Yet more proof.

[Scott777]

So we should include non-specialist scientists in the count?

Should we apply that to all fields of study?

"I'm sorry, I know 99% of aircraft designers agree on this but there are some climate scientists and geologists who aren't buying it and an oceanographer who says 'aircraft designers said bumble bees can't fly' so we're gonna just have to call this undecided"😁

Basically 99% of papers (and by implication a similar number of scientists) who have spent their working lives studying this field, align with AGW.

What the fork is with everyone these days deciding that experts are not experts in their field.

Let me ask you what did you (do you) spend you life doing?  What if I told you that whatever you did/do was wrong, you don't know anything about that subject and I know better because I saw some bloke on You Tube, who also hadn't actually worked in your field, say something different.

What we should or should not include "in the count" is irrelevant.  YOU made a claim about all scientists.  Not me.  You have made many claims.  Then you backtrack.  Do you want to apologise for making that claim for which you have zero evidence?  Then the question of who we "should" listen to is another matter.

[Nick]

So we should include non-specialist scientists in the count?

Should we apply that to all fields of study?

"I'm sorry, I know 99% of aircraft designers agree on this but there are some climate scientists and geologists who aren't buying it and an oceanographer who says 'aircraft designers said bumble bees can't fly' so we're gonna just have to call this undecided"😁

Basically 99% of papers (and by implication a similar number of scientists) who have spent their working lives studying this field, align with AGW.

What the fork is with everyone these days deciding that experts are not experts in their field.

Let me ask you what did you (do you) spend you life doing?  What if I told you that whatever you did/do was wrong, you don't know anything about that subject and I know better because I saw some bloke on You Tube, who also hadn't actually worked in your field, say something different.

Do you agree that a PHD scientist, regardless of their field can look at 2 sets of data: for example temperatures taken by Satellite and compare them with weather balloon data and say they match? The same scientist can then look at the model data and say the rate of warming in the model is double that of the actual data. The climate scientist does the research, some other brainbox can confirm the findings regardless of their field.

You still won't comment John Christy, I think we can agree he knows what he's talking about. Of course you will point to the fact that there are scientists that say his work is flawed, the same scientists that commented that his work was groundbreaking, until it didn't give them the answer they wanted, much like the EU!! That flawed that NASA gave him the award for exceptional scientific achievement.

• 1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer).
• 1996: AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of Earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate" (with Roy Spencer).

[Nick]

Can you source that claim?  The lowest leaks on the graph are around 50, the highest (c1960) might be 200, maybe.  That's a 4 fold increase, which has fallen down to 100 in the last peak shown. That is not exponential.

As.for the area claim, have you got data that backs that up?  The graph you posted shows a distinct cycle pattern. The low point is always around 50. If the low points were rising or the cycle time opening out there would be an argument for considering the area under the graph.

But that doesn't answer the question about why the temperature doesn't seem linked to the sunspot activity.  You claimed the temperature responds quickly to clouds and hence sunspots.

If the mechanism for extra heating was effectively sunnier days, then the extra heat could only occur when the days were sunnier.  As soon as they became cloudy again the extra heat would cease and the temperature would start to fall back to the "baseline".  As the sunnier days can only occur during sunspot activity we should see a marked increase in temperature when the activity is high followed by a period off cooling when the activity is low. Long term heating would occur because the planet fails to cool back to baseline during the low activity periods and so starts from a higher baseline each time.  This would create a stepped appearance and would also be tied to the amount of activity in a given cycle. The bigger the cycle, the sunnier the days, the more the heating and the bigger the step up in temperature.

We don't see that.

And none of the above explains why the bulk of the extra carbon comes from fossil sources.

You keep talking about peaks, the number of Sunspots is a reoccurring event and counted in events per year. If you take 1880 to 1930 (70 years) the average is about 35 Sunspots per year. That 2450 Sunspots in 70 years. If you take 1920 to 1990 the average is about 63, 4410 in the same period, that's an 80% increase in Sunspots since 1930. I'm not going to say that means an 80% decrease in cloud cover cause I don't know the maths, but it's going to be significant as clouds reduce the amount of Suns rays hitting the Earth by 50%, enough to account for a change in climate.

