Real science is about the gathering of multiple lines of evidence, bulding on previous research that built on research before that. One of the hallmarks of denialism is choosing a single study or dataset out of a multitude simply because it is an outlier that confirms their prefered viewpoint.
On the "It's the sun, stupid" thread, mandas has provided a very nice listing of some of the many different examinations of solar forcing on recent climate change.
As with all robust scientific findings, the methods and datasets are different but the general conclusions are all the same: solar forcing has not been a dominate driver of modern day global warming, and especially so for the later 20th century to today period.
Here is his comment:
Some interesting studies for those who wish to do some reading (with thanks to skepticalscience):
â¢Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
â¢Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
â¢Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
â¢Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
â¢Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
â¢Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
â¢Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
â¢Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
â¢Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
â¢Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
â¢Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
â¢Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
â¢Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
â¢Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
â¢Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun-climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
â¢Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
â¢Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
As Ray Pierrehumbert - Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago - said in response to a quote in Nature which said that this was the 'last nail in the coffin' for solar enthusiasts about solar warming:
"That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."
- Log in to post comments
Berra, [Lawrence]Yogi; 1957; 'NY Yankees Media Guide'
Yogi Berra once said, probably, that when you build on multiple lines of evidence, that built on multiple lines of historic research evidence, to do your 'real science', you may be expanding on poorly done or fraudulent research results.This of course results in your 'real science' being seriously flawed. Often this is the result of a researcher 'shopping' for questionable evidence in previous research that supports his current hypothesis.
When judging research results on ANY TOPIC I ask two questions. Who paid for the 'research', and who tends to benefit[profit] from the results.
Do you follow the same thought process when you you view data, studies, and opinion pieces published on the hundred or so supposedly truthful environmental science web sites funded by the petroleum industry?
Do you take the view that climate scientists, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, stand to benefit from reporting results which confirm AGW?
Just my own bias showing, no doubt.
It's often claimed by denialists that scientists and politicians benefit from promoting the idea of AGW, but I'm not clear how this is supposed to work. I suppose some of the leading lights have become quite well-known as a consequence, but I fail to see how the other thousands of scientists are benefitting. As for the governments, I don't see a single one taking advantage of the supposed AGW 'scam'. Can anyone give any specific examples?
Even if solar forcing was shown to be a significant factor in climatic warming, all the more reason to cut anthropogenic emissions of high heat capacity gases so as not to exacerbate the trend.
I don't see how climatologists & other scientists stand to benefit from exaggerating AGW. On the other hand, I do see how the fossil fuel industries stand to profit by discounting the dangers of rapid climatic warming.
It's an obvious Truth with no corresponding reality. As such, it needs no examples. It just is.
Perhaps you misunderstand Gingerbaker...I am not a denialist..I am a skeptic on ALL research! Not just on GW.
How bout those pharmaceutical corporations and their cohorts in the medical profession??
Tobacco industry funded their own 'scientific research labs' a few decades ago, and paid formerly respected scientists a huge $ amount to come up with the 'right results'
Remember 'thousands of scientists' also depend on funding for future projects, and often justify 'skewed' data for survivability.
I would of course be suspicious of oil industry funded science, as who is more invested in the 'right outcome'?
Suspect EVERYONE, for motivation, incompetence, and quality of study.
Do not confuse trust with faith..and have neither initially.
Phinneus, this is what the scientific method is all about. Humans are fallible; we make mistakes, we can overlook something important and pertinent to the issue; we can lie; we can lack the tools to measure the data necessary for understanding. This is why data is accepted only when it is verifiable (and eventually verified), and the models must be testable. It's not the many studies on a single subject that should be looked at most skeptically, but the subjects with only a few studies, by a small group of people. Big Pharm is especially involved in this sort of thing; often an expensive drug only has a handful of studies released, all funded by a single company.
But AGW has two generations of scientists from all countries and from multiple fields. There are few theories around as well supported from so many different directions. (Evolution perhaps.) The research pretty much all paints the same picture.
The data supporting a theory can reach a point where it is perverse to deny it.
Somehow my point is being made kermit...I am certainly not a denier of GW! Of course we are experiencing climate change. My words above are scanned,misinterpreted, conclusions are drawn, and the wrong information is diseminated
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of unrelated studies and data collections, that indicate we are undergoing climate change. The causes are many and are still not totally clear.
As before be a skeptic re: all research.
