His big tree ring study leading to the “hockey stick” was a bunch of mule fritters, so, sure, let’s listen to him again as he fear mongers
Humans, not nature, are the cause of changes in Atlantic hurricane cycles, new study finds
It’s well known in science that for more than a century hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean has oscillated between active and inactive periods, each lasting a few decades. For the past couple of decades, meteorologists and climate scientists have believed that this ebb and flow was due to a natural warming and cooling cycle built into the climate system called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO.
The term was coined in the year 2000 by world-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and author of the new book “The New Climate War.” The concept of the AMO has become ubiquitous in explanations and forecasts of active or inactive hurricane seasons.
The image below, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows how hurricane activity seems to flow in roughly 60-year waves — active for around 30 years when the Atlantic in its warm phase and inactive for around 30 years when in the cool phase.
But today, in a newly released paper in the journal Science, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may have been dealt a deadly blow — by the very man who named it. Mann now concludes the AMO is very likely an artifact of climate change, driven by “human forcing” from rising carbon emissions in the modern era and “natural forcing” due to massive volcanic eruptions in pre-industrial times.
It’s just very convenient that Mann, along with the rest of the Cult of Climastrology, can say “see, back then it was all nature but now it’s Your Fault,” eh?
The finding — which is bound to generate significant controversy and pushback from the weather and climate communities due to how broadly accepted the concept of the AMO has become — may very well shake the foundations of understanding of what has been driving historical hurricane cycles.
Simply put, if true, this discovery means that during the 20th century and beyond, humans — not natural variability — have been the main driving force in the up-and-down cycles of hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean.
I wonder how many faulty premises and data points will be in this study? Meh, it matters little to the Cult, because this now gives them an excuse to call for more taxes and government Authority.
Teach why do you think the earth is warming and why do you think the rate of warming is increasing
John-the rate has been as high,or higher in the past. You be been shown this several times. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.
You’ve also been shown several papers with alternate hypothesis on warming— namely clouds. There are others. Ignoring them won’t make those go away, either.
The current rate of warming is an order of magnitude more rapid than the transition between the previous glacial period and the Holocene.
Professor, the rate would be irrelevant. It would be the alleged effects of the rate that would matter.
Jl: You’ve also been shown several papers with alternate hypothesis on warming— namely clouds.
That’s not actually an explanation. You may as well say it’s caused by boojums or an excess of galumphing. What are the causative mechanisms? Why are the actions of clouds different now than in the past?
Sure it is-read the papers. Actions of clouds are no different, but the amount can be different. NASA/NOAA freely admit they don’t know clouds https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1329610189197205505?s=21
https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1365485124004044801?s=21
Commenter: NASA/NOAA freely admit they don’t know clouds
Cloud science is hard!
Professor Joni Mitchell (1969):
https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1329608756536221696?s=21
Jl: Sure it is-read the papers.
We’ll just sample the first paper: McLean, “Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover.” He notes that cloud cover was reduced by 4.8% during the period, and then calculates the change in albedo, but he doesn’t account for the change in outgoing long wavelength radiation. Nor does the paper explain *why* cloud cover changed, which was the question posed. The explanation is that cloud cover is changing in response to warming.
And of course rate is a relative term. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1329608691264450562?s=21
jl,
Far be it for me to advise you on more effective argumentation, but your recent reliance on just dropping others’ tweets without context or explanation doesn’t help your argument even a little.
And as you know, Pierre Gosselin (NTZ) is a climate change denier who misleads his loyal readers by misciting and misinterpreting actual scientific papers. We’ve been through this before. Make your own arguments!
Rates are relative! Care to explain what you mean? In this case the dependent variable “temperature” varies with the independent variable “time”. The slope is the rate, for example, 0.2 degrees C/decade. Are you claiming the definition of “rate” 12,000 yrs ago is qualitatively different from “rate” this century?? Or is your point that language hadn’t been invented 12,000 yrs ago, LOL?
Nice try J, but Gosselin didn’t write the papers the quotes came from, so in other words, the “rateâ€was higher in the past. But as said before, the rate is irrelevant-it’s the effect of the rate. The paper said 22 degrees in 50 years-care to dispute that? If so, take it up with the author.
