‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening

[MID]

Hopefully you'll do likewise.

Br Cornelius

Make sure you get that last word in, now--as I knew you would.

[MysticStrummer]

Make sure you get that last word in, now--as I knew you would.

...said the guy who also seems to enjoy getting in the last word.

[Guest]

Its a point of principle with MID, so i'am just gonna have to yank his chain

Its so childish, I know.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

a few things here, we are in a solar grand maxima on the multi century timescale. to imply which you've done above, that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false.

Just thought I'd check this out. I ran a simple, straight-line regression on the sunspot data for a quick-and-dirty analysis. At 95% confidence, there is no correlation between year and average daily sunspot count. This cuts both directions: the data did not support a decline over the last 100 years, but neither did it support an increase. Sunspots, at least, do not support either point of view.

Doug

[Little Fish]

Just thought I'd check this out. I ran a simple, straight-line regression on the sunspot data for a quick-and-dirty analysis. At 95% confidence, there is no correlation between year and average daily sunspot count. This cuts both directions: the data did not support a decline over the last 100 years, but neither did it support an increase. Sunspots, at least, do not support either point of view.

Doug

"no correlation" is not justifed even if you consider just sunspot counts.

I'd say there was a high correlation between solar activity proxies and temperature.

http://upload.wikime...vity_labels.svg

would you say that "solar activity has declined over the last 100 years" is correct based on the above graph?

I don't think you would.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

"no correlation" is not justifed even if you consider just sunspot counts.

I used monthly average daily sunspot counts from NCDC's site for 1911 to 2010. The calculations were done by SAS. The confidence level is 95%. Unless you are about to accuse NCDC of putting up false data, or the SAS Institute of putting out a defective program, this is so much BS.

There are ways to argue against my little analysis if you know what you're doing. You could say I'm using an overly-simple model (That's what I would say.). Or you could say that sunspots are only part of the story. Or you could say that you were using a different time frame and so the two comparisons are not comparable. Or you could say that your pretty chart is based on solar activity estimated from carbon 14 from tree rings (I thought you didn't trust tree rings.) and not on actual sunspot counts and so the two are not exactly comparable.

So why don't you use one of them and at least sound like you know what you're talking about?

Doug

P.S.: Your chart does not tell who made it, what datasets he/she used, or provide a reference. How do I know you didn't just make it up? Or did you?

Doug

Edited August 20, 2012 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

I used monthly average daily sunspot counts from NCDC's site for 1911 to 2010. The calculations were done by SAS. The confidence level is 95%. Unless you are about to accuse NCDC of putting up false data, or the SAS Institute of putting out a defective program, this is so much BS.

There are ways to argue against my little analysis if you know what you're doing. You could say I'm using an overly-simple model (That's what I would say.). Or you could say that sunspots are only part of the story. Or you could say that you were using a different time frame and so the two comparisons are not comparable. Or you could say that your pretty chart is based on solar activity estimated from carbon 14 from tree rings (I thought you didn't trust tree rings.) and not on actual sunspot counts and so the two are not exactly comparable.

So why don't you use one of them and at least sound like you know what you're talking about?

Doug

P.S.: Your chart does not tell who made it, what datasets he/she used, or provide a reference. How do I know you didn't just make it up? Or did you?

Doug

not interested in debating and proving what is self evident. why does everything end up so complicated and convulted with you.

the graph is a solar activity carbon 14 proxy from wikipedia (a co2-warmist biased source), it shows high correlation with temperature estimates over the last 100 years, so to imply there is "no correlation" or to imply that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false.

I don't need to run software and do calculations to show what is self evident.

I'll tell you what - YOU prove that one plus one equals two, and i'll consider wasting more of time. I'm not interested in "i've done the calculation, and I get two" as a proof, i want you to prove that one plus one equals two.

[Guest]

Carbon 14 is not an indicator of solar activity.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

not interested in debating and proving what is self evident. why does everything end up so complicated and convulted with you.

If you would spend a little time reading up on the subject you would not find it so complicated.

the graph is a solar activity carbon 14 proxy from wikipedia (a co2-warmist biased source),

If the source is known to be biased, it is not a valid source, regardless of what its politics are.

it shows high correlation with temperature estimates over the last 100 years, so to imply there is "no correlation" or to imply that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false.

Your graph says nothing at all about correlations. No model, no source, no statistics, nothing. Just a wiggly line without any way to quantify it or verify it. As a source for anything, it's worthless. Of course, we have been over the graph issue before. That was some time ago and I see you still haven't learned to read them.

I don't need to run software and do calculations to show what is self evident.

For some people, a wildass guess is sufficient evidence.

I'll tell you what - YOU prove that one plus one equals two, and i'll consider wasting more of time. I'm not interested in "i've done the calculation, and I get two" as a proof, i want you to prove that one plus one equals two.

You won't believe this, but I actually saw a proof of that. It was way back in my undergraduate days and I have no idea what it was in. But if you really want one, there are lots of math books out there. You can probably find one with that proof in it. Happy reading. Or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

Doug

[Doug1029]

Carbon 14 is not an indicator of solar activity.

Br Cornelius

Anderson, Roger Y. 1992. Possible connection between surface winds, solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field. Nature 358, 51-53 (02 July 1992); doi:10.1038/358051a0

Found that using Google Scholar. Took about 20 seconds.

Doug

Edited August 20, 2012 by Doug1029

[Guest]

The estimated effect of current solar maxima to current warming is about 20%;

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4958v2

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Carbon 14 is not an indicator of solar activity.

Br Cornelius

what do you mean?

[Guest]

Anderson, Roger Y. 1992. Possible connection between surface winds, solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field. Nature 358, 51-53 (02 July 1992); doi:10.1038/358051a0

Found that using Google Scholar. Took about 20 seconds.