Phinneus you have shown your self to be an AGW denier by your obfuscation and distorted reasoning regarding climate change. If you had read any science you would have seen that the overwhelming majority of science papers and climate scientists have shown that human influences are having a major influence on climate change. Just because you agree with global warming but insist that it is not caused by humans means you are still an AGW denier. Please do not refer to your self as a "skeptic" when is is very obvious that you are, in fact, a denier.
A pox upon you Ian. A perfect response from you. Guess you must know better what I think than I do. Congratulations!
You as a 'believer' are just as narrow minded as any denier.
Where o Where did I claim that human influences do not have an effect on GW?
There are multiple potential causes for GW and those that spout that they are all man made are ignorant.
I have been studying science since your Mama and DaDa were in diapers.
If you really want to get into childish name calling and insults go to the Enquirer.
Obfuscation is a big word for a grade 8 student such as yourself to use.
Funny how deniers always get in a tizzy when they are identified as such. What a potty mouthed denier he is.
Phinneus:
'funny' thing is: the corporate researchers often are the first to find out what really is going on. It is then the higher hierarchy that suppresses/tries to spin those results.
There are multiple potential causes for GW and those that spout that they are all man made are ignorant.
Strawman!.
Phinneus said: "Tobacco industry funded their own 'scientific research labs' a few decades ago, and paid formerly respected scientists a huge $ amount to come up with the 'right results'"
Yes, Phinneus. And the same people are giving a big push to global warming denial. Doesn't this give you pause for thought? Often it is the very same scientists!
Phinneus also said: "There are multiple potential causes for GW and those that spout that they are all man made are ignorant."
Indeed. But these causes are quantifiable (admittedly with some uncertainty). And anyone claiming that man-made causes are not the dominant driver of global warming over recent decades is deep, deeeeeeep in denial.
Phinneus:
I am not a denialist..I am a skeptic on ALL research! Not just on GW.
Even the research into the dielectric properties of the insulators that protect you from being electrocuted as you surf the Web?
How can you be so sure you won't be killed the next time you touch a computer keyboard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w
Phinneus @6:
Forget hte 'often', could you give a single specific example of this being done by a scientist claiming that AGW is taking place? It may well have happened, but I can't imagine any circumstances that would promote it.
Phinneus:
Remember 'thousands of scientists' also depend on funding for future projects, and often justify 'skewed' data for survivability.
Scientists get funded to investigate questions for which the answer is not certain. e.g. Does taking X lower risk of getting disease Y, and in what doses?
Scientists do not get funding to investigate questions for which the answer is already known in the scientific community with a high degree of certainty. No scientist is receiving funds to find out at what temperature pure water boils at sea level.
The scientists in the pro AGW camp claim that recent global warming is due to burning of fossil fuel with a level of certainty above 95%.
It is those in the denialist camps who are arguing that anthropogenic climate change is far from certain.
Applying your reasoning, you should be far more suspicious of those who are in denial of man made global warming.
The first sentence makes clear that the second sentence hasn't led to your *learning* any science.
Because no one argues that causes for GW are all man made, and certainly no scientist does.
As mentioned above, that's a strawman. A favorite denialist strawman. If you're not a denialist, quit acting like one.
I saw the title to this thread, and it made me schnarf my coffee. "still not the sun, stupid"...indeed! Then I saw what phinneus has written in the comments, strawman after strawman. and THAT made me schnarf my coffee...especially dhogaza's comments. Hilarious and spot on.
Then I read one of Judith Curry's recent posts on her blog about the "earth has been cooling since 1998", but, well, I was out of coffee by then...
-sTv
Ugh, the old "scientists benefit if they find evidence of global warming" denial point.
Suppose you have a PhD in climate science. You can then spend 2-4 years doing postdocs at $40-60k for maybe a 1/3 chance at a $70k faculty job (this in a relatively robustly funded sub-discipline of Earth sciences like climate),
OR
if you were a climate modeler you could make $125k modeling reservoirs in the petroleum industry, changes in property values and flood/draught/other risks for a reinsurance agency, or for a financial company;
or if you were a paleoclimate scientist you could make $125k working for a petroleum company;
or if you studies ecological impacts ... well, ok, then you are pretty much stuck in alternate career paths that don't pay any better.
But as a PhD in oceanography who is now working as a senior petroleum geoscientist, I am quite comfortable in stating that I benefitted MUCH MUCH more by NOT taking a climate related postdoc and thereby leaving the Ivory Tower. All the "benefits" are on the dark side. It's not nearly as interesting, and the moral implications make me want to vomit, but almost every climate scientist could get a job doing something else that offers higher pay, health benefits, and pensions.
