The new dissent on AGW

[force_redo]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Ask yourself why the kettle only got turned on in 1975. Sunspot cycles have looked much like that for a long time.

Well, I can just talk about these graphs in this thread, I really don't know anything about global warming / sun activity etc. And the "sun graph" starts in 1975, which means it could have been different before (or not). Anyway, can't make any claim about that (and won't)

Quote:

Volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina.

Volcanoes are correlated to the sun activity?

Quote:

Fair enough. I hope I've improved on that for you .

We all do our best...

FR

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by force_redo

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

You seem to be thinking energy only enters the system but never gets back out which isn’t the case. Energy does exit the system in the form of long wave IR, and how much exits is a function of current surface temperature and greenhouse gas levels.

What those two graphs say, then, is that surface temperature is rising and the rate at which IR is trying to exit the system is increasing yet the rate at which energy is entering the system is staying the same. Clearly this would violate conservation of energy unless there were some mechanism acting to prevent that IR from reaching space, and the only know mechanism that can do that is the greenhouse effect.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Well, I can just talk about these graphs in this thread, I really don't know anything about global warming / sun activity etc. And the "sun graph" starts in 1975, which means it could have been different before (or not). Anyway, can't make any claim about that (and won't)

The ~11 year solar cycle was recognised in the mid-19thCE, as I recall. If they pump energy into the climate system there'd be a heck of a lot of it in there by now.

Quote:

Volcanoes are correlated to the sun activity?

No, but global temperatures are affected by volcanoes. You have to strip out such known influences before any solar signal can be determined.

Quote:

We all do our best...

FR

And some things are sent to try us ...

[force_redo]

Originally Posted by lomiller

You seem to be thinking...

Sorry to cut you short, please don't understand it as a way of disrespect, but as little as I do understand, I completely agree with you. Please don't second guess what I might be thinking to make your point.
The only thing I don't agree with is saying these two graphs at hand don't have anything to do with each other, when they - in my layman's eye - clearly look as if they do.

You see, in terms of this whole subject I'm on neither side of the fence. Too much hysteria for my taste. And I'm just for fair play.

FR

[force_redo]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

No, but global temperatures are affected by volcanoes. You have to strip out such known influences before any solar signal can be determined.

Really? Ok, I assumed there are different ways of determining solar influence that doesn't include what's going on inside our atmosphere (or at least subtracting them out before you make a graph). So, do you really think the numbers that make this graph are basically "contaminated" with data of volcanic activity?

Quote:

And some things are sent to try us ...

Some posts on this highly emotional subject surely do. All hail the new flesh!

FR

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Really? Ok, I assumed there are different ways of determining solar influence that doesn't include what's going on inside our atmosphere (or at least subtracting them out before you make a graph).

If you were looking for a solar influence on global temperatures then you would subtract other known influences before comparing the graphs.

Quote:

So, do you really think the numbers that make this graph are basically "contaminated" with data of volcanic activity?

The temperature graph does indeed reflect the influence of volcanoes - for instance Mt Pinatubo in 1991. The solar cycle graph doesn't, obviously. That's what makes comparing the two directly somewhat problematic.

[CapelDodger]

Gettingback to the point (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-c6e8faf14e84) we have this gem :

Quote:

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the
geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

The links provided to confirm this are to Tom Nelson for the 2/3 figure (yes, that Tom Nelson, struggles with arithmetic) and something called "Right Side News : The Right News for Americans". The wrong news for us Brits, then. The RSN headline actually includes "Prominently Featured"; these guys can't even summon up their own phrases.

It's all rather sad, really. Funny because it's sad.

[force_redo]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

If you were looking for a solar influence on global temperatures then you would subtract other known influences before comparing the graphs.

Sure. I thought they were something like satellite data or measurements of other planets or so, to actually exclude the climate effects. Guess I need to read up on how to measure the sun properly...

Quote:

The temperature graph does indeed reflect the influence of volcanoes - for instance Mt Pinatubo in 1991. The solar cycle graph doesn't, obviously. That's what makes comparing the two directly somewhat problematic.

Sure. I got that. But my point is ( I probably didn't make that clear enough) that just mathematically the temperature graph looks like almost exactly the outcome I would actually expect from the sun activity graph. Even if there weren't any other influences.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I'm just stunned that there are so many experts on this around and nobody speaks out about this. This means that they're either too occupied with their agenda or just not paying attention.