Good one-“Gosselin is a climate change denierâ€. (Always label when you can’t refute) . You mean as opposed to a climate change alarmist?
When the United States National Academy of Science was asked to evaluate the temperature records/reconstructions over the past 1000 years and concluded:
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/#ixzz6oKySWY41
World renowned climate scientist, Teach, claims that the “hockey stick” is mule fritters. A claim that is, well, horse hockey.
Since the late 19th century the Earth’s mean surface temperature has shot up with no reason to expect it to stop. Mann’s latest paper challenges the dogma on the source of the AMO and will be subject to significant, constructive criticize from the scientific community.
And who is Mann saying was initially wrong about the AMO? None other than himself!
Well, let’s put it this way concerning both Mann and Rimjob…
https://tinyurl.com/sxkthfsk
BWAHA! Lolgf
Yet, here is Smegma-breath once again crying “Hey, look at me!!”
Bwaha! Lolgf
https://tinyurl.com/sxkthfsk
First, Mann is of course wrong about hurricanes, there’s no change. And there’s all kinds of criticism of his “hockey stick “ from his own peers … https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1363286208827244549?s=21
And Muller from Berkeley Earth had a lot to say about Mann, contrary to the other commenter in the post. https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1314326877792858112?s=21
Professor Muller, formerly a “skeptic” corrected his earlier concerns about Professor Mann’s studies.
As a skeptic scientist, Muller founded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to examine the reliability of the temperature record.
“Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
Muller, Richard A. (July 30, 2012). “The conversion of a climate change skeptic”. New York Times.
He said he had allowed himself to be misled by the deniers, McIntyre and McKitrick, in the early 2000s. Further work by others found the M & M tale to be BS.
Found even more on Mann… https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1347276380212379648?s=21
It’s always fun with J- whatever he says consider the opposite to be true. Did you look at the links? You should have. The links I posted all came later-2003, 2004 2011, 2012. So Muller was criticizing Mann long after he wasn’t an alleged “skepticâ€, sorry. But anyway, in addition to Muller, there were several others criticizing his methodology, as shown.
J-do you get you climate news from the back of a box of Cheerios? Mueller on Mann: (note the year). https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/
And who said CO2 hasn’t been this high in the recent past? https://twitter.com/edbohman/status/1366393244372905985?s=21
More on “the science is settled†Dr. Mann… https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1354584927875059714?s=21
“The explanation is that cloud cover changing due to warmingâ€. No, warming due to cloud cover change. But this is interesting-IPCC lowered solar irradiance levels contrary to several papers saying otherwise-conveniently leaving CO2 as the only driver https://twitter.com/dawntj90/status/1346950487979954181?s=21
Jl: No, warming due to cloud cover change.
Again, you didn’t answer. Why did cloud cover change?
You ignored the problem in the cited paper where the author calculates the change in albedo, but he doesn’t account for the change in outgoing long wavelength radiation.
Some say cosmic rays.. http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004GL0195072.pdf
https://notrickszone.com/2018/09/27/new-paper-the-gcr-cloud-link-to-solar-driven-climate-change-persists-despite-the-post-2000-violation/
Jl: Some say cosmic rays..
The hypothesis has been studied and found wanting. See, for instance, Sloan & Wolfendale, Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate, Environmental Research Letters 2013. Even your own citation indicates a problem with the correlation.
Mike Rowe on climate and Covid
Bwaha! Lolgf
There were obvious flaws in the election but the left refuses to admit it and they also refuse to investigate them That trifecta also has had a devastating effect on the public trust, and for good reason. . .
When everything from Mr. Potatohead to federal elections and even the Supreme Court is made political then no one can trust anything. That’s where we are right now with DC being occupied by a military Junta. As long as the American Left insists there was no voter fraud without any investigation of such we will insist Xiden is a Red Chinese plant (well, mentally he is a plant).
How do you square this? Every state should open up 100% on this principle alone, the virus is no longer an issue because illegal aliens are being let across the border, tested, and released to go anywhere they want in the country regardless of a positive or negative test.
