I think most of the pro AGW crowd do not understand why Dr. Judith Curry is considered a heretic.Then she should stop pushing information and writing confussing articles that are easily misinterpreted by the less informed. Like her article you cut and pasted in this thread that mislead longview.
Besides... Curry wasn't my main complaint. It was Nova that was really the most misleading.
Funny how you have steered this thread away from her pushing of denialist lies.
I think most of the pro AGW crowd do not understand why Dr. Judith Curry is considered a heretic.
It is not that she does not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but rather has the audacity,
to show through published peer reviewed research, both a lower ECS, and that there is room
for skepticism of the IPCC's predictions.
Light in the darkness. Revolutionary heroes like Svensmark.
You talk about this like a cult follower does.
That's because a revolution is, in fact, under way.
[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/.../bo13179781.html
University of Chicago Press
The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Thomas S. Kuhn is published by University of Chicago Press.
No one is denying she has a blog, but they so does Mann. But show also publishes real peer reviewed research,And she's so good at doing that, she's shifted her scientific interests to 'social media communication'.
This is the second time you've presented a 50 year old book as evidence of a current scientific revolution.
Finally had some time to look over Jack Hayes' latest cut and paste job.
Hey Jack... when are going to stop spamming this forum with denialist BS??
Speaking of global cooling . . . .
Alarmism
[h=1]Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of…
Cooling from ice melt is largely regional, temporary, and does not alleviate concerns about global warming. Southern Hemisphere cooling is mainly in uninhabited regions. Northern Hemisphere cooling increases temperature gradients that will drive stronger storms (Sect. 3.9).
Global cooling due to ice melt causes a large increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (Fig. 7b), adding about C 2 W m
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07...-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/Recognition of the climate importance of the Sun and GCR's continues to grow. This new paper suggests advocates of AGW orthodoxy may have to make some concessions.
Are we headed for a new solar minimum?
[FONT=&]Posted on June 27, 2016 | 92 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma
Continue reading →
In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.
The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).
Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma
Abstract. Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing. . . .
What does this have to do with a solar minimum? Almost nothing. But then we all know that this thread wasn't created to discuss solar cycles. It was started to mislead people into believing that the planet is going to start cooling. And since I pretty much shot that down you are trying again.
And as is typical of your denialist blog posts this one is also misleading. The author of this article is neglecting to even discuss what would also likely be happening at the same time if we saw cooling like this. And that is massive sea level rise. Now I could be wrong here but if I am reading these articles correctly then the drastic temperature drops shown in that graph would be caused by the shutting down of the AMOC due to massive ice loss in Greenland and/or Antarctica. And that melting might correspond to sea level rise of 5 meters.
Sorry guys but I doubt that any temporary decline in temps associated with this kind of sea level rise is going to help your cause.
Also from Hansen's article:
You're the one who brought up cooling. I thought I was doing you a favor. Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished.
There is a pretty good chance the planet will enter a cooling phase. However, a single minimal solar cycle, or the normal cyclical activities of the oceans will not be the cause. It will take at least two or three weakened solar cycles to cause enough reduction of solar heat to start such a trend. We are likely 20 years away from witnessing a cooling if it will occur.What does this have to do with a solar minimum? Almost nothing. But then we all know that this thread wasn't created to discuss solar cycles. It was started to mislead people into believing that the planet is going to start cooling. And since I pretty much shot that down you are trying again.
The only "denial" is your ignorance of science. This leads you to label people who differ from your confirmation bias, terms that are not fitting.And as is typical of your denialist blog posts this one is also misleading.
No... that would be longview who first brought up cooling after reading Curry's article. Then there was your cut and paste of Jo Nova who pushed out right lies before I said anything.
But you know this... right? Your just being obstinate... right? Or are you just self delusional?
There is a pretty good chance the planet will enter a cooling phase. However, a single minimal solar cycle, or the normal cyclical activities of the oceans will not be the cause. It will take at least two or three weakened solar cycles to cause enough reduction of solar heat to start such a trend. We are likely 20 years away from witnessing a cooling if it will occur.
The prediction of leading solar scientists is that the next few solar cycles will be of low activity. Some say we may see a cooling equivalent to the maunder Minima, but again, the equalization lag will make this decades away.
The only "denial" is your ignorance of science. This leads you to label people who differ from your confirmation bias, terms that are not fitting.
Since when does science exclude multiple perspectives to analyze?
Only those ignorant of science call people of differing views, deniers. Please stop your idiotic rubbish.
Your claim about JoNova is an unsupported allegation. In any case, I prefer to focus on the substance of the posts rather than your soap opera.
Your right. I don't think any Potsdam scientists said that Europe is headed for a little ice age. And since I can't prove a negative then that means the responsibility to prove that they did lies with the people who maid the claim. And since they didn't bother then you should prove it.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
The pattern is what's important.
Here's the German link. Pay especially close attention to the sub-link wetter.at.
The daily Berliner Kurier here writes today that solar physicists at the ultra-warmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) are warning that Europe may be facing “a mini ice age” due to a possible protracted solar minimum.
What pattern? You've never mentioned a pattern before.
Just pasted a link to a book as if that explains itself. Its ****in weird, man.
Neither of them provide anything that proves that Potsdam scientists are predicting a little ice age in Europe. Just because they say so proves nothing.
Give us a link Jack.
Here is a good place to start looking: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/
Mini ice age in Europe?
Some solar physicists assume that this could indicate the beginning of a new Grand Minimum of solar activity, similar to the Maunder Minimum in the late 17th century, which is associated with the so-called "Little Ice Age" in conjunction, reigned as noticeably lower temperatures. At that time many winters in Europe were freezing.
Reason for the localized effects could change the winds in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. the stratosphere above it heats only weakly on, tear the mild strong winds from the Atlantic in the troposphere from. Instead, the United Kingdom and Central Europe would then be subjected to the influence of cold winds from the northeast.
No effect on global warming
While local effects are possible, the solar activity but has little impact on global warming. A new solar minimum would slow global warming by the year 2100 only 0.3 degrees Celsius, a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
andThis week there are a spate of news stories about a little ice age coming — even from the uber warmista Potsdam Institute.
...solar physicists at the ultra-warmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) are warning that Europe may be facing “a mini ice age” due to a possible protracted solar minimum.
Translation:
Nope... not there.
Let me remind you what Jo Nova wrote:
and
All depends on whether "some solar physicists" are from PIK.
Look Jack... I know this is more work than you are used to but the only way you are going to back up Nova is to link to an actual article or study done by a potsdam scientist that predicts or warns of a little ice age. If you can't do that then please quit wasting our time.
You are free to leave the discussion any time. You claimed a falsehood. I don't think the links back you up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?