# Global Warming - Another UH OH!!!!



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

The Ice is melting, The Ice Is Melting - NOT!!!!

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Well, now, to be fair, its really global climate change. So technically, any change...
like yesterday am it was 62!!! Wow-what a CHANGE!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

"Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice."


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

roberte said:


> "Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice."


Don't confuse them (the skeptics) with science! LOL!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

From the OP article:


> Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me.


Crisis is an understatement. It's a disaster is what it is. Too bad the thick idiot who wrote the article is too stupid and ignorant to comprehend that. :sob:

.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

emdeengee said:


> Don't confuse them (the skeptics) with science! LOL!


And the author of the OP cited article is called on his lack of science in comment after comment.....


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

Oh Carp, I've gone and awakened the apologists again.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Here's an interesting question. Even if we all came to know that there is global warming, and it is man-made due to burning fossil fuels, and it would ruin civilization within 100 years, how many of us would be willing to alter our lifestyles.

Probably none. Humans can't think more than a year ahead.

So it doesn't really matter.

We all know our economy will collapse because of money printing and debt, but the vast majority still believe in more wars and welfare.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> "Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice."


That's your science??? A blog????


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

the facts are that we have only been monitoring sea ice with satellites since 1979. A drop in the bucket as far as time goes. 

As NASA so intelligently points out, the ice "is above the median is some years and below it in others"....while giving us a nice chart that lists the averages.

Averages are not medians and this article or whatever you call it, is misleading. The median is simply the number in the middle so of course the ice levels fall above and below it. Duh. How far off the median is it? What is the standard deviation of those measurements? That is much more meaningful data, but they don't give us that...when you know they could.

Their table of averages shows that the antarctic ice is slightly above average, based on a period from 1979-2008. 30 years. 

We do not have enough information to make any kind of statement about long term trends in the ice, land or sea. That is the science and that is a fact. All the rest is speculation.

I forgot the link:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jena said:


> We do not have enough information to make any kind of statement about long term trends in the ice, land or sea. That is the science and that is a fact. All the rest is speculation.


We do about the Arctic. We have hundreds of years worth of information about the Arctic.

.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> We do about the Arctic. We have hundreds of years worth of information about the Arctic.
> 
> .


We do not have hundreds of years of observational evidence of the extent of arctic ice.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jena said:


> We do not have hundreds of years of observational evidence of the extent of arctic ice.


There is hundreds of years of observational evidence of the extent of Arctic ice. It comes straight from the collective observations of the people who have lived there on the ice for hundreds of years. Oral tradition and history cannot and shall not be discounted as valid observational evidence.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

2012, a record for melt in the Arctic.


​


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 2012, a* record* for melt in the Arctic.


 
A *30 year* record.
*Not enough data* to indicate long term trends


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> There is hundreds of years of observational evidence of the extent of Arctic ice. It comes straight from the collective observations of the people who have lived there on the ice for hundreds of years. Oral tradition and history cannot and shall not be discounted as valid observational evidence.
> 
> .


according to ORAL tradition & history there are/were werewolves, vampires, trolls, frost giants, and dragons
also according to ORAL history and tradition there was a race of giants living on the plains of north america, the crow had horses hundreds of years before colombus landed and a bearded white man brought culture to central america.
and again according to ORAL tradition & history the Irish wolfhound is an ancient breed of wolf killer, the word cur referring to dogs comes from curtail-to shorten the tail, and pit bull dogs have a locking mechanism in their jaw.
want to guess which of these sentances has actual evidence to back up the assertions?
here is what we KNOW about the extent of arctic ice beyond the 30 years of sattelite;
in 986 AD the vikings settled in greenland and the climate was warm enough to grow TREES and cereal grain (barley in particular) and the sea mammal & ice dependant proto-innuit (thule) didn't show up until the 1300s (which is when they arrived in NORTHWEST greenland). what we can deduce from this is that WARM ocean currents went farther north than now and the ice was insufficient to prevent it from giving greenland a climate in which large scale agriculture was possible. and the southern viking settlements had OPEN WATER even in winter.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> according to ORAL tradition & history there are/were werewolves, vampires, trolls, frost giants, and dragons
> also according to ORAL history and tradition there was a race of giants living on the plains of north america, the crow had horses hundreds of years before colombus landed and a bearded white man brought culture to central america.
> and again according to ORAL tradition & history the Irish wolfhound is an ancient breed of wolf killer, the word cur referring to dogs comes from curtail-to shorten the tail, and pit bull dogs have a locking mechanism in their jaw.
> want to guess which of these sentances has actual evidence to back up the assertions?
> ...


You have only mentioned the _Medieval Warm Period_ that prevailed for 300 years and then ended 700 years ago. What of it? We all know there was a Medieval Warm Period but how is that relevant to the prevalent conditions of the intervening 700 years between then and now? Are you saying the past 700 years of Arctic freeze and the history and lifestyle of the people who've lived on the ice for the past 700 years are irrelevant and of no consequence simply because there was a warm period prior to 700 years ago? Sorry, I'm just not seeing whatever point it was _you_ were trying to make about the distant past of 1,000 to 700 years ago and what the connection is to the Arctic ice melting now. 

The only connection I can see between the warm period 700 years ago and the warming period now is that Arctic is warming again and the ice that covers the Arctic ocean is melting and it's not renewing itself during winters. 

The ice loss this summer is still a record for the past 700 years because we do know that there has never been so little ice on the Arctic during the past 700 years as there is now. Whatever happened more than 700 years ago and the way it effected societies back then is not important and has no bearing on the here and now.

I really wish people would stop living in the past and repeatedly throwing it up and swallowing it again like regurgitated pap as if they think it's important and wholesome now. It's really old and boring and has absolutely no relevance to the fact that the Arctic ice is melting again in the 21st century.

.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

naturelover said:


> no relevance to the fact that the Arctic ice is melting again in the 21st century.


It sure is relevant, cause it has melted, it has frozen and melted again many times over the earths history. So? It is melting some again now, big deal. The other side of the earth the ice IS Gaining. THAT also is relevant. There might be some climate change going on, but the biggest thing is MAN HAS NOT been causing it. Period. Man can NOT stop it if it really is changing, and MAN can NOT slow it down if it is happening now.
But then the Earth is ALWAYS in a state of change. That is also a FACT.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

naturelover said:


> The ice loss this summer is still a record for the past 700 years because we do know that there has never been so little ice on the Arctic during the past 700 years as there is now. Whatever happened more than 700 years ago and the way it effected societies back then is not important and has no bearing on the here and now.


So what?



> repeatedly throwing it up and swallowing it again like regurgitated pap as if they think it's important and wholesome now.


 I think this statement applies more to the alarmist than the realists.

"O"


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> You have only mentioned the _Medieval Warm Period_ that prevailed for 300 years and then ended 700 years ago. What of it? We all know there was a Medieval Warm Period but how is that relevant to the prevalent conditions of the intervening 700 years between then and now? Are you saying the past 700 years of Arctic freeze and the history and lifestyle of the people who've lived on the ice for the past 700 years are irrelevant and of no consequence simply because there was a warm period prior to 700 years ago? Sorry, I'm just not seeing whatever point it was _you_ were trying to make about the distant past of 1,000 to 700 years ago and what the connection is to the Arctic ice melting now.
> 
> The only connection I can see between the warm period 700 years ago and the warming period now is that Arctic is warming again and the ice that covers the Arctic ocean is melting and it's not renewing itself during winters.
> 
> ...


We do not know what the extent of ice was in the Arctic for the last 700 years. As has been pointed out, humans are not very good at passing down scientific data in the way of oral histories. People have very short memories.

The Medieval Warm Period may or may not have happened the way "they" think it has. Heck, a few years ago, many climate scientists were vehemently denying the existence of it until others basically forced them to admit it. 

