More Scientists Blame The Sun
BZN00
More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault. Duke University
research associate Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, chief scientist in
the mathematical and information science directorate of the US Army
Research Office, conclude:
We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature. Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few
decades, that cooling could stabilise Earth's climate and avoid the
catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report.
Warmest Regards
Booonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
V-for-Vendicar
"BZN00" <BZ...@dooodoooo.com.au> wrote
http://blogs
Oh look. Bonzo has found another worthless KKKonservative Blog.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
Lloyd
> March 07, 2008
>
> More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault.
No they don't.
>Duke University
> research associate Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, chief scientist in
> the mathematical and information science directorate of the US Army
> Research Office, conclude:
>
> We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
> increase in Earth's average temperature. Furthermore, if the Sun does
> cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few
> decades, that cooling could stabilise Earth's climate and avoid the
> catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report.
>
Here's what they actually say:
"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-
2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming."
So it's the 1/3 of the recent warming that's been said for years.
You cannot even lie well.
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
neutr...@gmail.com
> March 07, 2008
>
> More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault. Duke University
> research associate Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, chief scientist in
> the mathematical and information science directorate of the US Army
> Research Office, conclude:
>
> We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
> increase in Earth's average temperature. Furthermore, if the Sun does
> cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few
> decades, that cooling could stabilise Earth's climate and avoid the
> catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report.
>
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025539.shtml
"We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature
during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-
2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on
four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar
variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite
composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy
reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50%
of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global
warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added
climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in
climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar
impact on climate change during the same period is significantly
stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."
But what would Scafetta and West know about the subject.....oh
yah...it's their paper your blog is misquoting.
Hmm...which opinion should be given more weight....
The scientists who did the original research....or some guys blog....
V-for-Vendicar
Bonzo wrote:
>> More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault.
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> No they don't.
Correct, they don't Bonzo's own reference lies about the statements made
in the article linked.
Bonzo wrote:
>> ". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
>> report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
>> accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
>> the last 100
>> years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
And again Bonzo's reference lies about the position of the Max Plank
Institute whos own research shows that the sun has cooled, not warmed over
the last 60 years.
The following link is from the primary solar/climate researcher at the
institute.
Roger Coppock
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> Bonzo wrote:
> >> More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault.
Bonzo is simply lying, like he usually does.
The problem with claims for a solar cause of
global warming is that solar output, sunspots,
and cosmic rays, show no large correlation with
global mean surface temperature. All three of
these show no long term trend large enough to
explain the observed warming, only an 11-year
cycle. What century long trends there are are
decreases, in the wrong direction to explain
the warming of the Earth.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.h
>
> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote
>
> > No they don't.
>
> Correct, they don't Bonzo's own reference lies about the statements made
> in the article linked.
>
> Bonzo wrote:
> >> ". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
> >> report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
> >> accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
> >> the last 100
> >> years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
>
> And again Bonzo's reference lies about the position of the Max Plank
> Institute whos own research shows that the sun has cooled, not warmed over
> the last 60 years.
Here are data and their trend for the last 3 decades.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
They show a very small downward trend.
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 8, 12:24 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > Bonzo wrote:
> > >> More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault.
>
> Bonzo is simply lying, like he usually does.
>
effect
to 50% or more
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
If you weren't so anxious to call anyone who disagrees with you
liars,
you would have noticed the article gives a direct quote:
'Duke University research associate Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West,
chief scientist in the mathematical and information science
directorate of the US Army Research Office, conclude:
"We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature... Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next
few decades, that cooling could stabilise Earth's climate and avoid
the catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report."
It also gives a like to a March 2008 article to which I don't have
access,
presumably that's where they got the quote
Unlike religions, real scientists revise their hypotheses to match
the facts!
- A. McIntire
V-for-Vendicar
>> Bonzo is simply lying, like he usually does.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Here's a January 2007 paper by Scafetta and West upping the sun's
> effect to 50% or more
And yet Bonzo claims 79% or more.
Thanx for confirming that Bonzo is a LIAR.
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> Bonzo is simply lying, like he usually does.
