mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

No it hasn't. You're making stuff up again. The global mean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 0.14C/decade over the last 60 years, 0.15C/decade over the last 40 years, 0.22C/decade over the last 20 years, and 0.27C/decade over the last 10 years. The ocean has warmed by 54zj/decade over the last 60 years, 75zj/decade over the last 40 years, and 100zj/decade over the last 20 years. And this has happened with flat to declining solar radiation over the last 60 years with the last 20 years seeing large declines in solar radiation.

 

An error was found or should I say finally reported that had been right there for everyone to see in this vaunted peer review report that debunked the latest battle cry of the cult. It makes all so called peer reviews papers that give the numbers you recite like a parrot a black eye and makes all this peer reviewed data highy suspect.

 

I don't think you're understanding what is going on with that publication. Let me summarize. The authors used a new and completely novel technique for deriving ocean temperatures. It's a technique that has never been tried before. This technique yielded a certain level of warming that is higher than the currently established consensus. The error wasn't with their method, data, or even final result. The error was with the statistical analysis used to put error margins on the technique. That was the mistake made. This particular technique has been discovered to be prone to higher RMS errors than traditional techniques. After correcting for the math mistake it is determined this method yielded error margins that result in a warming rate that is between 10% and 70% higher than the currently established consensus. The error has absolutely nothing to do with the currently established consensus. It is completely and entirely unrelated. And the technique they used has never been tried before. It's brand new so there is a learning curve in figuring out the best way to utilize it. Maybe they can make it more accurate in the future. Maybe they can't. Either way it is still useful research that provides yet another line of evidence that shows that the oceans are warming rapidly.

Also, I think you're confused as to how the peer review process works. It happens in two broad phases. The first phase is about getting your research presented to your peers. This is the step where you attempt to publish in a peer review journal. The editors will assign reviewers to do a cursory check of your work. They are looking for obvious mistakes or signs of fraud. It is meant as a smoke test to keep most of the lower quality publication out of circulation so that they don't spam the system. The real review doesn't start until after the research is formally published. This is the second phase of peer review. To get your peers to accept your work you have to first get it published (step one) and then you have to convince the entire scientific community in an open forum (step two). In this particular case the error was caught on step two literally within days of the paper's publication. This is a perfect example of the system working. The authors acknowledged the mistake and quickly fixed it and submitted their correction to the Nature journal. At no time has anyone challenged the consensus that the oceans are warming here. Even the guy who found the math error was only challenging the math error. He wasn't challenging the technique or the data. He just wanted the error margins fixed.

I think what's happening here is that you are so blinded by your ideology that you aren't stopping to critically think about what you're posting and verify it against reality. It's not that hard to Resplandy's original paper and Nic Lewis' critique. It's not that hard to read Martin Mlynczak research and his own commentary on the work. Instead you rely articles that bend and twist the truth. You then further distort the science by making stuff up.

 

Longest excuse I ever read. Yaaaawn

 

Do you have an actual rebuttal other than "nuh-uh"?

 

I thought I was pretty clear. Your previous post was nothing but a lengthy excuse for yet another massive fail by the cult and it's fake science faction.

 

Is this your way of saying you don't want to be bothered with the truth? That's a serious question. I'm not good at reading people so I really don't know what you're thinking right now.

If I'm wrong then feel free to explain how you think Mlynczak's research shows that the troposphere and hydrosphere are about to cool or that Resplandy's research shows that the oceans are not warming.

 

I was commenting on your lengthy excuse for the error that went on for years in a peer reviewed paper until someone spilled the beans.

 

Resplandy's publication is dated October 31st, 2018. Nic Lewis found the mistake on November 6th, 2018. 7 days is not the same thing as "went on for years".

Be honest...are you just not informed of what has happened or are you intentionally making sh** up?

 

Oh, and my questions still stand.

1. How does Resplandy's research show that the oceans are not warming?

2. How does Mlynczak's research show that the troposphere and hydrosphere are going to cool in the near future?

 

I don't think, actually, that I'd count on your superficial analysis here, nor that of the article that you cited previously. The solar output is, in fact, changing. We know that as this output declines, which it is, that the climate of our planet is also effected. We have every indication that the lowered solar output will in fact change the climate and make it cooler going forward, and for as long as the condition of lower solar output is in the offing that our climate will respond to it. Simple stuff here. So, if we're being "real" about it, the likely condition we need to start planning for how we intend to deal with the cold.

 

On that particular study I believe you are correct with the dates but this theory has been around a long time, I didn't just hear about it. A quick Google before I start my real life day found this dated March 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating

And this close relative from 2015

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150827-NASA-climate-oceans-seas-greenland/

 

The southeast, in fact is not getting warmer. We are enduing sustained below average temps as well. We have just recently warmed up from a significantly below average period, but we aren't "warmer" than "normal" by any stretch.

