Maunder minimum

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I saw nothing to indicate satellite data was used. All the first link said was surface temps. That could mean anything, including airports which are known for heat island effect.
Where is the data?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/mission-success-ravan-cubesat-measures-earth-s-outgoing-energy

This is one such effort. There is a more direct link but I can't find it just yet

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-nasa-small-spacecraft-gigahertz-global.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-team-year-satellite-sea.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-farewell-pollution-sensor.html

It seems you want us to do your atmospheric research for you. These links were easily found but you don't want to go through the trouble to do it yourself. Why is that I wonder.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-methane-greenhouse-effect-earth-surface.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-permafrost-methane.html

Originally posted by @sonhouse
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/mission-success-ravan-cubesat-measures-earth-s-outgoing-energy

This is one such effort. There is a more direct link but I can't find it just yet

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-nasa-small-spacecraft-gigahertz-global.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-team-year-satellite-sea.html

https://phys.org/news/2018 ...[text shortened]... ne-greenhouse-effect-earth-surface.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-permafrost-methane.html

Seriously?
If I posted that many links for you would you read them all? I didn't ask you either. I'm getting tired of you and humy butting into everything to be difficult. One link is enough reading. I'm not reading your crap load of articles just because you are in a copy and paste frenzy. Wildgrass picked one and that is what I will address.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Seriously?
If I posted that many links for you would you read them all? I didn't ask you either. I'm getting tired of you and humy butting into everything to be difficult. One link is enough reading. I'm not reading your crap load of articles just because you are in a copy and paste frenzy. Wildgrass picked one and that is what I will address.

Well then just read the first one. You asked about sat readings of thermal energy and I provided them. Like I said, it took all of 5 minutes to find them all. Why are you feigning interest in this if you don't want to do even a modicum of research?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Well then just read the first one. You asked about sat readings of thermal energy and I provided them. Like I said, it took all of 5 minutes to find them all. Why are you feigning interest in this if you don't want to do even a modicum of research?

You are being ridiculous. If you had read the article that wildgrass posted you would understand why. I also had to look at links provided by that link, a PDF and there are actually more than that.
If you want to post excerpts go ahead. Don't expect me to do more research when I am all up in it already.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I saw nothing to indicate satellite data was used. All the first link said was surface temps. That could mean anything, including airports which are known for heat island effect.
Where is the data?

Methods. You're talking about the methods. Usually you find this information in the methods section of the papers.

"The CERES satellite observations can be accessed at https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php. Other data and material requests are available from the corresponding author."

Reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are being ridiculous. If you had read the article that wildgrass posted you would understand why. I also had to look at links provided by that link, a PDF and there are actually more than that.
If you want to post excerpts go ahead. Don't expect me to do more research when I am all up in it already.

You didn't respond to the excerpts either, except to point out what's missing, so that does not seem to help. I posted excerpts from articles that you never respond to, choosing instead to respond to the information that is not contained in the excerpt. Like a good critical thinker, you are trying to find leaks in the levee. Obviously, if you want to hear the whole story though, you have to read the entire article rather than excerpts.

Please also think about the questions you are asking. Are the models accurate, vs. are the measurements accurate are different questions, and require different studies and methodologies to ask and address. Be careful not to convolute these. You will need to read more than 1 article to see the big picture.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Methods. You're talking about the methods. Usually you find this information in the methods section of the papers.

"The CERES satellite observations can be accessed at https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php. Other data and material requests are available from the corresponding author."

Reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

Those links did not help. The first says very little about anything we are talking about and I don't have a subscription to nature.

I also found out this issue is even more complex. Climate models are different. There are simple energy balance models and there are earth system models. Also, there are climate forecasts that predict temps with relative accuracy, yet their co2 estimates were wrong. It is difficult to establish that climate models are good at co2 warming estimates when their own climate models are based on wrong estimates of future co2 levels.
My conclusion is that it is pointless to debate this subject when there are so many factors that can be nitpicked by either of us. More research is needed and I'll leave it at that. I'll let climate modelers make more predictions and we will all see if they prove at all useful.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Those links did not help. The first says very little about anything we are talking about and I don't have a subscription to nature.