Anyways, I spent too many words on this already. It's probably not that important, really. I'm going to take a back seat on this again, I don't think I have any more to offer on this subject matter. Thanks for your time.
(Unless you call me out again)

FR

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Sure. I got that. But my point is ( I probably didn't make that clear enough) that just mathematically the temperature graph looks like almost exactly the outcome I would actually expect from the sun activity graph. Even if there weren't any other influences.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I'm just stunned that there are so many experts on this around and nobody speaks out about this. This means that they're either too occupied with their agenda or just not paying attention.

Anyways, I spent too many words on this already. It's probably not that important, really. I'm going to take a back seat on this again, I don't think I have any more to offer on this subject matter. Thanks for your time.
(Unless you call me out again)

FR

There are some geniuses out there at work on this area of science, I doubt they could have missed something so obvious.

What I am missing is how you make the connection between the two graphs. Could you just describe it slowly for someone who hasn't had to do vector caculus for 30 years?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I’m at a total loss as to why you would think that, unless, as I suggested in my previous post you are under the impression solar energy continually accumulates in the atmosphere, which clearly can be the case.

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Sure. I thought they were something like satellite data or measurements of other planets or so, to actually exclude the climate effects. Guess I need to read up on how to measure the sun properly...




Sure. I got that. But my point is ( I probably didn't make that clear enough) that just mathematically the temperature graph looks like almost exactly the outcome I would actually expect from the sun activity graph. Even if there weren't any other influences.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I'm just stunned that there are so many experts on this around and nobody speaks out about this. This means that they're either too occupied with their agenda or just not paying attention.

Anyways, I spent too many words on this already. It's probably not that important, really. I'm going to take a back seat on this again, I don't think I have any more to offer on this subject matter. Thanks for your time.
(Unless you call me out again)

FR

Why not look further? There are loads of graphs out there, or you can make your own from the main datasets at woodfortrees (or download the actual data into a spreadsheet). Choose the same time period and see if you should be stunned or not.

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I’m at a total loss as to why you would think that, unless, as I suggested in my previous post you are under the impression solar energy continually accumulates in the atmosphere, which clearly can be the case.

Regardless of the supposed mechanism, the supposition simply doesn't hold up if you graph the 2 values over the same time scale. The correlation has been very poor over the last few decades.

[dudalb]

Frankly, I hate the way this whole issue has been politicised by both the Left and the Right. If the Right is sticking it's head in the ground about this, then the Left has been using it to push their Anti Free Market Agenda.

[force_redo]

Ok, another try.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

There are some geniuses out there at work on this area of science, I doubt they could have missed something so obvious.

Absolutely, there are geniusses at work. But I meant the people here in this threat/forum. Some seem to have a strong mathematical background or at least they claim they do and I have no good reason to doubt that.

Quote:

What I am missing is how you make the connection between the two graphs. Could you just describe it slowly for someone who hasn't had to do vector caculus for 30 years?

Nothing to do with vector calculus. Go back at my teapot example I made on page 1. I guess we agree about this.

Quote:

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

If you have a look at the two graphs again, you'll sea that the "sun graph" is roughly a horizontal line (with bumps up and down) and the temperature is an ascending line. (Also with bumps up and down)
Just like putting a /constant/ (i.e. horizontal line) energy into a system (kettle, earth) and observing it's rise in temperature (i.e. ascending line). This works pretty much for everything as long as it absorbs more energy than it let's out.

(Here a nodd to Iomiller: As I stated before, I completely agree with you, I don't get why you think we wouldn't)

Now this effect obviously works with everything, Planets with GH effect, teapots, fillet steaks etc.
Mathematically speaking, the horizontal line /could be/ the derivative of the ascending line, just like f(x)=1 (a horizontal line) is the derivative of f(x)=x (An ascending line) and hereby implying the former could be a (not the only) cause of the latter.

The interesting bit is that the bumps are in the same places which looks like another indication that these lines quite surely show cause and effect to a certain degree. Again: Not the single cause, but quite certainly one of them. Hence, these curves show cause and effect. That's what I've been saying all along. And I was just surprised that GreyICE was of a different opinion and even made it into an ironic remark.

In absolute layman's terms: Just because two curves (that deal with different thinigs - one with temerature over time and one with energy over time) don't point in the same direction or run parallel, doesn't mean they aren't connected. I think we all agree on that.

The unlucky bit is that the sun curve starts roundabout the same area where the steep heating up begins (ca. 1975). If it was only going a bit back it would tell more about the story /how much/ it's influence really is.

FR

[force_redo]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I’m at a total loss as to why you would think that, unless, as I suggested in my previous post you are under the impression solar energy continually accumulates in the atmosphere, which clearly can be the case.

Energy accumulates in pretty much everything that you are able to "heat up", no?

