Rhetoric Again - Cycles

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:39 AM GMT on April 25, 2012

Share this Blog
15
+

Rhetoric Again - Cycles:

A few entries ago I wrote about the form of argument and the rhetoric used by those who advocate that the science of climate change is flawed in some fundamental and philosophical way (also here). In that piece I made reference to long-reaching metaphors and isolated facts that are used to create doubt about climate science. These metaphors and facts, for example that there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs, create a stop or a pause in the conversation and pose as seeming contradictions and serve as distractions to make logically flawed points. For those who want to hone up on your arguments, I find the Marshall Institute’s Cocktail Party Guide to Global Warming some of the better coaching of anti-climate-science rhetoric.

I have been thinking about one of the common statements that is made, and that is the one about their being a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs and, more generally, that there is a long record of cycles between times of high and low carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. This has been presented to me many times, and I often wonder, what exactly is the point that is being made?

At first, when I heard statements that there was very high carbon dioxide in the past, it seemed to be with the implication that this was one, a natural occurrence and two, a fact that was being hidden by climate scientists. True, it is a natural occurrence. Any comprehensive text book on climate change will discuss the past variations in carbon dioxide and that there have been times when carbon dioxide was much higher, and the Earth was much warmer. It is not hidden, rather it is used to inform our future.

Following from the introduction into the argument that the high values of carbon dioxide in the past were a natural occurrence, there seemed to be two points. First, was that very high values of carbon dioxide were possible in the absence of human-responsible emissions and second, that changes in carbon dioxide amounts were beyond our control and hence there was little sensibility in reducing our emissions. There is the further implication that since this is natural then it is OK.

Our real concern about climate change is that climate change impacts humans. If it were not for the impact on humans, climate change would be a curious problem of natural science. When there was a lot of carbon dioxide and dinosaurs, there were no humans. That does not mean that with high carbon dioxide that humans can’t survive and that dinosaurs will return. However, getting from the stable temperate climate in which our civilizations evolved to a climate where the temperatures are several degrees warmer will be a disruptive path. There will be less land as sea level rises, and since there is a huge concentration along the coasts of the world, there will be huge relocation of people, disruption to nations, and loss of infrastructure. There will be enormous changes in ecosystems and domestic plants and animals.

So yes, there are cycles and there has been a lot more carbon dioxide in the air, but that has been in the absence of billions of humans, our built environment, and our fragile balances of nations and economies. It is the disruption of the fragile balances of human enterprise where the risk lies – so how does the fact that carbon dioxide was high when there were dinosaurs bear on the current concerns about increasing carbon dioxide and global warming?

Carbon dioxide was high in the distant path – does this suggest that carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere are beyond our control? Why was carbon dioxide high? Is that simply an unknowable mystery?

The composition of our atmosphere is determined by many factors. In the long term, my geologist friends always remind me that the composition of the atmosphere is determined by geology and the cycling of gases between the atmosphere and ocean and the solid Earth. This long time frame, millions or billions of years, is not exactly relevant to our human experience. On a shorter amount of time, like the ice age cycles, or the large amounts of carbon dioxide when the dinosaurs were present, biological processes are important for determining the composition of the atmosphere. We have benefitted from many millions of years when carbon dioxide and oxygen existed in a balance that support plants and animals. Those cycles, those extended periods of high carbon dioxide, are characterized by changes in balance of plant and animal life. They are characterized by the ocean taking up and giving back large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through both chemical and biological processes.

So are we destined to simply be at the fate of these major shifts? Are these shifts beyond our control? Aren’t they natural?

Let’s get back to humans. There is little doubt that humans are the dominant life form on the planet today. We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominant life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn it. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological.

We are part of the cycle. We don’t simply exist at the mercy of the cycle.

So what is the point of a far reaching reference to the time of the dinosaurs and high amounts of carbon dioxide? Perhaps the point is to take us out of the equation, to absolve us of our responsibility to the planet, to allow us to do that which we want to do.

In the end this takes us to some very basic questions about humans and knowledge. I recently saw an idea attributed to Tim Flannery (also here), that humans are a species prone to destroying their future by destroying ecosystems. As I understand the argument, because of our intellect, we can continue to extract from the Earth resources beyond which a less creative species would be limited by brutal, natural barriers. We can rapidly cause extinctions. So far we can find and perhaps nurture new resources as we destroy the old.

