:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Printable View
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
This should be fun.
Show support with credible links.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
:popcornpop:
As I mentioned earlier, the medieval warm period has been explained mainly by increased sun activity. This has then been discounted as the current reason due to a stable solar energy in recent times.
However, other scientific studies suggest increased solar activity over the last 100 years. There have been a number of large solar flares in recent times.
I still don't undestand why the records since 1650 have not been used in the areas recorded. Previoys studies, using these records, show cyclic fluctuations and weather anomalies lasting up to a decade. These anomalies need to be explained. As previously stated, they show that 1850 was the end of a particularly cold period and it is not the best starting point to use. Unless it's required for dramatic effect.
Carbon 13 is only 1% of the atmospheric carbon, carbon 12 being the remainder with some carbon14 thought to be the result of nuclear weapon activity in the 50's and 60's. How much long term effect did this have on the carbon seasonal distribution. Again, analysis has been done but doesn't tie in with wanted conclusion.
I realise the articles cannot go into full scientific depth but they should not cherry pick to reach a wanted conclusion either.
Your links are nothin more than confirmation bias. It is you who needs to dig deeper.
You're off to a bad startQuote:
Originally Posted by Troy
FocusQuote:
Originally Posted by Troy
So, you have no argument, just lols and dodgy data.
Pick it up climate denier
Where are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
And remember,…credible links.
:popcornpop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
He has form for this. Youve just invited him to troll the board twice as hard.
Says the guy linking to X, formerly known as twitter...Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
You mean Dr. Zeke Hausfather? https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting...Z-20210312.pdf
You want to give it another shot? :)
Where are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
And remember,…credible links.
:popcornpop:
Let's start with Sun activity and the claim that the current solar radiation has been relatively stable and has not significantly influenced global warming since 1850.
Back in 2004, the Max-Plank institute for Solar System Research publish the following peer reviewed article:
The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
...
...Quote:
This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.
and in conclusion:
The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years | Max-Planck-GesellschaftQuote:
The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.
Then there is this article from Space.com from 2006:
Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms
https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activ...-confirms.htmlQuote:
The energy output from the Sun has increased significantly during the 20th century, according to a new study.
Many studies have attempted to determine whether there is an upward trend in the average magnitude of sunspots and solar flares over time, but few firm conclusions have been reached.
Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century.
Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.
The average global temperature at Earth's surface has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists debate whether the increase is part of a natural climate cycle or the result of greenhouse gases produced by cars and industrial processes.
The Sun's impact on climate has only recently been investigated. Recent studies show that an increase in solar output can cause short-term changes in Earth's climate, but there is no firm evidence linking solar activity with long-term climate effects.
The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.
Both are more rational in their conclusion that the link between solar activity and global warming is inconclusive. However, this could easily have caused a change in the evaporation/cloud/rain cycle that global weather relies upon. Furthermore, if this is not a factor (main or supporting) for the current warming how could it have been for the Medieval period.
Then we have from NOAA:
Time-lapse of Solar Cycle 25 displays increasing activity on the Sun
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/tim...tivity-the-sunQuote:
In case you missed it, Solar Cycle 25 has ramped up much faster than scientists predicted producing more sunspots and eruptions than experts had forecast. Tracking and predicting the Sun’s solar cycles gives a rough idea of the frequency of space weather storms of all types – from radio blackouts to geomagnetic storms and solar radiation storms – and it’s used by many industries to gauge the potential impact of space weather on Earth. Though we are seeing increased activity on the Sun, we expect this solar cycle to be average compared to solar cycles in the past century.
and Science Magazine:
Peak solar activity is arriving sooner than expected, reaching levels not seen in 20 years
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-seen-20-yearsQuote:
In 2019, as the Sun approached a minimum in its 11-year cycle of magnetic activity, a dozen scientists assembled for a traditional exercise: forecasting the next peak. Now, a few years into the Sun’s resurgence, it’s becoming clear that the official prediction from the panel, convened by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the International Space Environment Service (ISES), missed the mark. The Sun’s activity has already surpassed the forecast, reaching levels not seen in 20 years, and solar maximum may arrive within the next year, months ahead of its presumed schedule. “Obviously the panel underestimated it,” says Ilya Usoskin, a physicist at the University of Oulu.
...
“Did we get it absolutely right? No,” says Lisa Upton, a physicist at the Southwest Research Institute who co-chaired the panel. “But considering the level of uncertainty that’s associated with what we’re trying to do here, it’s actually a quite good prediction.”
So, an institute that researches and models global warming changes admits to not get its modelling correct in forecasting sunspot activity.
It raises an element of doubt in the models used and an element of doubt in the way data is being used to stimulate that model. The sun activity has been used as a major factor in many of the changes that earth has experienced in the last 100million years or so. CO2 has increased to levels well above current levels without any human interference (e.g. the Cumbrian Period) and experienced far higher global temperatures in its life.
Sure Humans have added to the problem but I don't think stopping the use of fossil fuels will be enough to stop the warming.
going to have to try again. Because,........
:doglol:Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
You didn't read any of it did you...relying instead on your one link of information as if it was gospel.
You and your sources are just too superficial.
:doglol:
Climate denier you going to have to find something else. It’s not the sun
Little deeper,......Open Advanced
Same source and still haven't read the contradicting evidence.
Carry on spamming...
