[besson3c]

Buckaroo: why are you so obsessed with Al Gore? Such ravenous vitriol... Why do you allow yourself to get worked up so much? It's not like he would be the only hypocritical politician, nor the only environmentalist. Wouldn't it be easier to just obsess over Paris Hilton instead?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Buckaroo: why are you so obsessed with Al Gore? Such ravenous vitriol... Why do you allow yourself to get worked up so much? It's not like he would be the only hypocritical politician, nor the only environmentalist. Wouldn't it be easier to just obsess over Paris Hilton instead?

Which is worse?

1) Using your money to show your beaver

or

2) Using beavers to make more money

[Buckaroo]

We finally made it. We are over the 1000 mark.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

First off, you clearly brought up solar radiation as an argument casting doubt on AGW; I clearly showed that it no longer seems to have the climate correlation effect it historically did; you reply with "I'm not convinced" and then make vague references to why CO2 shouldn't be a climate change driver, rather than why solar radiation should. So, which is it? Are you not convinced that solar radiation is no longer correlated...in which case, where is your proof of this in light of the scientific studies I have provided?

Excellent question greg. From the first link you copy-pasted;
The research discussed previously studied variations of pre-industrial climate
on a huge range of timescales between 102 and 108 years. Recently, solar effects
on climate on time scales of 100 years and less have also been detected, even
extending into the era of fossil fuel burning.

Other gems such as; The third proposed mechanism is
considerably different from the other two—it has been suggested that air ions
generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007).
This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data
series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect
solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived
(lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an
effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006).

Know what they're referring to greg? Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Your paper claims this is too difficult to quantify so they've excluded TSI from consideration. Interestingly, at least one NASA study disagrees;
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Did you read the intent of your linked paper greg? In case you didn't;
It is not the purpose of this paper to investigate further the proposed
mechanisms discussed in this introduction nor, indeed, to evaluate the reported
connections between solar variability and changes in climate on millennial or
centennial timescales. Rather, the aim of the present paper is to study data from
the last 40 years in some detail in order to see if solar variations could have
played any role in observed present-day global warming.
Again, millions of years of evidence of celestial influence on climate, but we're only going to look at the last 40 years of data. The connections between solar activity and climate variation are pretty damned compelling all the way 'til 1985. IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS. BETTER CASTE IT OFF AS QUACKERY! I'm not convinced. We've gone from millenial timescales now down to centennial time scales and we'll end up at decadal timescales. This follows your general theme of argumentation so the posted link doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, it admittedly does not regard the connection between solar activity and climate change. A connection they cite several studies to affirm. You've either not read the study you linked or you're trying to compartmentalize the debate to conveniently fit some offensive stance you're trying to assume here. You'll have to do better than that with me greg.

If you are merely ignoring my rebuttal and are now "not convinced" that CO2 is driving climate change – which, I'll point out, was nowhere to be found in my argument...you just wrote it in to avoid dealing with the solar issue – then please read further.

I have maintained that celestial events are influencing terrestrial circumstances that are causing warming via THC among a host of other related causes. I have maintained that climate change is vastly more natural than anthropogenic. To your point, I never mentioned why CO2 shouldn't be a climate change driver and in light of your statement in the next paragraph am more flummoxed than ever. I've maintained without wavering, that natural, celestial events are by far more profoundly contributory to climate variation than man. I've provided millions of years of evidence showing natural climate change and you've got 20 years of debatable models that don't account for pesky little items like... clouds. Of course, your cited paper claims that GCMs are more important than ever. Yeah, I can see that. In absence of any empirical evidence to support the claim, they'd have to become more important. You claim my evidence is incomplete while failing to acknowledge how young this science is in general. Once again, science does what it does, greg does what greg wants.

In fact, your statement here is actually an argument for anthropogenic global warming. That CO2 levels historically increase after warming events is a basic tenet of climate change science. Why? Because carbon dioxide has traditionally not been a "climate driver", but limited to an amplification effect, whereby warming temperatures (eg. from increasing solar radiation, etc.) led to more CO2 (eg. by "unlocking stored CO2") which led to further warming temperatures because of CO2's chemical properties within the atmosphere.

This is the entire point of anthropogenic climate change: that this process is no longer happening. We have no other mechanism to explain modern climate change, except the fact that humans have artificially enhanced the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. In other words, what has traditionally not been a driver of climate change, suddenly is because of human involvement.

