take your own.

As far as you issues with Stereotypes I could care less what you think about me or anybody else.

a reply to: peter vlar

The tidal gauge data does not show any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

Satellite altimeter data measures Global Mean Sea Level. The altimeter data has had some issues to say the least.

It's an interesting topic.

University of Colorado is responsible for the Satellite Altimeter Data analysis if you are interested in learning more.

Link

Over the 23-year time series, it shows that GMSL has been rising at a rate of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1, but with notable inter-decadal variability. Our current best estimate of the rates during the first (1993–2002) and second (2003–2012) decades of the altimeter era are 3.5 and 2.7 mm yr−1, respectively, though important sources of uncertainty persist and raise caution regarding the record’s early years

The global mean sea level (GMSL) we estimate is an average over the oceans (limited by the satellite inclination to ± 66 degrees latitude), and it cannot be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts.

NOAA has all their info on tidal gauges posted online as well, you can look there and see that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in their tidal gauge data. All around the world, the best sea-level measurements all show the same thing: an almost perfectly linear trend. Sea-level is rising no faster now, with CO2 at 0.040% of the atmosphere, than it was when CO2 was less than 0.031% in the early 1930s, during the Great Depression.



NOAA Link




ETA: I encourage you to look into the Satellite Altimeter measurements, all is not what it seems at first glance. I ran up against this a couple years ago and did some digging. If you are technically minded, have a look at the following, it explains some of the challenges they are up against in providing a dataset that is actually representative of the actual rise of the GMSL.
Link

a reply to: D8Tee


Really?

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Kashai

I don't have the time or inclination to watch a half hour youtube documentary, can I have a summary?

Perhaps you could do some research and go to that NOAA site I have linked to and look at the tidal gauge data.

Are you aware of the geological processes that will change the apparent rate of sea level rise along coastlines?

Post-glacial rebound, isostatic depression and land subsidence from drawing down aquifers and oil bearing zones?

Just go to that NOAA link, there's been no increase or acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in a couple centuries.

Hey, the map there is interactive, point and click, find Florida, find the tidal stations, and start looking at the data, you might be surprised.

Instead of just trying to prove me wrong, do your own independant research, forget what I think, search for the truth, not what some Youtube documentary tells you.

Then what you should do is wright a paper submit it to either Science or Technology and get back to me with the result.

Again what is the relevance of talking about yourself to you?

Unless you think I am psychic then perhaps it would matter but otherwise. That really makes no sense to continue discussing your alleged prowess in the field?

a reply to: Kashai

Here's the data for Miami Beach, does it look like they have experienced an increase in rate of rise?

a reply to: D8Tee


Again for the sake of real research have you ever been to Miami Beach or anywhere else mentioned?

Do you actually believe that is all being faked?

And why do you believe that?

Is it because you consider yourself an expert in the field?

That is what Scientific Periodicals like Science and Nature are for.

a reply to: Kashai

Is what being faked?

The tidal gauge data does not lie.

There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

a reply to: Kashai

You like throwing out links with no commentary and having people read them, so here's one for you, I trust you will read it.
Link

a reply to: D8Tee

NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data measurements encompassing the 46 year period from 1970 through 2016 do not support and in fact clearly contradict the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 conclusion regarding supposed man made contributions to increasing rates of sea level rise since the early 1970s.

wattsupwiththat.com...

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee

NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data measurements encompassing the 46 year period from 1970 through 2016 do not support and in fact clearly contradict the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 conclusion regarding supposed man made contributions to increasing rates of sea level rise since the early 1970s.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Your source verifies what I am trying to tell you.

I also made a post very much the same to what your source is saying in another thread, on April 13th, before your source was published.
April 13h post

a reply to: D8Tee

Elevations in urban areas shown on the map may be higher than actual values due to radar reflections from the tops of buildings and other structures. This would result in flooding being more severe than shown on this map. For an interesting presentation of how sea level rise might impact important cities, see U.S. Cities We Could Lose to the Sea at Climate Central.org.

geology.com...

So I guess 36 years of Data is go enough for you.