OK, I'm convinced! Climate Change IS a hoax!

Also,
Alley is in contention here.
Alley or someone needs to prove his data is accurate.
If the data is accurate , then I disprove his theory.
If the data isnt accurate ,then Alley is qualified to post on Prius Chat.

 

Mojo,

you are not a lawyer by any chance? if not consider, you'd make a much better one then the scientist-wannabe.

It is fun as always to see you taking the finding supporting your believes for granted, while furiously questioning ones which contradict. Below is you reaction to NASA findings of accelerated ice loss in Antarctic, reproduced with PriusChat permission:

 

Physicist Dr. Kaku's take on the recent funny weather we are having-

 

No but I 'd imagine that you are.

 

By the way ,you dont have to be a fashion designer to point out that the King has no clothes on.
All scientists once believed that the Earth was flat.
There was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.
All it takes is for anyone to disprove a theory to make it invalid.

 

When was that?

I had understand that the spherical earth was speculated around the 6th century BC, and established by the 3rd century BC, though deniers were widespread for nearly two more millenia. But science as we know it has been around only about half a millennium.

 

I'm not interpreting, I'm dropping lectures on you that say the opposite of what you think he is saying. I notice you replied before I had included this link, but you have it in later replies.

A23A

It is almost an hour, but true understanding of what is going on requires 100s of hours of study. Watch it if you are interested, but if you don't watch please don't continue the line about delayed CO2 feedback proving alley is wrong. Sometimes CO2 leads temperature changes and sometimes it lags by hundreds of years, and this is consistent with the physical mechanisms.

Alley's answer is included in the slides I provided above. You can choose to disagree with it, but you can't pretend he has not attempted to answer the question. I would not trust Chogan's answer for Alley.

The theory put forth in the 1980s, was that solar forcing from orbit changes and changes in the sun's intensity are not enough to account for changes in the earth's temperature, and co2 is needed for feedback to get the proper temperature models. This was before much of the data was collected. Since then CO2 proxies have been found, and the data supports this theory. The data has caused us to drop the other theories because they contradicted the data. Scientifically the data best supports CO2 as the key component in warming changes. Alley used natural, not anthropological sources of CO2 and millions of years of data in this hypothesis support. You need a new theory that is also supported by the data and new data.

 

"Tohachitu said he would email Alley."

I did send him an email a long time ago, but received no answer. Usually I do get responses to 'blind' emails, but not that time (Lindzen answered, for example). Could be too busy, could be my 'Chinese-sounding' email looked like spam, could be a lot of things. I don't think that I asked specifically about the 800-year timing question. I would certainly not conceal anything that I had received, related to our discussions here. Not my style.

There is certainly nothing preventing you, mojo, from making contact

Contact Information[SIZE=-1]:
Department of Geosciences
517 Deike Building
University Park, PA 16802Phone: (814) 863-1700
email:[/SIZE] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][email protected][SIZE=-1]
Dept. website:[/SIZE]http://www.geosc.psu.edu/
Center website: http://www.eesi.psu.edu/centers/ice.shtml[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It should not be necessary to remind you that this bee is under your bonnet, not mine.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If by chance lacking a response, then why not get 'a sense of the street' by posting the question at What's up with that, Judith Curry's blogsite, and realclimate? Those three pretty much ocver the spectrum, and are all active.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you are going to whup this monster single-handed, you should saddle up.
[/FONT]

 

OK I watched the video again.
Alley does not answer my point.
If you think he does then quote him.
Problem solved.
You seem to be fixated on the 800 year lag time.
It is the best and most ostentatious example of why Alley is wrong,but EVEN IF TEMP AND CO2 LEVELS WERE CONCURRENT,there is no explanation how temps can drop into ice age if CO2 causes forcing.
When temps are rising from ice age ,say for example, midway into the interglacial warming period plateau.
Lets say 250 ppm CO2.
That supposedly forces the temp higher.
BUTWhen temps are cooling after the interglacial period ,CO2 levels drop to 250PPM on the way down.
How can the same level of CO2 250PPM in this example have NO effect on global warming?
Now it causes cooling?
On the way up it caused warming?
This is the exact same atmospheric level of CO2,250PPM.

Think about that a minute or an hour.

The same level of CO2 cannot have opposite effects on temperature.
Thus CO2 is not controlling temperature.
CO2 is a result of temp.
The CERN cloud study is soon to be made public.
What Alley doesnt know will soon be common knowledge.The Sun controls climate.
It may be cloud formation from cosmic rays or some other mechanism.