Sure I read some of it,..........But it's not the sun climate denier
:doglol:
Troy you need a little help to say the least. Maybe this will help
Graph means nothing as it stands, are you going to link to a source?
Have you bothered to read those articles. How can the sun be said to be currently stable, when it has been shown not to be, and yet it was the cause of the Medieval warm period? Have you spotted that little contradiction yet?
Any explanation for the enormous levels of CO2 during the Cambrian period? Were they all man made?
It’s in here someplace RealClimate: Blog – realclimate.org – All Posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
You’re not going to like it. It’s filled with climate science written by some of the best climate scientist out there.
Facts!
And no it’s not the sun. :)
Facts based on assumptions...are not actually facts. However, it's going to take time to read through that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
==============
And you still haven't explained the contradiction. Why was it the sun in Medieaval times? You can;t have it both ways.
I’m not here to answer your question/s.
Where are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Show support with credible links.
Do yourself a favor. Read the link above first before you ask a question, I will not answer. What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Indeed, where is that hard evidence. So far you have only provided theories and mainly from the same blog.
So, it's not the sun? :)
You got nothing.........
still waiting :popcornpop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Only if you fail to read the evidence that suggests it may be a contributing factor.
I don't need any theories. You have failed to convince me so need to try harder.
still waiting climate denier
^
What are you doing about all the methane the cattle on your ranch emit, Landreth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
:doglol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Temperatures near 50C in central-western WA
Back to the extreme heat in parts of Western Australia:
Parts of the Gascoyne and Central West regions neared 50C yesterday, as residents in northern Perth had to evacuate due to a bushfire which has since been controlled.
According to Weatherzone, the following temperatures were recorded yesterday:
- 49.9C at Carnarvon Airport – the highest temperature recorded in the world so far in 2024
- 49.8C at Shark Bay Airport, near Denham – a station record
- 49.3C at Geraldton in the Central West – the hottest day on record for the town.
It's 10C in Newcastle Upon Tyne, north east England. Nothing to see here. Move along please.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Troy, your theories are needed.
February on course to break unprecedented number of heat records
February is on course to break a record number of heat records, meteorologists say, as human-made global heating and the natural El Niño climate pattern drive up temperatures on land and oceans around the world.
A little over halfway into the shortest month of the year, the heating spike has become so pronounced that climate charts are entering new territory, particularly for sea-surface temperatures that have persisted and accelerated to the point where expert observers are struggling to explain how the change is happening.
“The planet is warming at an accelerating rate. We are seeing rapid temperature increases in the ocean, the climate’s largest reservoir of heat,” said Dr Joel Hirschi, the associate head of marine systems modelling at the UK National Oceanography Centre. “The amplitude by which previous sea surface temperatures records were beaten in 2023 and now 2024 exceed expectations, though understanding why this is, is the subject of ongoing research.”
Humanity is on a trajectory to experience the hottest February in recorded history, after a record January, December, November, October, September, August, July, June and May, according to the Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather.
He said the rise in recent weeks was on course for 2C of warming above pre-industrial levels, though this should be the brief, peak impact of El Niño if it follows the path of previous years and starts to cool down in the months ahead.
Sea surface temperatures for 2024 exceed previous records by a huge margin
Average daily sea surface temperature, 60S to 60N, C
Once you have got past the first hurdle I'll move to the next one. So far you have failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Let's try again.
You linked to a source that explains it is not the sun. The sun jas been radiating the same amount of energy towards the earth for thousands of years with an 11 year cycle.
The same source then explains away the medieval warming period as being caused by sun activity, or at least a contributing factor.
I have provided peer reviewed research that shows the sun has not been radiating with such stable power as assumed but has shown strong activity in the last 150 years.
So to write off the sun as being a contributing factor is incorrect and contradictory.
Explain that contradiction and we can move on.
It's the coldest February in NE Thailand I've known in over 25 years. Makes you wonder why those global warming graphs make it appear hotter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Nope, it's not the sunQuote:
Originally Posted by Troy
It’s not the sun……..Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.
Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.
Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
Overall, our conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.
still waiting for “Lots of theories”Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
:popcornpop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
:durh:Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
^ Yes, it's taking time for that point to sink in.
The lots of theories is based on your global warming links. Nothing to do with me. Is that all you have as a comeback?
You still haven't explained this simple contradiction.
Not so strange the newly labeled climate denier would leave the other two factors outQuote:
Originally Posted by pickel
And this…….Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
It's not the sunQuote:
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.
Oh my god, you're like a broken record.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Saying it often does not make it true.
butt still stinging climate denier :doglol:
My carbon footprint is much smaller than yours, rancher.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Climate denier? How childish! Is this the only way you can debate?
I didn't leave out the other 2 factors at all, just breaking down the argument slowly.
Next we come to low volcanic activity, the second reason given. How low was the low activity then, and how does it compare to now. Actually, despite a reasonable time searching I couldn't find an answer. No pretty graph to show the difference. Perhaps you have one?
I looked at another of your links and it explained all about fossil fuels having their own CO2 fingerprint when burnt. However, digging a little deeper, I find it doesn't really. It is plain old C12, just like people and animals exhale, the earth vents into the sea and air, agricultural land gives off etc.
The fingerprint is really with volcanic activity and emission of C13. So a lack of C13 suggests low volcanic activity and there we have the second reason given for the Medieval warming period. Now we have 2 of the 3 reasons given actually applying to the current time as well.