I also found out this issue is even more complex. Climate models are different. There are simple energy balance models and there are earth system models. Also, there are climate forecasts that predict temps with relative ...[text shortened]... I'll let climate modelers make more predictions and we will all see if they prove at all useful.

The bottom line is you are self assured everything will work out in the end and are just waiting for vindication of your stance.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
....The first says very little about anything we are talking about....

This is exactly what you were asking for. You wanted satellite data, and that is it. The Nature paper ranks each of the available climate models in order of accuracy, and finds definitively that the most accurate climate models are the ones that predict the most warming over the next 100 years.

If you don't think that's what we were talking about, I don't know what to else to say.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
This is exactly what you were asking for. You wanted satellite data, and that is it. The Nature paper ranks each of the available climate models in order of accuracy, and finds definitively that the most accurate climate models are the ones that predict the most warming over the next 100 years.

If you don't think that's what we were talking about, I don't know what to else to say.

I get the distinct feeling it wouldn't matter what data was presented, he would just move the goalpost and say 'no good because of bla bla bla'.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
This is exactly what you were asking for. You wanted satellite data, and that is it. The Nature paper ranks each of the available climate models in order of accuracy, and finds definitively that the most accurate climate models are the ones that predict the most warming over the next 100 years.

If you don't think that's what we were talking about, I don't know what to else to say.

I don't know that article included satellite data. I looked and found nothing after a lot of reading. Then sonhouse bombards me with a bunch of crap to read in addition to your link that contains a bunch of other links to read as well. I'm sick of it. If sonhouse thinks it is so easy to read all of that crap he should do it himself. I had a hard enough time with your link because it is sooo long!

Then I read the following link and found out this whole thing is senseless. One of the first models was close, but with the wrong co2 level estimate it is clear they have no idea how much co2 warms the climate. Carbon brief does seem to be biased despite their claims otherwise though.


https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

I can't read the nature article because it takes a subscription. That is another reason I am frustrated. You keep forgetting I can't read them. If you think it is worth paying money for good for you, but I'm not going to waste my money in addition to my time.

I posted a youtube link of a British guy that made predictions that were very accurate based on solar activity. Since climate models cannot do better he is the guy to beat if you really want to prove something. Instead you chose to just ignore him, but his predictions were better. I already proved you wrong by posting his youtube link. Not my problem you can't accept that.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I get the distinct feeling it wouldn't matter what data was presented, he would just move the goalpost and say 'no good because of bla bla bla'.

You are being a jerk. I cannot read the nature article as I said before.
He knows that because I told him and now I told him a second time. How would you feel if I made false accusations against you when you couldn't read an article without a subscription? You would feel equally offended as I am at you!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are being a jerk. I cannot read the nature article as I said before.
He knows that because I told him and now I told him a second time. How would you feel if I made false accusations against you when you couldn't read an article without a subscription? You would feel equally offended as I am at you!

I am offended I provided a number of links but you have your head too far up your ass to deign to look at them. They are valid science articles and you don't need subs to see them.
It sounds to me like you are not interested enough to do even a modicum of research which I already linked. I can only assume you don't WANT to know what is going on scientifically in the world of climate research but ONLY want to further your own agenda, that of your buddy.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I am offended I provided a number of links but you have your head too far up your ass to deign to look at them. They are valid science articles and you don't need subs to see them.
It sounds to me like you are not interested enough to do even a modicum of research which I already linked. I can only assume you don't WANT to know what is going on scientifi ...[text shortened]... y in the world of climate research but ONLY want to further your own agenda, that of your buddy.

You did provide me with a number of links, a very large number! That is the problem. I doubt you read even one of them all the way through. You are just leaving that to me so you don't have to. If I did read them I would undoubtedly find lots of flaws you didn't even bother to screen through yourself.
You are a self centered ass! Why don't you get off your sorry ass and read half as much as you expect others to do? Start with this link. It is the same one I posted for wildgrass.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

Notice the first example is claimed to be accurate, but if you scroll down it says it was overestimated by 30%, much higher than your 10%. In fact only one met your own criteria.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I don't know that article included satellite data. I looked and found nothing after a lot of reading.

Yes you do. I quoted it directly and gave you a link from the article to the satellite data used.