This is aside from the fact that you could make a hell of a name for yourself if you could find a "natural" cause for climate change that actually accounted for the observations, or the fact that there are numerous other unresolved problems in oceanography and atmospheric science that would make excellent dissertations. In fact, you have very little to benefit by following the status quo in the current economic climate. If you want a job or tenure, you'd damn well better study something less ill considered than "what role does the sun have?" Because that shit is old and irrelevant, and no one is going to want to hire or reward someone who isn't performing novel research. If you are going to skew data due to bias, you'd benefit from doing it on a different problem.
Re #6: Funny you mention "tabacoo science" because many of the lobbyist groups that produce the anti-AGW propoganda are in fact the same organisations and in some cases the same people!
Two prime examples are Fred Singer and the Heartland institute. Scratch the surface of who is funding the myriad of denailist web sites and you will find a loose coalition of right-wing propoganda mills such as Heartland, CEI, etc, many of whome learnt their skills by spreading pro-tabacoo "science", and ALL of whom have their head office within a mile of K-street.
However since you're a skeptic who likes to "follow the money" I'm sure none of the above is news to you. Also having followed the money you will already know that the thousands of scientists who produce the IPCC reports do so voulentarily and do not recieve a dime from the IPCC's paltry $5M annual budget.
With such a well worn and obvious money trail, I can't see how any self described skeptic can avoid the conclusion that the hypothisis "scientists are in it for the grant money" is a politically inspired troll.
Having said that, to me the money trail is of no real consequence when making a judgement on something like AGW. By far the most important part is the scientifc argument (and the ability to follow it). Science (and it's central doctrine of skepticisim) will actually lead to an understanding of the issue. Following the money does not provide any understanding of the issue, it only leads to the already well established fact of life that SOME humans will do anything for money.
Everyone has jumped all over Phinneus here, but I will come to his defence on most of what he says.
He is right that we should be sceptical, and question everything - after all, that's what good scientists do. He is also correct that we should wonder about the motives behind a lot of what is written, and if there are obvious conflicts of interest between the sponsor and any potentially adverse research findings, then you would have to have serious doubts about any positive findings.
Gingerbaker made an excellent point (post #2) when he asked if Phinneas also questioned the views of so-called sceptics (ie deniers) of climate change science - and he was right to do so. And if Phinneas does not question 'both' sides of the debate, then he should rightfully be castigated.
But of course, exactly the same logic MUST be applied to those of us who accept AGW. We must also question the motive and logic behind any research - and not just blindly accept something just because it agrees with our worldview. I hope I do that - dhogaza may remember a frank exchange we had some time ago when I expressed my concerns about dendrochronological proxy reconstructions. But it is more than just that, it is reading everything - and I mean everything - with a critical eye.
By the same token, that's why science is so robust, and the denialist viewpoint is so flawed. Anyone who has ever been involved in science knows that there is no greater sport than intimately dissecting a paper to try to discover flaws, and then triumphantly writing the the author or to the responses page of a journal and pointing out errors or things the authors did wrong. And that is why the ludicrous view that AGW is somehow a giant conspiracy is so lacking in any level of credibility. NO conspiracy or scam can last for more than a very short period in science - it will be uncovered by a very jubilant scientist!
Money is, or course, a very powerful motivator and you can make a lot more money working for some industry than you could ever make doing research on behalf of a university etc. I think that says a lot about this debate. It is the poor researchers who are 'pro' AGW, and the extremely well paid industry 'scientists', political lobbyists and politicians from fossil fuel electorates that are 'anti' AGW.
I think that says volumes in response to Phinneas' posts.
I don't see how this would work in climate science, but there are ways to make lots of money in certain sciences by starting with an academic job, most typically professor. A large incentive to discover new technology that almost all universities offer is that 50% (or thereabouts) of patent royalties go to the inventors named on the patent. Also, many PIs start companies using their discoveries. Although the university will sometimes take a cut, it is not considered the proprietor of the "intellectual property," the PI is. In industry, the corporation would certainly be considered the proprietor of all IP discovered by any of its researcher. I've seen chemistry professors not only make half a million a year in salary, but also rake in tens of thousands more in royalties. These aren't the norm by any stretch, though.
He is right that we should be sceptical, and question everything...