>
>
> > Here's a January 2007 paper by Scafetta and West upping the sun's
> > effect to 50% or more
>
> And yet Bonzo claims 79% or more.
'Duke University research associate Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West,
chief scientist in the mathematical and information science
directorate of the US Army Research Office, conclude:
"We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature... '
http://ptonline.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=P
>
> Thanx for confirming that Bonzo is a LIAR.
No, he posted a direct quote which states .."as much as 69%",
confirming that you are the lying sob. - A. McIntire
Roger Coppock
wrote:
> Here's a January 2007 paper by Scafetta and West upping the sun's
> effect
> to 50% or more
>
> http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
>
or did you just pull it off some denialist
propaganda sheet? Why are fossil fools all
illiterates?
Bill Ward
What do you think is wrong with the paper, Roger? Did you read page 7,
where they find an r value of ~.87 for the cross-correlation between the
MORBERG05 temperature reconstruction and the "solar temperature signals"
they derived? That's pretty good evidence of some sort of connection, and
fits in nicely with the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.
The poorer cross-correlation with MANN03 (r~.76) tends to support the
claim that Mann screwed up in his proxies, and that there was actually
more variation in prior temperatures than his reconstruction shows.
Do you feel you are qualified to say they are wrong? If so please tell us
specifically what you object to. Are you questioning the peer review
process of the JGR?
You really ought to try to read and understand links before you comment on
them. I'm no expert in the field, but even I can see the work at least
seems plausible, and deserves a reasoned rebuttal rather than the arrogant
put-down you attempted.
But I suspect ad hom attack is the best you can do.
Bawana
Tell us how life has been created in a lab, loony tune.
V-for-Vendicar
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Tell the retard about life being created in labs, fruitcake.
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to
decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of
laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new
artificial life form on Earth.
The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as
Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego,
California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer
genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating
new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques
to combat global warming.
Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be "a very
important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going
from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the
hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before".
The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr
Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a
synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously
achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched
together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs
of genetic code.
The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the
team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a
fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed
chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been
watermarked with inks for easy recognition.
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage
of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect
become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully
transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another,
effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100%
confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created
chromosome.
The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and
metabolise on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been
injected, and in that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form.
However, its DNA will be artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the
cell and is credited with being the building block of life.
Mr Venter said he had carried out an ethical review before completing the
experiment. "We feel that this is good science," he said. He has further
heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by
applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium.
Pat Mooney, director of a Canadian bioethics organisation, ETC group, said
the move was an enormous challenge to society to debate the risks involved.
"Governments, and society in general, is way behind the ball. This is a
wake-up call - what does it mean to create new life forms in a test-tube?"
He said Mr Venter was creating a "chassis on which you could build almost
anything. It could be a contribution to humanity such as new drugs or a huge
threat to humanity such as bio-weapons".
Mr Venter believes designer genomes have enormous positive potential if
properly regulated. In the long-term, he hopes they could lead to
alternative energy sources previously unthinkable. Bacteria could be
created, he speculates, that could help mop up excessive carbon dioxide,
thus contributing to the solution to global warming, or produce fuels such
as butane or propane made entirely from sugar.
"We are not afraid to take on things that are important just because they
stimulate thinking," he said. "We are dealing in big ideas. We are trying to
create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't
expect everybody to be happy."
V-for-Vendicar
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
"We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature... '
http://ptonline.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=P
And what do we get when we check the link, posted by a known liar Almanac???
