@BrianK

Quote:

A new paper indicates that Solar Flare Activity doesn't account for recent warming.

The last paragraph in that report represents the very perception that I have gained from a number of attempts to explain global warming without including the very well researched and established effect of human generated greenhouse gases on climate change.

Quote:

Out of all this, one thing still really bothers me. The work by Scafetta and colleagues claimed (incorrectly, as it has turned out) that the climate and solar flare data had similar statistical scaling properties over periods ranging up to a few months. I don't understand how that was turned into claims that solar flare activity could account for up to 60 percent of recent warming. If I were more naive, I would believe that Scafetta and company had been taken advantage of, but the cynic in me suggests that they were actively courting attention.

There is a pattern is there not? It has been attempted recently with ENSO data, with stratospheric moisture, with satelite readings of IR emmission in the tropics and by straight out misrepresentation with respect to deep ocean heat transport. Each effort purports to show or suggest that the suggested natural phenomenon explains 60 to 70 percent of recent global warming. This is usually done by taking a short term change, calling it a long term trend while hiding or ignoring real long term trends.

In due course scientists and statisticians have produced papers like this one showing that statistical techniques were misapplied, data was cherry picked, selection of end points was made to suit a propaganda point - no explanation offered. I doubt they are simply mistaken. Nor do they think they are going to fool any scientists. Even I can usually spot the deceptions fairly quickly with a wee bit of digging. The object is to confuse the voting public and get viral coverage in the denialsphere that can go on being cited by idiots and deceivers for years, even though scientifically worthless - after all few who have been taken in are going to understand or even hear about the papers that debunk these deceptions. The denialists are quick to dismiss these papers on specious grounds as your post has shown.

I often reflect, in this context, on that rhyme we used to dance to, forming two lines of about 4 couples. I suppose you know it:
Quote:

The grand old Duke of York He had ten thousand men He marched them to the top of the hill and he marched them down again And when they're up they're up and when they're down they're down and when they're only half way up they're neither up nor down.

The verse includes neither trend data nor indication of direction, but anything can be made of it with suitably misleading arguments and cherypicked data.

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

This is usually done by taking a short term change, calling it a long term trend while hiding or ignoring real long term trends.

To support this thought a recent study indicates Weathercasters moonlight as Climatologists . Certainly a problem as these folks focus on short term trends and use them to make erronous predictions into long term directions. The link indicates that only 31% of this crowd indicates that climate change is real and that humans are factor. Another great example of this is WattsUpWithThat site. He too is a weatherman unqualified and untrained in climate research.

The problem here is the public is trusting of weathercasters. (I'll venture far more trusting of them then Al Gore.) This well may be one reason there is a large minority of the public out of step with the science. We have the weather reporters with the trust abusing it by espousing a view of a science that they don't fully understand. Weather and climate are related but aren't the same. IMO, this helps easily confuse laymen.

@NoelFuller
Quote:

This is usually done by taking a short term change, calling it a long term trend while hiding or ignoring real long term trends.

Actually that is what AGW guys are doing. Here is the real long term trend: http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg
A few decades is nothing but weather as natural cycles works in longer timespans.

There are absolutely no proof of AGW seen outside of lab or flawed computer simulations.
Quote:

In due course scientists and statisticians have produced papers like this one showing that statistical techniques were misapplied, data was cherry picked, selection of end points was made to suit a propaganda point - no explanation offered. I doubt they are simply mistaken. Nor do they think they are going to fool any scientists. Even I can usually spot the deceptions fairly quickly with a wee bit of digging. The object is to confuse the voting public and get viral coverage in the denialsphere that can go on being cited by idiots and deceivers for years, even though scientifically worthless - after all few who have been taken in are going to understand or even hear about the papers that debunk these deceptions. The denialists are quick to dismiss these papers on specious grounds as your post has shown.

You really should grow up. Why do AGW believers always tend to throw out insults instead of debating it in a civilized manner? You are straight out calling all skeptics idiots and comparing them to people who denied the holocaust.
Actually most skeptics are skeptical about any kind of long term prediction even if it is from AGW skeptics.
Also no one understands yet how the sun might influence climate. All we know is that cooler temps seem to coincidence with deep EXTENDED grand minimums or after a long period with lower than "normal" activity.

