[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

And the Gulf Stream has no connection to the thermo-haline conductivity...

? Huh? They are part & parcel of the same circuit. Conductivity? Huh?
Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chief concern is too much fresh water from melting ice in Greenland might shut down the circuit and no Gulf Stream = cold Europe. Speaking of melting ice in Greenland, let's not forget we now know it's not all from surface warming. >> Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice

Originally Posted by ScienceDaily

...“The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said Ralph von Frese, leader of the project and a professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts, too.

“Crustal heat flow is still one of the unknowns -- and it's a fairly significant one, according to our preliminary results.” ...

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

? Huh? They are part & parcel of the same circuit. Conductivity? Huh?

It was meant as a sarcastic remark. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure the point I was trying to make.

But yes, you are correct.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

It was meant as a sarcastic remark. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure the point I was trying to make.

But yes, you are correct.

Rats! I suspected it was a joke on me, but I wasn't sure. You darn kids! Once you find out how to put one over on the old man, you're relentless. I'll wait to get my due until I got you camped in the Cascade mountains huntin' Sasquatchees.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I'll wait to get my due until I got you camped in the Cascade mountains huntin' Sasquatchees.

Fair enough, but I say we should look for DB Cooper's stash instead. Did you hear that they may have found his parachute?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Fair enough, but I say we should look for DB Cooper's stash instead. Did you hear that they may have found his parachute?

Note my current location and nomination. I could spit on Amboy from my chair. Speaking of Amboy, roadcuts, Coopers, and global warming, if not shakiness of belief, there is a magnificant 40 to 60 foot high varve just East of Amboy on a roadcut. The individual layers measure no more than 2 or 3 mm if I recall. Not sure what formal analysis on it is around, but I visited it on a geology course field trip. Might hold some info on past climate in the area. I'll get back to y'all on it; maybe even do a field trip.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

What data are you referring to?

As I recall, when I wrote this I was thinking about the recent ARGO ocean floats that showed cooling since they were deployed:

Opinion: New data shows ocean cooling - OCRegister.com


But the overriding issue is the fraction of warming related to the solar cycle. There has always been significant research on this topic, although most is generally discounted by the (political) IPCC. There are many studies like the following:

Solar Activity and Climate

or

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

or

Changes in the Earth’s Climate Caused by Changes in Solar Activity.

I confess I do not always understand the "forcing" calculations as offered above in InfiniteNow's post #247. I am frankly suspicious of the frameworks that use "Forcing models" that I can't decipher. But when CO2 levels change dramatically (as they have since 1998) and there is insignificant warming (or even cooling), I am more than a little suspicious aboout causality.

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Note my current location and nomination.

Ah yes, I see it now.
This whole forum change thingy is messing with me.

I could spit on Amboy from my chair.

I'm not sure the residents of Amboy would appreciate it and who wants saliva money anyways.

Speaking of Amboy, roadcuts, Coopers, and global warming, if not shakiness of belief, there is a magnificant 40 to 60 foot high varve just East of Amboy on a roadcut. The individual layers measure no more than 2 or 3 mm if I recall. Not sure what formal analysis on it is around, but I visited it on a geology course field trip. Might hold some info on past climate in the area. I'll get back to y'all on it; maybe even do a field trip.

Thanks for the new geology lingo.
Please do let us know what you find out.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Thanks for the new geology lingo. [varve]
Please do let us know what you find out.

Roger that; done & done. I think the varve I visited is the boldened reference. Can we say ice age?

Originally Posted by USGS

{page 14}...the drained lakebed at Fargher Lake accumulated in a proglacial lake impounded by Amboy-age terminal moraines; the lake gradually filled with more than 11 m of organic-rich sand, mud, and peat, punctuated by tephra layers that record eruptions at Mount St. Helens (Rigg, 1958; Heusser and Heusser, 1980; Doh and Steele, 1983; Grigg and Whitlock, 2002). Lake beds are exposed in the south bank of Cedar Creek north-northeast of Bald Mountain. They consist of about 10 to 12 m of dark gray, rhythmically laminated silt and clay. The beds vary in attitude from subhorizontal to subvertical over a distance of 20 m and are unconformably overlain by limonite-cemented cobbly gravel that contains rip-up clasts of varved clay. The small lake in which the rhythmites accumulated probably formed when ice from the Lewis River glacier spilled over into and blocked Cedar Creek; this must have occurred when the glacier was at or near its maximum extent. Scattered angular blocks of andesite as large as 3 m across that now rest on nearby modern alluvium may be ice-rafted erratics. Another small area of lake deposits is inferred to exist about 3.5 km north of Fargher Lake, where a landslide apparently blocked a tributary of Cedar Creek. These deposits are not exposed. ...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2004/2826/Arl_geol_text.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

But the overriding issue is the fraction of warming related to the solar cycle. There has always been significant research on this topic, although most is generally discounted by the (political) IPCC.

Name what specific conclusion of theirs is false. If you cannot, then I kindly ask you cease from further blanket claims and handwaving. You've tried to dismiss the literally thousands of studies they've brought together with your single comment that they are "political," and that's just not good enough.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I confess I do not always understand the "forcing" calculations as offered above in InfiniteNow's post #247. I am frankly suspicious of the frameworks that use "Forcing models" that I can't decipher.

This is an appeal to ignorance. Basically, you think that since you haven't put the time in to understand the models, and since you are not competent enough to decipher them that there must be something inherently wrong with them. If you are not capable of challenging the content of the presentations made here then you really shouldn't respond.

But, really? You couldn't decipher these two graphs? That's quite striking. Why don't you ask a specific question so perhaps we can help you arrive upon the answers you seek?

Originally Posted by Biochemist

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

Now, that's just wrong. Here is another simple example for you. What part do you think is incorrect or misrepresentative? Be specific.

I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following, so perhaps you can catch yourself up too!

RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver
RealClimate - The lure of solar forcing
RealClimate - Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
RealClimate - Another study on solar influence

Originally Posted by Final RealClimate link above

[T]here is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

You know, I've quite countered your point already above with an abundance of resources, but I'll add a little jab into your rib cage to really crystalize my point.

There's also a correlation between people carrying umbrellas and it raining outside, but that doesn't mean that people carrying umbrellas makes it rain.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Name what specific conclusion of theirs is false. If you cannot.....

Fuhgonnesake IN, relax. The links I included (and I am sure I could have found a hundred, as could you) contest the notion (asserted by the IPCC) that the impact of variation in solar radiation is trivial. The links I included suggest that it is significantly greater than CO2.

But, really? You couldn't decipher these two graphs? That's quite striking. Why don't you ask a specific question so perhaps we can help you arrive upon the answers you seek?

OK. This graph is an interesting representation of interpretive data. Can you explain "modeled forcing response" in two sentences? And if you can, are you pretty certain that the "model" fairly reflects the meaning of the underlying data? I am sure you are aware of the numerous (valid) critiques of the now-infamous "hockey-stick" graph in the earlier IPCC report. I certainly hope this "model" is better than that one.

Further, back in my basic research days, we would always rate any basic science study on the quality of the methods. If we couldn't figure out the methods, we would ignore the conclusion of the study. I think the above graph tests the validity of the forcing model, not the underlying data.

Be specific.

Was I specific enough? did you glance at my earlier references?