Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[MultiVerse]

^ Good talk.

ron wants us to believe there's nothing unprecedented happening. The way ron-heller go about it is by posting factoids and then hoping people make the obvious inference. So when ron falsely asserts "Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's," as a kind of non sequitur the hope is we believe him and make the larger leap.

Notice how ron got upset about digging up "old posts" claiming they were out of context but then proceeded to defend each of them anyway. That's part of his shtick. ron's " take apart every post" routine is purposefully shallow and insulting in an attempt to undermine the truth. ron defends his fake denier arguments with snarky criticism and fake demands for common sense.

So in general it is getting warmer in all four seasons. But don't be surprised if ron responds with a lot of snarky insults to all of the above by saying snow cover area proves nothing unusual is happening. Warming increases ocean temperature which leads to moister air and more deep winter snow cover. Warming also delays the formation of sea ice allowing for more open water in northern latitudes in fall and winter.

But the fact is, on balance, regional snowpacks and glaciers (which is not the same thing as extent) are shrinking and melting earlier.

[ron johnson]

Ok, tin foil boomer.
Go lick some hand railings, mmmk?
Nothing I posted has turned to be in any way wrong, and you know it.

You are special kind of delusional, and I don't know why you call me a boomer. I'm younger than you.

[ron johnson]

ron's goal is to deceive. For example, in his post above he links to a NASA page about the grand solar minimum claiming "NASA is in on it." But the grand solar minimum/maximum was never the thing, we know the sun goes through roughly 11 year cycles. The denier claim is the solar cycles are what's causing global warming, not greenhouse gasses. NASA is definitely not in it.

Ron's knows this and delights in seeing if he can find any suckers who will believe him.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that solar cycles don't influence the climate? The last grand minimum coincided with the peak of the little ice age. Hence, there is concern that the grand minimum forecast could lead to cooling:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...aunder-minimum

[ron johnson]

We should always assume ron is either lying or presenting a delimited factoid. In this case it's arguing against objective reality by saying the perception the "snow doesn't seem to stick around" is wrong. Peoples perceptions are not wrong, the snow really doesn't stick around as long.

As skiers/boarders we think of winter as the season we slide on snow. But Rutgers scientists define winter as only three months. So while we're still skiing the scientists have moved on to spring & summer and the snow is definitely not sticking around:

Attachment 320080

The snow not sticking around is a big deal and not just for skiers. Snow reflects sunlight which helps cool the planet. Less snow cover in the spring and summer causes more global warming because the days are longer so receiving more energy from the sun for longer enhances the greenhouse effect.



Counterintuitively, even some of the increasing fall/winter extent is due to warming because some places will receive more snowfall due to higher temperatures (most heavy snowfalls happen with relatively warm air) but unfortunately that snow will melt sooner.

I posted the winter extent graph in response to ml's claim that snow doesn't seem to stick around for more than a few days anymore. He wasn't claiming that snowpack melts faster in the spring.

You neglect to post the fall extent graph:


In two of three seasons, snow extent is increasing.

[MultiVerse]

Note that I addressed the increasing fall/winter extent in the posts above. Also, extent is not the same thing as depth. Skiers know you need not just coverage but also a deep base.

As for solar cycles, extensive research, not to mention physics and math, shows any cooling effect from a grand solar minimum would have only a small effect on human-caused global warming.

On the previous page, for example, ron's nasa article says "Sunspot counts were relatively high in 2014, and now they are sliding toward a low point expected in 2019-2020." And yet 2014-through-2019 have been the six hottest years on record with 2020 so far even hotter even though we're purportedly seeing a solar low point.

[ron johnson]

Also, on the previous page ron asked if "If Heller's evidence is laughable it should be easy for you show why" and "You got a graph?"


We all found heller's evidence laughable, as laughable as his evidence there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and we all had a good laugh at the time. Ron should refer back to the previous discussion if he wants.

I've followed the discussion closely and you have never presented any evidence on why Heller's evidence "was laughable".