We have this unique capacity of knowledge. We can place ourselves into our environment and see ourselves as shaping our environment, and have responsibility for maintaining our environment. We are not, entirely, at the fate of nature, or cycles, but we are part of nature, of cycles. And as such we might not be able to determine our future, but we are able to influence our future. We don’t have to be destined to destroy our future.

Scientifically, the statement of facts about cycles and high carbon dioxide millions of years ago has little bearing on whether or not we are burning fossil fuels, increasing carbon dioxide and warming the planet. Such presented facts are a diversionary part of a belief-based and politically based argument. Some advocates of the politically based arguments are trying to stop a societal response to carbon dioxide emissions. Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominant life form. To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future.

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 170 - 120

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Quoting Birthmark:

Yes, bad papers only get refuted or ignored. They usually don't get expunged from the scientific literature.

And that's a good thing, imho.


That explains why all of the Dessler papers got refuted by Spencer, Braswell et. al...
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Crank science calls this an absence of warming. That's deliberate deceit. It is a play on the fact that it takes many years to establish a statistically significant trend --at least 17 years, according to Santer. 1995-2012 isn't even seventeen years at this point.

Of course, fans of crank science also fail to note that both GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 do show statistically significant warming -UAH does not, though it may by the end of the year. So, you are cherry picking, failing to give a fair assessment of the totality of the data.


That is a blatant lie. Sorry, there's no other correct term for it. You use data that isn't even expected to show a trend, from a single source (ignoring the other sources of at least equal repute), and even manage to misstate that cherry picked information. You couldn't be more wrong if you had planned it. LOL

Sorry, but RSS shows warming from 1995 - present. I realize that you find that troubling, but reality isn't here to amuse you. lol

I accept your concession that you cannot show a statistically significant flat or cool trend since the current warming began. I knew that you couldn't. That is why you use meaningless data, after all. ;^D


I'll admit when I'm wrong, and this is one of those occasions.

On the graph, the OLS slope started at 1996, not 1995, so yes, still no trend because there is no statistically significant warming over this timeframe. You cannot claim that there has been warming, when a you, yourself have just said, there is an equal chance that it could also be cooling. In these cases of trends that are not statistically significant, there is no trend. This applies to skeptics who cherry pick 2002 as a starting date and say we've been cooling since 2002. There is statistically insignificant cooling, but not cooling.

Quoting Birthmark:

It is a play on the fact that it takes many years to establish a statistically significant trend --at least 17 years, according to Santer. 1995-2012 isn't even seventeen years at this point


Check your math, the beginning of 1995 to the beginning of 2012 is 17 years.

Quoting Birthmark:

Of course, fans of crank science also fail to note that both GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 do show statistically significant warming -UAH does not, though it may by the end of the year. So, you are cherry picking, failing to give a fair assessment of the totality of the data.


So you're selecting GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 for your arguments sake, and yet you accuse me of cherry picking when you totally ignore UAH and RSS? Am I missing something? Does anyone else see this blantant double standard?

Quoting Birthmark:

Sorry, but RSS shows warming from 1995 - present. I realize that you find that troubling, but reality isn't here to amuse you. lol


Congratulations, you have demonstrated yet again that you don't know what a statistically significant trend is verses a statistically insignificant trend.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
A) It wasn't a "paper", but a letter signed by a bunch of crotchety old denialists, many with no formal training or experience in climate science. B) I didn't "pick out three names", I simply scanned the list and realized you were doing nothing but again bringing up the same batch of bad actors, as represented by two names that stood out. (Suggest you read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes; Fred Singer's name is repeated more than any other)/ The point being, once you throw in the likes of Singer and Scafetta, you have immediately lost almost all credibility. C) I merely brought up Muller's name to note that, if you're trying to make a case against global warming, he's no longer a very good witness for your side, since he's been forced by fact to recant much of his denialism. Next time you cut and paste that list, you may wish to excise his name. Just trying to be helpful.

So, again: what else you got? Or is that about it?


A couple of points.