No, he's not. When "questioning everything" means repeatedly parroting questions that have already been answered, and continually ignoring the answers and/or pretending the answers don't exist, that's not "skepticism" or "how science is done," that's pure dishonesty and, yes, denialism. Phinneus is being dishonest and willfully ignorant, and he doesn't deserve defense. Does anyone here think we have to keep on questioning whether the Earth is really round?
Furthermore, Phinneus' hypocricy and infantilism are best summed up in this snippet of his:
I have been studying science since your Mama and DaDa were in diapers. If you really want to get into childish name calling and insults go to the Enquirer.
There you have it: meet factual refutation with childish name-calling, then immediately accuse others of childish name-calling. (Oh, and claim a huge amount of unspecified authority and experience.) This is how denialists admit defeat while trying to refuse to admit defeat. Notice how that gem of win appeared in his last post here? Just another denialist throwing a tanty and stomping off in a babyish huff.
Eyrlykin 2009: Funded by the Dr. Charles C Taylor Charitable Fundation.
Benestad 2009: The ADS is Operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory under NASA Grant NNX09AB39G.
Lockwood 2008: The work of ML at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is funded by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council.
Really, all one needs to do is look at the papers. I'm not going to do the rest of your homework for you, only to suggest that if you had any REAL interest in the matter, you could have done it as easily as I did.
Tell me please, Phinneus, how a foundation associated with the inventor of electric tea kettles, NASA, and the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council have joined into a conspiracy? To what end, exactly?
Well, of course some of the warming is natural. We are coming out on the 'little ice age.' Man made effects are boosting natural warming. It isn't one or the other.
Lyle G, we finished coming out of the LIA around 1950. That's a major reason why "It's not the sun".
Lyle: What is the cause of this "natural warming"? From measurements of solar radiation, we know it is not the sun, so what could it be? Just saying it is natural does not help us understand it.
mandas:
there is no greater sport than intimately dissecting a paper to try to discover flaws, ... NO conspiracy or scam can last for more than a very short period in science - it will be uncovered by a very jubilant scientist!
Except that the denialists fool themselves into thinking they have accomplished exactly this on blogs like ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat.
But it is more than just that, it is reading everything - and I mean everything - with a critical eye.
Care must be taken that the level of critical scepticism is applied evenly and without preconceived bias. This can be very difficult to achieve especially for those with extreme political views (and I include staunch capitalists as well as uncompromising environmentalists in that group). If the denialists applied to all other science the same "critical eye" they so willingly apply to climate change, they'd soon end up taking a position that is not only anti-science but anti-technology. Thus exposing the depth of their hypocrisy.
For example, the double pendulum experiment demonstrates how very simple Newtonian mechanics yields an unpredictable chaotic system over short periods, which is directly analogous to their favourite weather vs climate talking point. Guess we'd have to give up any predictive model that make use of Newton's Laws as too unreliable. Further more, Newton's letters can be excepted out of context to make it look like a "hiding the decline" conspiracy.
... the extremely well paid industry 'scientists', political lobbyists and politicians from fossil fuel electorates that are 'anti' AGW.
Of course the converse doesn't apply. There are a lot of denialist libertarians who receive no money from the fossil fuel lobby, and claim this proudly as proof they have not sold out and that their erroneous beliefs are somehow more correct than government funded scientists.
wagdog
I couldn't agree with your comments more, especially the part about ensuring scepticism is applied evenly and without bias.
I guess that's where the whole idiocy of the 'climate sceptic' (ie denialist) comes across as so deluded. They like to claim they are being 'sceptics' by questioning the science of AGW, but are totally incapable of even the most basic scepticism of their own arguments.
You can see that here, with the ever changing and variable position adopted by deniers who think they have discredited the AGW case. Except they uncritically link to papers they haven't read, and which contain so many internal and external fallacies that a high school student could easily dissemble them. The bankruptcy of their views is readily apparent when the flip and flop between different arguments which contradict each other: there is no warming; warming is natural; its TSI; its sunspots; its cosmic rays; warming is good; CO2 is not increasing; CO2 is plant food; CO2 causes cooling; CO2 lags not leads; water vapour is a negative feedback; the climate is not sensitive; it was warmer in the MWP; we are heading into a ice age; etc, etc, etc.