Proxy records are unreliable. The science behind them is often questionable. Many assumptions have to be made and those assumptions are major ones. 

We do not know enough to make the wildly dramatic claims that are made.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> The ice loss this summer is still a record for the past 700 years because we do know that there has never been so little ice on the Arctic during the past 700 years as there is now. Whatever happened more than 700 years ago and the way it effected societies back then is not important and has no bearing on the here and now.
> 
> I really wish people would stop living in the past and repeatedly throwing it up and swallowing it again like regurgitated pap as if they think it's important and wholesome now. It's really old and boring and has absolutely no relevance to the fact that the Arctic ice is melting again in the 21st century.
> 
> .


You can't have it both ways. If you want to "stop living in the past" then you need to forget about all those vague and inaccurate historical accounts upon which you are basing your "knowledge" of ice extent for 700 years.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> That's your science??? A blog????


You are engaging the logical fallacy of 'attacking the messenger'.

IF you have any evidence that the source is inaccurate, bring it forward.

And, btw, it isn't a "blog".


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Do we want to prove a previously held belief? Or see what the science ACTUALLY shows??? The skeptical science link above doesnt have the up to date data. (as per usual) 

According to our ICEsat data, we are gaining LAND ICE slowly, they even claim this is because of warming by the way. This is the most intricate accounting of land ice levels to date, or was meant to be at any rate. This paper was done in part by a guy who once claimed all seaice would be gone by 2012 by the way. 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

This is a recent study on the seaice there that was meant to see if the reality matched with the computer models. It didnt. 

Elephant seals help uncover slower-than-expected Antarctic melting

none of this speaks to whether or not co2 drives climate though of course. 

Heck anarctica was semi tropical 52 million years ago. Im much more concerned as to why we now have a glacial cycle where the iceages are trending towards being longer, and the interglacial periods seem to be getting cooler (we would have to raise our temps a few degrees to match the last interglacial period) and shorter. the glacial periods last much longer already. 

Im much more concerned about our oceans issues, and desertification. Both of which will hit us in the face well before AGW even if it were real.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> according to ORAL tradition & history there are/were werewolves, vampires, trolls, frost giants, and dragons
> also according to ORAL history and tradition there was a race of giants living on the plains of north america, the crow had horses hundreds of years before colombus landed and a bearded white man brought culture to central america.
> and again according to ORAL tradition & history the Irish wolfhound is an ancient breed of wolf killer, the word cur referring to dogs comes from curtail-to shorten the tail, and pit bull dogs have a locking mechanism in their jaw.
> want to guess which of these sentances has actual evidence to back up the assertions?
> ...


Don't forget the oral tradition that the Earth is flat.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I guess man was responsible for the iceage too.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> According to our ICEsat data, we are gaining LAND ICE slowly, they even claim this is because of warming by the way.



Yup, because of the warming temps, the air can hold enough humidity to have precipitation.....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> none of this speaks to whether or not co2 drives climate though of course.
> ....


Of course that could be a discussion point. But then, that would make the skeptic / those who deny the science followers look even less informed or intelligent......

"97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
Expert credibility in climate change


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Climate change and global warming got a black eye when it became obvious that it was being used politically by a few elitists who stood to make a great deal of money.

As I asked in the other thread, why has Al Gore become silent on the topic since the collapse of the CCX?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Of course that could be a discussion point. But then, that would make the skeptic / those who deny the science followers look even less informed or intelligent......


Perhaps some of them, certainly not the ones who have looked at the actual data, instead of the cherry picked datasets used to make the case. Heck based on their numbers several past eras should have been many degrees warmer if their claims about co2s effects were accurate. Instead co2 slowly tracked temps following them with a 800-1900 year lag, never having criven temps over a decade as is claimed it can do today. 

Also the "survey" you posted doesnt impress me. A survey of the most published people in one section of climate science is hardly a meaningful display of much of anything except that people who publish on AGW believe AGW. Im not sure what that is supposed to convince anyone of.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 97&#8211;98% of the climate researchers *most actively publishing *


So you believe the *loudest* and most prolific, while ignoring the ones quietly laughing at them in the corner.

Post that chart* again*


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Show us how you know that....



Txsteader said:


> Climate change and global warming got a black eye when it became obvious that it was being used politically by a few elitists who stood to make a great deal of money.
> 
> As I asked in the other thread, why has Al Gore become silent on the topic since the collapse of the CCX?



Perception of climate change
James Hansena, Makiko Satoa, and Reto Ruedy

"The political divide lay along a line that more generally separated people according to their feelings about authority, individual responsibility, risk-taking and related personal issues. People of an egalitarian bent tended to worry about climate change, along with other environmental dangers; those of an individualistic bent did not. Global warming in particular could become a surrogate for deeply felt disagreements over the value and future of the entire industrial economic system. But viewpoints also depended on national political circumstances and history (in the United Kingdom, Conservatives in the tradition of Margaret Thatcher had criticized the Labor government for doing too little about global warming). Each side found confident endorsement of its views in its favorite media, where exaggerated pronouncements served to attract and retain an audience by conforming to that audience's prejudices."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Each side found confident endorsement of its views in its favorite media,


That about covers it


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Show us the 'laughers'....



Bearfootfarm said:


> So you believe the *loudest* and most prolific, while ignoring the ones quietly laughing at them in the corner.
> 
> Post that chart* again*


btw, the study looked at expertise; note the second part of their findings ".. the* relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.*""

Your 'laughers' are the group in the back who are still, after more than a century of research covering the globe and eons of history, trying to prove that 2+2 don't equal 4.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That about covers it


"media"

I'm talking about the science. Which I again, yet again, point out your lot hasn't been able to bring forward in any substantive amount.

Of course you do have to deal with those who are still not understanding CO2's role in this...... those who attempt to use a newspaper article as 'proof', those who don't read the science..., those who think it is a political conspiracy.....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

"They looked at expertise"... ??? They based expertise 100% on how much each person published. It doesnt mean that much. Again still out of only one section of climate science at that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your 'laughers' are the group in the back who are still, after more than a century of research covering the globe and eons of history, *trying to prove that 2+2 don't equal 4.*


Actually you're saying it is 4, but it wasn't 4 when all this "climate change" happened NATURALLY.

You keep focusing on a *minute time span* and basing all conclusions on your preconcieved notions



> I'm talking about *the science*. Which I again, yet again, point out your lot hasn't been able to bring forward in any substantive amount.


You just ignore it all if it doesn't match YOUR ideas, and parrot your script again.

You really haven't convinced anyone of anything, least of all your superior knowledge of the subject.
It's just the same elitist rambling so many others use

Maybe if you post that chart ONE MORE TIME we can see the light


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually you're saying it is 4, but it wasn't 4 when all this "climate change" happened NATURALLY.
> 
> You keep focusing on a *minute time span* and basing all conclusions on your preconcieved notions
> ....


 &#8220;The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth&#8217;s Climate History&#8221;


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ....
> You really haven't convinced anyone of anything, least of all your superior knowledge of the subject.
> It's just the same elitist rambling so many others use
> 
> Maybe if you post that chart ONE MORE TIME we can see the light



Shouldn't be very hard to link to a compilation of the resources of those who deny the science.

Or link to previous posts where the resources of those who deny the science have be linked to.

Or post the bookmarks of those who deny the science so all of us can see what is used to inform that thinking.


But it is probably a bit harder than attempting personal attacks......


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

roberte said:


> Shouldn't be very hard to link to a compilation of the resources of those who deny the science.
> 
> Or link to previous posts where the resources of those who deny the science have be linked to.
> 
> ...


Why bother? Even media outlets like PBS are under attack for even allowing a skeptic to voice his opinion. 

Might as well call it an impasse and leave it at that.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> âThe Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earthâs Climate Historyâ


That one is funny. 