A couple of scientists in the list does not mean the rest of the scientists who signed that list are "bad."

Three "bad actors" out of a sea of 260+? Are you kidding me?

I have never argued against the rise in Global temperatures by ~0.6 Degrees C.

It is a little late for me to make an extensive post on this issue. I'll probably make one later this week.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

What a nice try you make to change the discussion! Unfortunately, I pay attention. You see, what the winter warming in the Arctic clearly does is dispose of the Sun hypothesis. Whether it is warming most, least or somewhere in between is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it is warming in the absence of any sunlight. Buh-bye, sun hypothesis...again.


What are you "Buh-Bye-ing" to the sun hypothesis about? Why are you "Buh-Bying" the sun causing a Global temperature rise if natural variability has taken control of temperature changes IN THE ARCTIC??

Sorry, I'm not following your logic.

So because natural variability is causing temperature changes in the Arctic means that the sun can't be responsible for Global Temperature changes? What?

Quoting Birthmark:

The climate system is NOT chaotic. We've been over this. It's not going to be 266C tomorrow, nor is it going to plunge -255C tonight. Go away, chaos! Shoo!



Yes, we've been over this fact that your definition of chaos is mistaken and not correct. Chaos refers to multiple forcings in the climate system creating energy imbalances, not wild fluctuations in day to day weather. The strongest forcing that causes chaos on a year to year basis is the Cloud Forcng.

Quoting Birthmark:

Nope. What I assume is that the answer having the most explanatory power with the fewest assumptions that explains observations the best is almost always the correct answer.


That does not apply to climate science, and it explains why you are mistaken on this issue. Because you think that only one factor can lead to all of the observed temperature changes, when it is a lot that is going on at once in the climate system.

Quoting Birthmark:

As a result, your "explanations" are little more than a patchwork that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.



That is not true.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


Did I claim all of these papers show that? These papers support a more skeptical position that most of the 20th Century warming is due to the sun, and some of them support that significant uncertainties remain with the TSI trends and solar activity over the last 30 years.

I repeat what I wrote to you in a previous blog:

There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence, but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise.

The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below and therefore, the sun cannot be the cause of the recent global warming.

So I ask you again:

Which of these 20 papers support you and says that the sun and not CO2 have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?


Image credit: Skeptical Science

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Snowlover123:


From the paper:

A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all
solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period
for which we have data.


The "whole period for which we have data" part includes the later half of the 20th Century, does it not?

Again. Yippee! They believe that they found a correlation. Have you noticed how it is completely not taking the scientific world by storm? LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Did I claim all of these papers show that? These papers support a more skeptical position that most of the 20th Century warming is due to the sun, and some of them support that significant uncertainties remain with the TSI trends and solar activity over the last 30 years.

Yes, bad papers only get refuted or ignored. They usually don't get expunged from the scientific literature.

And that's a good thing, imho.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Nope, RSS shows we haven't warmed since 1995.

That's nonsense. What RSS shows is 0.055 0.203C/decade warming. Now what that means to those of us interested in reality is four things:
1. the warming isn't statistically significant
2. the real trend might as high as 0.258C/decade
3. the real trend might be as low as -0.148C/decade
4. it is impossible to make a sound conclusion as to whether it is warming, cooling, or stable based on the information at hand.

Crank science calls this an absence of warming. That's deliberate deceit. It is a play on the fact that it takes many years to establish a statistically significant trend --at least 17 years, according to Santer. 1995-2012 isn't even seventeen years at this point.

Of course, fans of crank science also fail to note that both GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 do show statistically significant warming -UAH does not, though it may by the end of the year. So, you are cherry picking, failing to give a fair assessment of the totality of the data.

Quoting Snowlover123:

That's totally different than showing that statistically significant cooling has taken shape, and does not change the fact that since 1995 on RSS we have not warmed. At all.


That is a blatant lie. Sorry, there's no other correct term for it. You use data that isn't even expected to show a trend, from a single source (ignoring the other sources of at least equal repute), and even manage to misstate that cherry picked information. You couldn't be more wrong if you had planned it. LOL

Sorry, but RSS shows warming from 1995 - present. I realize that you find that troubling, but reality isn't here to amuse you. lol

I accept your concession that you cannot show a statistically significant flat or cool trend since the current warming began. I knew that you couldn't. That is why you use meaningless data, after all. ;^D
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Great, you picked out three names. Muller never said that his BEST project showed that humans were to blame. In otherwords, he was establishing a well known fact about climate science that the world has heated up.