Apart from the morons who espouse their ridiculous views on this blog, there is no better example of the stupidity of your average denialist blog-site than this one:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-resear…
The woman has provided a list of her 'Ten Best Climate Research Papers' which disprove AGW. Now, maybe its just me, but if I was going to compile a list of 'Ten Best Papers', I would make sure all the papers were at least accurate. The problem is, not all of these papers ARE accurate; and you don't even have to be a scientist or know the slightest thing about climate change to understand that.
All the papers CANNOT be accurate, because many of them contradict each other. In other words, even if (and that's a big IF) some of them were accurate, others could not possibly be accurate.
That's the problem when your 'scepticism' is based on a political viewpoint rather than a scientific one. You fail to be objective in your analysis.
a high school student could easily dissemble them
I never get the chance to burn you on scientific accuracy, mandas, so I'll go after word usage.
*dissemble* means to conceal ulterior motives
*disassemble* means to take apart.
Ok. Fair call. I feel suitably chastitied
Ha! In your face!
skip
On the subject of faces, how is the face-palming going?
Just a suggestion - sometimes you have to give things up as a lost cause. It feels good when you stop beating your head against the creationist wall.
Oh, as you might expect.
But face it, mandas, thats the job at this point. If more people of education and reason would take the RWs of the world head-on, its one incremental step toward a slightly more rational world.
I don't flatter myself that in 100 years anyone will remember you, me, Coby or any of this, but most of the little people like my granny who saved rubber and grew a victory garden during the war were forgotten by history to.
Go in with low expectations and you can never be too disappointed. At least RW is on record doing the classic Denier Dance, and his colossal blunders and evasions will haunt him for good. Humanity might still end up fucking up the planet, but at least the karma will be right.
skip
If you get bored, here are a couple of papers you may wish to peruse:
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf
http://hadobs.metoffice.gov.uk/hadghcnd/HadGHCND_paper.pdf
There is only a contradiction on one level. At the meta level, it's all one simple argument:
science = !CO2 ? true : false;
The rest is just details.
Thanks for the early Christmas wisdom . . . I believe Chris S. was on top of it.
For those that are interested NASA has just released its latest prediction for cycle 24, the SSn has now been revised down again to about 60. This puts us is Maunder territory.
crakar
Based on the low number of sunspots predicted, I guess that means cosmic ray flux will increase. That means more clouds for the earth, and higher temperatures. Isn't that what some have claimed (and you have linked to previously)?
Or will the low activity of the sun result in declining temperatures, as you appear to be now suggesting?
Most of you will have heard in the media the reports that there is a possibility the sun may be entering a new Maunder Minimum.
Of course, there is a great deal of speculation and ill informed comment, particularly in the deniersphere and the idiot media, about ice ages etc. So I thgought I would track down some real science on the subject. Here is the latest paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml
What is particularly eerie is that when I tracked down the appropriate thread to post, I re-read some of the previous comments. Note how neatly this fits with what what said before!
My pen pal D. Nyer, a self-described AGW "skeptic", has always been an Its-the-sun-stupid kind of guy.
He used to say that "the solar researchers will have the best correlations", only now this is amended to "Russian" solar science.
The anything-but-CO2 meme is jihad for these people.
Thank you for drawing that paper to our attention, Mandas. However, I am not sure why you think it is an authoritative rebuttal. Dr Henrik Svensmark, when asked to comment on the study, pointed out that it merely looked at solar irradiance changes and ignored amplification of the solar signal by clouds and cosmic ray modulation - which, surely, is what the whole debate is about. In that respect, the paper you mention is largely irrelevant.
Of course, it may be that Dr Sevensmark is wrong, and time will tell. As he puts it 'the sun will show by itself how important it is'.
But whether he is right or wrong, I do wish you wouldn't automatically switch into your normal default position about idiot media and the deniersphere. The announcement this week about the solar minimum is interesting and potentially important. You weaken your argument by not acknowledging that fact.
"and ignored amplification of the solar signal by clouds and cosmic ray modulation"
How do cosmic rays modulate the solar signal? There's naff all energy in it.
As to clouds, your amount of cloud is dependent in the troposphere almost entirely on the water vapour content. Said content increases with the temperature of the surface of the earth and will be increased by CO2 warming forcing too, hence amplifying CO2's warming effect, despite the cries of the denialists "It's not that sensitive, the feedbacks are negative!!!".
Additional problems are that the last umpty times we've had solar minima, the temperature dropped. Only recently has this reversed.
When did the physics of clouds and cosmic rays change?
You're strangely (hah!) unskeptical of this paper, despite some gaping holes left to a woo-like faith to be in effect.