In the meantime, this is Australia's max temperature trend going back to the mid 1800s from, among others, Lawrence National Laboratory & Koch Foundation funded Berkeley Earth—further exposing the ron-heller "no warming in Australia" fraud:

Attachment 320082

This graph does not represent what you claimed. You claimed Heller had many more stations to choose from for his graph. Your graph has <10 stations pre 1870.

[ron johnson]

^ Good talk.

ron wants us to believe there's nothing unprecedented happening. The way ron-heller go about it is by posting factoids and then hoping people make the obvious inference. So when ron falsely asserts "Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's," as a kind of non sequitur the hope is we believe him and make the larger leap.

Notice how ron got upset about digging up "old posts" claiming they were out of context but then proceeded to defend each of them anyway. That's part of his shtick. ron's " take apart every post" routine is purposefully shallow and insulting in an attempt to undermine the truth. ron defends his fake denier arguments with snarky criticism and fake demands for common sense.

So you are saying that when you bring up old posts out of context I shouldn't defend myself?

You are doing the same thing with this Australia temperature tirade - we have a lengthy discussion months ago about extreme heat in Australia. Then out of nowhere you bring up this old quote about maximum temperatures in Australia and use it to try to infer that I deny the world is warming.

[MultiVerse]

The posts aren't out of context. You present the delimited factoid. We fill in the context, and then you move on to the next delimited factoid.

We spent pages upon pages explaining hot daily highs and hot daily lows and how it effects warming before you finally accepted the argument and moved on...

And heller does have many more stations to choose from. He chose only 1890 and earlier (so no 1891, 1892, 1893,...) even though by 1910 there were well over a hundred higher quality more standardized sites to choose from. Heller's fraud relies on an earlier smaller non standardized sample size (notice the grey error bars) to argue there's a conspiracy.

If you want to cross reference the more than 100 turn of the century increasingly standardized sites with heller's 25 that's up to you.

[ron johnson]

Note that I addressed the increasing fall/winter extent in the posts above. Also, extent is not the same thing as depth. Skiers know you need not just coverage but also a deep base.

By addressed you mean speculated. You claim there is increased snowfall due to warmer temperatures, but you would expect this snow to melt quicker. Instead we see that snow extent is trending southward in fall and winter. You also talk about less aldebo in the spring, but ignore the increased aldebo in fall and winter.

As for solar cycles, extensive research, not to mention physics and math, shows any cooling effect from a grand solar minimum would have only a small effect on human-caused global warming.

Of course, SkS says the scientists have it all figured out. They can't figure out the climate sensitivity of CO2, but they know a solar minimum is nothing of concern.

Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate:
https://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

"If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link," said researcher Lika Guhathakurta

On the previous page, for example, ron's nasa article says "Sunspot counts were relatively high in 2014, and now they are sliding toward a low point expected in 2019-2020." And yet 2014-through-2019 have been the six hottest years on record with 2020 so far even hotter even though we're purportedly seeing a solar low point.

I don't know anything about the relationship between sunspots and earth, nor do you. Was there actually a low point in 19/20? Is the effect immediate or is there a delay? Do you need multiple years of low sunspots to have an effect?

[MultiVerse]

- I did address fall and winter aldebo in the post above:

"The snow not sticking around is a big deal and not just for skiers. Snow reflects sunlight which helps cool the planet. Less snow cover in the spring and summer causes more global warming because the days are longer so receiving more energy from the sun for longer enhances the greenhouse effect."

It should be apparent higher latitude arctic/antarctic fall/winter albedo is less of a factor when there's decreasing sunlight. Rutgers defines winter in the northern hemisphere as December-through-Janauary, so how much sunlight is there in places like Alaska, northern Canada, Siberia, the Arctic winter etc., winter compared with the summer?

- The reason why climate sensitivity presents problems is mostly because of feedbacks. It's a systems problem, not a lack of understanding the individual components. People with engineering, econ, statistics, earth science etc. backgrounds understand the distinction all too well.

- Per ron's article the sun varies in the amount of light it emits by only 0.1 percent over the course of a relatively stable 11-year-long pattern known as the solar cycle. So the argument isn't that solar activity has no effect, the argument is the denier claim that all warming can explained by solar activity is false.