Not very impressive.

And a 2 and a half year old paper is old and outdated? What the heck?
A) It wasn't a "paper", but a letter signed by a bunch of crotchety old denialists, many with no formal training or experience in climate science. B) I didn't "pick out three names", I simply scanned the list and realized you were doing nothing but again bringing up the same batch of bad actors, as represented by two names that stood out. (Suggest you read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes; Fred Singer's name is repeated more than any other)/ The point being, once you throw in the likes of Singer and Scafetta, you have immediately lost almost all credibility. C) I merely brought up Muller's name to note that, if you're trying to make a case against global warming, he's no longer a very good witness for your side, since he's been forced by fact to recant much of his denialism. Next time you cut and paste that list, you may wish to excise his name. Just trying to be helpful.

So, again: what else you got? Or is that about it?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting Xandra:

Were in these papers it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?


Did I claim all of these papers show that? These papers support a more skeptical position that most of the 20th Century warming is due to the sun, and some of them support that significant uncertainties remain with the TSI trends and solar activity over the last 30 years.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

What is it you think needs replying to? They found a correlation. Yay! Good for them! Really.

Because if there's one thing we all know, it's that no one has ever found a correlation that didn't hold up. LOL


From the paper:

A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all
solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period
for which we have data.


The "whole period for which we have data" part includes the later half of the 20th Century, does it not?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Yeah, we've seen it.

Are you sure it helps you? lol

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post any statistically significant trend that shows either a cooling trend or a flat trend. If you can't do that, then I trust the whole "it hasn't warmed since year X argument is over, right?


Nope, RSS shows we haven't warmed since 1995. That's totally different than showing that statistically significant cooling has taken shape, and does not change the fact that since 1995 on RSS we have not warmed. At all.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


The PMOD dataset used by Frolich et. al is questionable as there is another TSI dataset with increasing TSI from 1970-2000. The hiatus in Global temperatures as of recent can also be very clearly identified in that graph.

Yeah, we've seen it.

Are you sure it helps you? lol

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post any statistically significant trend that shows either a cooling trend or a flat trend. If you can't do that, then I trust the whole "it hasn't warmed since year X argument is over, right?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


That's correct, but...

I would be interested if you have a legitimate reply to this piece of evidence from this paper.

What is it you think needs replying to? They found a correlation. Yay! Good for them! Really.

Because if there's one thing we all know, it's that no one has ever found a correlation that didn't hold up. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


I'm guessing you didn't read the quote that I posted from the paper about winter arctic temperature changes but yet you will still continue to use the Arctic warming fastest during the winter as the fingerprint that most of the warming is due to Greenhouse Gases?

What a nice try you make to change the discussion! Unfortunately, I pay attention. You see, what the winter warming in the Arctic clearly does is dispose of the Sun hypothesis. Whether it is warming most, least or somewhere in between is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it is warming in the absence of any sunlight. Buh-bye, sun hypothesis...again.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That in itself is quite telling.

You still ignore the fact that the climate system is chaotic and can have multiple factors causing different observable changes in the climate system.

The climate system is NOT chaotic. We've been over this. It's not going to be 266C tomorrow, nor is it going to plunge -255C tonight. Go away, chaos! Shoo!

Quoting Snowlover123:
You automatically assume that all of these changes MUST be caused by one thing. LOL

Nope. What I assume is that the answer having the most explanatory power with the fewest assumptions that explains observations the best is almost always the correct answer. (I say "almost always" out of an extreme of caution. In reality, I can't think of when that principle has been violated in science.)

You, OTOH, will cling to any ad hoc answer that suits your needs. You rely on rejected, refuted, and ignored papers and blogs. As a result, your "explanations" are little more than a patchwork that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

You need to learn that, yes, climatologists, like most scientists, really are just that darned smart in their areas of study.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:
Neat thing about sunspots --with fairly inexpensive equipment you or I can go out and count 'em ourselves, so we don't have to rely on those socialist scientists who are in it for the money.