Wow, if I might speak frankly, you are a bit of a broken record with one response to everything. Why is my comment faith-like? I merely said that the reports were interesting and potentially important.
However, thank you for putting Dr Svensmark right on the subject. I'm sure he will be glad to have his errors pointed out.
Christ here we go . . .
Snowman has to go through his Dr. Gentle and Mr. Snide routine.
Snowman: You are a toad. It is way too late to try to play the civil disputant. Must we again go through the ritual of me asking you to justify your past outrageous statements, you sniveling away in evasion--and once again acquitting yourself as a coward?
Snowjob, the reason why I seem like a broken record is because you're a polly parrot repeating the same old tired zombie stuff.
Since you haven't managed to produce anything new and the science on those tired old arguments have not changed in the meantime, the response to the same patent bullshit you make will be the same answer.
It is also intriguing that you failed, despite having the time to read my comment and type a message which had nothing to do with a response to it, that you have no answers to the questions made.
Rather gullible of you.
I take it that your only reason for belief in this paper is your faith that it is right, then?
A toad, Skip? A little immoderate, don't you think?
Yet again we see outrage from the warmists when anyone (not your humble correspondent, but Dr Svensmark) has the temerity to disagree with them. I suppose I should try to understand their point of view. Their comfortable little world is crashing about their ears. No wonder they pout and sulk.
Skip, of course, has no interest in scientific matters but merely enjoys hurling insults (not that he's very good at it). But Wow and Mandas, the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of the forum, have made this fantasy a central part of their lives. And now it's vanishing. Such a tragedy. So very, very sad.
So still unable to say why you believe Svensmark right other than faith in his Jovian pronouncements.
So many words, so little said.
A snowjob.
Oh, if you want to see outrage, take a look at the denialists:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-of-fear…
Yeah, yeah . . . this is the clincher every time, Mr. Toad:
Snowman, are you willing to answer direct questions pertinent to the various statements you have made on this forum?
The answer of course is no, because you are a coward. You will avoid this direct query--again--in your classical dishonorable manner. This is what separates honest inquiry from people like you and Anthony Watts. Case closed.
snowman
You are correct with one of your statements at least. The potential for the sun to enter into an extended period of relatively low activity - a Maunder Minimum if you like - and the research being conducted on it, are very important aspects to the debate. But then, I have never denied that. But your statement that the paper I linked to is largely irrelevant is moronic in the extreme, as is your entirely predictable faith in what Henrik Svensmark (and by inference, Eigel Friis-Christensen) has to say about it. Why would it not come as a shock that you would automatically discredit a paper that suggests global warming is real and is driven by human CO2, whilst in the same sentence put forward the same old, discredited stuff about cosmic rays having a greater influence than CO2?
Do we really have to do this again? How many times do these ideas have to be shown to be wrong before you accept the simple, undeniable facts? Study after study has shown that the so-called correlations between cosmic rays and climate change driven by cloud formation just do not exist. You said it yourself - "Of course, it may be that Svensmark is wrong, and time will tell". Time has already told my friend - he is wrong.
But - and here's the really big but - just think for a moment about the implications if he was right. Or is doing analysis too hard for you and you would just rather rely on a crakar-like cut-and-paste of denialist dogma? IF cosmic rays could affect climate so easily - then it would imply that climate is extraordinarily sensitive to even small changes in forcings. And that is - of course - completely at odds with what other notable deniers say when they attempt to downplay the role of CO2.
How about you do something with a bit of integrity and tell us all what denialist hypothesis you agree with, rather than being like crakar and simply picking one depending on which way the wind blows, and which one appears to oppose the latest research into climate change? I know it's not your style to contribute ideas; your modus operandi is normally to pick on skip's language or to simply rubbish / ignore any papers that we post.
Is this just one of your normal drive byes, and we won't see you again for a couple of weeks when once again you will make a few disparaging remarks of no substance before disappearing back under your rock? I hope not. I hope you are going to do something different. I hope you are going to tell us what you think and why you think it so we can have a proper discussion, rather than just reading your usual pedantic whining.
I think I'd take immoderate over unjustified, slobbery wounds from a silken tongue any day. Are you even aware that you regularly accuse thousands of nerds of vicious protection of the gains of lazy fraud? Does that not count as immoderate simply because your vocabulary tends to be pretentious and strangely melodramatic?
What on earth are you talking about? What a strange fellow you are, pough.