[BeElBeeBub]

You may have supplied a source of what climate scientists think.  Not all scientists are climate scientists.  Not all scientists have published anything on climate change.  Your claim was about 99% of scientists.  You provided no source for them.  That's why I'm arguing.

So we should include non-specialist scientists in the count?

Should we apply that to all fields of study?

"I'm sorry, I know 99% of aircraft designers agree on this but there are some climate scientists and geologists who aren't buying it and an oceanographer who says 'aircraft designers said bumble bees can't fly' so we're gonna just have to call this undecided"😁

Basically 99% of papers (and by implication a similar number of scientists) who have spent their working lives studying this field, align with AGW.

What the fork is with everyone these days deciding that experts are not experts in their field.

Let me ask you what did you (do you) spend you life doing?  What if I told you that whatever you did/do was wrong, you don't know anything about that subject and I know better because I saw some bloke on You Tube, who also hadn't actually worked in your field, say something different.

[Scott777]

I provided the source paper, which you accused me of lying about.  Gonna concede I did supply you with the source? I won't hold my breath

I don't know how much more publicly you can state an position on climate change than publishing a paper to be peer reviewed?

Why are you even bothering to argue when you've already said you are not arguing that >1% of scientists deny AGW?

If the readings are accurate there has been a rise. 

You may have supplied a source of what climate scientists think.  Not all scientists are climate scientists.  Not all scientists have published anything on climate change.  Your claim was about 99% of scientists.  You provided no source for them.  That's why I'm arguing.

If you stick your thermometer up your bum, you will probably get a different temperature than you did when you stuck it up your teddy bear's bum.  Does that mean the temperature of bums has changed?  You really need help with very very simple logic.  It depends where you stick the fricking thermometer.

[BeElBeeBub]

No, you should apologise, as you have not provided any evidence about what 99% of scientists believe.  You should not make claims about the belief of scientists who have not publicly stated an opinion.  You have no idea what they believe.

I provided the source paper, which you accused me of lying about.  Gonna concede I did supply you with the source? I won't hold my breath 

I don't know how much more publicly you can state an position on climate change than publishing a paper to be peer reviewed?

Why are you even bothering to argue when you've already said you are not arguing that >1% of scientists deny AGW?

No, even if the readings are accurate, still would not mean there is a rise.  It would depend where the readings are taken.  And anyway, there may well be a rise.  The question is how much, and why.  You have not said how you know 1C is unusual over 100 years.  Where is your evidence?  Where is your evidence that sunspots are not the cause?  Or volcanoes.  Or the orbit.

If the readings are accurate there has been a rise.  

The rise is around 1C since the 1880's and is significantly more over the 140 year time span than any previously recorded rise.  The rise since 1980 is even sharper than 1C over 140 years.  Of course Nick maintains there might be events that we have missed but only if they are sharp temperature rises before CO2 and not any CO2 rises before temperature.😁

[Scott777]

I think you owe me an apology.I inferred it from you labeling my claim <1% of scientists deny AGW as "BS"

If I misunderstood and you don't dispute that, then we are in agreement and the matter is closed.
Apologies, I was mistaken. It was Nick who appeared to question the accuracy of old readings as a way of explaining the observed rise.  I naturally (and apparently mistakenly) assumed you agreed with his argument when you questioned the veracity if the organisations that ensure we can compare past readings.

Again, if you are not disputing the accuracy of past readings as a way of explaining away the rise then we are in agreement that the rise is real.

No, you should apologise, as you have not provided any evidence about what 99% of scientists believe.  You should not make claims about the belief of scientists who have not publicly stated an opinion.  You have no idea what they believe.

No, even if the readings are accurate, still would not mean there is a rise.  It would depend where the readings are taken.  And anyway, there may well be a rise.  The question is how much, and why.  You have not said how you know 1C is unusual over 100 years.  Where is your evidence?  Where is your evidence that sunspots are not the cause?  Or volcanoes.  Or the orbit.

[BeElBeeBub]

That's why I keep saying, don't look at the peaks, it's the area under the graph that is the big picture. And since the 1900's the volume of Sunspots has grown exponentially.

Can you source that claim?  The lowest leaks on the graph are around 50, the highest (c1960) might be 200, maybe.  That's a 4 fold increase, which has fallen down to 100 in the last peak shown. That is not exponential.