But anyways.. I ask again what is unusual about current modern warm period? How come there was many warmer periods in this same interglacial even though there was no extra CO2?? What makes the current period so damn special? Would have thought the temps would have beaten previous warm periods when you consider all the extra co2 and the fact that we have had the highest solar activity since the beginning of holocene."

@BrianK
Quote:

The problem here is the public is trusting of weathercasters. (I'll venture far more trusting of them then Al Gore.) This well may be one reason there is a large minority of the public out of step with the science. We have the weather reporters with the trust abusing it by espousing a view of a science that they don't fully understand. Weather and climate are related but aren't the same. IMO, this helps easily confuse laymen.

But Al Gore understands the science?
I am sure even a weathercaster knows more about climate than Al Gore. At least the weathercasters knows about the existance and strength of some of those natural cycles.
I think it is you who should start seperating weather from climate. The 30 years timespan you guys use to make a trend is infact nothing but weather. There have been decades or even century of cooling and warming periods all throughout holocene. How exactly do you know that this current warming period is not due to a natural cycle?

There are btw thousands of scientists who do not support the AGW theory. There is also a bunch of IPCC scientists who support the general AGW claim but believe that the scare has been highly exaggerated.

Why Earth Wasn't One Big Ball of Ice 4 Billion Years Ago When Sun's Radiation Was Weaker: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100331141415.htm
Quote:

Professor Minik Rosing explains: "What prevented an ice age back then was not high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but the fact that the cloud layer was much thinner than it is today. In addition to this, Earth's surface was covered by water. This meant that the Sun's rays could warm the oceans unobstructed, which in turn could layer the heat, thereby preventing Earth's watery surface from freezing into ice. The reason for the lack of clouds back in Earth's childhood can be explained by the process by which clouds form.

Who would have thought it was the clouds and oceans

@Tomas

Quote:

I think it is you who should start seperating weather from climate. The 30 years timespan you guys use to make a trend is infact nothing but weather.

Climatologists go to lengths to explain how 30 year trends are the smallest timeframe where climate is defined. I appreciate your view that 30 years isn't large enough.

I must ask... If you really believe that 30 years is too small and therefore worthless how much more worthless is the couple of months carried in the statement Quote:

Arctic ice levels have apparently reached levels not seen in nearly a decade:

Quote:

How exactly do you know that this current warming period is not due to a natural cycle?

There's a school of science, climatology, that exists, in part, to answer that question. And it continues to study. Science is never done.

Quote:

There are btw thousands of scientists who do not support the AGW theory.

Consensus is the majority outcome of science in that particular field. I'm all for people having views on subjects outside their area of expertise (heck afaik that's everyone on AW on this subject). A scientist's opinon on a subject outside their field of study is just a valid as anyone else's in this regard.

If you're interested in finding scientists against Global Warming may I suggest following the Petition Project . There's over 31K 'scientists' who they claimed are signed up against global warming. Though warning this is a political tool not a scientific one. Science isn't a democracy so these votes count for naught.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2010 at 08:57 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2010 at 08:56 PM.

@BrianK
Quote:

I must ask... If you really believe that 30 years is too small and therefore worthless how much more worthless is the couple of months carried in the statement

You are right.. I think it is pretty worthless indeed. The only thing i find interesting is how late the melt is this year, but that could easily just be weather. I personally think it is because some arctic regions have now returned to "normal" temperatures after being quite above "normal" for most of this winter. Svalbard is for example colder now than it was during december-feb.

I also think the "record" low ice levels in 2007 was mainly due to weather patterns.

A decade or two of increasing ice levels would however pretty much disprove the AGW theory though.

@Tomas

Quote:

A decade or two of increasing ice levels would however pretty much disprove the AGW theory though.

Be careful here the Arctic is but a part of the world. Definitely increasing ice levels would indicate something is going on. The question then becomes what is this something.

Here in Minnesota we had a snowless mid-Feb and March. This is the first time we've had no snow in March since 1819 the beginning of the recorded weather in the state. It's been very warm in the US mid-section. MN has had a couple of days warmer than Florida.

Again the question becomes is this a trend? We'll come back to that answer in 3 decades.

@BrianK
Quote:

Be careful here the Arctic is but a part of the world. Definitely increasing ice levels would indicate something is going on. The question then becomes what is this something.

Dont get me wrong. I dont think it will show anything significant about long term climate, but it is not good at all for the AGW theory if arctic ice recovers to normal levels and stay around normal or above normal for quite some time.
One would really have to rethink the whole theory if this happened even for a decade or so.