That's correct, but...

I would be interested if you have a legitimate reply to this piece of evidence from this paper.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:

And there are papers supporting the skeptical side and the uncertainties, 20 of such papers can be viewed

Were in these papers it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Snowlover123:


Why are you using the SSN to quantify the solar impact on climate change? Using the SSN leads to an estimation of the solar impact on climate change because the sunspot number only accounts for part of the solar magnetic activity changes.

Georgieva et. al 2005.

Quoting Paper:

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes
in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using
this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming
in the recent decades.
A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all
solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period
for which we have data.




The correlation coefficient between the aa index and global temperatures is 0.85, meaning that the AA Index can explain 85% of the variability in temperatures over the last 150 years.

Now what is it the denialists say...ah, yes, "correlation is not causation."

Neat thing about sunspots --with fairly inexpensive equipment you or I can go out and count 'em ourselves, so we don't have to rely on those socialist scientists who are in it for the money.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Xandra:

The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).

Other studies on solar influence on climate:

Huber and Knutti 2011: ”Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

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."

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."

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 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

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..."

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."

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."

Foukal 2006: "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

Usoskin 2005: "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."

Solanki 2004: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Haigh 2003: "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."

Stott 2003: "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Lean 1999: "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."


Nice parroting of Skeptical Science without giving proper credence to that website.

And there are papers supporting the skeptical side and the uncertainties, 20 of such papers can be viewed here here, here, here here here here here here here here here here here here and here

We can start off with these studies and go from here.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Starting up the calliope music again, are you? So, the Sun is warming the Earth...except for the Arctic where something even more powerful is causing the observed warming...and except for the stratosphere where something else is causing the cooling...and except for...anything else that you can find in refuted, rejected, and ignored papers or blogs. LOL


I'm guessing you didn't read the quote that I posted from the paper about winter arctic temperature changes but yet you will still continue to use the Arctic warming fastest during the winter as the fingerprint that most of the warming is due to Greenhouse Gases?

That in itself is quite telling.

You still ignore the fact that the climate system is chaotic and can have multiple factors causing different observable changes in the climate system.

You automatically assume that all of these changes MUST be caused by one thing. LOL
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
It might not be the driver in the Arctic, natural variability and seasonal variability drive arctic temperature changes, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been the driver of the Global Temperature.

Starting up the calliope music again, are you? So, the Sun is warming the Earth...except for the Arctic where something even more powerful is causing the observed warming...and except for the stratosphere where something else is causing the cooling...and except for...anything else that you can find in refuted, rejected, and ignored papers or blogs. LOL

Do you imagine that physics was designed by Rube Goldberg?

OTOH, the reputable science says that human activity, mostly in the form of CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is primarily responsible for the current warming.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Funny that you mention that, they mention that the warming progressed at a much higher rate than it does currently, during the 1920s-1940s.

Yep. They say that. Interesting if true. But the point is that they validate the larger warming in the Arctic --the one place that the Sun has no influence for half the year.

Buh-bye Sun hypothesis...again!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Patrap:
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center



The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.





The PMOD dataset used by Frolich et. al is questionable as there is another TSI dataset with increasing TSI from 1970-2000. The hiatus in Global temperatures as of recent can also be very clearly identified in that graph.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).

Other studies on solar influence on climate:

Huber and Knutti 2011: ”Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

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."

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."

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 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

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..."

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."

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."

Foukal 2006: "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

Usoskin 2005: "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."

Solanki 2004: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Haigh 2003: "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."

Stott 2003: "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Lean 1999: "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center



The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129444
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The Moon is the driver for the absence of the Sun in night sky. .... See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims?


The moon has not increased its irradiance creating large reductions in Cosmic Rays, leading to a decrease in Low Clouds, creating further warming.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
You may also note that there is no mention in the study that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not been rising over the past 150 years and that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not made a marked increase over the past 50 years.


Right, that's because these are well accepted facts, and are not questioned by any scientifically literate person.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


1. Using your deductive reasoning skills, how much cooler will Earth have been without the introduction of an ever increasing and significant amount of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere in coincidence with an increased solar activity?