Or, more precisely: Everything that gets more energy in than it releases. I don't understand why you say I would think /no/ energy leaves the earth. We could be talking about a tomato in a grill here and the curves could hypothetically look the same, yet I wouldn't claim that no energy leaves the tomato.

I think my reply to AUP might have cleared some of that misunderstanding up.

As to /why/ there is more energy coming in than out, you could start making all sorts of claims. GH effect sounds most likely to me. Or the sun suddenly got stronger.

FR

[force_redo]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Frankly, I hate the way this whole issue has been politicised by both the Left and the Right. If the Right is sticking it's head in the ground about this, then the Left has been using it to push their Anti Free Market Agenda.

{sorry for the detour}
If only it was so simple. I heard from a top manager at a very large corporation once (the type that makes cars) who said he was delighted with the global warming hysteria. He said, the best thing that could happen to them would be if petrol cars were just banned. Then they would roll out H2 cars or electrical cars (they obviously have the prototypes for those already) or whatever is considered "good" by then and everybody would be just forced to buy a new one.
It's basically used for all sorts of agendas. Even for "pro free market enthusiasts"...
{/end of detour}
FR

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by force_redo

The interesting bit is that the bumps are in the same places which looks like another indication that these lines quite surely show cause and effect to a certain degree. Again: Not the single cause, but quite certainly one of them. Hence, these curves show cause and effect. That's what I've been saying all along. And I was just surprised that GreyICE was of a different opinion and even made it into an ironic remark.

There is nothing wrong with your idea but how can you claim that the bumps are in the same places? Most of them are not. What are you looking at? I'm looking at this.
BTW most of us have done this comparison before. Every time the "it's the sun" idea gets a rerun we tend to revisit the evidence.

And anyway, why do you imagine we aren't aware of a strong 11-year temp cycle, matching the solar cycle?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Energy accumulates in pretty much everything that you are able to "heat up", no?

Or, more precisely: Everything that gets more energy in than it releases. I don't understand why you say I would think /no/ energy leaves the earth. We could be talking about a tomato in a grill here and the curves could hypothetically look the same, yet I wouldn't claim that no energy leaves the tomato.

I think my reply to AUP might have cleared some of that misunderstanding up.

As to /why/ there is more energy coming in than out, you could start making all sorts of claims. GH effect sounds most likely to me. Or the sun suddenly got stronger.

FR

Here is new research showing a 10-30 year lag between solar and atmospheric:...a new paper ‘in press’ in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’.

The Abstract states:

The role of the sun on Earth’s climate variability is still much debated. Here we present an ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai, serving as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 750 years. The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...

Yet another look, in another fashion...a Morlet wavelet transform of smoothed sunspot numbers (SSN).

Another skeptic's point of view....D'Aleo simply notes correlation of various factors alleged to affect climate with temperatures...

What does the solar scientist, Solanki have to say?

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

Baker (Solar influence and effect on cloud cover noted)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations

“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”

Do Warmers objectively, honestly, and accurately present solar effects on climate? No. It does not fit with their agenda.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Hmmm, is it just me, or do these two graphs indeed look like cause and effect (without the irony, I mean)? The first looks a lot like a derivative of the second, no?

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

They even seem to have the peaks and dips in the same place (like the peaks in '80 and '90 for example)
Obviously this in itself doesn't mean or proof anything, I just wanted to wisecrack a little. (And I thought the possible correlation of the two was dismissed a little too easily)

Sorry for just "driving by", I've been following these AGW threads for a while (I had a lengthy discussion about modelling climate a while back) but more for the education of myself.

FR

Wow, solar emmissions have short-term effects on temperature? No, really?

Obviously they do. Thing is, they don't even come close to explaining the sudden spike, which is what MHaze is claiming. Also, as you noted, you can see short-term peaks and valleys from the solar.

Yet MHaze is claiming a century-long time lag in the response of the climate to the solar changes.

You do the math.

[mhaze]

Logical Fallacies used by Warmers (current contributions by GreyIce to the State of Warmer Logic highlighted):

1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man
42. Two Wrongs Make A Right

Logical fallacy list courtesy of Michael C. Labossiere. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Pipirr]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Logical Fallacies used by Warmers:

Well, my eyes are opened. Thanks for that.

I can certainly see how the IPCC reports, and all those thousands and thousands of peer reviewed climate science publications, are all examples of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. It's an eye-opener to see all this 'citation of sources' and 'previous research' nonsense for what it is.

I'm off to hang out at Inhofe's place. That guy is definitely not an authority on climate science, so he must be more credible.

