20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Actually you really should research the data that has been offered to you prior to such a position.

You know when it gets to the really cool stuff the modern science into an open mind is investigated in relation to those type of jobs.

What data has been offered to me?

What makes you think I haven't researched the data?

And prior to what position?

You don't make a lot of sense.

a reply to: D8Tee


Calling something energy is like calling matter energy.


That's also like suggesting the Red Spot on Jupiter is the result of energy. Where when it was first observed, not everyone thought it was not, the Eye of God.


Its nice to imagine what is out their.

It is also nice to build a devise capable to going "their" and seeing it for oneself.

a reply to: D8Tee



In all sincerity I having trouble understanding you as well.

As I offered earlier is it to you possible that all the current models are wrong?

That there needs to be consideration into alternatives outside of the current state of the art.

a reply to: Kashai


Think tank type of stuff.

a reply to: Kashai

Calling something energy is like calling matter energy.

Whatever floats your boat.

a reply to: D8Tee

The Maya Creation Story

By Gene Fernandez

People of all times and places have sought to understand how the universe came into being and how humanity developed. Each culture provides its own account, unique in detail but embodying universal themes. This similarity of thought among remote civilizations may indicate a form of archetypal intelligence available to any human being with the spiritual capacity to access it, as well as the existence of a very ancient worldwide civilization. The Popol Vuh records one branch of the ancient Central American heritage. Written shortly after the Spanish conquest by a Quiche Indian in his native language but using the Roman alphabet, it was transcribed and translated into Spanish by a Dominican priest in Guatemala at the end of the 17th century. His manuscript, housed in the library of the University of San Carlos, Guatemala City, was brought to the attention of European scholars in 1854, making Maya cosmogony and history available outside Central America. Today researchers can also draw on other documents, inscriptions, and the traditions kept alive by the Maya's descendants.

www.theosociety.org...

a reply to: D8Tee


IMHO is more like whatever floats.

nasa on climate

originally posted by: Alexander the Great
I'm am not a scientist... but what I can say is, climate change isn't the "End of the world". We will be fine.

I tend to agree, we the human race will be pushed around. The sea's will rise and fall. Ice will flow and recead. This will happen at a rate nearly unnoticed by living creatures , if we live in harmony. However we are not harmonious beings, so war and strife will be our legacy.

originally posted by: Xenogears
nasa on climate

Ok. Two quick things about your NASA link.

One, the 97 percent concensus. Thats been debunked many times. They have it on that webpage.

Two, this:

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

It's not supported by the Tidal Gauge Empirical data that is collected by NOAA.
The Tidal Gauge Sea Level network has shown no acceleration in rate of rise.

Link to Report

Above you find a link to the report that the NASA page references to support their claim of a doubling of Global Mean Sea Level Rise. Where in that report does it say that?

I am not making this up, it is sleight of hand tricks. I encourage anyone with doubts to watch the following video, Satellite Altimetry isn't everything you might think it is.

well the sun is supposedly entering a minimum early, and rumor is it might be indication of it lasting a while. If it does it could help.

If not an end to global dimming combined with increased co2 and the various positive feedback loops will signal something not that pretty. What will end global dimming? It is believed to be a result of current activity by humans, 80% of conventional oil fields are said to be declining above 3% per year, iirc. Unconventional shale produces most of its output in the first few years and experiences radically drastic decreases, exploration is way down due to low prices. By 2020 we could be seeing issues.

Will watch video but the following is indicated regards Soon

Climate Misinformer: Willie Soon

Favourite climate myths by Willie Soon

Below are many of the climate myths used by Willie Soon plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate myths by Soon____What the Science Says
"It's the sun" ____In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

"Models are unreliable"____Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
"It's not happening" ____There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.

"Polar bear numbers are increasing"____Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
-skepticalscience link

edit:

After Greenpeace revealed that Willie Soon has taken over $1 million in payments from fossil fuel interests on “research” intended to undermine climate science, his credibility has evaporated. Professionals in the field of climate have been hugely critical of Dr. Soon’s predetermined “research.”-greenpeace

edit 2:

originally posted by: D8Tee

One, the 97 percent concensus. Thats been debunked many times. They have it on that webpage.

I hear multiple sources show 80-90+% consensus. Whether one exact source and number is in dispute, does not seem to change multiple sources indicating a majority agrees the globe is warming.