"... suddenly is because of human involvement". I'm not convinced.

What you're referring to is a feedback relationship. One produced by a model. Can you please show me the control diagram for that model? A stability analysis? Can you please provide for me anything at all that can't simply be pulled from ambiguity? Don't get me wrong, the science is compelling and worthy of further investigation, but extremely far from convincing no matter what you're reading on smog-blog. Otherwise, while you critique my small amount of evidence, I hope you realize that you have absolutely NO empirical evidence to support your argument. None.

Your argument has fallen right in line with this theory, because you have produced absolutely no proof of any other possible mechanism – besides the ones that I pointed out are invalid, of course. What you've produced have been opinions, even by influential people, but almost without fail opinions nonetheless. And despite all your posturing to the contrary, here it is you who fails to grasp a basic principle of how modern science works – namely, that opinions matter not a shred if no evidence can be produced to validate them. As you tirelessly state, you're producing "respected scientists" – but you're producing their opinions, not their scientific work with which to back those opinions up.

Again... and trust me for the last time; each and every one are published, peer-reviewed scientists that are not only privy to the same data as proponents of the anthropogenic model, in many cases have contributed to the science with published research of their own.

You, of course, haven't produced such evidence.

I've produced a lot of evidence. I've provided for you millions of years of evidence for natural climate change. You've given me projections figured by economists for the IPCC showing models for which no control can be established and no empirical evidence can be shown. In your words changed slightly; "Oh, it's been hinted at, and there's been the comment about "evidence here" and "evidence there" and "evidence is scattered", but the only scientific evidence you've been able to produce regarding anthropogenic warming has already been endlessly debated among climate scientists and will continue to be."

As to your "cause?" Well, let's see, from what I remember you started off declaring that global warming was untrue.

You won't find that statement from me anywhere greg. Go ahead, look for it. Then ask yourself why you felt the need to outright lie here.

Once that could no longer be argued with embarrassment, then the switch was made to "anthropogenic global warming is untrue."

Never once said it was untrue. Would you like to try again? Exactly what is it you're so zealous about, arguing with a guy who's primary interest is tempering hype? You do so not only by using the most mundane AGW suppositions, statements, and indictments, but with a degree of hype rivaled only by Gore himself.

Now that your arguments are clearly beginning to fail on that front, I soon expect you to make the complete switch to the puzzling argument Buckaroo posted (in light of his other postings flatly denying global warming): that global warming is happening, and it's caused by human actions, but there's nothing we can do about it now anyway so there's no point trying.

Seeing as you've yet to accurately assess my character in this debate greg, you'll have little credibility with this nonsense. I will say the same thing I've been saying; GHGs contribute to warming, yes. The globe is warming, yes. Solar activity has had the most profound affect on global climate change throughout history, yes. It makes sense to me that at some point we will find it to have a more profound affect on warming on a decadal scale. Hence my point; The science is young, YES. It is difficult to connect solar activity to warming within the last 20+ years, yes, but connections on either side are difficult and in most cases less than conclusive, YES. IMO, having availed myself of a wealth of data disagree with you. I believe warming today is more natural than anthropogenic. I believe the debate has been hijacked by hype, politics, and dishonesty. I'd like to continue witnessing science on the scientific endeavor while allowing zealots and politicians their important work of deceit and hype.

Sounds like a cause to me, huh?

Whatever. Wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong yeah?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I have no idea what you're trying to say about the papers I have posted. You quote one paper saying

to see if solar variations could have played any role in observed present-day global warming

and then comment on it by concluding

Unfortunately, it admittedly does not regard the connection between solar activity and climate change

Like I said, I have a hard time understanding exactly what your argument is on this point.

I've provided millions of years of evidence showing natural climate change and you've got 20 years of debatable models that don't account for pesky little items like... clouds.

Uhhhh...those debatable models also quite accurately model the millions of years of natural climate change to which you're referring. In fact, that's how those models are tested. Soooooooooo...yeahhhhhhhhhhhh. That would seem to put a dent in whatever point you're trying to make here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, while you critique my small amount of evidence, I hope you realize that you have absolutely NO empirical evidence to support your argument. None.