[mhaze]

Thank you. I have no doubt ruffled some feathers by only suggesting that a couple decades isn't an appropriate period to look at solar influences over. But, rather than acknowledge this and correct the statements, various Warmers soldier on trying to nail the coffin shut on the Sun with a hammer made of jello.

By the way, I have not quoted Inhofe except in respect to his opposition to the "US Ethanol Scam" and his pro nuclear power positions. Inhofe would qualify as an expert on the business, personal and political implications of the ethanol silliness. Anyone with a grain of sense should also support eliminating the ethanol subsidies, and also support expansion of nuclear power. (back to leaving politics out of the discussion).

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Logical Fallacies used by Warmers (current contributions by GreyIce to the State of Warmer Logic highlighted):

1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man
42. Two Wrongs Make A Right

Logical fallacy list courtesy of Michael C. Labossiere. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Wow, and not even your own work. 2 things:-

1. Do you really want us to go through that ludicrously hypocitical list one by one?

2. The denidiots (!) on this list failed to come up with anything intelligent in my HTBAGWS thread (which was, at least my own work).

Oh, and you are getting desperate, aren't you, mhaze?

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Thank you. I have no doubt ruffled some feathers by only suggesting that a couple decades isn't an appropriate period to look at solar influences over. But, rather than acknowledge this and correct the statements, various Warmers soldier on trying to nail the coffin shut on the Sun with a hammer made of jello.

Funny guy. Other than the incessant lying (your lies here are all on record so anyone can check), one of the denialist memes is that warming has stopped, it's cooled over the last year, etc.

Some joke that you would complain about short timescales!

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by force_redo

Energy accumulates in pretty much everything that you are able to "heat up", no?

Which is the model I’ve already explained in physically impossible. Put a teapot on the stove it heats up, sure, but does it continue to heat up *forever* clearly not and it doesn’t take a degree in physics to see that it won’t.

As I said before heat isn’t just flowing in it’s also flowing out. This means it takes an *increase* in energy coming in to get an increase in heat. Do you see such an increase in the solar activity graph?

Originally Posted by force_redo

Or, more precisely: Everything that gets more energy in than it releases.

Eh? If something receives more energy then it emits it heats up. If something emits more energy then it receives it cools down. This is a simple application of conservation of energy.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Here is new research showing a 10-30 year lag between solar and atmospheric:...a new paper ‘in press’ in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’.

The Abstract states:

The role of the sun on Earth’s climate variability is still much debated. Here we present an ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai, serving as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 750 years. The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...

You, like Inhofe, are missing the big picture, at least according to the lead author of the study:

Originally Posted by Eichler

our conclusions were misinterpreted ... We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is not significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.

[GreyICE]

Logical Arguments used by deniers

1.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by varwoche

You, like Inhofe, are missing the big picture, at least according to the lead author of the study:

It's a typical action by deniers. Take a paper, and misrepresent what it says.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's a typical action by deniers. Take a paper, and misrepresent what it says.

And then accuse the authors of lying about it.

These people are shameless.

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

And then accuse the authors of lying about it.

These people are shameless.

Yes, like mhaze citing a list of logical fallacies. As if he hasn't committed almost every one in these forums...

Is that an ad hom?

[TrueSceptic]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Logical Arguments used by deniers

1.

I can see a logical problem there. You have implied that there is one (unspecified) argument. Are you winging it?

[DogB]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

I can see a logical problem there. You have implied that there is one (unspecified) argument. Are you winging it?

Agreed, I would have used a zero.

[davefoc]

As something of a moderate on all this, (I suspect that AGW is an important problem but I am not informed enough to have a strongly formed opinion) I am disappointed that somebody thought that report was worth polluting this forum with. Somehow the Republican Party either because of their religious base or their connection to the energy companies has decided it is their job to work as an advertising wing of the global warming skeptics.

I don't think that is the job of people that I would like to see in office. I think it is there job to work to determine as well as possible the best course of action based on an objective analysis of the relevant facts.

You just need to read the first paragraph of that report to know that whoever wrote it had no intention of engaging in a second of objective thought. It was aimed at appealing to an uninformed audience. It might have value as a propaganda piece to promote the agenda they are pushing but it is of no probative value with regards to AGW issues.

It is amazing to me that I spent most of my life voting for Republicans. Were they always ignorant anti=intellectuals and I just didn't notice?

[kallsop]

Here's a priceless AP article:

Obama left with little time to curb global warming

"Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line"....."While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming."

Now we have a much bigger problem at hand. If the world gets warmer, that's bad because it's Global Warming. If the world cools down, that's even worse because it's due to faster Global Warming.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone made the claim that Global Warming is proven by the world warming or cooling. Congratulations, AP writer Seth Borenstein. Nothing gets by you.