As.for the area claim, have you got data that backs that up?  The graph you posted shows a distinct cycle pattern. The low point is always around 50. If the low points were rising or the cycle time opening out there would be an argument for considering the area under the graph.

But that doesn't answer the question about why the temperature doesn't seem linked to the sunspot activity.  You claimed the temperature responds quickly to clouds and hence sunspots.

If the mechanism for extra heating was effectively sunnier days, then the extra heat could only occur when the days were sunnier.  As soon as they became cloudy again the extra heat would cease and the temperature would start to fall back to the "baseline".  As the sunnier days can only occur during sunspot activity we should see a marked increase in temperature when the activity is high followed by a period off cooling when the activity is low. Long term heating would occur because the planet fails to cool back to baseline during the low activity periods and so starts from a higher baseline each time.  This would create a stepped appearance and would also be tied to the amount of activity in a given cycle. The bigger the cycle, the sunnier the days, the more the heating and the bigger the step up in temperature.

We don't see that.

And none of the above explains why the bulk of the extra carbon comes from fossil sources.

[BeElBeeBub]

Why don't you look at the paper and see what holes you can poke into it

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf

What proportion of relevant scientists (a vet or a pure mathematician don't really count) do you think disagree with global warming?

Prove your number.

No, you didn't cite a source for your claim.  That's a lie. 

I think you owe me an apology.

I never claimed >1% deny AGW.  That's another lie.

I inferred it from you labeling my claim <1% of scientists deny AGW as "BS"

If I misunderstood and you don't dispute that, then we are in agreement and the matter is closed.

I never claimed it's instrument error.  That's the 3rd lie in a single post. 

Apologies, I was mistaken. It was Nick who appeared to question the accuracy of old readings as a way of explaining the observed rise.  I naturally (and apparently mistakenly) assumed you agreed with his argument when you questioned the veracity if the organisations that ensure we can compare past readings.

And what does it tell you that they are multi million £ organisations?  That they tell the truth?  Or maybe they are biased by financial interests?  Isn't NIST the company that failed to explain how Building 7 World Trade Centre collapsed from "office fires"?  Someone should tell them it's quite hard to melt steel columns.

Again, if you are not disputing the accuracy of past readings as a way of explaining away the rise then we are in agreement that the rise is real.

[Nick]

We have the period since 1940 where the temp dropped whilst sunspots increased. we have a big peak around 1960 and not much happened, but then as the peaks fell away in 1970, the rise just started, the peaks in 1980-2000, were decreasing just as the temperature really started to ramp up.

That's why I keep saying, don't look at the peaks, it's the area under the graph that is the big picture. And since the 1900's the volume of Sunspots has grown exponentially.

[Scott777]

I cited the source for my claim that less than 1% of scientists deny AGW.  It is true that there may be some variation as there may not be a 1:1 correlation between papers and scientists.  But where is your source for claiming that a greater number deny AGW, beyond "i don't think so"?  How do you propose to find a robust way of measuring scientific consensus?

You're still stuck on the "the temperature rise isn't real it's instrument error" hill

No, you didn't cite a source for your claim.  That's a lie.  

I never claimed >1% deny AGW.  That's another lie.

I never claimed it's instrument error.  That's the 3rd lie in a single post.  I would imagine the climate changes naturally.  If temperature changes on a daily basis, a weekly basis, a yearly basis, and on a millennial basis, etc, then why not in 100 years?

Stop lying.  It does not help your argument.  No one believes you.

[BeElBeeBub]

For a start, the sunspot data is not theory, it is fact. Secondly I never said sunspots 800 years ago caused warming, temperature change is very quick, hence the reason it goes cold at night. Sunspots reduce clouds: FACT, reduced clouds increases warming: FACT. And as I said, when your looking at the amount of something on a graph you look at the area under the graph, and that shows a very large increase in Sunspots over the last 100 years.

I'm not denying sunspots, or that their number has increased.

What is hard to explain is the linkage between them and the temperature. 