The only people being punished by government lock-downs are Americans….insane.
Border Patrol Release Covid Postive Illegals Into the U.S.
Miriam Izaguirre, a 35-year-old asylum-seeker from Honduras, crossed the Rio Grande at dawn Monday with her young son and turned herself in to the authorities.
A few hours later she was released, and the first thing she did was take a rapid test for Covid-19 at the Brownsville bus station. They told her her test came out positive. “Right now we were tested for Covid and they separated about eight of us because we were positive,†she told Noticias Telemundo Investiga. “We are waiting right now.†She was waiting to catch a bus to Houston.
Other migrant families who also said they had tested positive were waiting to go to other destinations: North Carolina, Maryland and New Jersey.
The “devastating effect on the public trust” arose from trump and his minions’ unsubstantiated lies. Period.
Every state in question was/is run by Repubicans, they can conduct all the investigations they wish. Instead, they’ve introducing legislation to make it more difficult for Americans to vote. But only Americans likely to vote for Democrats.
from the interview:
Prof Muller:
There was bad blood between Mann and Muller, but Muller says “global warming is real and it’s caused by humans”. He seems to think that “future” warming is “what we have to worry about”.
Do you accept all of Muller’s positions or just his bad-mouthing of the East Anglia scientists.
I said Muller, along with others, criticized Mann’s methodology. He obviously did, as shown. You said Muller only criticized him in the early 2000s-that was shown to be false, as he was as late as 2011, 2012
I concede your point.
Do you concede that former skeptic, Professor Muller, now accepts the evidence that the Earth is warming from CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels?
Never said he didn’t, now did I? I said he criticized Mann’s methodology for the hockey stick, as did several others., which is a true statement. You’re trying to deflect because you erroneously said Muller’s criticism only came early, which it didn’t.
I conceded your point. I was wrong. You were right. You’re a winner!
Now, is the Earth warming as a result of CO2 as Professor Muller says?
As long as there are contradictory hypothesis (as shown), it remains open to question. As long as we had a MWP, it remains open. As long we’ve had periods in earth’s history where temp and CO2 moved in opposite directions, it remains open. As long as we have evidence of data tampering, it remains open. And as so far there’s been no simple, repeatable experiment of CO2 absorbing LWIR in the 15 um range from an object and some of the re-emitted LWIR from the CO2 returns and warms the initial object (simple physics), as the scientific method requires, it remains open.
Jl: As long as there are contradictory hypothesis (as shown), it remains open to question.
The cosmic ray hypothesis has been studied and found to be wanting.
Jl: As long as we had a MWP, it remains open.
Natural climate change is a part of climate science.
Jl: As long we’ve had periods in earth’s history where temp and CO2 moved in opposite directions, it remains open.
Again, no. CO2 is not the only mechanism of climate change.
Jl: As long as we have evidence of data tampering, it remains open.
Reexamination of the raw data supports global warming.
Jl: And as so far there’s been no simple, repeatable experiment of CO2 absorbing LWIR in the 15 um range from an object and some of the re-emitted LWIR from the CO2 returns and warms the initial object (simple physics), as the scientific method requires, it remains open.
The infrared spectrum of CO2 has been known for generations. Its effect has been directly observed in the atmosphere. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2, Nature 2015
Don’t forget that the one and only resolution to global warming accepted by the warmest religion is global communism and marked, economy and wealth destruction for Europe and the US, which is admitted to have little to no influence on warming and CO2. And at the same time no real pressure on India and China who are the major polluters. Anytime science is hopelessly entwined with politics, it stops being science.
Oh, this comment is a reply to jl, not z as I don’t exchange comments with rude children, that includes Jeff.
deviant,
Yet, here you are obsessing over two commenters whom you claim you refuse to respond. LOL.
You dismiss any scientific discussion and default to conspiracy tales of communist plots. LOL.
david7134: Don’t forget that the one and only resolution to global warming accepted by the warmest religion is global communism and marked, economy and wealth destruction for Europe and the US, which is admitted to have little to no influence on warming and CO2.
