My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following...

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

These are indeed good references. Clearly biased, but worth the read.

Bio

[Essay]

That the LENGTH of solar cycles is correlated with temperature is pretty neat.
I remember when that came out in Science v.254, Nov.1, 1991, p.698f. I wish there was more current data.
hmmmm....
Maybe solar activity affects the soil microbes and depresses CO2 uptake.

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. There are many studies like the following:
Changes in the Earth’s Climate Caused by Changes in Solar Activity.

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

Just a quick note:
I happened to choose the above link you provided, and to quote from it:

"Such models were applied by Kelly and Wigley (1992) and Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1992) using the solar cycle length as a proxy for total solar irradiance. They both found that variations in solar irradiance have been contributing to the observed global temperature change since 1860 but their calculations also indicated that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases have been the dominant contributor."

...btw, last I heard....
I think the IPCC attributes about 15-20% of "global warming" to solar activity.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The links I included suggest that it is significantly greater than CO2.

A suggestion which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false... even your own link addresses this.


Please note that when I said:

You know, I've quite countered your point already above with an abundance of resources...

... that was also reminding you how I've already contributed heavily to this 263 post thread.

You are now here regurigating the same tired arguments which have already been defeated, and doing so without offering something new which might change the outcome. I ask that you at least show members of this forum enough respect to review the thread under discussion in it's entirety before commenting.

You are, by no means, just a noob, so I am not as forgiving with you on this as I might otherwise be... Life's not fair, eh?


"Hi Guys, I haven't really read much of this thread, but HERE's what I think! The sun did it!"

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

These are indeed good references. Clearly biased, but worth the read.

Please do, sir, show us all where their conclusions are false as a result of your accused bias. Is this like your contention that the IPCC's data is false because they are "political?" Surely, as you've been involved in research yourself, you know that such an accusation does zero to change the data or it's accuracy and applicability.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Essay

That the LENGTH of solar cycles is correlated with temperature is pretty neat.
I remember when that came out in Science v.254, Nov.1, 1991, p.698f. I wish there was more current data.
hmmmm....
Maybe solar activity affects the soil microbes and depresses CO2 uptake.



Just a quick note:
I happened to choose the above link you provided, and to quote from it:

"Such models were applied by Kelly and Wigley (1992) and Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1992) using the solar cycle length as a proxy for total solar irradiance. They both found that variations in solar irradiance have been contributing to the observed global temperature change since 1860 but their calculations also indicated that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases have been the dominant contributor."

...btw, last I heard....
I think the IPCC attributes about 15-20% of "global warming" to solar activity.

Good post Essay. I especially liked the idea of soil microbes controlling uptake.

As far as solar goes, as I said before, it is the main driver of climate (afterall, without the sun, nothing else matters). Nonetheless, this variable is well accounted for. Essay's quote above exemplifies this point.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

...You are now here regurigating the same tired arguments which have already been defeated....

Well, given my obvious ignorance on this topic, why don't you indulge me and confirm (based on the CO2 forcing "model" that you graphed earlier in posts 247 and 259) what fraction of the reported data in the current plateau period (about 1998 to present) was predicted by the forcing model on which you hang your proverbial hat?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Surely, as you've been involved in research yourself, you know that such an accusation does zero to change the data or it's accuracy and applicability.

No, but it certainly changes which data is reviewed and summarized. Were you actually suggesting that the IPCC report was not political in nature? After several reputable scientists removed their names form the report given the text of the "summary"?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

why don't you indulge me and confirm (based on the CO2 forcing "model" that you graphed earlier in posts 247 and 259) what fraction of the reported data in the current plateau period (about 1998 to present) was predicted by the forcing model

Look again. I've shared many models in this thread, but if I interpret your statement correctly, then you are referring to the most recent data I've shared (posts 247 and 259). As anyone can see, those data show observations, not predictions. Your request to me does not seem relevant to the discussion in which we are engaged.


It's as if you've asked me, based on my reading of yesterday's stock ticker, to show where the ticker predicted today's market. It was never intended as a predictive tool, only to show to actual forcing attributions, and hence your request is not relevant.

Please enlighten me if I've misread your request for me to "confirm what fraction of the data was predicted."

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

No, but it certainly changes which data is reviewed and summarized. Were you actually suggesting that the IPCC report was not political in nature? After several reputable scientists removed their names form the report given the text of the "summary"?

Stop wasting our time. The IPCC report was a meta-summary. Which data do you challenge specifically? If you won't be specific, I won't be responding.

You are also verging on the logical fallacy of strawman, where you misrepresent my position and then attack that misrepresentation instead of my true position, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to your lack of experience with the subject matter at hand.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

...I've shared many models in this thread, but if I interpret your statement correctly, then you are referring to the most recent data I've shared (posts 247 and 259). As anyone can see, those data show observations, not predictions. ...

Well, than as I said previously, I really must be extraordinarily stupid (since anyone can see the graphs, as in post 259, are observations).

I really thought that the label on the right-hand y-axis is "modeled forcing", which (again, given my ignorance) I construed to mean a "model" of "forcing", as opposed to, say, absolute levels of CO2, or a change in CO2 (which I would think of an an "observation". So, my question (again, based on my unmatchable ignorance) is how does the "model" explain the "observed" data for the temperature plateau period 1998 through 2008?