That's a tough question, since it is uncertain how much CO2 has contributed to climate change.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

2. Should there be no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, even with an increased solar activity, would the night time temperatures still be much more significantly cooler than the day time temperatures? - Hint: Look at our moon and look at Mars. How quickly do their temperatures drop when the Sun goes below the horizon?


Mars and Moon do not have as thick of atmospheres as Earth's does, hence why the temperature at the surface fluctuates wildly.

I would say that they would not be warming as fast as they are now.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

In other words, the study did not, at any point, disprove the AGWT! At best, the study only shows that a warming may have been possible without any anthropogenic CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere. No where, in the study, does it even imply that the current warming being observed is due solely to solar activity.


No one says it's been solely due to solar activity, simply solar activity has been the main driver of climate change. That does not mean it has been the "sole cause."

solar activity increasing sharply, and being at record levels is fairly compelling that the sun has at least part to do with the 20th Century warming.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, you're missing the point.

The sun is the driver of global climate change.


The Moon is the driver for the absence of the Sun in night sky. .... See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4768
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Since man's introduction to this planet, the Sun has changed little in size in relationship to this planet. Man's influences over the planet have changed considerably in size since our introduction.

'Nuff said.


Which is still smaller than the solar influence on climate.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


If you're using size as an indicator of the human influence on Global Climate, look how large the sun is compared to a land area the size of South America.

'Nuff said.


Since man's introduction to this planet, the Sun has changed little in size in relationship to this planet. Man's influences over the planet have changed considerably in size since our introduction.

'Nuff said.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4768
Quoting Snowlover123:


Completely wrong. Santer has said that 17 years is long enough to determine the human influence on climate.

Quoting Paper:

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

You seem to not know the difference between "17 years is long enough", which is what you said and "at least 17 years in length are required", which is what Santer said. "At least 17" does not mean "17" period. It means equal to or greater than 17. In any event, since 1995 there is statistically significant warming in both GISS and HADCRUT4. The satellites, which don't exactly measure the same thing, are lagging a bit behind.



We are close to 16 and a half years and no warming on the RSS dataset.
Oh, no! Unfortunately for you, RSS is only one measure --and not the best at that.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That's exactly what I said, except you worded it differently. Natural forcings are currently strong enough to cancel GHG warming, or the Global Temperatures would have increased.

Again, I say, "Duh." That's why it takes at least 17 years currently to detect the trend.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I can make hypothetical data showing we wouldn't have warmed as much if we 'removed' GHGs from the global temperature dataset, and people on my side of the debate would worship those graphs that show less warming as people have been doing for the Rahmstorf paper.

If you can do it, do it. But you can't --at least not honestly. The problem you would have is that your adjustments would have to comport with reality. Now, if you think that F&R(2011) is mistaken, man up and do the work. Show what they over corrected for or under corrected for or whatever. Simply waving your hands and saying "DO NOT LIKE!" is pointless.

Quoting Snowlover123:
It's about as bad of science as Rahmstorf 'removing' natural factors to calculate the imaginary trend upward over the last decade.



Demonstrate that the trend is imaginary.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

It is only a major controversy for denialists, who are grasping at non-existent straws. Real climatologists have a reasonably fair handle on the situation. They are backed up by independent evidence.



Why are you using the SSN to quantify the solar impact on climate change? Using the SSN leads to an estimation of the solar impact on climate change because the sunspot number only accounts for part of the solar magnetic activity changes.

Georgieva et. al 2005.

Quoting Paper:

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes
in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using
this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming
in the recent decades.
A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all
solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period
for which we have data.




The correlation coefficient between the aa index and global temperatures is 0.85, meaning that the AA Index can explain 85% of the variability in temperatures over the last 150 years.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


How about being that the solar activity has been at record high levels that hasn't been observed for at least 1100 years?



Yes indeed. This is Science and it is an interesting study. Do you have any updated information on this study? The study you have provided was released in November of 2003 and was noted that more research had to be done:

"The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30]. To clarify whether this similarity reflects a real physical connection requires a more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms for a solar influence on climate.

You may also note that there is no mention in the study that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not been rising over the past 150 years and that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not made a marked increase over the past 50 years.