Error 500--Internal Server Error
java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: 6
at java.lang.String.substring(String.java:1477)
at
org.aip.pubtech.getabs.HandleServlet.getCLoginSpec(HandleServlet.java:320)
at org.aip.pubtech.getabs.HandleServlet.doGet(HandleServlet.java:211)
at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:740)
at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:853)
at
weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletStubImpl$ServletInvocationAction.run(ServletStubImpl.java:971)
at
weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletStubImpl.invokeServlet(ServletStubImpl.java:402)
at
weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletStubImpl.invokeServlet(ServletStubImpl.java:305)
at
weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext$ServletInvocationAction.run(WebAppServletContext.java:6354)
at
weblogic.security.acl.internal.AuthenticatedSubject.doAs(AuthenticatedSubject.java:317)
at
weblogic.security.service.SecurityManager.runAs(SecurityManager.java:118)
at
weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppServletContext.invokeServlet(WebAppServletContext.java:3635)
at
weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletRequestImpl.execute(ServletRequestImpl.java:2585)
at weblogic.kernel.ExecuteThread.execute(ExecuteThread.java:197)
at weblogic.kernel.ExecuteThread.run(ExecuteThread.java:170)
V-for-Vendicar
"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
> What do you think is wrong with the paper, Roger? Did you read page 7,
> where they find an r value of ~.87 for the cross-correlation between the
> MORBERG05 temperature reconstruction and the "solar temperature signals"
> they derived?
Bonzo source said the researchres claimed that 79% of the recent warming
could be accounted for by 60 years of solar warming.
Problem is, the researchers never said this, and their own data shows that
the sun has been cooling slightly over the last 60 years.
Bonzo's references turn out to be lies.
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 8, 12:24 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > Bonzo wrote:
> > >> More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault.
>
> Bonzo is simply lying, like he usually does.
>
> The problem with claims for a solar cause of
> global warming is that solar output, sunspots,
> and cosmic rays, show no large correlation with
> global mean surface temperature. All three of
> these show no long term trend large enough to
> explain the observed warming, only an 11-year
> cycle. What century long trends there are are
> decreases, in the wrong direction to explain
> the warming of the Earth.
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg
>
> http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg
>
>
> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rul...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote
>
> > > No they don't.
>
> > Correct, they don't Bonzo's own reference lies about the statements made
> > in the article linked.
>
> > Bonzo wrote:
> > >> ". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
> > >> report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
> > >> accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
> > >> the last 100
> > >> years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
>
> > And again Bonzo's reference lies about the position of the Max Plank
> > Institute whos own research shows that the sun has cooled, not warmed over
> > the last 60 years.
>
> Here are data and their trend for the last 3 decades.
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
>
Here' s a link to the actual article
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
"The
figure shows excellent agreement between
the 11-year PSS cycles and the cycles
observed in the smoothed average
global temperature data; a 22-year cycle
component in the temperature also
matches the 22-year PSS cycle very well.
In particular, since 2002 the temperature
data present a global cooling, not a
warming! This cooling seems to have
been induced by decreased solar activity
from the 2001 maximum to the 2007
minimum as depicted in two distinct
TSI reconstructions.
Thus the average global temperature
record presents secular patterns of 22-
and 11-year cycles and a short timescale
fluctuation signature (with apparent
inverse power-law statistics), both
of which appear to be induced by solar
dynamics. The same patterns are poorly
reproduced by present-day GCMs and
are dismissively interpreted as internal
variability (noise) of climate. The nonequilibrium
thermodynamic models
we used suggest that the Sun is influencing
climate significantly more than
the IPCC report claims. "
"We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature,
depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.5 Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict
will happen over the next few decades,
that cooling could stabilize Earth's climate
and avoid the catastrophic consequences
predicted in the IPCC report."
- A. McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> "We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as69% of the
> increase in Earth's average temperature... '
>
> http://ptonline.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=P
>
> And what do we get when we check the link, posted by a known liar Almanac???
>
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
- A. McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
Here's a link:
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
>
> > What do you think is wrong with the paper, Roger? Did you read page 7,
> > where they find an r value of ~.87 for the cross-correlation between the
> > MORBERG05 temperature reconstruction and the "solar temperature signals"
> > they derived?
>
> Bonzo source said the researchres claimed that 79% of the recent warming
> could be accounted for by 60 years of solar warming.
>
"We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature. Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next
few
decades, that cooling could stabilise Earth's climate and avoid the
catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report."
Here's a link to the quote:
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 6, 4:20 pm, "BZN00" <BZ...@dooodoooo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > March 07, 2008
>
> > More scientists say it's mainly the sun's fault. Duke University
> > research associate Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, chief scientist in
> > the mathematical and information science directorate of the US Army
> > Research Office, conclude:
>
> > increase in Earth's average temperature. Furthermore, if the Sun does
> > cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few
> > decades, that cooling could stabilise Earth's climate and avoid the
> > catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report.