To keep it simple I will use wikipedia, but you can find the same data from more reliable sources. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic

Notice that co2 levels were 7 times the pre industrial levels. Temps were 3 degrees above current levels. Going by the numbers from such sources as your control knob link and the IPCC, ignoring the much higher water vapor levels and other actually proven climate driver that kept it warmer in that era, and we still have a problem even ignoring other drivers of climate. It should have been dramatically warmer based on the claims of co2s effects. 

Excluding all feedbacks it is often claimed we will have 1 degree of warming per doubling of co2 from pre industrial levels. They of course include many feedbacks including already known to be failed ones in most models. So it should have been 6 degrees warmer in the jurassic era ignoring all other feedbacks, and we know water vapor levels should be much higher in such a world that based on current models should double that co2s warming, so it should have been 12 degrees warmer using only one feedback out of several. So even ignoring all other feedbacks, that means co2s effect couldnt be more then HALF the current claims. Including only water vapor co2s effect couldnt be more then a QUARTER of current claims. 

So if our data about jurassic levels of co2 is accurate, there isnt a chance the AGW stance on co2s effects is accurate.

then we also have the pesky fact co2 changes lagged behind temp changes, not the other way around as some portray. through our entire record. so im not sure exactly what data the control knob idea is based on, but it doesnt seem to fit our data at all.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So, fifteen minutes later....

That was a 55 minute presentation, let us know what is, with your expertise and your opinion, wrong with his data when you've actually watched it.

And bring us the science that, in your expertise and opinion, 'proves' Anthropogenic CO2 isn't the primary driver of what is currently happening.




silverseeds said:


> That one is funny.
> 
> To keep it simple I will use wikipedia, but you can find the same data from more reliable sources.
> 
> ...


Here is Dr. Alley's contact information; http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/ralley/

Make sure to write him and tell him what, with your expertise and opinion, he is wrong about.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> So, fifteen minutes later....
> 
> That was a 55 minute presentation, let us know what is, with your expertise and your opinion, wrong with his data when you've actually watched it.


I watched it when you posted it to another forum. it doesnt differ from the claims of other AGW believers, so Im not sure your point. I know the claims well. 



> And bring us the science that, in your expertise and opinion, 'proves' Anthropogenic CO2 isn't the primary driver of what is currently happening.


I just showed you a snippet of it, which you decided to ignore. If our data on jurassic temps and co2 levels is accurate the control knob theory is drastically over stated at best. Ive played this game with you before though, it gets no where. You dont care about the science or data in the least, only how some folks chop it up. you made that very clear.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Put your "snippet" into the specific context of the science Dr. Alley presented.



silverseeds said:


> I watched it when you posted it to another forum. it doesnt differ from the claims of other AGW believers, so Im not sure your point. I know the claims well.
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed you a snippet of it, which you decided to ignore. If our data on jurassic temps and co2 levels is accurate the control knob theory is drastically over stated at best. Ive played this game with you before though, it gets no where. You dont care about the science or data in the least, only how some folks chop it up. you made that very clear.


IF you have evidence that his story is wrong, bring it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> They of course include many feedbacks including already known to be failed ones in most models.
> ....


Hinging a lot on that claim. Real science writing would include your sources.

So: "known to be failed ones" - Examples and how you 'know' they "failed".

So: "many feedbacks" - Examples. Which ones. Who is using them. Where.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I appreciate having made my case in regards to how you "debate" a topic... The fact remains, if our data about jurassic era co2 and temp levels is accurate there isnt a chance the claims about co2s relationship to temp is accurate. Including no other feedbacks the warming couldnt be more then half the current claims. using only water vapor as a feedback co2s actual effect couldnt be more then 1/4. 

Perhaps you have a different set of numbers for the jurassic era? Or perhaps an explanation as to why co2 didnt cause the claimed warming in that era, that it is now claimed that same co2 would cause??? You cant have it both ways.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Hinging a lot on that claim. Real science writing would include your sources.


In actual reality, I hinged nothing on the claims about feedback loops, as evidenced on the quoted text where I said you could even ignore all other feedbacks, and their claims about co2s effect HAVE to be wrong if jurassic era co2 and temp stats are correct. If we include all claimed feedback loops it would have had to have been 18 degrees warmer in that era instead of 3. 

We could get into the failed feedback loops if youd like to change the subject though. 

Again thanks for verifying what I said about your "debating" style.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You really need to recast those sentences. I've read through them and you are either self-contradicting or making some leaps of logic that involve either big assumptions or something I'm not following.

It certainly wouldn't hurt your case to actually link to what you use to inform your thinking. At this point, it seems that you may be, to use an analogy, arguing about a geometry problem because you are in the triangle chapter and the class is in the rectangle chapter.






silverseeds said:


> In actual reality, I hinged nothing on the claims about feedback loops, as evidenced on the quoted text where I said you could even ignore all other feedbacks, and their claims about co2s effect HAVE to be wrong if jurassic era co2 and temp stats are correct. If we include all claimed feedback loops it would have had to have been 18 degrees warmer in that era instead of 3.
> 
> We could get into the failed feedback loops if youd like to change the subject though.
> 
> Again thanks for verifying what I said about your "debating" style.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Excluding all feedbacks it is often claimed we will have 1 degree of warming per doubling of co2 from pre industrial levels.


No debate on that one. Except "pre industrial levels" really isn't involved. 





silverseeds said:


> They of course include many feedbacks including already known to be failed ones in most models.
> ....


First big set of assumptions with no support.



silverseeds said:


> ....So it should have been 6 degrees warmer in the jurassic era ignoring all other feedbacks, and we know water vapor levels should be much higher in such a world that based on current models should double that co2s warming, so it should have been 12 degrees warmer using only one feedback out of several. So even ignoring all other feedbacks, that means co2s effect couldnt be more then HALF the current claims. Including only water vapor co2s effect couldnt be more then a QUARTER of current claims.
> .....



You've just made a bunch of claims that border of the 'god exists because the bible says so' variety.

Not to mention a set of claims that each one needs a lot of support for.


Let us know when you've unraveled those claims and can show us how you support them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But it is probably a bit harder than attempting *personal attacks*......


There's nothing "personal" about what I've observed
It's just the pattern that has emerged, and continues as expected.

It's an endless cycle of you repeating yourself, and not much more


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You really need to recast those sentences. I've read through them and you are either self-contradicting or making some leaps of logic that involve either big assumptions or something I'm not following.
> 
> It certainly wouldn't hurt your case to actually link to what you use to inform your thinking. At this point, it seems that you may be, to use an analogy, arguing about a geometry problem because you are in the triangle chapter and the class is in the rectangle chapter.


Huh, so two posts since I last checked the thread, and neither ones addresses what I posted. 

Nothing I wrote was self contradicting in the least. If you try to apply the claimed values for co2 to the jurassic era the claims about co2s effects fall apart. Its that simple. You can choose to ignore what the simple stats were from the jurassic era, I dont care. You can ignore the long time claims by AGW folks about co2s effect per amount of higher co2, these are both very basic stats. 

I have no idea what your strange response is even supposed to be referencing.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> No debate on that one. Except "pre industrial levels" really isn't involved.


??? huh? You made a post proclaiming co2 is a control, knob for temps. I gave you a period where we had co2 and temps records for that blow this out of the water. What are you even saying here??



> First big set of assumptions with no support.


You want to change topics already? We never even finished this one. Ignoring ALL feedbacks its still obvious if you weight co2 as is claimed it isnt causing the claimed effects otherwise the jurassic era would have been warmer. Including all the claimed feedbacks would have meant 18 or more degrees in that era. So why do you keep haning up on this, and not trying to offer different numbers for temps or co2 levels for the jurassic era? (or alternatively, you could go with some drastically scaled down versions of co2s effects) otherwise your blowing smoke, as per usual. 