Doug

i stand corrected. However its a very poor proxy for solar activity as it is influenced by multiple other factors - including plant growth.

http://en.wikipedia....spot-1000px.png

Note how the trend flatlines over the last 50yrs.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 20, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

The estimated effect of current solar maxima to current warming is about 20%;

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4958v2

Br Cornelius

your link doesn't say that.

[Guest]

your link doesn't say that.

It estimates the effect which when calculated as a percentage of total forcing is 20%.

Solar influence has declined in the last 20yrs;

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

i stand corrected. However its a very poor proxy for solar activity as it is influenced by multiple other factors - including plant growth.

http://en.wikipedia....spot-1000px.png

Br Cornelius

so if the carbon-14 proxy is a poor proxy for solar activity then how can you be sure to rule out solar activity as the driver for 20th century warming?

Note how the trend flatlines over the last 50yrs.

note how the trend in lowest point of the troughs is a good match for temperature, but you'll need a better resolution graph. factor in the thermal inertia and resultant decadel length time lag of the oceans affecting land temperature, the last decade or so of cooling and you have an even better match to the "global temperature" graphs (whatever that index means).

what about berillium-10 as a proxy for solar activity, inverse relastionship so you'll have to mentally flip the chart upside down, you see a very good match to the estimated temperature rise on the right hand side of the graph. note that there is no flatline in trend over the last 50 years.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

I would not use C14 as evidence of solar activity.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

It estimates the effect which when calculated as a percentage of total forcing is 20%

I can't find where it says that.

pictures of james hanson naked

http://heydollfacele...nce.tumblr.com/

Solar influence has declined in the last 20yrs;

http://www.atmos.was...cted_trends.pdf

Br Cornelius

temperatures have declined over the last 10 years. and then there is the decadel length of thermal lag of the oceans to consider.

[Little Fish]

I would not use C14 as evidence of solar activity.

Br Cornelius

the paper that you linked in post#111 does.

[Guest]

I can't find where it says that.

pictures of james hanson naked

http://heydollfacele...nce.tumblr.com/

temperatures have declined over the last 10 years. and then there is the decadel length of thermal lag of the oceans to consider.

No they have not declined - they have remained stably high.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

the paper that you linked in post#111 does.

I wouldn't trust its conclusions in isolation of other supporting studies. Fortunately other studies conclude much the same thing using other methods.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

with regards to any that believe "solar activity has no correlation with temperature over the last 100 years" or that "solar activity has declined over the last century", and anyone that disputes we are in a solar grand maxima.

graph from NOAA

Be10 as a proxy for cosmic rays modulated by solar activity

Be10 and temperature show a high correlation:

cosmic ray correlation with low cloud cover almost perfect correlation

and if you are wondering what effect clouds might have on temperature because you live in a desert or maybe in the arctic, just go outside on a sunny day and stand under one.

anyone that suggests there is no competing hypothesis to co2 as the main climate driver needs to look at the above graphs.

[Little Fish]

No they <temperatures> have not declined <over the last 10 years> - they have remained stably high.

Br Cornelius

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01156fc1fed9970c-pi

in post 68 I said, "its amazing just how many specialists you have to deride as liars and incompetents to justify your position"

I'm going to add to that and say its is amazing how much data and science you have to ignore to support your position.

what is the litmus test to test the co2 hypothesis? will warmists continue forever to collect anecdotes instead of data, and opinions instead of science.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

with regards to any that believe "solar activity has no correlation with temperature over the last 100 years" or that "solar activity has declined over the last century", and anyone that disputes we are in a solar grand maxima.

I don't doubt that we are in a solar grand maximum, even if the sunspot record doesn't show it. But if you are going to use that to "explain" global warming, then you need to postulate a mechanism by which that can happen. That's one of the underlying assumptions of correlation/cause-and-effect: existence. if their is a true cause-and-effect relationship, then there has to be a verifiable process by which the cause can effect the outcome. If there is no such mechanism, then correlation is all you have and you have demonstrated nothing but your own gullibility.

You also have the problem of explaining the residuals. Why doesn't your model predict temperatures perfectly? If it did, those two lines on the graph would be exact traces of each other. But they're not: something else is affecting the results.

Be10 as a proxy for cosmic rays modulated by solar activity

Be10 and temperature show a high correlation:

cosmic ray correlation with low cloud cover almost perfect correlation

and if you are wondering what effect clouds might have on temperature because you live in a desert or maybe in the arctic, just go outside on a sunny day and stand under one.

anyone that suggests there is no competing hypothesis to co2 as the main climate driver needs to look at the above graphs.

I admit I am not right up to date on this, but as I recall, there are several studies refuting this argument. You must pardon me while I catch up. In the meantime, a couple of references to support your contentions would be appreciated.

Doug

[questionmark]

I don't doubt that we are in a solar grand maximum, even if the sunspot record doesn't show it. But if you are going to use that to "explain" global warming, then you need to postulate a mechanism by which that can happen. That's one of the underlying assumptions of correlation/cause-and-effect: existence. if their is a true cause-and-effect relationship, then there has to be a verifiable process by which the cause can effect the outcome. If there is no such mechanism, then correlation is all you have and you have demonstrated nothing but your own gullibility.

You also have the problem of explaining the residuals. Why doesn't your model predict temperatures perfectly? If it did, those two lines on the graph would be exact traces of each other. But they're not: something else is affecting the results.

I admit I am not right up to date on this, but as I recall, there are several studies refuting this argument. You must pardon me while I catch up. In the meantime, a couple of references to support your contentions would be appreciated.

Doug

I guess he is basing his assumption on Viereck (2001), at least according to some image recognition software I use some of the graphs come from there. It has to be said that Viereck has been thoroughly taken apart because he was using some very questionable data.