>
> >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025539.shtml
> "We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature
> during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-
> 2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on
> four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar
> variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite
> composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy
> reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50%
> of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global
> warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added
> climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in
> climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar
> impact on climate change during the same period is significantly
> stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."
>
> But what would Scafetta and West know about the subject.....oh
> yah...it's their paper your blog is misquoting.
>
> Hmm...which opinion should be given more weight....
> The scientists who did the original research....or some guys blog....
Unlike religious nuts, true scientists change their views to match
observations!
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
"Is climate sensitive
to solar variability?
Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West"
"In particular, since 2002 the temperature
data present a global cooling, not a
warming! This cooling seems to have
been induced by decreased solar activity
from the 2001 maximum to the 2007
minimum as depicted in two distinct
TSI reconstructions.
Thus the average global temperature
record presents secular patterns of 22-
and 11-year cycles and a short timescale
fluctuation signature (with apparent
inverse power-law statistics), both
of which appear to be induced by solar
dynamics. The same patterns are poorly
reproduced by present-day GCMs and
are dismissively interpreted as internal
variability (noise) of climate."
"We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth's average temperature,
depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.5 Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict
will happen over the next few decades,
that cooling could stabilize Earth's climate
and avoid the catastrophic consequences
predicted in the IPCC report."
- How about that? Bonzo's direct quote was correct, showing
Vendicar, Lloyd, Coppock, and neutral to be trolling cranks!- A.
McIntire
Lloyd
wrote:
So if the earth is COOLING, as they claim, how can the sun explain 69%
(or 79%) of the earth's WARMING, as they also claim?
(OK, slap yourself up side the head.)
Lloyd
How do the authors explain away 2005 being the hottest year on
record? Oh, they refigured the temperature, as their article says.
They show a nice graph of the actual temp. going up, and then one of
their "adjustment" which shows it staying flat. Uh-huh. You all
jumped on Hansen for accidentally not correcting a 0.1 deg change, yet
you trumpet this paper with its blatant readjustment of data. You
hypocrites!
z
> Here's what they actually say:
>
> "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-
> 2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming."
>
> So it's the 1/3 of the recent warming that's been said for years.
Every scientific paper on the solar aspect of the warming comes up
with the same "as much as" about 1/3. In all probability, much less.
And every idiot what-climate-change parrot says "as much as 1/3? why,
that's essentially 100%!" every damn week. And they wonder why we
scorn their valuable opinions. we know damn well the amplitude of the
solar effect on the earth's average temp; it's about 0.1 degrees C.
Of course, if you're arguing on Monday that the Earth is actually
cooling http://groups.google.com/group/aus.invest/msg/67492f94337924be
and on Wednesday you argue that you've found the cause of the warming,
everybody thinks you've just got a real problem with your attention
span, anyway.
Talk-n-Dog
Must be the sun is warming, but the CO2 is blocking the IR from heating
the earth. Oh Gee Panic... We need to reduce the CO2.... --
http://Talk-n-Dog.org
********* Koom-Bay-Ya *********
http://Talk-n-Dog.net
alanm...@yahoo.com
Read the first paragraph of my quote, or better yet, read the
article by Scafetta and West. Global temperatures have cooled since
2002 despite increasing CO2. That indicates that the sun has had a
greater effect than indicated by prior climate models. - A.McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
V-for-Vendicar
"Talk-n-Dog" <@http://dogi-pedia.talk-n-dog.com> wrote
> Must be the sun is warming, but the CO2 is blocking the IR from heating
> the earth. Oh Gee Panic...
Direct observation shows the sun to be cooling over the last 22 year solar
cycle. Yet global surface temperatures are seen rising over that period.
You denialists can't get anything right can you..... Pathetic.