> You've just made a bunch of claims that border of the 'god exists because the bible says so' variety.
> 
> Not to mention a set of claims that each one needs a lot of support for.


Not m fault you cant understand basic math.

So which of my "claims" do you dispute?? Do you dispute jurassic levels of temps and co2? OR do you dispute the weight I gave for co2s effects? You will find both were as I represented them, and they do not match up in the least with some very basic math skills. 




> Let us know when you've unraveled those claims and can show us how you support them.


:bored: And you let me know when you want a real discussion, an not some weird dance such as this.

If you can dispute the stats for temps and co2 levels of the jurassic era, OR the way the AGW mythology weights them feel free. Or you can keep pretending you cant understand what Im writing, or cant do basic math. I dont really care.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Here's the deal: because there are certain people who stand to make massive amounts of money on this issue (universities, scientists, politicians), and it's obvious that certain people are willing to use even defective data if it will help push legislation, I do not trust what's being put out there as being the truth. Which is really a sad thing, because scientists used to be widely respected.....until they figured out how to get their hands in the cookie jar.

So, at this point, no amount of 'science' is going to convince me that 1) it's AGW 2) it's not merely another normal cycle and 3) that changing our behavior is going to have a significant impact any time soon.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> You are engaging the logical fallacy of 'attacking the messenger'.
> 
> IF you have any evidence that the source is inaccurate, bring it forward.
> 
> And, btw, it isn't a "blog".


Um ok, then whatever it is, it's not peer reviewed literature. Bring it. I need to do five critical reviews of articles for a class, might as well tear the best you have to offer apart. give me a link


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> You are engaging the logical fallacy of 'attacking the messenger'.
> 
> IF you have any evidence that the source is inaccurate, bring it forward.
> 
> And, btw, it isn't a "blog".


Not attacking you, just your source. Call it what you want...it's one guy posting his views on things. It's a blog.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Of course that could be a discussion point. But then, that would make the skeptic / those who deny the science followers look even less informed or intelligent......
> 
> "97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
> Expert credibility in climate change


Of course the climate scientists do. Duh. where do you think they get their funding? how much money would they throw at these guys if there was no climate change agenda??? it's all a bunch of bull pucky. Read the papers. bring me one peer reviewed paper that has some scientific weight to it. Just one.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Show us how you know that....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why does this article refer to normal temps as the 1951-1980 average when most literature refers to 1961-1990 or lately, 1971-2000? 1981-2010? Why would a current article use an older "normal"? Is it because the new normal won't work with their argument? Oh wait, they tell us...it's because that time period was most stable...um, yeah. The really means that it works better for them so they are going with that. What crap? Can you not see how they are skewing the data to suit their purposes? Really????

I'm am so tired of reading skewed and misleading climate change papers. Please. Find something worthwhile.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> "media"
> 
> I'm talking about the science. Which I again, yet again, point out your lot hasn't been able to bring forward in any substantive amount.
> 
> Of course you do have to deal with those who are still not understanding CO2's role in this...... those who attempt to use a newspaper article as 'proof', those who don't read the science..., those who think it is a political conspiracy.....


I don't care about politics and I understand CO2 and I don't read newspapers. Show me some good papers???? You keep demanding proof against climate change, but that's not what is needed. What is needed is compelling proof that AGW is real. Despite the claims of climate scientists, it's simply not there. Shakey models, suspect proxies. It's not all they claim...and it is high time they admit it.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Meh. Roberte is a troll. Just trying to stir up trouble and get people to answer his endlessly stupid requests. I'm done playing. Climate change is a joke, Read the papers for yourself and it's apparent. Those who agree with it, haven't bothered reading.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Jena said:


> Why does this article refer to normal temps as the 1951-1980 average when most literature refers to 1961-1990 or lately, 1971-2000? 1981-2010? Why would a current article use an older "normal"? Is it because the new normal won't work with their argument? Oh wait, they tell us...it's because that time period was most stable...um, yeah. The really means that it works better for them so they are going with that. What crap? *Can you not see how they are skewing the data to suit their purposes*? Really????
> 
> I'm am so tired of reading skewed and misleading climate change papers. Please. Find something worthwhile.


no he can't
it's no longer science for him & many others. it is now a religion & they denounce anything that doesn't support their CHOSEN views (heresy anyone) and adhere to anything that does NO MATTER HOW ridiculous it is. which is why he can't comprehend the math, nor is he willing to see the truth that man SIMPLY CANNOT change the world's climate in the manner stated. (sure we could TEMPORARILY w/ some nukes or intentionally burning every square inch of forest & field, but not by the actions in which we are currently engaged and the climate would reset itself pretty quickly maybe a decade at most.) it's the hubris of the religion of science that truly believes mankind can effect sweeping &/or permanent changes to the world. any effort to debate is pointless. it's like trying to argue politics w/ a walrus.
it may simply be a natural cycle as we seem to have warm periods about every thousand years. the midievel one that let the vikings raise cereal grain in greenland & the classical one that let the romans raise mediterranian grapes just south of hadrians wall.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> .... it may simply be *a natural cycle as we seem to have warm periods about every thousand years*. the midievel one that let the vikings raise cereal grain in greenland & the classical one that let the romans raise mediterranian grapes just south of hadrians wall.


This. ^

I think this is the most likely explanation. That *plus* the additional contributions of general human pollution from such a record huge population and resultant human industry is going to contribute to a warming trend. 

Nobody can dispute that we have a record high population, human pollution and industry. 

.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> I don't care about politics and I understand CO2 and I don't read newspapers. Show me some good papers???? You keep demanding proof against climate change, but that's not what is needed. *What is needed is compelling proof that AGW is real*. Despite the claims of climate scientists, it's simply not there. Shakey models, suspect proxies. It's not all they claim...and it is high time they admit it.


My bolding.


Now, tell us exactly what you'd consider "compelling proof".

And for a bit of comparison, 

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere
and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global
climate change of the past 50 years can be explained
without external forcing, and very likely that it is not
due to known natural causes alone.​

And the infamous Radiative Forcing Components chart:









Now, tell us what you think you need as proof.

And tell us why you think you are more accurate in your assessment of the observed changes and observed effects than the thousands of research papers and hundreds and hundreds of scientists with demonstrated expertise.

In other words, give us your best evidence that shows they are wrong and you, in your opinion, are right.


And, of course, if Jena chooses not to respond with substantive evidence, anyone else should feel free to toss in their $.02 worth.

Though with no data, that valuation is quite a bit high.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Still waiting for your numbers and sources.....



silverseeds said:


> In actual reality, I hinged nothing on the claims about feedback loops, as evidenced on the quoted text where I said you could even ignore all other feedbacks, and their claims about co2s effect HAVE to be wrong if jurassic era co2 and temp stats are correct. If we include all claimed feedback loops it would have had to have been 18 degrees warmer in that era instead of 3.
> 
> We could get into the failed feedback loops if youd like to change the subject though.
> 
> Again thanks for verifying what I said about your "debating" style.


We are talking science. Science from those with a high level of demonstrated expertise.

You are claiming a Wikipedia article disproves over a hundred years of research.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I don't see any reason to believe we will act in time to prevent a population correction caused by climate change, overpopulation, and disruptions in our food supply caused by climate change. I pity our kids because things will get very ugly.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

noticed the chart didn't show the relative release of all the same gases from volcanic eruptions. why is that? is it because ONE mt st helens or pinatubo releases more than ten years of anthropogenic sources does?
you keep chanting your mantra, don't worry hale-bopp will be along soon to save you and your followers.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> noticed the chart didn't show the relative release of all the same gases from volcanic eruptions.


It is included in the LLGHG. First item on the chart and documented in the text linked to. Aerosols (short-term) also factored in the chart and text.

