General Climate Discussion

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Moray my boy,

when Lazs says, "It does have some effect ... depending on who you believe" he is just trying to show that those who believe that the present warming is entirely anthropogenic are incorrect.

There is only 25% swing between 75% and "pretty much 100%" and a 50% swing between his stated 25% and 75%.  That wild swing you point out is probably not statistically significant depending on the data population size, which is either small or unknown at this point.

I would think a scientist such as yourself would be more careful in his data interpretation.

Actually I wasn't referencing a data set... i was referencing Lazs's wild assertions that the sun has always been behind all of the climate shift.  He has consistently spouted, "it's the sun stupid"...and now says that reliably, it's between 25% and 75% now...not the 100% he first spouted.

I wasn't interpretting data... I was interpretting his positional shift.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Actually I wasn't referencing a data set... i was referencing Lazs's wild assertions that the sun has always been behind all of the climate shift.  He has consistently spouted, "it's the sun stupid"...and now says that reliably, it's between 25% and 75% now...not the 100% he first spouted.

I wasn't interpretting data... I was interpretting his positional shift.

Its the sun stupid... is a play on It's the economy stupid, the slogan of WJ Clinton's 1992 campaign.

Is it your assertion that Clinton's campaign had no intrest in anything other than economic factors, that there were no position papers issued on foreign policy?

Or was it just a catch phrase to sum up the major factor in getting elected?

You are confusing a catch phrase with positional shift.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Its the sun stupid... is a play on It's the economy stupid, the slogan of WJ Clinton's 1992 campaign.

Is it your assertion that Clinton's campaign had no intrest in anything other than economic factors, that there were no position papers issued on foreign policy?

Or was it just a catch phrase to sum up the major factor in getting elected?

You are confusing a catch phrase with positional shift.

Seriously, Holden, My Boy...

Have you been in this discussion long enough to read his responses>?  If you are questioning mine as so... THEN no you have not.  He has steadfastly been a proponent that any climate shift is inferentially natural and that our effect on such is so minimal as to be insignifigant.   Go back and read, then comment, sir.  You're way off base now.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Seriously, Holden, My Boy...

Have you been in this discussion long enough to read his responses>?  If you are questioning mine as so... THEN no you have not.  He has steadfastly been a proponent that any climate shift is inferentially natural and that our effect on such is so minimal as to be insignifigant.   Go back and read, then comment, sir.  You're way off base now.

I have been reading Lazs on this BBS for some years.  I understand his position very well.  He is as adamant on natural forcing as Al Gore is on blaming humanity.

That doesn't mean that 50% is less than 25% does it?

I'm glad you noticed the my boy salution.  Perhaps you will lessen your sarcastic 'sir' references in the future.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have been reading Lazs on this BBS for some years.  I understand his position very well.  He is as adamant on natural forcing as Al Gore is on blaming humanity.

That doesn't mean that 50% is less than 25% does it?

I'm glad you noticed the my boy salution.  Perhaps you will lessen your sarcastic 'sir' references in the future.

Yes, he has been adamant about it.  Now he is posting at 25% to 75%, which by advanced math... leaves 25% to 75% accounted for by anthropogenic sources shifting climate.  Can you keep up?

[Holden McGroin]

so in your math 50% is less than 25%.

gotcha.

This explains your statistical method in the other thread as well.

[WWhiskey]

? guess ill have to start at the beginning!

[AKIron]

Originally posted by WWhiskey
? guess ill have to start at the beginning!

Then you'll have to dig up more than a few other threads going back for at least a couple of years and wade through a few thousand posts. Or, just enjoy the warmer weather.

[Terror]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Yep.. in the same conclusion...

"Therefore our estimates about the solar effect on
climate might be overestimated and should be considered as
an upper limit."

(Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600)

Pick and choose your facts wisely and read the entire article before pasting.

Of course, they are saying they overestimated because of volcano activity, not industrial activity...