V-for-Vendicar
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Read the first paragraph of my quote, or better yet, read the
> article by Scafetta and West. Global temperatures have cooled since
> 2002 despite increasing CO2. That indicates that the sun has had a
> greater effect than indicated by prior climate models. - A.McIntire
Excluding this years anomoly, global temperatures rose over that period.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Unlike religious nuts, true scientists change their views to match
> observations!
>
> http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
Yup, it's an opinion piece. No scientific research.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "We estimate that the Sun
> could account for as much as 69% of the
> increase in Earth's average temperature,
> depending on the TSI reconstruction
> used.5
"power-law index ? turns out to be the same for both the solar flare and
temperature
anomaly time series, even though the cross-correlation of the two vanishes
except at the lowest frequencies,
where quasi-periodic solar cycles dominate the dynamics."
Translation -> No Correlation is seen
dave
There is little IR inbound. The CO2 blocks reradiated IR outbound,
causing the atmosphere (and OCEANS!) to gain temperature.
Lloyd
But their own graph shows the temp. going up (the green line). And
they say the sun is responsible for x % of the warming. So they admit
there's warming going on. Which they contradict in the same paper.
z
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote> "We estimate that the Sun
Well, plowing through their papers:
In their previous 2005 paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0509/0509248v1.pdf
they stick with the 30% number; they establish a 11 year solar cycle
and a 22 year solar cycle and show that their effects can be additive.
no surprise. and they get the usual 0.1 degree K estimate for the
amplitude. No surprise. Which they then use to explain "up to 30% of
the warming"; which causes slight surprise, since no combination of 11
year and 22 year cycles is going to explain a warming that doesn't
have a cycle time of 11 or 22 years. But there's that 30% estimate
everybody gets.
This new 2007 paper http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf,
drops the solar cycle, and shows how a lag in the response of the
earth can cause the temp to continue to rise for a bit after the sun
has stopped warming, which again is no surprise; which they use to
explain why the temp is still increasing (at which point, all the "the
earth is no longer warming, earth is now cooling" folks should desert
them) after the sun stopped warming a few decades back. OK.
As is good practice, they show a few different scenarios. Two
different temperature estimates, the Mann global temperature model
without a medieval warm period, as well as the Moberg model with a
medieval warm period IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. Two different solar
output models, the Wang model and the Lean model. (At this point all
the folks who don't believe in anything that depends on "modeling"
should now desert them). They adopt the ACRM satellite solar data
corrections rather than the PMOD, no mention of what the PMOD
correction would show.
So; using the combination of the Moberg model and the Wang model (and
ACRIM), they can explain 69% (plus or minus 20%) of the NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE warming from 1900 - 2005. Only 42% of the warming since
1950, though. Suggests that their solar model might be a better fit in
the early part of the century and gets worse as the 20th century moves
forward, exactly as ..... we start pumping more CO2 into the air.
Hmm.
With any other combination of models, they see even less effect. With
the combination of Mann and Lean, for instance, they get 22% of the
Northern Hemisphere warming 1900-2005 and 8% of the 1950-2005. There's
that "25-30%" estimate that everybody finds again. And again, note how
the solar effect fits less of the temp as you go from 1900 to 2005;
which of course, again, is evidence FOR the hypothesis that the temp
increase is due to human greenhouse gas emissions which increased more
or less exponentially over that time, not evidence against it.
So, to sum up; IF you combine the historical temperature model and the
solar output model THAT SHOW THE GREATEST EFFECT of solar output on
temperature, you can demonstrate an AVERAGE OF 69% OF THE TEMPERATURE
CHANGE FOR THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE ONLY.
However; this effect DECLINES IN STRENGTH DURING THAT TIME AS MORE
CARBON DIOXIDE IS PRODUCED. Any other combination of models suggests
LESS EFFECT of the sun, although THE REDUCTION IN THE SUN'S EFFECT
DURING THAT TIME AS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IS PRODUCED REMAINS.
Further observations:
They state that they're not actually using the solar data as radiative
forcing, but rather as "a proxy for the entire solar dynamics" so as
to include direct plus indirect effects. Scientifically conservative,
but that would of course fuzz up their calculated correlation between
quantitative solar model estimates and quantitative temp, if they're
not actually suggesting that the quantitative solar model estimates
are what's driving the temp. They even state that these "indirect
effects" may include.... human activity. (At this point, all those
folks who believe that humans are too puny to affect the climate
should desert them).