[ron johnson]

The posts aren't out of context. You present the delimited factoid. We fill in the context, and then you move on to the next delimited factoid.

We spent pages upon pages explaining hot daily highs and hot daily lows and how it effects warming before you finally accepted the argument and moved on...

They are totally out of context and you refuse to even reference what post you pull them from even when I ask you.

Refresh my memory - I know we discussed hot daily highs and hot daily lows, but what argument did I accept? Wasn't the discussion about how daily lows were increasing more than daily highs and that was the main driver in increasing means?

And heller does have many more stations to choose from. He chose only 1890 and earlier (so no 1891, 1892, 1893,...) even though by 1910 there were well over a hundred higher quality more standardized sites to choose from. Heller's fraud relies on an earlier smaller non standardized sample size (notice the grey error bars) to argue there's a conspiracy.

If you want to cross reference the more than 100 turn of the century increasingly standardized sites with heller's 25 that's up to you.

You have no data on what stations were available in 1891, 1892, 1893, etc., and if they are still active. He wants to include 1890 and beyond because that is a warm period. If you keep adding the 100 new stations to the 25 station baseline you get a biased result if more of the new stations are located in warmer climates. That is exactly what has happened in Australia: http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/raw...e-world-war-i/

[MultiVerse]

The argument went like this:

Ron: "There's no warming in Australia"

Everyone else: Yes, Australia is warming and here's why... we argued about averages, nightime temps, daytime temps, spring/winter/fall temps, and hot daily highs and hot daily lows.

Ron: [each step of the way] none of that matters because when people think about warming all they care about is max summer temps.


And that's not "exactly" what has happened in Australia. Based on independent scientific research by 1910 there were over a hundred higher quality stations. Your joannenova article, and that assumes you accept the conspiracy that raw data is manipulated for nefarious reasons and not because of "new electronic gizmos", still only includes 60 stations.

[dan_pdx]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I think Ron has put his finger on the crux of the problem.

[ron johnson]

- I did address fall and winter aldebo in the post above:

"The snow not sticking around is a big deal and not just for skiers. Snow reflects sunlight which helps cool the planet. Less snow cover in the spring and summer causes more global warming because the days are longer so receiving more energy from the sun for longer enhances the greenhouse effect."

It should be apparent higher latitude arctic/antarctic fall/winter albedo is less of a factor when there's decreasing sunlight. Rutgers defines winter in the northern hemisphere as December-through-Janauary, so how much sunlight is there in places like Alaska, northern Canada, Siberia, the Arctic winter etc., winter compared with the summer?

Again, you are just speculating and it has no relevance to the original argument. Is it possible the increased aldebo in fall and winter offset the decreased spring aldebo? I'm not arguing against the effect of aldebo and temperature. You took issue with me using the winter extent graph, and I explained why the winter extent graph was relevant to ml's claim that snow wasn't lasting for more than a few days.

Also, where are you finding Rutger's seasonal definitions?

- The reason why climate sensitivity presents problems is mostly because of feedbacks. It's a systems problem, not a lack of understanding the individual components. People with engineering, econ, statistics, earth science etc. backgrounds understand the distinction all too well.

- I did the math earlier in this thread WRT cyclical solar activity and the effect is tiny relative to total solar output. If I have time I'll dig it up. The effect has been studied extensively, FYI.

Exactly! You acknowledge feebacks when it comes to CO2 but totally ignore them when it comes to solar activity. You are treating solar output like a simple math problem. From the article:

Many of the ways the scientists proposed these fluctuations in solar activity could influence Earth were complicated in nature. For instance, solar energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course. [Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms Ever]

"In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light," climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told SPACE.com.

When the ozone is removed, "the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions."

These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. "The geographical positioning of the jets aloft can alter the distribution of storms over the middle latitudes," North said. "So the sun might have a role to play in this kind of process. I would have to say this would be a very difficult mechanism to prove in climate models. That does not mean it may not exist — just hard to prove."

In addition, climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.

When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific.
In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.

"The Pacific is particularly sensitive to small variations in the trade winds," Meehl said. Solar activity may influence processes linked with trade wind strength.