Also see:

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

and

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/Seidel_WIRES_Jul2011.pdf

and

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf





Pops2 said:


> why is that? is it because ONE mt st helens or pinatubo releases more than ten years of anthropogenic sources does?


Your numbers are off. Way off. Orders of magnitude off:
Volcanoes 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year
Human - 35 gigatons 

*Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
*
Do the Earth&#8217;s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, &#8220;No.&#8221; Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world&#8217;s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011). 

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. *It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate* of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview






Pops2 said:


> you keep chanting your mantra, don't worry hale-bopp will be along soon to save you and your followers.


..............


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

roberte said:


> It is included in the LLGHG. First item on the chart and documented in the text linked to. Aerosols (short-term) also factored in the chart and text.


so volcanoes are anthropogenic? we cause volcanoes to erupt?
your volcanic numbers would be true if they did not erupt (which pinatubos & st helenses do not happen everyday) but it is fact that the large eruptions that do occur DUMP MASSIVE amounts of green house gases.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> so volcanoes are anthropogenic? we cause volcanoes to erupt?
> your volcanic numbers would be true if they did not erupt (which pinatubos & st helenses do not happen everyday) but it is fact that the large eruptions that do occur DUMP MASSIVE amounts of green house gases.


 And all those under the ocean that have and are continuing to irrupt sure can warm ager, but they never seem to take ANY of that into consideration, or if they do it is done by some cocky mammy charts that have been debunked so many times you think they would have gotten the message by now. Nope to think under those tin foil hats I guess.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> so volcanoes are anthropogenic? we cause volcanoes to erupt?


Sorry, chart doesn't include volcanic aerosols "Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature"




Pops2 said:


> your volcanic numbers would be true if they did not erupt (which pinatubos & st helenses do not happen everyday) but it is fact that the large eruptions that do occur DUMP MASSIVE amounts of green house gases.



But the rest of the data is accurate. Volcanoes are 135 times less Anthropogenic annual contribution.

If you have a source that substantiates your claim, I'd like to see it.


One issue is that much of what is erupted are aerosols that cool. But, as you say, those eruptions are erratic.

And that erratically makes it easy to attribute their effect.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> And all those under the ocean that have and are continuing to irrupt sure can warm ager, but they never seem to take ANY of that into consideration


,

Undersea is accounted for in the resources


Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

and

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/Seidel_WIRES_Jul2011.pdf


*Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
*
Do the Earthâs volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, âNo.â Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the worldâs degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011). 

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. *It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate* of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview






arabian knight said:


> or if they do it is done by some cocky mammy charts that have been debunked so many times you think they would have gotten the message by now. Nope to think under those tin foil hats I guess.


I'd like to see the sources of that 'debunking'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But the rest of the *data is accurate*. Volcanoes are 135 times less Anthropogenic annual contribution


Those are ESTIMATES, done *in the 90's* *predicting amounts in 2010, and *not real "data"
They even admitted they chose numbers based on *personal preference*


> The published *estimates* of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
> 
> The *preferred global estimates of the authors* of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton* projected*anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission* estimates*. *It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate*of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

roberte said:


> ,
> 
> Undersea is accounted for in the resources
> 
> ...


Wasn't the number of underwater volcanoes vastly under reported until recently. Like 20 times....

Get new studies. Yours are OLD!


P.S. That chart is something to behold!


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Still waiting for your numbers and sources.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HILARIOUS!!!! Dodging the obvious it is!!! What fun!! 

I brought up VERY VERY basic points. Have you yet disputed the temp and co2 stats wikipedia gave? No, you did not. They are indeed the accepted numbers. 

Yet if we use the IPCC stance on co2s effect and apply it to the jurassic levels of co2 it SHOULD have been many degrees warmer when you ignore ALL other factors, including other factors it should have been much warmer still. This is VERY BASIC math here. Its also VERY obvious the official stance is dead wrong. 

Do you have an alternative source for temp or co2 levels for the jurassic era? (sorry you wont find such, wikipedia gave the accurate numbers) Or will we get more dancing and calls to authority. 
*
Do you dispute the jurassic era levels for co2 or temps that wikipedia gave?

Do you dispute the way I weighted co2s effect? at 1 degree of warming per doubling of pre industrial co2 levels? (this ignores all other feedbacks loops, the mythology is dependent on many feedbacks loops to reach the scary sound levels. 
*

If you dont dispute either of these of course, then anyone who can do math knows co2s effect is a small fraction at best. Ive tried breaking down the ENTIRE mythology for you on another forum, we couldnt get passed the most very basic of datapoints. Its always fun to see which way you will dance when discussing it with someone who has actually studied it AND looked up source data to see if it matches claims.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Who are you going to trust? Climate scientists or oil companies?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

fishhead said:


> Who are you going to trust? Climate scientists or oil companies?


The actual data versus the claims. I actually studied the topic trying to find the best ways to prove it to others. until I realized the data doesnt even vaguely support the claims. 

Look up the data on the point I brought up here. In the jurassic era co2 levels were 7 times pre industrial levels. According to the claims ignoring ALL other feedback lops, this should have left the world 6 degrees warmer. It was however only 3 degrees warmer, and again this ignores several other factors that would have left even less room for co2 to have had an effect.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

silverseeds said:


> The actual data versus the claims. I actually studied the topic trying to find the best ways to prove it to others. until I realized the data doesnt even vaguely support the claims.
> 
> Look up the data on the point I brought up here. In the jurassic era co2 levels were 7 times pre industrial levels. According to the claims ignoring ALL other feedback lops, this should have left the world 6 degrees warmer. It was however only 3 degrees warmer, and again this ignores several other factors that would have left even less room for co2 to have had an effect.


stop refuting his science w/ real science. you're only confusing him w/ your heresy Galileo.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IF you have data that substantiates your claim.....

And the "20 times" doesn't go very far in the 135 times less effect of volcanoes.

Basically, there still hasn't been brought forward any source of CO2 or cause for warming that isn't accounted for by our profligate burning of fossil fuels.

Any other claims?



stanb999 said:


> Wasn't the number of underwater volcanoes vastly under reported until recently. Like 20 times....
> 
> Get new studies. Yours are OLD!
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those are ESTIMATES, done *in the 90's* *predicting amounts in 2010, and *not real "data"
> They even admitted they chose numbers based on *personal preference*


OK, list all the volcanic eruptions since publication and see IF their predictions are in any significant error.


135 TIMES LESS co2. Orders of magnitude less effect than our profligate burning of fossil fuels.

And that is what you are hanging your hat on.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> HILARIOUS!!!! Dodging the obvious it is!!! What fun!!
> ....
> ... see if it matches claims.


The Jurassic CO2 levels as a talking point for those denying the science is well enough covered at:
Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

Since water vapor is worked into the claims: Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works and Water vapour: feedback or forcing? and Water Vapor is Almost All of the Greenhouse Effect -How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic




Again, by attempting to focus on one small part and not looking beyond the talking points to verify those talking points is poor science.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> The Jurassic CO2 levels as a talking point for those denying the science is well enough covered at:
> Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
> 
> Since water vapor is worked into the claims: Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works and Water vapour: feedback or forcing? and Water Vapor is Almost All of the Greenhouse Effect -How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> roberte said:
> 
> 
> > The Jurassic CO2 levels as a talking point for those denying the science is well enough covered at:
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> silverseeds said:
> 
> 
> > That could indicate a certain level of misunderstanding of the basic science on your part.
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

silverseeds said:


> roberte said:
> 
> 
> > I had better use my better judgement and this point and stop responding to you. Little chance it will make a difference most people on each side couldnt care less what the data shows, only backing their political stance.
> ...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Pops2 said:


> noticed the chart didn't show the relative release of all the same gases from volcanic eruptions. why is that? is it because ONE mt st helens or pinatubo releases more than ten years of anthropogenic sources does?