For one possible mechanism of the lag between solar activity and temp
change, they cite ice core carbon dioxide data showing "a 10 ppm
decrease from the medieval solar maximum (1100-1200) to the Maunder
solar minimum (1600-1750)" That's not surprising. However, using a 10
ppm decrease over 440 - 650 years to explain a 100 ppm increase over
100 years is not obviously correct; particularly when they make a big
deal in both papers about the fact that faster climate effects are
highly damped out, while slower effects are relatively more effective.
This is independent of the fact that we can calculate how much carbon
dioxide we have produced, and it's twice as much as is now still
present in the atmosphere, so suggesting that there are yet other
unknown natural sources pumping even more carbon dioxide into the air
are not only unnecessary (see Occam's razor), but raise the question
of why these sources would increase carbon dioxide so slowly in the
previous millenium, and so rapidly in the last century. precisely
during the period when...... we are pumping more than enough carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere to account for the entire change. If it's
not us raising the carbon dioxide, then there's some really huge
natural source we just can't find, and it seems to be following our
lead, for some reason.
It should be noted that they state that current temp max is 0.5
degrees K HIGHER than the medieval max. Their graph of the Moberg
model of (NORTHERN HEMISPHERE ONLY) temps from 1000 to 2000 where they
assert the existence of the medieval warming period shows this curent
temp higher than anything in the medieval warming period. (At this
point, all those who believe that "during the medieval warming period
we saw temperatures higher than those today" should desert them).
And in between, there's their 2006 paper http://johnrlott.tripod.com/ImpactSunonEarthsTemp.pdf.
Again, they do some handwaving re the mechanism between solar output
and earth temp by stating that the solar output measurements are just
a proxy for the net direct and indirect effects, "since they are only
partially known", so that the correlations they are calculating are
not 100% relevant.
Again, they note that the current temp is 0.5 degrees K higher than
the medieval maximum.
Again, they note that rapid changes are damped out compared to slow
changes, "the climate sensitivity to a 160 year tsi cycle might be 3-4
times stronger than the climate sensitivity to a 10-year tsi cycle",
shedding doubt on the use of a 500 year change to explain a 50 year
change.
This time, they can explain "approximately 50%" of the warming since
1900; but state explicitly "SINCE 1975 GLOBAL WARMING HAS OCCURRED
MUCH FASTER THAN COULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED FROM THE SUN ALONE."
Hard to read that as evidence against AGW.
So, there ya go. The fact that anybody cites these papers as evidence
for their hodgepodge of "the temperature isn't warming any more,
models aren't convincing, humans can't affect the climate, during the
medieval warming period the temperatures were higher than they are
now, solar effects can explain the current climate without any need
for AGW" positions, despite the papers opposing every single one of
these beliefs, tells you more than enough about the scientific rigor
behind those positions.
Random question:
Does anybody know why the 11 year cycle is absent from the solar
output estimates for the "little ice age" 1650 to 1700? (http://
www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf figure 2)
V-for-Vendicar
"dave" <not...@nowhere.com> wrote
> There is little IR inbound. The CO2 blocks reradiated IR outbound,
> causing the atmosphere (and OCEANS!) to gain temperature.
He's been told that probably 100 times over the last several years, but
seems to be movitated by his KKKonservative Liedeology to continue to
misrepresent the facts.
V-for-Vendicar
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> But their own graph shows the temp. going up (the green line). And
> they say the sun is responsible for x % of the warming. So they admit
> there's warming going on. Which they contradict in the same paper.
It's an opinion piece - Couldn't be published in any respectable journal.
V-for-Vendicar
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
Problem is... McIntire is too stupid to understand the opinion piece.
It's an opinion piece because it is ignorant bunk. It would never make it
into a science journal.
V-for-Vendicar
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
> increase in Earth's average temperature.
Nonsense Clap Trap that couild never be printed in a scientific Journal.
Hence it's label as "opinion".
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN