February 16th I posted "A Study in Miscommunication - Increasing Antarctic Ice Extent (is No) Mystery!" in which I describe the failings of a NASAGoddard video who's omission riddled and inept communication does more to confuse than clarify.
A couple days after my post I discovered that YouTube's 1000frolly had gotten to the video a few weeks before me and used it's unfortunate omissions as a platform for driving home his argument that CO2 science is a hoax and that scientists are clueless shills.
Now it's my turn to unpack 1000frolly's malicious fraud. This is the footnotes to part two of my detailed review of his malicious deception saturated "NASA - The "Mystery" of Antarctic Cooling" (Jan 25, 2016).
For easy reference you can open this footnotes page and view it side by side with frolly's dialogue interspersed with my running commentary and corrections.
=======================
{#1} "see quite clearly... Yoshimura Gleissberg cycle"
It's arm waving, the Yoshimura Gleissberg cycle isn't even holding up to it's own predictions and it's certainly no help in understanding recent climate fluctuations.
The Gleisberg cycle implied that the next solar cycle have a maximum smoothed sunspot number of about 145±30 in 2010 (instead 2010 was just after the cycle's solar minimum) ....[27]
~ ~ ~
About that barycenter and solar cycles...
What drives the solar cycle?
March 30, 2015 by David Dickinson, Universe Today
_____________________________________________________
{#2} "Mendoza published in 2007 how they found the 60th cycle was by using the isotope, identifying beryllium10"
True enough, but frolly misrepresents the Mendoza, Velasco study.
"Frequency and duration of historical droughts from the 16th to the 19th centuries in the Mexican Maya lands, Yucatan Peninsula"
Velasco, Mendoza Climatic Change 83:1-2, 151-168.
Mendoza, Garcia-Acosta, Velasco, Jauregui, Diaz-Sandoval
"... Comparing natural terrestrial and solar phenomena, we found that the most sustained and strongest modulation of historical drought occurrence is at ∼60–64 years and is between the historical drought series and the solar proxy Be10. For modern droughts we notice that the coherence is similar among AMO, SOI and the solar indices. We can conclude that the sea surface temperatures (AMO) and solar activity leave their signal in terms of severe droughts in the Maya lands, however in the long term, the influence of the SOI on this type of phenomenon is less clear."
_____________________________________________________
{#3} "But of course if you're, um, Henrik Svensmark"
Yeah. If you're Svensmark, you invest so much of your ego into your own personal vision, that you ignore solid critique.
Henrik Svensmark