No empirical evidence? Do you know what this means? Do you know how much empirical evidence is collected every year? Do you know how much empirical evidence on past climates is gleaned every year? Do you know how models are based on empirical hypotheses? I have a hard time believing your audacity in lecturing me on scientific matters when you don't seem to have a grasp of what such a basic concept means.

Again... and trust me for the last time; each and every one are published, peer-reviewed scientists that are not only privy to the same data as proponents of the anthropogenic model, in many cases have contributed to the science with published research of their own.

...and while that published research is roundly debated and considered by the rest of the community at large, and then incorporated into the discourse on anthropogenic climate change, you will keep quoting their opinions and ignore how their science has been accounted for. I get it.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I have no idea what you're trying to say about the papers I have posted. You quote one paper saying
and then comment on it by concluding
Like I said, I have a hard time understanding exactly what your argument is on this point.

You're hacking my statements out of context.The intro of one of the papers you cited went into great detail on three suppositions that support solar influence on climate change. The paper then indicated why it would not be including these suppositions stating, among other things, that it would not be regarding solar influence on a millenial or centennial scale even though they admit that solar influence on climate change had in fact been found to exist into the era of fossil fuel use. The entire premise of the paper focuses exclusively on the last 40 years of data with disregard for how the centennial cycle applies to terrestrial events that in fact influence global climate change. It does so in failing to account for some pretty important factors like the Svensmark 2007 study it cited. I said I wasn't convinced. Period. Again, you're taking statements out of context. This is intellectually dishonest greg though I no longer believe it is beneath you. Congrats. I'll be pointing out more dishonesty as we go along. I'm tired of it.

Uhhhh...those debatable models also quite accurately model the millions of years of natural climate change to which you're referring. In fact, that's how those models are tested. Soooooooooo...yeahhhhhhhhhhhh. That would seem to put a dent in whatever point you're trying to make here.

"These models." This is laughable greg, you don't even know what models you're talking about now. From your study and what I clearly indicated in the first place;

4. Recent solar trends and their implications
All the solar parameters show significant change over the twentieth century and it
has been suggested that this is, at least, part of the cause of the global mean
temperature rise seen in figure 4e, although it has previously been noted that
recent solar and climate data reveal diverging trends (Solanki & Krivova 2003;
Stott et al. 2003; Lockwood 2004). It should be noted that the solar cycle length L
presented here does not appear as similar to the inverse of the global temperature
anomaly as has been reported elsewhere (Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991). This is because it has not been smoothed with the long time-scale filter used in those studies. As discussed in §1, two classes of mechanisms have been proposed whereby the solar changes shown in figure 4 could have influenced the temperature of the Earth. The first is that the total (or spectral UV) solar irradiance has varied on centennial time scales; the second is that cosmic rays modulate the formation of clouds. Both of these would influence the terrestrial radiation budget. For the
cosmic ray mechanism, it has been proposed that the long-term decline in cosmic rays over much of the twentieth century (seen in figure 4d and caused by the rise in open solar flux seen in figure 4c) would cause a decline in global cover of low-altitude clouds, for which the radiative forcing caused by the albedo decrease outweighs that of the trapping effect on the outgoing thermal long-wave radiation. We here do not discuss these mechanisms in any detail. Rather, we look at the solar changes over the last three decades, in the context of the changes that took place over the most of the twentieth century.
It gets worse than this.

No empirical evidence?Do you know what this means? Do you know how much empirical evidence is collected every year? Do you know how much empirical evidence on past climates is gleaned every year?

Yes and that's precisely why I believe the evidence suggests that natural, celestial events are more influential on global climate than man. Your paper concludes;
Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
Some problems here. I could read from the wording of the conclusion that it smelled of BS. First of all, we're talking about 20 years now. Again, from millenial, to centennial, to decadal just as I mentioned earlier. Secondly, Dr. Richard Willson of Columbia University, the Principal Investigator for the series of NASA ACRIM projects, designed to provide high precision monitoring of TSI and detect variations of significance for climate change and solar physics on this study by Lockwood and Frohlich;
Frohlich chose to use the ERBS/ERBE connection for their (PMOD) composite. It agreed better with the predictions of Lean’s proxy model and demonstrated no significant long term trend, supporting the anthropogenic global warming scenario of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. The recent Lockwood/Frohlich publication’s assessment depends on the absence of a significant trend in the Lean/Frohlich (PMOD) TSI composite.