 Wrong again. Wow, you must not have read the past ten threads on global warming where that 'volcanoes release more CO2 than humans' myth was busted time and time again. It gets trotted out every time, and every time is promptly shot down. Yet it keeps popping back up, with NOTHING behind it except someones willingness to ignore the REAL data.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> That or that human released co2 has magical properties it doesnt have released from other sources.


It is fine if you want to make arguing points out of thin air; we can show the lack of science behind those.

But attempting to frame those false arguments as someone else's claims is intellectually dishonest.

But, then if that is all you've got....... 



silverseeds said:


> Or maybe it signifies if you weight co2 the same way the AGW folks do


The science behind climate sensitivity is sound. You've even based your argument on the established physics.





silverseeds said:


> you must ignore it only tracked temps changes never lead them through our whole record and also the fact the temps do not match up with co2 as if it was the claimed control knob in any of our records some eras sticking out more then others.


Sorry, you've lost me on that sentence.... Unless you are trying to pretend you are working on two different time scales. Time scales that work on orders of magnitude difference.



silverseeds said:


> Funny you question my understanding of the science, right after linking info on a completely different era, as if it answered the issues i raised. You were only off by a few hundred million years.


I'd suggest you go reread the science I linked to. One reason I picked them is they offer a fairly basic description of what is and was going on.

Which helps those following to see the false equivalency your argument relies upon.




silverseeds said:


> I had better use my better judgement and this point and stop responding to you. Little chance it will make a difference most people on each side couldnt care less what the data shows, only backing their political stance.



Easy enough to read the data and see which "political stance" is based on real science.

Have a nice weekend.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

roberte said:


> IF you have data that substantiates your claim.....


Just look at it... The chart is so pretty. Colors "Mostly" red and blue on a white background. Makes me feel very patriotic.

But it's true I have no proof it's "Something to behold!"

Don't you like it?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Who are you going to trust? Climate scientists or oil companies?



Who do you trust? A Virginian or the Chinese? 

[YOUTUBE]4F8CTor-1Oc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> The actual data versus the claims.
> ....


Wonder if we'll ever see what that "actual data...".........

What is being referred to as "the claims" is a century of research and data, btw....


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Here's the deal: because there are certain people who stand to make massive amounts of money on this issue


Like the Koch brothers and people they fund to influence the AGW crowd? Someone asked to name a peer-reviewed paper? How about the recent one, actually funded BY at least one of the Kochs, the Berkeley prof, that concluded that his previously-raised objections (still much cited and believed by the AGW crowd and the basis for their cognitive-dissonance-backed continued rabid postings) are shown by his own data now to be false, or at least unsupported? The study that now has that formerly Koch-funded prof stating that he's been converted to accepting not only global warming is "real" but also primarily HUMAN-CAUSED? You think the normal scientific funding sources will be giving that guy MORE money than the Kochs and their ilk were ready to pump to him? Bwahahahah. 

OK, another from Dr. Jeff Masters' Weather Underground blog:
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low | Weather Underground
Further down in the article which starts with a discussion of the recent arctic ocean cover ice loss is this:


> But Antarctic sea ice is growing!
> It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."
> 
> This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.
> ...


and below a couple graphs


> Commentary: Earth's attic is on fire
> To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Wonder if we'll ever see what that "actual data...".........
> 
> What is being referred to as "the claims" is a century of research and data, btw....


Nope, what is being called "claims" are the stances that dont match up with any of the data unless you ignore much of it. 

Lets see, Ive tried to break apart about 6-7 data points with you. It took several WEEKS. Many hours most of those days. In the end you had trouble remembering the first point by the time we got to the second. Hmmm, should I spend several more weeks digging it up again??? Should I spend multiples more then that to dig deeper when you either couldnt accept or possibly understand it?? hmmm

I already posted a few tidbits just in the last few days. Any other field of "science" would have to account for major data points that dont fit their models. Not agw though!! heck no! Here you can just call it outlier and ignore it! 

Still though, out of all our conversations, the one where you tried to say that the commission for global governance, that wants to be able to override all national sovereignty, set taxes globally, and have a global military isnt global government. Its only global governance, much much different. :hrm:


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> It is fine if you want to make arguing points out of thin air; we can show the lack of science behind those.
> 
> But attempting to frame those false arguments as someone else's claims is intellectually dishonest.
> 
> But, then if that is all you've got.......


Yes, better mis direct instead of use science to dispute what I said. It will work out much better for you.


> The science behind climate sensitivity is sound. You've even based your argument on the established physics.


There isnt a chance it is sound actually, it matches NONE of our records. You can dig through them, or not I dont care. No need for me to spend hours to do it, when I show you instances this is true and you ignore it. Spending mre time to do it, wont change your faith. 





> Sorry, you've lost me on that sentence.... Unless you are trying to pretend you are working on two different time scales. Time scales that work on orders of magnitude difference.


I can see how you didnt understand, it was extremely basic reference to the fact co2 lags after temps not driving them, with a few extreme examples of higher co2 levels never causing what is claimed... in the past it took co2 levels 800-1900 years to catch up to the temps, through an actually proven off gassing effect, but in our era co2 is magic ad can raise temps in decades. Its amazing really. No one has yet tried to explain where it gained these magical properties, but Im sure it will be ironed out soon. 



> I'd suggest you go reread the science I linked to. One reason I picked them is they offer a fairly basic description of what is and was going on.
> 
> Which helps those following to see the false equivalency your argument relies upon.


You posted on a completely DIFFERENT topic from an era several hundred million years different then the one I mentioned. Im not sure how you could call it relevant. If yo read it you know very well it addressed nothing I posted. Oh well.. 




> Easy enough to read the data and see which "political stance" is based on real science.


Yes it is indeed. It certainly isnt the side that must ignore most data to make their claims.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If you think we should be listening to you rather than that century plus of research, show us why.

If you think we should be listening to you rather than the hundreds of scientists with established creditably, then show us why.

Show us your "most data"



You are positing a position that runs counter to thousands of papers, hundreds of scientists. Positions that aren't accepted by anyone with any real demonstrated expertise in the field.

This was a discussion about the science. IF you have any real science, bring what you consider your best resources. Point us to your best data. Point us to the scientists whom you are basing your thinking on. Show us the publications that best informed your thinking.





silverseeds said:


> ....
> it matches NONE of our records.
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> This was a discussion about the science. IF you have any real science, bring what you consider your best resources. Point us to your best data. Point us to the scientists whom you are basing your thinking on. Show us the publications that best informed your thinking.


Funny how I tried to point to one tiny point thus far, it hasnt been refuted with any data, just lots of words. by itself it throws a major monkey wrench into the claims. thus far in response you first ignored it then posted on entirely different topics, then back to ignoring. somehow this is supposed to entice me to spend more hours digging up source data for you? hmmm. 

It is publications that back my thinking as I told you many dozens of times, it is the DATA...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Funny how I tried to point to one tiny point thus far, it hasnt been refuted with any data, just lots of words. by itself it throws a major monkey wrench into the claims. thus far in response you first ignored it then posted on entirely different topics, then back to ignoring. somehow this is supposed to entice me to spend more hours digging up source data for you? hmmm.
> 
> It is publications that back my thinking as I told you many dozens of times, it is the DATA...



I think you are talking about linking to a Wikipedia article without citing any of the data.

And attempting to claim the information in the presentation by Dr. Alley was somehow inaccurate by some - well, to be honest - convoluted text that you were unwilling to bring the data and science needed to unpack it with. 

Now why you have chosen to go down this road rather than simply showing us your data, your best resources, is quite beyond me.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Ahh I see, so you have data showing the jurassic data from wikipedia was incorrect? (you just forget to post it) Of course you dont, but hey you can pretend you made a point!! Politically biased people will never know the difference!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IF you can take the data that Wikipedia cites and show us how that puts Dr. Alley's information into question, then you'd have a discussion point.