You will avoid this direct query--again--in your classical dishonorable manner.
I make no claim to be able to model climate, but I will always be able to model Snowman.
I am also getting better at translating Snowmanspeak. Any word such as "odd", "strange", "unhinged", and so forth is in reference to, "A point to which I have no answer but insulting bluster."
Wow
If I can just clear up a couple of snowman's remarks, as he is not very good at expressing himself.
At #44, you asked a reasonable question about a remark he made, as follows:
SM - "and ignored amplification of the solar signal by clouds and cosmic ray modulation"
W - "How do cosmic rays modulate the solar signal? There's naff all energy in it."
What snowman really meant to say was that the solar signal modulates cosmic rays, not the other way around as he stated. He has obviously not read the work of Svensmark, despite his use of him as a source (hmmmm - why does that sound so familiar?).
SM - "However, thank you for putting Dr Svensmark right on the subject. I'm sure he will be glad to have his errors pointed out."
Perhaps snowman is not aware that Svensmark has already had his errors pointed out to him repeatedly, But, unlike what snowman is suggesting, he was NOT glad about it, and he continues to push the same old discredited line. I think that's what snowman meant about 'faith-like'. It takes a special kind of faith to continue to believe something that has been shown to be wrong - it's certainly not a scientific approach.
And snowman, I was just wondering if you have considered my request in #51? Is there any chance that you might actually tell us all what your views on the subject are? Do you think the climate is changing? If so, what is causing it to change? Why do you think it couldn't possibly be CO2?
Mandas in 40,
Sorry for the late reply but i did not know you made this post.
In short what you say is not correct or at least this is not what i am saying.
The number, magnetic polarity and geographical location of sun spots can tell us at what point in the solar cycle we are, sun spots have no influence on GCR's enetring the earths atmosphere.
However sunspots as stated above can tell us the activity level if you like of the sun, less sunspots less activity, less activity includes decrease in TSI, UV rays, x rays, solar winds, magnetic fields, less flares etc.
When the sun in in activity (usually at solar min) more GCR's enter the Earths atmosphere, when it is active (solar max) less GCR's enter the atmosphere.
Now so far this is accepted science by all, svenmarks theory takes us into the unknown. Svenmark's studies may indicate GCR's induce cloud formation, he is currently conducting a cloud experiment using cern so we all wait to see his results.
Lindzen has calculated an decrease of cloud cover by as little as 3% over the past 60 or more years would explain all the global warming we have seen, this is not to say he believes CO2 has no role to play but how much of an impact cloud cover can have.
Up until now clouds have been the great unknown we do not know if cloud cover has increased or decreased over the past 60 odd years we dont really know how, when, where or why clouds form. GCM's operate under clear skies with a fudge factor added at the end, are low cloud a +ve or -ve feed back? What about high cloud?
Svenmarks work is very important as it will add a piece to the puzzle but it will not prove or disprove AGW, it will however add to our limited understanding on this very important issue.
In regards to whether a prolonged quiet sun will cause a cooling or warming i am not sure or by what magnitude. It has been shown that the longer the cycle the cooler it gets and the Maunder minimum (which some have predicted the sun will enter a similar minimum, i propose "the Landscheidt" minimum)saw very cold and long winters for many years so it is possible i suppose.
In the end if you think the only affect the sun has on the Earth is TSI then not much will happen, however if you think the many other outputs/aspects of the sun play a part then you would have reason to suspect it will get colder.
PS anything talk of an ice age is a bit silly i think.
> When the sun in in activity .. less GCR's enter the atmosphere.
Him english not so goodish.
> Now so far this is accepted science by all, svenmarks theory takes us into the unknown.
It takes us into fantasy. CLOUD has currently found nothing other than noise. Yet, despite all your complaints about needing absolute proof, you're ready without even the results, never mind proof, to accept GCR's effects.
I note too that you too cannot explain why you accept it other than faith, and millitantly ignore the problems with the theory:
Where is the moisture coming from?
Where are the extra clouds?
Why is it only now that the effect is in place, where at the same level 100 years ago of solar minima that we are 0.8C warmer than we were then globally?
"Lindzen has calculated an decrease of cloud cover by as little as 3% over the past 60 or more years would explain all the global warming we have seen"
Pity he hasn't actually tested that calculation and observed a 3% reduction in clouds.
And aren't GCR's, being cloud condensation nuclei, going to, if their numbers increase, have either no effect or increase cloud cover?
And just a few short years ago, all you denialists were saying that the feedbacks were negative because more water vapour meant more clouds?
Pity Lindzen hasn't worked out how the humidity and temperature goes up but the clouds come down.
> Up until now clouds have been the great unknown we do not know if cloud cover has increased or decreased over the past 60 odd years
What's this "we"?
We can certainly measure the cloud cover since satellite measurements.
And 60 years is enough to tease out as big a change as a 3% reduction.
That we haven't seen it proves that, even if Lindzen is right in that a 3% cloud cover reduction could account for the warming, the problems remain that
a) no such reduction has taken place
b) the reduction of the cloud cover has no reason to ramp up in accordance with the log concentration of CO2
c) the reduction of cloud cover doesn't stop CO2's effect
> if you think the many other outputs/aspects of the sun play a part then you would have reason to suspect it will get colder.
Why colder? I thought you said it was getting warmer. If you have reason to suspect that, under your model, it will get colder, yet it's getting warmer, then your model has proven wrong.
"What snowman really meant to say was that the solar signal modulates cosmic rays, not the other way around as he stated."
Did he? He's a grown up (or at least he says he is), so if he meant something else, he could have written a clarification.
Since he hasn't, then this isn't his meaning.
I'll take that evasion as a "yes".
crakar @ #56
Ok, now I'm confused. That has to be probably the best and most reasonable post I have ever read from you. And I may be coming across as ungrateful etc but I have to wonder where it came from or what prompted it - particularly the bit about the "Landscheidt" minimum (I looked it up).
So two things. Firstly, thanks for the post. Secondly, could you quote your source please.
WOW in 57,
YOU NO RISEN (said with the best chinese accent you can muster)
Mandas in 60,
Source for what?
The stuff about sun spots?
Livinston and Penn wrote a paper about reduction in sun spots, their prediction is the only one left that is still standing so you might like to read that.
Upon reflection it might have spencer that said the bit about 3% cloud decrease/increase if so you can go to his website and read it there.
As for Landscheidt i read a study by him once about what causes the solar cycles to vary if think this is it but i cannot tell as "big brother" wont let me go to the site will need to look when i get home.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Or here would be better i suspect
http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/
You need to find the study where he talks about the sun moving around the bary centre (centre of mass of the solar system). Jupiter plays a major role as the suns normal cycle is 11.8 years but the Jovian year is 11.88 years so they are out of sink.
He predicted SC23 will be 13 years long, sc24 and 25 will be even longer with very low ssn, whilst all the "experts" predicted the opposite. Too bad the guy is dead now.
You said " And I may be coming across as ungrateful etc but I have to wonder where it came from or what prompted it"
No not coming across as ungrateful, what prompted it? The sun has always been intriguing way before AGW came along so when i talk about the sun it is not simply a way to shoot down AGW (much to WOW's objections).
Did i cover everything?
Shit spelt sync wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
cracker-ass:
Well done on doing better in your english classes.
However your logic classes need attending to.
> Livinston and Penn wrote a paper about reduction in sun spots
Says nothing about their effect explaining the temperature increases since 1800's.
> Upon reflection it might have spencer that said the bit about 3% cloud decrease/increase
No, YOU are the one who is stating that 3% explains the record.
You seem to believe this to be an appropriate explanation so you should be able to explain why you believe it's the 3% reduction of cloud cover, the evidence for it and why it isn't the 40% increase in CO2.
> You need to find the study where he talks about the sun moving around the bary centre (centre of mass of the solar system).
Another attempt to fake comprenesion from you, cracker-ass.
"Barycenter or barycentre may also refer to the center of mass."
No space.
> He predicted SC23 will be 13 years long, sc24 and 25 will be even longer with very low ssn, whilst all the "experts" predicted the opposite
So just like "they all predicted global cooling in the 70's" meme you pouted out before, we're supposed to take your word for it?
And he didn't predict that the changes would be explanation of the temperature trend since the 1800's.
> so when i talk about the sun it is not simply a way to shoot down AGW
May I suggest you go to a different blog
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/
And, since this topic is about how the sun isn't the cause of the temperature change, the interest of the sun's spot record has nothing to do with this thread.
But at least now you're admitting that your entire screed is irrelevant to the AGW science.
WOW you are a certified nutjob have fun getting your ass kicked by snowman
So yes, then. You only have blind faith, no evidence, in your conclusion.
That's the opposite of skeptic.