From the previous paragraph to your quote:

In addition to solar forcing only volcano activity
might have played a significant role in climate change on a
global scale during the preindustrial era. However, volcano
forcing is very uncertain [Hegerl et al., 2006, 2007] and
might be overestimated [Douglass and Knox, 2005].
Fischer et al. [2007] suggest that volcano forcing might
have a significant impact on climate (cooler summers and
warmer winters) but only on a time scale of a few years.
Some climate model studies [Shindell et al., 2003] have
reported that on a secular scale the volcano forcing had the
same order of magnitude as solar forcing, other studies
would present a wide range of relative contributions.

But in finalizing their conclusion, they conclude that solar activity is not being considered with enough weight in the current models.  They suggest future models be updated with more weight to solar input to the environment.

T.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
so in your math 50% is less than 25%.

gotcha.

This explains your statistical method in the other thread as well.

Holden...

If he accounts solar forcing as being 75% the reason for climate change, and says that human activity (CO2 production) makes up the rest.. then that is 25%.  

Seriously... READ, then spout.

[Holden McGroin]

I am quite well read on the subject.

Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz... I have seen you flop around like a flounder on the beach for far too long.

Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect?  I read in your sig line that it was pretty much 100%.  That is certainly a wild swing.

Therefore, just by using your own statements..., the minimum effect you believe anthropogenic forcing to have is 25%....(the theoretical difference between having a 100 degree day versus a 75 degree day) so there is no man made climate forcing?  Or there is>?  You seem more confused than the sources you quote.

This is the start of our discussion where I took issue.

You ask, “Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect?" and you use his signature of "It's the sun stupid" as evidence (to you) of an apparent contradiction.

This is a false premise.  "It's the sun, stupid" is not a quantitative statement.  One may infer that it says > 50% or dead bang 100%, so it is not a quantitative statement that proves contradiction.

Lazs’ point as I have read through the years is that the money and effort spent to battle anthropogenic global warming is wasted, as most (if not all) of the current GW trend (if there is indeed one) is natural.   I have seen no deviation from this view in the many posts he has made.

By the way, your 100 degrees v 75 degrees is not an accurate analogy.  Your choice of a 75 to 100 degree day and country of would tend to indicate a Fahrenheit scale, and a 25 degree swing is only about a 4.5% temperature swing, as of course as a scientist you know about the absolute temperature scale.

[AKH]

You'll be familiar with these papers then:

• Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
• Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
• Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
• Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
• Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
• Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
• Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
• Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
• Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
• Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
• Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

[WWhiskey]

still havent even tried to read this forum   to darn long! probably the main contributor to global warming as we know it!!!

[lazs2]

sheesh.. well.. at least the hand wringers are starting to admit that natural causes come into play.

I am saying that the math on man made C02 doesn't add up.. that at best.. it is about 3% of the global climate change.   if that is the case then it is indeed the fact that IT'S THE SUN STUPID.

It can't be co2.. the math doesn't work.. the logic that the hand wringers and left wingers use is...

"well... it is nothing we can see so it must be man made co2"  Then, when the math doesn't add up they say.."it must be some complex interaction between co2 and something else and we just don't know enough about it yet."

Problem is.. the logic behind this is glaringly wrong.   If the math doesn't add up then why not just dismiss man made c02?  why not just say that it is one of a dozen of natural things that is causing this nice warm spell and admit that we don't understand how they all work?

The "logic" we are supposed to swallow continues with "sure.. co2 has always followed warming spells not lead them but... now we think that things have changed.  the rules no longer apply"

But... when you show that the sun has always led climate change and that it has done so recently... they say... "but..but...it hasn't worked out exactly to the day like it has in the past so it is not worth thinking about."  

Solar activity has gone down..we will see a cooling.  It may not have reacted as rapidly as in the past but other things may be happening that I, or them have no way of knowing or understanding at this time.

Why choose the man made agenda unless... unless you do have an agenda.

moray himself says he doesn't think man made co2 is fully or even significantly responsible for the warming trend.

In the end... it is all good.

Anyone here suffering?   people suffer in the cold..  it will get cold soon enough.   relax and enjoy natures bounty.  bunch of frigging old ladies.

lazs

[AKH]

Sure, natural forcings were never considered before now



The maths does add up.  Why should your ignorance be accepted as proof of something that isn't true?