[ron johnson]

The argument went like this:

Ron: "There's no warming in Australia"

Everyone else: Yes, Australia is warming and here's why... we argued about averages, nightime temps, daytime temps, spring/winter/fall temps, and hot daily highs and hot daily lows.

Ron: [each step of the way] none of that matters because when people think about warming all they care about is max summer temps.

Again you are misrepresenting me. I know that I clarified that I referring to maximum temperatures. I never took issue with averages and low temps.

And that's not "exactly" what has happened in Australia. Based on independent scientific research by 1910 there were over a hundred higher quality stations. Your joannenova article, and that assumes you accept the conspiracy that raw data is manipulated for nefarious reasons and not because of "new electronic gizmos", still only includes 60 stations.

It's impossible to argue with someone that doesn't understand the need to have a level playing field when comparing temperatures.

[MultiVerse]

- You argued averages and low temps hardly matter.

- I'm not speculating, the effect has been studied and quantified. Snow extent is declining faster than in the past and it's causing more global warming:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...9-and-2008.pdf

- The argument isn't that solar activity has no effect, the argument is the denier claim that all warming can explained by solar activity is false.

- No, I understand the need to have a level playing field when comparing temperatures. When your article says stupid things "new electronic gizmos" conspiracy theorists are trying to imply that instrument calibration is a conspiracy. The point is that if you ignore things like "new electronic gizmos," your answer will be wrong. Do you you really think there are 25 or 60 mercury thermometer stations that have been in continuous operation for a 130-150 years?

[rideit]

You are special kind of delusional, and I don't know why you call me a boomer. I'm younger than you.

And significantly dumber.

[ron johnson]

- I'm not speculating, the effect has been studied and quantified. Snow extent is declining faster than in the past and causing more global warming:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...9-and-2008.pdf

- The argument isn't that solar activity has no effect, the argument is the denier claim that all warming can explained by solar activity is false.

WHO IS CLAIMING THAT ALL WARMING CAN BE EXPLAINED BY SOLAR ACTIVITY?!?!

[ex-powderbroker]

It's impossible to argue with someone that doesn't understand the need to have a level playing field when comparing temperatures.

It seems like the way to level the playing field is to acknowledge that the record of the weather stations has uncertainties that continuously diminishes to nothing by 1950, no?

[ron johnson]

I think Ron has put his finger on the crux of the problem.

It's funny that even though you never have anything valid to contribute, you can't resist trying to poke fun at me.

[MultiVerse]

It seems like the way to level the playing field is to acknowledge that the record of the weather stations has uncertainties that continuously diminishes to nothing by 1950, no?

Yes, you're right.

There are statistical methods (note the uncertainty range in the graph above) and many other ways, like barometric pressure data and proxies, to compare and validate the instrument temperature record. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than deniers would have you believe.

Using the uncalibrated raw data is the conspiracy, not the other way around.

[SkiCougar]

83 degrees in Houston today, going to in july 183 if this warming continues.

[rideit]

It's funny that even though you never have anything valid to contribute, you can't resist trying to poke fun at me.

Do you actually find your contributions valid?
Never play chess with a pigeon.
But flicking them with pebbles is fun.

[dan_pdx]

It's funny that even though you never have anything valid to contribute

Ron, have you ever heard the one about people who live in glass houses?

Isn't there a coronavirus thread for you to shit all over somewhere?

[MultiVerse]

dan_pdx has brought teh funneh and statistical knowledge to this thread. Those are incredibly valid contributions.

This is such a useless propaganda piece. "They said [with?] confidence human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a “five-sigma” level."

"[with?] " is not needed there. "Confidence" is a reference to the statistical confidence level. In other words, the confidence level that human activities are raising the heat at the Earth's surface has reached 99.99994%.

I understand the term confidence. I inserted the 'with?' because the sentence I copy and pasted from WMD's article doesn't make sense without it:

"They said that confidence human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a “five-sigma” level."

I shouldn't keep getting sucked into this but Ron, by your own admission you don't have the skills to accurately interpret scientific papers. The sentence makes complete sense without your additional "with".

I don't think you have delusions of grandeur regarding your ability to interpret scientific data, I think you have delusions of competence.