I trust that perhaps you'll work on what you can see in the future........

 

Absolutely. We know that solar output is an important piece to the puzzle. It's just not the only piece.

Solar radiation has been flat to declining for 60 years now with rapid declines occurring in the last 20 years. During the period the troposphere and hydrosphere have not only warmed, but the rate at which they warmed has increased.

Also, over the paleoclimate record spanning millions of years the Sun has gotten brighter while the Earth has gradually cooled. The correlation between solar radiation and global temperatures when viewed over million's of years is completely opposite of what we'd expect if the Sun were the one and only driver of the global temperature. And to put numbers on it you can use Gough's solar luminosity formula to show that the Sun was 5% dimmer 500 million years ago. So how do we solve the faint young Sun problem? Greenhouse gases! They are yet another piece of the puzzle. GHGs were in much higher concentrations back when the Sun was dimmer and so this provided the necessary surface radiative forcing to more than offset the lower solar output.

Don't hold your breath waiting for global cooling. Skeptics/deniers have been predicting that for almost 50 years and...damnit...the Earth just keeps warming at an increasing pace.

 

Hmm.. I think that's a ton of projection on your part, and frankly not what the Author of the study actually indicated. Frankly, this seems problematic for folks like you who seem determined to ignore what current discovery is presenting to us. In fact, what is being said is that the thermosphere rapidly shrinking will ultimately impact the lower atmospheric conditions, and as has happened historically, cool us. Not just the thermosphere, but the whole thing. I understand this is inconvenient for folks like you who are seemingly so emotionally wedded and invested here to your end of the world narrative, but at some point, this is why we have science. So we can constantly evaluate the world around us and modify our understanding where necessary. And this is that point. The world isn't flat anymore, and your insistence that it must be just seems shrill....

 

Kind of interesting. I have been reading posts about the comming ice age ever since agw became a matter of contention

 

Cycles start somewhere, don't they. Just as warming had to happen as we exited the last little ice age huh?? That seems to also indicate that cycles do change, and those changes are what actually influence our climate. Denying that doesn't seem a privilege that we should allow you at this point. I understand you're invested here. Many folks are. But that doesn't mean that your continued insistence and denial are something that the rest of us have the luxury to entertain.

 

Said with such an air of bravado..... This reminds me of the writings of the church when they refused to see that the earth was round. And predictably here, if you wrap yourself in enough smug, maybe that will take the sting of the cold away.... Or, you could just hold your breath....

 

Why do you continue to assert that this is just one isolated instance? Clearly, this isn't the case. So why attempt to cast it this way?

 

I am not clear on what you are saying about the peer review system. It seems that you think it is completely unrealiable and worthless.. is that what you are saying?

 

While over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

 

That's not even remotely close to being correct. Here is what Mlynczak actually said. At no time does he ever say the lower atmosphere is going to cool. In fact, his research has nothing to do with the troposphere.

https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

You'll also find links to the actual research at the bottom of the article.

2018: Thermosphere climate indexes: Percentile ranges and adjectival descriptors
2016: The global infrared energy budget of the thermosphere from 1947 to 2016 and implications for solar variability
2015: A combined solar and geomagnetic index for thermospheric climate

As you can clearly see his research has nothing to do with the troposphere or hydrosphere. He is not saying that an ice age is imminent. He has never said that an ice age is imminent. He doesn't even make statements about the troposphere or hydrosphere.

And furthermore, this is yet another line of evidence to add the mountain of evidence we already have that solar radiation is not the only driver of the temperature in the troposphere and hydrosphere.

So to review. There are two problems going on here. First, your making stuff up to fit your ideology. And second, the research that you erroneously cite to back up your thesis actually contradicts it.

 

Or, more likely, you don't understand the length of time that influence exhibits itself.. Why be limited by the catechism of your faith?

 

I'm not denying anything. I fully support and advocate for the idea that it's a combination of ALL physical processes that influence the climate. You are the one that is denying all of the other processes and instead focusing only a single process...the Sun. So tell me again...who is the one doing the denying here?

 

I remember the church of antiquity didn't want the word of faith to be anything not Latin. This seems to have a certain similarity. Only the acolytes of AGW then can correctly interpret the oracle.... This is where you fail. I could always take your tact though, and always take the side that says extrapolation of a specific study never has any impact outside of the study area. And then where would you be? A ton of studies that are very specific that cannot be interpreted or combined to form an otherwise obsious picture. Careful what you wish for....