50 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

alarmists and their blogs write off the sun as a significant climate driver by only pointing to TSI (total solar irradiation)

"strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC"

http://wattsupwithth...ing/#more-75705

[DemunSapo76]

  im already on edge..needless to say im getting some good red wine on the 21st and spending time with my son ( just in case)

[Little Fish]

"Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up"

commentary
http://blogs.telegra...-the-jig-is-up/

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 14 December 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

"Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up"

commentary
http://blogs.telegra...-the-jig-is-up/

I wonder if Delingpole has actually read the report this time?

I would like to read the report but the link is somewhat dead.

However this makes an interesting contribution to why the claim made is somewhat overstated;

http://skepticalscie...-not-solar.html


This shows the lack of trend in the cosmic  ray count over the last 60yrs  even better.

Guess what, that period when they do seem to track has always been acknowledged as been influenced by rising solar activity - now there's a surprise.


If the central premise were correct then they would track each other almost exactly over the last 35years.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 December 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

I only have two words for the likes of Alec Rawls

STUPID (for getting his science wrong)
SCUMBAG (for signing up to be a reviewer and then leaking the text)

Here's a simple clue as to how not to repeat their mistake - make certain that reality (empirical evidence) matches the theoretical prediction. FAIL.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 December 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[MysticStrummer]

"The climate denial clown car careens onward."http://climatecrocks...e-up-with-pits/

Edited by MysticStrummer, 14 December 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Hows that other game changer of a paper by Watts coming. i would have thought he has had plenty of time to correct his mistakes

So many game changer but the game never seems to actually change. Maybe its because the "skeptics" keep repeating the same easily discredited rubbish.
Has a lot to do with the fact that almost all of the deniers are scientifically illiterate and will never actually read the papers which they are misrepresenting.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Here is the actual conclusion they draw from reviewing all of the available evidence for a Cloud GCR relationship;

Quote

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free
troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too
weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle
in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee
et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major
contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

Its just more cherry picking of out of context quotes by Rawls.
Anyone actually reading the report would find it impossible to share his belief that this is some sort of game changer.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Ah, another one of those things for blokes who rather stick to their prejudices or economic interest than to the facts....

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 14 December 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

This shows the lack of trend in the cosmic  ray count over the last 60yrs  even better.

There are a lot of different emissions from the sun, meaning there are many different forms of solar activity.  Sunspots are another way of getting a general idea of what is going on.  Since 1950, the average daily sunspot count has been through a number of ups and downs:

1953:  Low; 4.4
1957:  High; 189.9
1964:  Low; 10.2
1968:  High; 105.9
1976:  Low; 12.6
1979: High; 155.3
1986: Low; 13.4
1989:  High; 157.8
1996:  Low; 8.6
2000:  High; 119.5
2008:  Low; 2.9

Note that the runup is always faster than the decline.  Solar activity is not a sine curve, therefore, not "cyclical," even though it does recur.

Also note that the low sunspot years match up nicely with the local minima on the temperature graph.  That is the solar influence on temps.  Also note that each successive temperature low is higher than the last one:  that's global warming.  The graph shows both.

Sunspot activity has been declining since the high of 1957, but also note that the amplitude is increasing (The lows are lower.)  If solar activity is the driving influence behind global temps, we should be recording record low temps during the low years:  Instead, 2008 is one of the hottest on record and 1953 marked a local maximum in global temps.  The all-time hottest year was 1998, which occurred during the runup to the solar high in 2000.

Interesting to note that the lowest global mean temperatures of the twentieth century (-0.559 below the Hadcrut 3 index) coincided with the high point of the sunspot cycle in 1908 (daily average of 62.0).  Obviously, there is more to this warming thing than the solar cycle.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 14 December 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[questionmark]

Doug1o29, on 14 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Interesting to note that the lowest global mean temperatures of the twentieth century (-0.559 below the Hadcrut 3 index) coincided with the high point of the sunspot cycle in 1908 (daily average of 62.0).  Obviously, there is more to this warming thing than the solar cycle.
Doug

That can be because the Earth is a big system to heat up.

[Little Fish]

"IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific lit" - professor Roger Pielke Jr

http://twitter.com/R...628063946469376

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 14 December 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I only have two words for the likes of Alec Rawls

STUPID (for getting his science wrong)
SCUMBAG (for signing up to be a reviewer and then leaking the text)

Br Cornelius said:

As for Gleick.....I personally thank him.

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4420025


http://stevengoddard...whistleblowing/

[Br Cornelius]

Thanks to Gleick that little Heartland wheeze came to nothing - so yes I still thank him.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

gleick's fake document came to nothing because it was a fake document, he made it up from one of his fantasies.