[MattusMaximus]

The OP is just another tactic by the AGW-deniers to cloud the issue.

In fact, this link looks awfully similar to another pseudoscientific rant - the much-ballyhooed "Dissent from Darwinism" pushed by major creationist groups...

Quote:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection (read: anthropogenic global warming) to account for the complexity of life (read: rise in global surface temperatures). Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory (read: human-caused climate change) should be encouraged.

Creationists and AGW-deniers seem to be in good company. More's the pity.

Yawn...

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Frankly, I hate the way this whole issue has been politicised by both the Left and the Right. If the Right is sticking it's head in the ground about this, then the Left has been using it to push their Anti Free Market Agenda.

Dubalb, I agree. In fact, this is my biggest beef with the whole AGW issue - it's not the science (which is sound), but the politics involved which drives me into fits of

Fortunately, we are finally getting to the point where more and more people can no longer reasonably deny the fact of AGW (yes, it's a fact, not "just a theory"). Now the next step is what to do about it?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by varwoche

You, like Inhofe, are missing the big picture, at least according to the lead author of the study:

No. I wasn't even aware this was in Inhofe's list. See below.

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Oh and P.S.



Yeah, half of all warming is due to sun. Yeaaaaah. Because that graph tracks with global temperature.......

Originally Posted by mhaze

Thank you. I have no doubt ruffled some feathers by only suggesting that a couple decades isn't an appropriate period to look at solar influences over. But, rather than acknowledge this and correct the statements, various Warmers soldier on trying to nail the coffin shut on the Sun with a hammer made of jello.

Spelling it out, then:

Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’......The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...

The above chart of 30 years of solar influence would have at the most, 20 years of lagging data, and at worst, 0 years. GreyIce's chart makes no point whatsoever.

[David Rodale]

It would be nice if climate change deniers could be consistent. Does the sun directly influence climate or does it not? Are you now conceding the sun does influence climate? Even IPCC left the door open for it, and now with a dormant sun, what will you say when the globe continues to refuse to cooperate with AGW? Whatever happened to 'correlation is not causation'? And what direct evidence is there that CO2 is actually the cause of the warming? ZERO.

Of interest is Gristmill's skillful use of the words "up to" and exactly 50%.

What is the actual number then? .1%? 49.9%? As Eichler specifically cites agreement with Scafetta and West, what do they say?

Quote:

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.

But there are also other unresolved issues with the sun other than TSI. Or do we know everything there is to know about the sun?

This has apparently escaped the AGW warmoshpere.
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming

Quote:

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

What warms the oceans? What mitigating factor affects how much of whatever it is that warms the oceans?
Coincidence?


Now we have entered the cool phase of the PDO, and according to NASA in April and now December it is no longer a matter of an anomalous La Nina, but the beginnings of a long term climate shift. What do you think, does CO2 also cause that?



So, keep drinking the RealClimate kool-aid struggling to prove the earth actually hasn't stopped warming. That's fine, all sheep need a shepherd. On the other hand, in your own words, where in the data does it show global temperatures have done anything but stalled and dropped.


You could rely on GISS. I don't know, Hansen's high tech adjustment procedures don't appeal to the 'Quality' side of me.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by David Rodale

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...tarosagiss.gif
[/url]

Kudos if you can spot the deception in this little animated slideshow. Here, I'll post it again.

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...tarosagiss.gif

Rodale, you are truly an expert liar. The quality of this deception and the trick it plays is very subtle, yet supremely elegant.

(watch the left side, see if you spot what he did in Excel)

(truly, it's amazing what people will cobble together to support their ideas, but I guess we have an entire forum devoted to that)

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by davefoc

As something of a moderate on all this, (I suspect that AGW is an important problem but I am not informed enough to have a strongly formed opinion) I am disappointed that somebody thought that report was worth polluting this forum with. Somehow the Republican Party either because of their religious base or their connection to the energy companies has decided it is their job to work as an advertising wing of the global warming skeptics.

I don't think that is the job of people that I would like to see in office. I think it is there job to work to determine as well as possible the best course of action based on an objective analysis of the relevant facts.

You just need to read the first paragraph of that report to know that whoever wrote it had no intention of engaging in a second of objective thought. It was aimed at appealing to an uninformed audience. It might have value as a propaganda piece to promote the agenda they are pushing but it is of no probative value with regards to AGW issues.

It is amazing to me that I spent most of my life voting for Republicans. Were they always ignorant anti=intellectuals and I just didn't notice?

Was it all downhill after Abe?