The U.S. and Europe are still major emitters of CO2, and their cumulative emissions are substantial.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Annual-CO2-emissions-by-region.png/1920px-Annual-CO2-emissions-by-region.png
Another Wikipedia lawyer or Global Warming expert. Why should we believe a wikipedia article which is written by known WOKE WALKING LEFTISTS??
Quoting Wikipedia is like showing up for a date with bad breath and a roll of toilet paper trailing you as you walk. I question why a warmer planet is such an egregious problem for the people of earth?
Est1950: Another Wikipedia lawyer or Global Warming expert.
It turns out that some evidence is a stronger argument than no evidence. In any case, the overall emissions are not controversial. See, for instance, Boden et al., National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy 2017.
Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.
Sorry, Zach-Feldman used a model, so not the same at all. Look it up. Still a simple physics experiment that hasn’t been done. But why would one have to use a model to have to show CO2 warming something, even a cup of coffee? But as said before, let me get this straight-increasing the level of CO2 increases temperatures, but it can’t be demonstrated in a lab experiment, that temperatures can be increased by increasing the levels of CO2? Got it.
MWP-“ natural climate change is part of climate science†Yes, and how much a role that plays now is still a guess from a model. So until the MWP can be explained away, it’s still open, as said. “CO2 not the only mechanismâ€. Correct, so it may
not be the mechanism now-so it remains open. “Cosmic ray hypothesis found to be wanting.†Funny-CO2 hypothesis also found to be wanting-that’s why we’re here. “Raw data supports warmingâ€.Not really, as then there’d be no need to change the data, which has been done.
And here’s one of many instances-notice NOAA saying “no warming 1895 to 1987â€, and then look at the Berkeley Earth graph showing… warming 1895 to 1987, among other examples in the article
Jl: Zach-Feldman used a model, so not the same at all.
Everything in science depends on models. See Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica 1687. In any case, Feldman et al. made direct observations to confirm the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Jl: But as said before, let me get this straight-increasing the level of CO2 increases temperatures, but it can’t be demonstrated in a lab experiment, that temperatures can be increased by increasing the levels of CO2?
The infrared properties of carbon dioxide have been studied in “lab experiments” for generations.
Jl: Correct, so it may not be the mechanism now-so it remains open.
That is incorrect. By studying the various mechanisms, we can determine the relative effects. Without anthropogenic causes, the climate would be slightly cooling rather than warming.
https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png
Jl: CO2 hypothesis also found to be wanting-that’s why we’re here.
That’s incorrect. The physical effects of CO2 on surface warming has been known for over a century.
Jl: Not really, as then there’d be no need to change the data, which has been done.
Reanalysis of the raw data has confirmed the warming trend. See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview 2012.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/01/the-worst-data-set/
Jl: /the-worst-data-set/
That’s not a refutation of Berkeley Earth’s reanalysis.
No, not everything depends on models. The problem is the output of a model is determined by the assumptions built into its design. “Feldman made direct observations†. No- if they made observations that could be measured, then a model wouldn’t be necessary. So still no direct observation of a verifiable cause-effect experiment. “The infrared properties of CO2 have been studied in lab experiments…†The problem is they may have studied, but they haven’t been measured. Why can’t it be measured? A major thorn in the sid of the alarmists.. “Without anthropogenic effects, there be a slight coolingâ€. Not at all-again, whatever caused the MWP could be causing this now. And you’ve already seen the papers on clouds and solar radiation. “We know the relative effects†No, they’re still using models to come to what they think is a relative effect. Again, modeled, not measured, and they freely admit the models are nowhere near what the should be. Case in point-they still have no idea how to factor clouds in.â€The physical effects of CO2 have been know for a century.†The hypothetical effects may be known, but the haven’t been measured. ‘Raw data shows warming trendâ€. No it doesn’t, as the link I sent you showed. If raw data showed warming, no need for “adjustmentsâ€-but yet, we have adjustments
“That’s not a refutation of the Berkeley analysisâ€. Sure it is-it shows they used adjustments to turn a slight cooling into warming
Jl: No, not everything depends on models.
Science is the fitting of models to observations. How did you think it worked?
Jl: if they made observations that could be measured
Gee whiz. It’s right in the title, “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. Here:
https://www.ssec.wisc.edu/aeri/
Jl: The problem is they may have studied, but they haven’t been measured.
Huh? Spectroscopy has been a well-established observational method for over a century. The infrared spectrum of CO2 is something you look up in a book, like molecular weight.
Jl: Case in point-they still have no idea how to factor clouds in.
Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. See, for instance, Dessler, “A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade”, Science 2010: “Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations.”
Jl: If raw data showed warming, no need for “adjustmentsâ€-but yet, we have adjustments
The contiguous U.S. only represents about 2% of the Earth’s surface. And, of course the data has to be adjusted. For instance, some stations made their measurements in the morning, others in the evening. Berkeley Earth used a new statistical method confirming the previous analyses.
Nope. Models are based on assumptions, obviously. In other words there’s still no evidence in an experiment of CO2 back radiation warming anything. Models aren’t evidence. If I was a math expert and made a model that said if I played these numbers this many times I’d win the lottery, is that proof that I’d win the lottery? No. “A well established observational methodâ€. Yes, still observed, not measured. You’ve still come up with no reason why CO2 back radiation can’t be measured in a simple experiment. “Not knowing anything†As far as clouds, yes you do need to know when we’re told the earths temp changed by a tenths of a degree. “US only 2% of Earths’s surfaceâ€. But by far the longest and most detailed data on temperature. “Of course the data has to be adjusted…some in the morning, some in the evening†See below why that’s been disproved.
Time of Observation adjustments. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/05/the-wildly-fraudulent-tobs-temperature-adjustment/
“The US is only 2% of earths surface,, https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/the-global-temperature-record-is-a-complete-fake/
Jl: Models are based on assumptions, obviously.
That’s right. For instance, Newtonian Mechanics is based on the axioms of the Three Laws of Motion. We then test the entailments of those axioms against observation. It’s called hypothetico-deduction, and forms the very heart of science — including climate science.
Jl: In other words there’s still no evidence in an experiment of CO2 back radiation warming anything.
There is direct observational evidence of the infrared spectrum of CO2. It’s something you look up in a book.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1
Jl: Yes, still observed, not measured.
Huh? What? Of course the observations were measurements.
Jl: {Tony Heller}
The satellite data is completely independent; different instruments, different methods, even different scientists. You would have to explain why the satellite data trend supports the ground data trend. It would be odd that the ground data trend is manipulated, but almost exactly matches the satellite data trend.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
More Berkeley https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image706_shadow.png
Believe me, they adjust because they have to… https://twitter.com/unityrigbob/status/1367628380812636162?s=21
@Zachriel
Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.
I never said I don’t like facts. In fact, facts are what drive me. I am paid to analyze facts and not fiction. I have never, nor will you ever find anything I have written that supports the notion the planet is not heating up.
Facts are important. The problem with facts is they tend to be weapons that are dropped on the wrong people, places or things.
For example. China is building 300 new coal fired power plants not only in China but around the globe. The facts are that YOU and your entourage of Eco Terrorists are attacking Democracies while ignoring the real polluters of the world. That is a TRUTH that you don’t like and have no answer for.
The FACTS are important. The fact is that no court would take up any election fraud case. That is a fact. The truth is that election fraud existed despite this. The FACTS and the TRUTH are two different things that lead to two differing conclusions.
Those are facts and truth and they don’t always lead to the same conclusion. Remember that when you send people to Mars hoping you will solve all the problems of how they will survive by the time they get there. Because that my friend is the AGW movement in a nutshell.
Screw you all now, we will figure it all out later. That should be your motto.
Est1950: The facts are that YOU and your entourage of Eco Terrorists are attacking Democracies while ignoring the real polluters of the world.
We have never, nor will you ever find anything we have written that supports the notion that China is not a major contributor to greenhouse gases.
In any case, we provided information on cumulative emissions by country. You waved your hands. Now adjust for per capita emissions. The West built great wealth on their emissions, but want to forestall others from doing the same. But unabated emissions will be a tragedy of the commons.