But you did some magic arm waving and claims without walking through how you got to the conclusion.



silverseeds said:


> Ahh I see, so you have data showing the jurassic data from wikipedia was incorrect? (you just forget to post it) Of course you dont, but hey you can pretend you made a point!! Politically biased people will never know the difference!


I've got compost to put on beds, animals to take care of, winter beds to plant, and a honey-do list to address. I'll check back later to see if you've decided to actually bring forward your best resources.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> IF you can take the data that Wikipedia cites and show us how that puts Dr. Alley's information into question, then you'd have a discussion point.
> 
> But you did some magic arm waving and claims without walking through how you got to the conclusion.
> /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

roberte said:


> *I've got compost to put on beds*


Ah so YOU are not practicing what you preach. Composting. LOL Putting even MORE co2 and other nasties into the AIR~! NICE GOING


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Ah so YOU are not practicing what you preach. Composting. LOL Putting even MORE co2 and other nasties into the AIR~! NICE GOING


Actually in combination with a few other things he might be trapping more carbon then he is releasing. 

In fact if people who are worried about AGW really cared about the environment they would REALLY be pushing this point. Because the same changes to the way we grow food would leave the deadspots in our oceans a much smaller issue, they would account for up to 40% of humanities co2 output (and much of what is left is already taken up by natural sinks, and biochar in addition to wise soil management could help as well, a few other similar things) 

This would also give us a more adaptable food system, look at this years drought, organic farms fared much better according to what Im reading. 

This type of farming also helps with desertification. Both desertification and our oceans issues far outweigh AGWs potential damage, but ignoring that, the same changes to how we grow food can have very direct benefits to our tow real enviro threats and our imo made up one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> organic farms fared much better *according to what Im reading*


No doubt written by ORGANIC farmers.
The TRUTH is it's NO BETTER than anything else, as proven by many studies


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No doubt written by ORGANIC farmers.
> The TRUTH is it's NO BETTER than anything else, as proven by many studies


There were many studies on this seasons crop that isnt even all harvested yet? 

I know the way I do things, there isnt even a comparison. Modern methods simply wouldnt even survive here without massive inputs of water whereas I can irrigate weekly and even biweekly through the driest parts of the season.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

silverseeds said:


> There were many studies on this seasons crop that isnt even all harvested yet?
> 
> I know the way I do things, there isnt even a comparison. Modern methods simply wouldnt even survive here without massive inputs of water whereas I can irrigate weekly and even biweekly through the driest parts of the season.


Oh yes they can as new corn has already been developed that is more draught resistant then before. Your crops are not. And will need to be watered more and more in dry weather and dry climates. Science is already two steps ahead of any organic thinking and even weather changes. LOL


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Oh yes they can as new corn has already been developed that is more draught resistant then before. Your crops are not. And will need to be watered more and more in dry weather and dry climates. Science is already two steps ahead of any organic thinking and even weather changes. LOL


I happen to be a plant breeder. There have not been any major advancements in breeding for drought recently besides mary eubanks work, which happened to be grown organically. You might be thinking of the GM drought corns, but they were simply not impressive. A few percentage points difference. Even older native american varieties beat that. 

Actually as for weather changes, agw or not history shows us if we rely on things staying stagnant we WILL fail given enough time. the most adaptable peoples had varied systems with multiple redundancies. Our modern ag got rid of all of that. Interesting thing is, with modern knowledge and looking at worked best in the past there are some of us building systems that not only out produce, but are much more adaptable. This would be happening faster but many who are interested in this type of thing, have rather whimsical views on it rather then building commercially productive systems.

Heck im growing staple type crops with almost no irrigation, and a bit more breeding it will be zero here in the high desert on land considered non arable. Im also growing a wide range of trees in a manner that needs no irrigation, in a manner vastly out of the realm most orchards operate under. Very promising results so far, and ive only just started for all intents and purposes. much of this I could take commercial all on land considered non arable, the staple type crops would be more the homesteading level due to being manual labor systems. But they definitely work, all because of how water is managed in the soil, and coincidentally carbon as well which is where we got onto this track of thought.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Ah so YOU are not practicing what you preach. Composting. LOL Putting even MORE co2 and other nasties into the AIR~! NICE GOING


 Based on that statement, its obvious you really don't understand much about the carbon cycle.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Modern methods simply wouldnt even survive here without massive inputs of water whereas *I can irrigate weekly and even biweekly* through the driest parts of the season


"Modern methods" work *with irrigation* too
"Organic" has nothing to do with that


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .... in actual reality I correlated claims about co2s effect to past co2 levels with VERY basic math.
> .....


Where, exactly?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Modern methods" work *with irrigation* too
> "Organic" has nothing to do with that


but modern methods in the desert irrigate DAILY. i am shocked to hear of such little irrigation in the area silverseeds is in. the problem w/ modern methods is that it isn't adjustable in a good way. it doesn't use less water in a dry environment (usually it uses more). but A LOT of that goes back to the fact that we've eliminated A LOT of plant & varieties of plants from our agricultural industry.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Where, exactly?


And Im supposed to take you seriously???


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

It would have taken about as much time to link where:



silverseeds said:


> ...I correlated claims about co2s effect to past co2 levels with VERY basic math. ....



as it did to type



silverseeds said:


> And Im supposed to take you seriously???



So - Where, exactly?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

silverseeds said:


> And Im supposed to take you seriously???


i told you a glacier will crush his house & he'll still be chanting his AGW mantra.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> i told you a glacier will crush his house & he'll still be chanting his AGW mantra.


And the GW folks sure don't like that fact that the SUN plays way more into the picture then they even THINK is possible, but facts and TRUE science seem to evade them so.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> And the GW folks sure don't like that fact that the SUN plays way more into the picture then they even THINK is possible, but facts and TRUE science seem to evade them so.


Where is the data and research that shows some support for solar irradiance variations having the observed effects in your claim?


Show us the "TRUE science" .


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And the GW folks sure don't like that fact that the SUN plays way more into the picture then they even THINK is possible, but facts and TRUE science seem to evade them so.


even if GW is occuring, why the presumption that it is a bad thing. what would be so bad about mangoes & pineapples being grown in tennesee or large scale agriculture in greenland? they are simply operating from a paradigm that change is automatically bad and that humanity cannot/will not adapt. further they add the paradigm that all change (which is bad) MUST be the result of human activity. and like a religious fanatic they refuse to consider any alternative to their chosen paradigm.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

roberte said:


> Where is the data and research that shows some support for solar irradiance variations having the observed effects in your claim?
> 
> 
> Show us the "TRUE science" .


blah blah blah


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
> 
> Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayedâif it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
> 
> ...


Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to âcome roaring backâ. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
> 
> *So far there is no sign of any of this happening.*





> Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
> 
> We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call âCycle 24â â which is why last weekâs solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.











I KNOW charts are loved by some. LOL

And then here is a chart showing WORLD temps and how they are going DOWN and sone to be at or lower then 2000 level was. LOL

SCIENTISTS PREDICT COMING ICE AGE!! | Weekly World News


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> ...Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts


from your source:

"With what's happening in current timesâwe've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," 

"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."


The forcings from the variation in solar irradiance is orders of magnitude smaller than the forcings from CO2 and other LLGHG we've been injecting into our atmosphere.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> weeklyworldnews]


Really? That is your best resource?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

roberte said:


> Really? That is your best resource?


who was it said something about attacking the messenger?
and yet your first reaction was to look for something in the article that propped up your beliefs.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Really? That is your best resource?


You keep citing Hansen and the ipcc. Their work has been proven to be wrong, yet you still believe it's the gospel of your religion! Your toooo funny! And the ipcc is YOUR best source? Amazing!