I'm going to stop here for a second because this is interesting. Frohlich presented a model supporting the solar hypothesis and published studies in 1999 to affirm it. Onward...

A more objective use of the TSI satellite observational database does not support the PMOD model or their conclusions. Just as it would be premature to claim we understand TSI variability on climate time scales with extant satellite data, it is equally premature to use the existing TSI database to relegate TSI's role in climate change to negligible levels. The selective use of data and models and the rush to judgment by Lockwood and Frohlich do not lend credibility to their investigation.

Willson recommends another study for a more accurate picture; Scafetta and West, 2006

Scafetta on Lockwood and Frohlich; Lockwood and Frolich are using the PMOD TSI composite (prepared by Frolich himself) to deduce their conclusions. By using ACRIM TSI composite (prepared by Willson) the result would be quite different. Lockwood and Frolich just "assume" that ACRIM is wrong and PMOD is right, and do not care to repeat their calculation with the ACRIM TSI composite. In our own works, we always try to repeat the calculations with both data sets to be fair to both groups.

This is my favorite part. Some mathematical problems with their conclusions;

- Lockwood and Frolich would like to compare the trend in the solar data with the global temperature trend. To do this they calculate the average during a given period, for example 11-years between 1991 and 2001, and set such a value in the center of such period, that is, in 1996 (their figure 2). Then they move the period to cover the entire available interval from 1978 to 2006. Finally, they compare these moving averages with the temperature trend and deduce their conclusions.

Pay close attention greg because there's a bit of a problem with this methodology. It assumes that the climate is partially conditioned by the "future" behavior of the sun!

Note that by using the above example, the moving average value set in 1996 depends on the TSI values for 5 years in the past and the TSI values for 5 years in the future! And these values are compared with the temperature record. The problem is that I am not aware of any climate model, or of any physical phenomenon, according to which the present state of a thermodynamic system is a function of the "future" values of the forcings!
Several scientists have gone on record to state that it is evident that Lockwood and Frolich are "anticipating" what eventually might be happening in the future and that this is absolutely unacceptable. Their conclusion is founded on a mistaken premise.

Worse, by using more thorough methodology the conclusion in fact supports solar influence on recent warming. Warming that I believe stopped in 1999 greg? Is that right?

...and while that published research is roundly debated and considered by the rest of the community at large, and then incorporated into the discourse on anthropogenic climate change, you will keep quoting their opinions and ignore how their science has been accounted for. I get it.

I'm not the one ignoring how their science is accounted for greg. In fact, I'm now not surprised at all that you conveniently ignored my request for the control diagram and stability analysis also. I thought I smelled a rat.

While we're at it;
- Did you ever find my quote declaring global warming was untrue as you claimed I had? No?
- Did you ever find my quote switching to the claim that anthropogenic warming was untrue as you claimed I had? No?
- Lastly, did you do as I requested and ask yourself why you'd have to lie on an internet forum?

Come to think of it, you've ignored quite a lot haven't you greg?

*snort*

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

We finally made it. We are over the 1000 mark.

Won't someone think of the environment? I shudder to think all the energy wasted in this thread.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Won't someone think of the environment? I shudder to think all the energy wasted in this thread.

Talk is cheap, just ask Al Gore about his opinion. He made a whole movie about his opinion.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Talk is cheap, just ask Al Gore about his opinion. He made a whole movie about his opinion.

I'm quite comfortable in saying that Al Gore knows a hell of a lot more about environmental issues than you do. He doesn't just say a few words and run.

[besson3c]

Al Gore raped my sister and burned my house down.

[ironknee]

al gore is on the apple board....suck it

[Shaddim]

F*** all this. Paris' beaver is more interesting, and that's saying something.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm quite comfortable in saying that Al Gore knows a hell of a lot more about environmental issues than you do. He doesn't just say a few words and run.

No Al Gore's talk is so cheap, he ignores everything he preeches. He only wants you to do what he says, but he refuses to play by the same rules. He drives huge SUV's, he flies in private jets, he consumes enough electricity like it's going out of style. He only has one goal, and that is an excuse to justify more taxes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

eBuddy: I think it's pretty clear that your posts are being taken from somewhere else; they're at analysis level that stretches my ability to follow without further background research which I simply don't have time to do. Where or who is the original source?

greg

[ebuddy]

Doh!

[ebuddy]

Origina