Also Alley doesnt know that volcanoes (and earthquakes BTW)are instigated by Solar magnetic activity.
Piers Corbyn predicts Volcanic activity very accurately by observing the Sun.He cant predict location ,but time is dead on.
At certain times like the present ,Piers Corbyn is predicting much volcanic activity.
Interesting its timed with the soon to come Solar minimum.
Solar light output isnt what affects our current climate, its solar magnetic activity.
Which will very soon prove AGW wrong.
Oh but NASA conveniently blames China coal burning for the coming cooling.

 

Interesting. Tell me more about how solar magnetic activity is responsible for climate change, earthquake and volcanic activity. opcorn:

 

Frankly you are going to have to search Piers Corbyn,because I dont know how it works.
He started earthquake and volcano prediction only recently .Whenever there is a major solar event coronal mass ejection ,sunspot there has been an earthquake/volcano.

(Whereas Alley in the video says a volcano somewhere cant tell a volcano in Alaska to erupt.)
Wrong,There is a solar mechanism which causes volcanic activity.For months Ive been watching eruptions/earthquakes occur which have been predicted .
Also he was one of the first to predict cooling in the near future due to lack of sunspots,lasting 30 years.Seems like now even Nasa and the UK Met has copied him.

 

you know the fortune tellers and psychic readers are also ~80% right.

Had been fan of Keith Barry for some time.

 

So?

Every time the sun rises, there is an earthquake/volcano.

Every time the sen sets, there is an earthquake/volcano.

Every time I sneeze, there is an earthquake/volcano.

Every time I don't sneeze, there is still an earthquake/volcano.

 

op2:

 

The entire slide show is about how carbon dioxide modulates heating and cooling of global temperatures.
A23A
But the specific anaology where he ttries to make the science underatandable about how lagged CO2 can also raise temperatures is credit card debt and interest. IF you just look at those sound bites I'm sure you will stay confused. At least get to the level of volcanic sources and rock weathering sinks for co2.

Just answering your evidence. Prius chat is a poor way as are the alrmist and denialist blogs to understand the science. There is quite a bit of good explanation in the lecture. The initial drop into the ice age is the milankovich cycle, but as less solar radiation hits the earth, co2 is sequestered and the green house forcing is reduced. More ice also reflects more sunight adding to the cooling.

Quite easy predicted outcome. My appologies if you think watching the slide show for an hour was too long. Clearly you did not watch or did not understand.

I"m sure alley would be over joyed if new data modified the hypothesis. His teams original work was in temperature reconstruction of the ice cores, which turned out quite different than expected. There were much greater variability that the theories of stable forcing from just solar radiation. He also talked in the slide show about cosmic rays, and recent studies that have high variability with the shifts in the earths magnetic core, don't give data that supports much of the theory.

The current idea is they are locally clustered eruptions. Alley's work with volcanos is about those that historically errupted. These erruptions can be found in the ice. A new theory with data would not change that, but may help us predict future eruptions. AFAIK Corbyn has not explained his theory nor does he intend to produce papers that could analyze it.

Since alley's research concerns mainly the natural stuff, things proving the Anthropological link wrong will not effect his findings. Since the research has to do with global temperature, not just warming over a geoplogical age, I doubt any short termp movements could make much of a difference. Its mann's and hanson's work that would be affected. OK, I'm done. IF you want to learn please seek out someone qualified at a university. If you want to add your voice to the ignorant, that is fine too. I have at least attempted to get your knowledge to a high school level.

 

Ah, I get it now. You don't actually understand the methodology between either Corbyn or other actual climate scientists - but you believe Corbyn over all the others for some reason - probably because his outcomes fit your preconceived notions better.

If you don't actually want to learn the science behind climatology and would prefer to take statements as blind fact - this has turned completely into a theism/atheism discussion - not a scientific AGW discussion.

 

Well, you're pretty quick to jump on everyone else who can't explain every little detail of climate change science.

 

I believe him because monthly his predictions are validated as correct 85% of the time.
AGW scientists and modelers are NEVER validated.
Their predictions are all wrong.Theres been no warming for 13 years.
Yet you believe their theories.
Thats blind faith.

 

Easy to do when your predictions are so vague that chance alone can validate them.

Sure - keep on cherry picking an extremely anomalous single year heavily influenced by a strong El Nino as your reference point. Never mind that the last 10 years are the warmest on instrumental record, 2010 tied for the warmest on instrumental record and the moving average has been steadily climbing indicating that temperatures are indeed rising on average.

 

I can say this: At no time in history has this much CO2 been poured into our atmosphere.
But of course, it's nothing to worry about. Probably won't amount to much.