The Sun-Climate Effect

Well, since you and all of the deniers here are also incapable of discussing it, that puts me in good company.

The whole sentence is invalid logic on your part, of course. I'm not capable of discussing the details of dark energy theory, but I can still point out that if the theory is good, it can make predictions and be disproved.

 

I will lead you to water, but you'll have to drink.
(17) Q: According to your theory, what should we expect from climate change in the next years and the rest of the century?

A: The current below average solar activity and an expected cooling phase in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation indicate a probable continuation, or even accentuation, of the reduced rate of warming during the first third of the 21st century. A modest cooling during this period is possible. Unlike the 20th century, this century should contain two cooling phases of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Even if another extended solar maximum takes place for most of the century, the 21st century should see significantly less warming than the previous one, regardless of CO2 emissions. A grand solar minimum is highly improbable according to our interpretation of solar cycles, which is a relief. Based on past evidence, a grand solar minimum sets the planet into a severe cooling trend.

(1 Q: What would be a good test of your hypothesis?

A: The expected climate change for the next 30 years, as described above is consistent with several alternative theories to the IPCC’s, based on the effect of the multidecadal oscillations. The Winter Gatekeeper explains better why the shift took place in 1997, and predicts the next shift for c. 2032, i.e., three solar cycles. The best test will be when a very active solar cycle takes place, if Arctic amplification turns into cooling and Arctic sea-ice grows it will support our hypothesis. If this happens, proposed alternatives to our hypothesis will be entertaining.
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A

 

No it hasn't. There are no credible empirical observations that show global average surface temperature tracks non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations. None. Your claim is just baldly false.

No. Normal people do not credit absurd and hysterical anti-CO2 scaremongering.

You have never refuted a single statement I have made, nor will you ever be doing so.

I'm not the one shrieking that the End Times are nigh unless we all repent our sinful ways. You are.

 

The Guardian? Seriously?

 

It's really for the best that you don't even attempt to talk about the science. It never works out well for you when you do.

 

It's worked out pretty well so far.

 

You mean the very recent fast warming that was the opposite of fast warming for six years until the sun unexpectedly became super active? That fast warming?

 

The enhanced CO2 hypothesis does not support fast warming. How do you as an enhanced CO2 hypothesis enthusiast explain that?

 

You're not making any sense. The warming is happening at a rate just as AGW theory predicted.

What theory are you talking about? I've never heard the term "enhanced CO2 hypothesis" before. If you're going to use weird cult lingo, you have to explain it.

 

GARBAGE. AGW theory did not predict the six years of cooling that only ended when the sun rescued AGW theory from conclusive falsification by becoming unexpectedly superactive.

 

You just made the claim of fast warming. How does that square with the enhanced CO2 hypothesis? Call it whatever you are comfortable with.

Is the greenhouses gas effect uniform globally?

 

AGW does not predict constant Antarctica temperature for the last 200 years as well.

 

Again, you're making no sense. AGW theory explains the observed warming perfectly. The fast warming squares perfectly with whatever name some cult is now using for AGW theory.

Pretty much. What does that have to do with anything you're talking about?

If you're just going to ignore the actual data and make up your own reality, there's no point in talking to you.

 

Sure it did.

First, there was no 6-year cooling.

Second, AGW accounts for El Nino/La Nina phases. We spent the whole long La Nina period trying to explain something that basic to you. It's not our fault you couldn't grasp something so simple.

Don't worry. After this El Nino phase is done, and a La Nina starts up again, that will give you an excuse to trot out the "NO WARMING FOR X YEARS" crazy story again. You know you will. Despite how embarrassing it is, what else do you have? Denialism is a dead cult, unable to come up with anything original. It's running on fumes now. It's an old fogey conspiracy theory. All the kewl kidz have moved on to something new.

 

0.03 degrees Centigrade per year?

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is uniform globally? Who knew?

I posted a graph of the real data upthread. Post 577. Perhaps you missed it?

 

I had read it all as presented in Climate Etc.
The authors are Javier Vinós & Andy May, not Judith Curry. Had you read it, you would have known that.

 

No it didn't.

Yes there was.

Only in the sense that it reliably blames CO2 for El Nino warming, just as you have been doing, and blames La Nina for the absence of CO2 warming, just as you have been doing.

No, you spent the whole long La Nina period gaslighting everyone by falsely claiming that the earth was warming rapidly when it was cooling.

What will your excuse for global cooling be when the sun is not unexpectedly superactive?

It wasn't a crazy story. It was a fact, and you just admitted it.

The increasingly obvious fact that CO2 has at most a minor effect on the earth's surface temperature.

<yawn>

 

GARBAGE. AGW theory had to contrive some ****-and-bull nonscience about aerosols to explain away the fact that the earth cooled from ~1940-1970 when CO2 was increasing rapidly.

 

I saw it. It didn't address anything being discussed, and you made no comment with it, so I didn't waste any time on it.

If you want to discuss it, then actually discuss it. Post it again, with words explaining what point you think it supposedly proves. Don't leave it up to us to read your mind and guess what your point is.

 

And there it is, the denial of basic reality that forms the basis of every argument you make.

Now you're claiming that aerosols are a conspiracy.

Our days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

 

So why has the theory flopped so mightily so far?

How many more years of more strong warming will it take for you to admit the theory is wrong? Is the number less than infinity?

 

Get back to us after after "strong warming" becomes climate rather than weather.

 

It is climate. Why are you pretending otherwise?

 

That's a pretty bold statement from someone who has proclaimed he doesn't know what it is. The theory has not flopped at all.