(Edit: added to clarify above). I'm not denying that solar activity can cause changes to clouds or that these changes can cause some temperature changes.  Only that for it to be the main driver of the temperature change we are seeing it should be a dominating effect. In that case the linkage between magnitude of a sunspot cycle and temperature should be much stronger than we are seeing.


For example, you say "...temperature change is very quick, hence the reason it goes cold at night..." which would imply any changes to the level of cloud cover should be reflected (ha!) in the temperature graphs fairly quickly. Certainly the low spots seem to be very consistent.  So any warming should be caused by the higher heating during the high spots. Like a child's swing being pushed a little higher on each swing.  We would expect the temp curve to be more of a step profile with the magnitude of each step being roughly linked to the sunspot level causing it (more sunspots - less cloud - more warming for a a few years).

But we don't really see that. 

We have the period since 1940 where the temp dropped whilst sunspots increased. we have a big peak around 1960 and not much happened, but then as the peaks fell away in 1970, the rise just started, the peaks in 1980-2000, were decreasing just as the temperature really started to ramp up.

[BeElBeeBub]

Here's a sumary of all the BS from Beelzebub in recent posts:

Saying the planet has warmed up "roughly 1C since the 1880s", then switching to 'until the 1980s'.

Answered that

Claiming "less than 1% of scientists are denying AGW...", then switching it to 'data collected about published climate papers only'.

I cited the source for my claim that less than 1% of scientists deny AGW.  It is true that there may be some variation as there may not be a 1:1 correlation between papers and scientists.  But where is your source for claiming that a greater number deny AGW, beyond "i don't think so"?  How do you propose to find a robust way of measuring scientific consensus?

Posting a graph of sunspots, but only quantities, not durations, so the data cannot tell us anything about the effect of sunspots.

Not my graph, that's from Nick, take up any issues you have about that graph with him

Relying on the IPCC, which has just been shown to misrepresent data by inverting a graph.

Answered that - what is more probable, the IPCC and all the people that work on that report deliberately (or mistakenly) inverted some data to get the desired result or 2 scientists deliberately or mistakenly inverted the data to get their desired result.  I wait the IPCC rebuttal on this matter

Relying on NIST, who failed to explain the total collapse at free-fall of WTC7.

Regardless of 9/11 conspiracy theories, NIST's contribution to this is their core mission which is ensuring scientific instruments are correctly calibrated and traceable so we can compare readings taken in the 1880's with contemporary readings. This is to rebut your "maybe the warming is just that people in 1880 couldn't read their crappy instruments very well" argument.  I'm not relying on NIST alone, they are just one body in a network of global organisations including the UK's NPL, Japan's NMIJ, France's LMNE and Germany's PTB.

Climate cultists are just one long stream of bullshit.

From where I sit, the deniers are the ones BSing.

You're still stuck on the "the temperature rise isn't real it's instrument error" hill

[BeElBeeBub]

Yeah, it was clear.  You said "roughly 1C since the 1880s".  You didn't say between the 1880s and the 1980s.  Now you are backtracking, and being dishonest.  That's the problem with you climate cultists.  None of you have an honest argument.

I can see I am going to have to use pictures

Green line is from about -0.2 to +0.8 ie about 1C "since the 1880's". This is the TOTAL RISE of 1C

I think you will agree that the Green straight line since 1880 is not a great fit.

So let's fit 2 lines.

The orange is the rise in the century 1880-1980. 

The Yellow line is the rise since 1980. 

As you can see the RATE has increased significantly since the 1980's



The grey line is a fit cherry picking the a very small time period in the mid 2000's that give the steepest rise.  I think you will agree that is a terrible fit and very misleading. 
The black line is a rise of 0.5C which I think you will also agree is also not plausible as a fit 

[Scott777]

Here's a sumary of all the BS from Beelzebub in recent posts:

Saying the planet has warmed up "roughly 1C since the 1880s", then switching to 'until the 1980s'.

Claiming "less than 1% of scientists are denying AGW...", then switching it to 'data collected about published climate papers only'.

Posting a graph of sunspots, but only quantities, not durations, so the data cannot tell us anything about the effect of sunspots.

Relying on the IPCC, which has just been shown to misrepresent data by inverting a graph.

Relying on NIST, who failed to explain the total collapse at free-fall of WTC7.


Climate cultists are just one long stream of bullshit.