Now I have two questions that I will direct towards you. Let us say, for the sake of the debate, that solar activity has indeed increased to the point that it would start warming the Earth.

1. Using your deductive reasoning skills, how much cooler will Earth have been without the introduction of an ever increasing and significant amount of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere in coincidence with an increased solar activity?

2. Should there be no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, even with an increased solar activity, would the night time temperatures still be much more significantly cooler than the day time temperatures? - Hint: Look at our moon and look at Mars. How quickly do their temperatures drop when the Sun goes below the horizon?

In other words, the study did not, at any point, disprove the AGWT! At best, the study only shows that a warming may have been possible without any anthropogenic CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere. No where, in the study, does it even imply that the current warming being observed is due solely to solar activity.

You like to use the science available to us. Use IT! Quit beating about the bush and throwing out all of the, "what if", if the, "what if" does not disprove the AGWT. Or, at the very least, show that there is scientific evidence that the anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be negated by other active processes! Anything else is truly less than a scientific approach to the debate! .... But, you already knew that, did you not?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4768
Quoting Snowlover123:


Have you not claimed that in your previous posts? Correct me if I am wrong.



It might not be the driver in the Arctic, natural variability and seasonal variability drive arctic temperature changes, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been the driver of the Global Temperature.



That's because both of these items involve different periods of time.




Funny that you mention that, they mention that the warming progressed at a much higher rate than it does currently, during the 1920s-1940s.


If I said that I was wrong. Show me where I said that GHGs are the MAIN driver........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Get a grip.


Have you not claimed that in your previous posts? Correct me if I am wrong.

Quoting Birthmark:

It does for your argument. If the Arctic is warming in winter -and it is- then your proposed mechanism, the Sun, cannot be the driver. Game, set, match.

But to pile onto your already lost position, if it was the Sun then the warming in the Arctic would be greatest during summer. It is not. Game, set, match, and after match cocktails.


It might not be the driver in the Arctic, natural variability and seasonal variability drive arctic temperature changes, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been the driver of the Global Temperature.

Quoting Birthmark:


Yeah? Maybe not. But it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Sun cannot the cause. Incidentally, you are arguing against yourself since you previously (and correctly) claimed that the greatest warming occurred in the Arctic in early Spring, very closely followed by Winter.


That's because both of these items involve different periods of time.


Quoting Birthmark:


One more thing. In Chylek's conclusion they state, "The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2–3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970–2008."


Funny that you mention that, they mention that the warming progressed at a much higher rate than it does currently, during the 1920s-1940s.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:

I don't see that in the paper, though I do know that at least two of the authors of that paper do support that hypothesis.

Lead authors Usoskin and Solanki do not support that hypothesis. From the conclusions of their paper Usoskin 2005:

"..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."
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Snowlover123:
From left to right: Palle Bago and Butler 2001, Georgieva et. al 2005, Cliver et. al 1998, Solheim et. al 2012 , Link et. al 2011, Scafetta and West 2008, Scafetta and West 2007, Ogurtsov 2007, and Blanter et. al 2008.

I wonder why you keep citing papers that have been refuted? That's just one example.

Frankly, your position makes no scientific sense. It is negated by observation and logic (Arctic warming in winter), it is inconsistent and incoherent, it is based on partial or refuted data and science, and it violates parsimony. It is a house of soggy cards that falls over every time it comes in contact with reality.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


There exists a controversy about what the sun has been doing over the last few decades.


It is only a major controversy for denialists, who are grasping at non-existent straws. Real climatologists have a reasonably fair handle on the situation. They are backed up by independent evidence.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


You have said such in previous posts of your's.


Get a grip.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Snowlover123:


The Arctic != The entire globe.

It does for your argument. If the Arctic is warming in winter -and it is- then your proposed mechanism, the Sun, cannot be the driver. Game, set, match.

But to pile onto your already lost position, if it was the Sun then the warming in the Arctic would be greatest during summer. It is not. Game, set, match, and after match cocktails.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Various natural variability factors drive changes in the Arctic, that are not necessarily solar related. One of which being the AMO.

Quoting Paper:

The largest changes in temperature
occurred during winter or autumn and smallest during the
summer, suggesting the importance of seasonally-varying
climate dynamics in addition to the ice/albedo feedback.