Will have to double check info for veracity if he's claiming stuff like increases in polar bears.

a reply to: Xenogears

Skeptical Science is a website was created by John Cook.

The same John Cook who brought us the 97 percent consensus paper which has been debunked so many times.

John is an Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia and a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.

The paper really is a bit of a joke if you read the actual paper and supporting data that is with it.

I'll link you to a quick analysis of the supporting data, and no I am not making this up, this is what the actual paper itself says.

John Cook has a definite agenda, skeptical science is his baby, don't expect it to be unbiased.

Question for you, does the following support saying that there is a 97 percent consensus?

Here is a link to the actual paper, and below a screenshot of the data table. Link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Xenogears

After Greenpeace revealed that Willie Soon has taken over $1 million in payments from fossil fuel interests on “research” intended to undermine climate science, his credibility has evaporated. Professionals in the field of climate have been hugely critical of Dr. Soon’s predetermined “research.”-greenpeace

1. Key facts about the controversy

In late February, 2015, Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by reporters for major media outlets in the U.S. and U.K

* Neither the editors of Science Bulletin nor the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Soon’s employer, have said Dr. Soon violated their disclosure or conflict of interest rules.

* Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

* Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

* The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.

* By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

* Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.


Now there are dozens of scientists out there who have received funding from Greenpeace. Heck, a number of IPCC authors are not just funded by but have been employed by Greenpeace.

This is what's on wiki

An investigation by InsideClimate News could find no cases where mainstream climatologists had failed to disclose the funding of their research. Unlike Soon, who had approached private funders directly, their funding was almost entirely obtained through open competitive peer-reviewed applications to public bodies...

The Smithsonian does not fund Soon, who "pursues external grants to fund his research."[36] This funding had exceeded US$1.5 million since 2001;[35] under standard CfA procedures, more than half of the $1.2 million funding since 2005 had gone towards the Smithsonian's facility operating costs, with the remainder being passed on to Soon as his salary. Other researchers there have a similar arrangement, but nearly all of their funding comes through peer-reviewed award processes from government bodies such as NASA and the National Science Foundation,[37] whereas Soon has received very little federal money.[4] Soon's funding is highly unusual at the Smithsonian in its association with private interests.

-wiki

edit

..
Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated...-for bes

a reply to: Xenogears

Did you have a look at the 97 percent consensus paper?

a reply to: D8Tee

The link provided is to the "Synthesis Report" for AR5. The details may be found here:
www.ipcc.ch...
Figure 13.7 shows the rate of change graphically demonstrates this statement:

It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr –1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr –1 ; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950.

a reply to: Phage
The NASA page did not get their footnote correct?

Anyways...

Global Mean Sea Levels.. Satellite Altimetry..

Shouldn't we be more interested in the Tidal Data that actually represents what is happening on our coastlines?

Do you find it alarming there is a return to the rate that was experienced between 1920 and 1950?

I'm sure you're aware of the Metonic Cycle, do you think that could account for any rise and fall in the tidal data as part of that cycle?

a reply to: Xenogears

Just read the Cook paper for yourself, it's not even very long.

Why allow someone else to interpret it for you?

I've linked it previous to this post.

Again, here is the data.

This is not a trick.

This is in the paper itself.

Just read the paper.

Link to actual paper

Formatting went wonky.
See below.

a reply to: D8Tee

Global Mean Sea Levels.. Satellite Altimetry..

Shouldn't we be more interested in the Tidal Data that actually represents what is happening on our coastlines?

There were no satellites capable of measuring sea levels for most of the 20th century.

Shouldn't we be more interested in the Tidal Data that actually represents what is happening on our coastlines?

Tide station data can be problematic when uplift and subsidence is a factor and, disregarding that, the rate of change is not everywhere the same. But as I said, if you want details they are available in abundance in AR5.

I'm sure you're aware of the Metonic Cycle, do you think that could account for any rise and fall in the tidal data as part of that cycle?

Not so much. Besides leading to higher high tides, it leads to lower low tides. It increases tidal range, but sea level not so much. It is also taken into consideration in using station data.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

Is your point in showing the running 50 year trends to indicate the influence of the Metonic Cycle? 1920 to 1950 is not 19 years. I see no evidence of the Metonic Cycle in that data.

Is the point of your second graph to show no change in the trend? See where it's labeled "Linear Mean Sea Level Trend?" What would you expect a linear trend line to show?