@Tomas

Isn't the ice recovery already
happening? CO2 is at 388.5 PPM, what happen to my nice warm Winter in Florida?

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @Tomas Isn't the ice recovery already happening? CO2 is at 388.5 PPM, what happen to my nice warm Winter in Florida?

Yes, there has indeed been quite a bit of recovery over the last few years. It is still too early to tell wether it is going to be a longer term trend though. My personal feeling is that i think we will return to more normal ice leves over the next decades.

Edit: this graph has been updated again: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Ice levels still climbing.. I guess one more day or two of freeze before it crosses the normal average.

Last edited by Tomas on 02-Apr-2010 at 03:28 PM.

A good article discussing the approach of the scientists and the denialists. Jigsaw or House of Cards

I see you are having a calm and rational discussion
about the global warming scare.

I dont have a need nor time for that.

I have however spent alot of time researching this
and other things that are going on in our world,
so that I know why things are as they are.

The Co2 scare is a very well implemented hoax,
but it is not as stable as other scams,
which is why there are ppl discussing it everywhere.

Co2 is harmless, and wont bring about our doom.
Water vapour is the massively dominant
greenhouse effect contributer.

Among other scams that are far more stable
is the HIV-AIDS connection.

I see youve had 6 'volumes'.
Have anyone brought up the medieval warm period,
When it was warmer than it is today?

@A4E

Quote:

Have anyone brought up the medieval warm period,

Yes

Quote:

When it was warmer than it is today?

Short version:
Temps are indirectly measured, example: through plant growth measures. North Atlantic is the best studied, large areas of the world during this time are still to be researched.

Other measures such as wine growing regions and melted area in Greenland are today located north of WMP wine growing areas and villages in Greenland. Fossils have been coming out of the Russian permafrost that were frozen well before the WMP. Due to lack of decay they weren't unfrozen during the WMP. These lend some evidence that the WMP was not warmer across the globe.

While many signs are good science can't definitively say, from our present knoweldge, that the WMP was guarteed to be hotter across the planet than it is today. I say science should continue trying to work it out.

@A4E

Quote:

Have anyone brought up the medieval warm period, When it was warmer than it is today?

Timely work --
Not so warm Medieval period

This proves how delusional warmists can be:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/16/ncars-missing-heat-they-could-not-find-it-any-where/

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @A4E Quote: Have anyone brought up the medieval warm period, When it was warmer than it is today? Timely work -- Not so warm Medieval period

I see you are spreading more bull*hit propaganda. How come they have now found evidence of MWP on all continents both in southern and northern hemisphere if it was simply located only in northern europe?? What these warmists are doing is cherry picking data.
Even IPCC accepted that MWP was real until a few years ago when they suddenly decided they had to get rid of it, but i guess it is okay to rewrite history in the name of fighting the hoax called climate change which was formerly known as global warming.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
It does not look like a localized phenomena to me... But i guess all these temperatures were faked by the oil giants.

There is also plenty of evidence that tree lines were higher than now back then.

Last edited by Tomas on 19-Apr-2010 at 01:08 AM.
Last edited by Tomas on 19-Apr-2010 at 01:05 AM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html It does not look like a localized phenomena to me... But i guess all these temperatures were faked by the oil giants. ...

No idea who faked it - but the present day temperature here is not 1.8 °C like in your diagram - it actually is 4 - 16 °C today...


EDIT:
Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 20-Apr-2010 at 06:51 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 20-Apr-2010 at 06:49 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Another interesting observation is that most of the curves in that collection do not agree on WHEN this MWP occured.

Which leads ME to believe it was not a global phenomenon, but rather a local phenomenon that moved around a lot over time. Yes, a couple of samples there stick out in many of the data sets, but one year is not a climatic period.

For instance, the MWP seems to have happened at least 100 years earlier in Spain than in Iceland, 300 years earlier on Crete.

And the data from South Africa are shown to disagree wildly even though the points are plotted right next to each other on the map.

One shows warmth around 900 and 1500, the other around 1300.

South sea curves speak out for MWP from 500 to 1000 AD, while North sea curves indicate the years AFTER 1000 AD.

Now, is that a good way for a global phenomenon to behave?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Dandy
Are you sure you are not confusing average temps with daily ones?