So cherry picking a location of the Earth and claiming that this shows that the sun can't be driving GLOBAL temperatures is not very good science.


Yeah? Maybe not. But it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Sun cannot the cause. Incidentally, you are arguing against yourself since you previously (and correctly) claimed that the greatest warming occurred in the Arctic in early Spring, very closely followed by Winter. Now, you cite a paper that claims most of the warming is in Autumn. Interestingly, you haven't presented any evidence that there is a large amount of warming in the Summer --you know, the time when the Sun might actually have an effect. LOL

One more thing. In Chylek's conclusion they state, "The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2–3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970–2008."

Fancy that. 8^D
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Snowlover123 who said MAIN?


You have said such in previous posts of your's.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:
You simply have no valid argument here except that the time period you chose is too short to display a trend. Duh. We knew that. LOL


Completely wrong. Santer has said that 17 years is long enough to determine the human influence on climate.

Quoting Paper:

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

We are close to 16 and a half years and no warming on the RSS dataset.


Quoting Birthmark:

No, what they demonstrate is that when known natural factors are neutralized, the warming signal is clearly visible.


That's exactly what I said, except you worded it differently. Natural forcings are currently strong enough to cancel GHG warming, or the Global Temperatures would have increased.

I can make hypothetical data showing we wouldn't have warmed as much if we 'removed' GHGs from the global temperature dataset, and people on my side of the debate would worship those graphs that show less warming as people have been doing for the Rahmstorf paper.

It's about as bad of science as Rahmstorf 'removing' natural factors to calculate the imaginary trend upward over the last decade.


Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Snowlover123 who said MAIN?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting biff4ugo:
The sun is the driver of global climate, that is not the same as climate change.

Point out that it is bigger than South America or that you can cover it up with your thumb is not proof that the sun is sending more radiation to the earth in the last 50 years than in the last 1000.


There exists a controversy about what the sun has been doing over the last few decades.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Xandra:
Were in the paper by Usoskin (2003), it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?


I don't see that in the paper, though I do know that at least two of the authors of that paper do support that hypothesis.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, there is no trend in that graph. Period.

And why should there be? I went through this garbage argument with someone else who was using the UAH dataset to "prove" that there was no warming for the last sixteen years. What I found was that in the UAH, less than 87% of the time was there was no statistically significant trend after sixteen years. I have no reason to believe that the situation is any different for the RSS.

You simply have no valid argument here except that the time period you chose is too short to display a trend. Duh. We knew that. LOL

For fun: Show me any statistically significant trend for any period over the last 25 years from any dataset that shows a cooling trend or no trend.

I can save you time and effort by telling you that neither such trend exists in any dataset. Every statistically significant trend demonstrates warming. Every. Single. One.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Like I said, I'd rather not talk about data that doesn't exist that is in the Foster and Rahmstorf paper.

The data 100% exists. You don't want to talk about it because it puts paid to your entire silly POV. You obviously cannot refute it, so you attempt to ignore it citing specious reasons.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Essentially they indirectly prove that the sun is large enough to totally cancel the GHG Forcing out, or else we would be warming like they show, with their hypothetical warming trend, instead of being in a hiatus.

No, what they demonstrate is that when known natural factors are neutralized, the warming signal is clearly visible. Your only hope is unknown natural factors or magic. Magic has an abysmal track record versus science. Non-trivial unknown natural factors are probably non-existent.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:

How about being that the solar activity has been at record high levels that hasn't been observed for at least 1100 years?

Were in the paper by Usoskin (2003), it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
On Geology, you may want to note strip mining, coal and copper, The Panama Canal..and other Geologic Changes we make daily,or by decade to Earth.



Not many Beetle Bugs nor Bears Opening Sea Routes between Ocean Basins last I checked.


We, unlike anything before, are changing the Geology and Atmosphere of a Planet.

FRESCA ?





Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129444
The sun is the driver of global climate, that is not the same as climate change.

Point out that it is bigger than South America or that you can cover it up with your thumb is not proof that the sun is sending more radiation to the earth in the last 50 years than in the last 1000.
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 115 Comments: 1599

Viewing: 170 - 120

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
39 °F
Partly Cloudy