The Sun-Climate Effect

Mann's opposition (McIntyre & McKittrick) have bested him every time he has not been able to hide behind his friends. Now that the data are in the open an ugly denouement may be at hand.

 

Which scientist would be stupid enough to support this two-time lawsuit loser and producer of junk science papers?

 

Ones who know which side their bread is buttered on?

 

All you've proven is that you don't understand it -- because you choose not to.

 

Who would butter and eat burnt toast?

Again, how can anyone think highly of this thin skinned jerk be libeled when he got a lot richer, published books, avoids finishing up his libel lawsuits and still employed as a pretend scientist at Penn State.

 

Perhaps this will be helpful.
". . . The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis proposes that changes in the meridional transport of energy and moisture are the main way the climate changes now and in the past. Meridional transport variability has many causes and forces that act simultaneously and in different time frames on the climate system. They integrate into a very complex poleward energy transportation system. Among these are multidecadal ocean-atmosphere oscillations, solar variability, ozone, stratospheric-reaching tropical volcanic eruptions, orbital changes, and changing luni-solar gravitational pull. Meridional transport is therefore an integrator of internal and external signals. It is not the only way the climate changes, but evidence suggests it is the main one.

The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis does not disprove greenhouse gas effect induced climate change—manmade or otherwise—in fact, it acts through it. But it does not require changes in the atmospheric content of non-condensing greenhouse gases to cause significant climate change. Therefore, it does refute the hypothesis that CO2 is the main climate change control knob. . . ."

The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A
Posted on September 22, 2022 by curryja | 157 comments
by Javier Vinós & Andy May “On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands climate change.” J. Vinós, paraphrasing Richard Feynman’s words about quantum mechanics.

 

And this from Mr. Vinos's book:

Vinós, Javier. Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun's Surprising Role (pp. 162-164). Critical Science Press. Kindle Edition.

 

Liars for hire.

Oh, I doubt anyone thinks highly of him -- other than himself, of course. They just go along to get along.

 

Yeah, yeah, it's invoking a lot of magical buzzwords. Somehow, magical cycles occur that transfer heat, but they're "complex", so nobody can explain exactly how.

What hard data would disprove this theory? If it can't be disproved, it's not science.

Needless to say, AGW theory doesn't have such a problem. I could and have listed at least 10 things that would disprove AGW theory.

 

Then explain it for us. In your own words. Tell us exactly what the "winter gatekeeper" theory is, exactly what hard evidence there is to back up the theory, and what hard data could disprove it.

If you can't, it means you've been lying shamelessly when you pretend to understand it, and therefore you should apologize deeply to everyone for such disgusting behavior.

 

I am sure you didn't read the article because you didn't make a case against it at all.

 

Ha ha ha, it is clear the "Winter Gatekeeper" presentation was too hard for you to understand which is a HYPOTHESIS which is why you are firing a lot of blanks around here.

 

Yeah, the tiny contribution C02 has added to the whopping 1.4C temperature increase seen since the 1850's.

 

Vinós, Javier. Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun's Surprising Role (pp. 386-387. Critical Science Press. Kindle Edition.

 

— Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun's Surprising Role by Javier Vinós
https://a.co/3xPKvrA

 

The hypothesis is set forth in a book and in eight posts at Climate, etc.
I suggest you take time for some education.

 

I posted some starter material for our friend just above. Perhaps his curiosity will be piqued?

 

I.e., since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

 

It's a theory that in the short term, global climate is largely governed by natural variations in the wind systems that transfer heat from the tropics to the poles, especially in winter. These natural variations are caused mainly by chaotic cyclical relationships within the system, changes in ocean currents, and the effects of solar variability on the upper atmosphere; greenhouse gases other than water vapor are largely irrelevant.

The main evidence is the correlation between wind patterns and global temperature changes. I'm not going to requote the papers Jack has already referenced, which you did not read, but dismissed as some sort of crackpot fabrication on the basis of no evidence but your own prejudice.

That's a more difficult question with many possible answers; but just as one example, a clear and consistent relationship between non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent global surface temperatures -- which so far has not been observed -- would certainly argue against it.

Despicable.

 

Since that's been observed distinctly over and over, your theory has been disproved.

Remember, you're talking to normal people, so your usual habit of stating the exact opposite of reality just gets laughed at. That's why you've been reduced to preacching your religion in an online SafeSpace.

 

So what specific predictions about climate does your unexplainable magical buzzword theory make? After all, that's how one tests theories, by making predictions with them.

And what could disprove your theory? I mean, aside from the currently observed rising temps and rising backradiation.

I know, I know. I'm using the scientific method, which is so unfair to deniers.

And I'm so unfair by asking them to explain it in their own words. If they have to go off-script, they're completely helpless. They can only cut and paste buzzword scripts that they clearly don't understand.

Mainstream science, using AGW theory, isn't afraid to make specific predictions. Since those predictions have been remarkably accurate, that gives AGW theory stellar credibility.

 

How does the Enhanced CO2 hypothesis explain the lack of temperature increase in Antarctica??

 

Back in reality ....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cted-in-deeply-concerning-sign-for-sea-levels

 

Actually, you're using the ignorance method. There's nothing at all scientific about your approach. Until you learn something about the hypothesis you are not equipped to discuss it.

 

I have above.