Show us an unbiased source that peer reviewed Hansens work or the work from East Anglia.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> You keep citing Hansen and the ipcc. Their work has been proven to be wrong,...



Give us your best proof.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> who was it said something about attacking the messenger?
> and yet your first reaction was to look for something in the article that propped up your beliefs.


two different sources


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

roberte said:


> two different sources


just pointing out your hypocrisy in attacking the messenger when they disagree w/ your beliefs


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> just pointing out your hypocrisy in attacking the messenger when they disagree w/ your beliefs


Citing, as a best resource, a tabloid newspaper that features 

CONFIRMED: WORLD WILL END OCTOBER 21, 2012
&
JESUS HAD A WIFE: SHE LOOKED LIKE OPRAH
(both, btw, by the same author... Yet another person whose expertise appears to know no bounds...)

when we are talking about the science that is being questioned by 'skeptics' shows the level of the quality of the research being purported by those 'skeptics'.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

A small portion of the research that addresses how natural climate forcings - volcanic activity, solar - have been masked by the rapid rise of Anthropogenic CO2 . 



ARE NATURAL CLIMATE FORCINGS ABLE TO COUNTERACT THE PROJECTED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBALWARMING?


Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century

Influence of human and natural forcing on
European seasonal temperatures



Simple indices of global climate variability and change Part II:
attribution of climate change during the twentieth century

A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature
Spanning 1753 to 2011 

The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in
the Dalton Minimum (1790&#8211;1830): a model study 



If you would like to pursue further, Google Scholar should come up with a couple of thousand more papers on 18th - 21th century climate variation becoming more influenced by the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If you'd like a less technical synthesis of the information; 

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it&#8217;s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.


Anti-global heating claims &#8211; a reasonably thorough debunking

Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to 
Earlier Changes in Earth&#8217;s History?

Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earth&#8217;s history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.

How is Today&#8217;s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth&#8217;s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I do believe this GW to some folks HAVE to be some kind of religious experience. 
They Worship GW like others do their Lord. And No One or Nobody is going to change their minds no matter what.,
No matter what "other" facts are brought up they just poo poo it like it was on the front page of the National Enquirer.
And in most cases THAT is where their data belongs. LOL Sensationalism to the core and at its finest. 
And if there is one thing that people have a compassion for is their religion, and GW warming to some is just that and nothing else matters no matter if the truth was in front of their face. 
There ar some subjects that you just don;t talk about at the family table, One IS religion, another one is politics, and now to some it is their deep unnatural obsession with GW and the lies that have been presented in the name of Their "religion". Even though Nobody has Hard Facts that Man has caused what might be happening naturally they just don't want to HEAR THAT. No way their agenda is to OWN the GW and the agenda to Control the populous. 
Not a healthy course at all.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Interesting that a diatribe on perceiving Climate Science as a "religion" starts with


arabian knight said:


> I do believe...


and ends with a conspiracy theory.....



arabian knight said:


> ....their agenda is to OWN the GW and the agenda to Control the populous.
> Not a healthy course at all.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Of course that could be a discussion point. But then, that would make the skeptic / those who deny the science followers look even less informed or intelligent......
> 
> "97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
> Expert credibility in climate change





silverseeds said:


> Also the "survey" you posted doesnt impress me. A survey of the most published people in one section of climate science is hardly a meaningful display of much of anything except that people who publish on AGW believe AGW. Im not sure what that is supposed to convince anyone of.


apparently the lead author of this silly paper is a student at stanford. 
No Frakking Consensus: Who is William R.L. Anderegg?

I find this very funny myself. In a sad sort of way.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Claiming "student" is a bit of semantics....

From his website:
I am a *Doctoral Candidate* at Stanford University in the Department of Biology and a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology Graduate Fellow.

AWARDS
DATE	AWARD
4/2012	George Melendez Wright Climate Change Fellowship, National Park Service, Declined
3/2011	Excellence in the Academy Award â New Scholar, National Education Association
4/2010	Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF), National Science Foundation (NSF), Declined
4/2010	Office of Science Graduate Fellowship (SCGF), Department of Energy (DOE)
3/2010	Graduate Scholarship, Phi Beta Kappa, Northern California Chapter
3/2009	AAAS/Science Program for Excellence in Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Stanford University
6/2008	Firestone Medal for Excellence in Undergraduate Research: Received for Senior Honors Thesis in Human Biology on riparian avian communities, land-use change, and climate change over time
2/2008	Finalist for the IIE Fulbright Scholarship â United Kingdom
11/2007	Finalist for the Marshall Scholarship
6/2007	Phi Beta Kappa: Junior Induction

William R. L. Anderegg | William R. L. Anderegg

And, of course, we note yet again that since you have no data that supports any finding substantially different than the results of the research, you use a blog that attempts to discredit the author.

And, since you claim to know how science works, then you know that isn't how science works.










silverseeds said:


> apparently the lead author of this silly paper is a student at stanford.
> No Frakking Consensus: Who is William R.L. Anderegg?
> 
> I find this very funny myself. In a sad sort of way.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And after that yet another attempt at sidetracking the discussion, here is a small portion of the research that addresses how natural climate forcings - volcanic activity, solar - have been masked by the rapid rise of Anthropogenic CO2 . 



ARE NATURAL CLIMATE FORCINGS ABLE TO COUNTERACT THE PROJECTED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBALWARMING?


Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century

Influence of human and natural forcing on
European seasonal temperatures



Simple indices of global climate variability and change Part II:
attribution of climate change during the twentieth century

A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature
Spanning 1753 to 2011 

The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in
the Dalton Minimum (1790â1830): a model study 



If you would like to pursue further, Google Scholar should come up with a couple of thousand more papers on 18th - 21th century climate variation becoming more influenced by the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If you'd like a less technical synthesis of the information; 

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when itâs forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.


Anti-global heating claims â a reasonably thorough debunking

Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to 
Earlier Changes in Earthâs History?

Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earthâs history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.

How is Todayâs Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earthâs atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

a student wrote a "paper" that claimed to show expertise of climate science based only on how many papers they wrote. This is false logic. He further only decided to include people of one branch of climatic sciences. Its meaningless. Its funny you see validity to it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Here is the paper that a doctoral candidate wrote. Not his first paper to have met the intellectually rigorous publishing process, btw.

And also note that he is one of four authors. Wonder why the blog poster didn't bother mentioning the 'shortcomings' of the other three....

*Expert credibility in climate change
*William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1
aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S
3G4; cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and
expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists
on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American
public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic
cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A
broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the
distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to
agreeing researchers, and the level of agreementamong top climate
experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets) of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Expert credibility in climate change

( as a side note, how come those who deny the science can't come up with anything that shows the data to be questionable?

I'd suggest that if you really want a reasonable discussion that you try dropping the rhetoric and refrain from copying the semantics off blogs and try bringing some real data to support your claims.

You know, like that list of astrophysicists whom you claim comprise 'almost all '. You know, the list that so far stands at zero since your only effort was a weather forecaster.


You know, like anyone that has attempted to prove Beck was correct in including data that claims a 240gigaton injection of Carbon into our atmosphere in a decade span and the magical disappearance of that same 240 gigatons of Carbon in the same time span.

If there were any serious effort to show Beck was correct, there would be a data filled hypothesis. 

If there were any serious effort to show that the IPCC findings on solar irradiance was incorrect, serious science would have been written up in the past 5 years.

Instead, we get attempts at insults, links to blogs, empty claims.

You claim to know how science works. If so, you know that isn't how science works.






silverseeds said:


> a student wrote a "paper" that claimed to show expertise of climate science based only on how many papers they wrote. This is false logic. He further only decided to include people of one branch of climatic sciences. Its meaningless. Its funny you see validity to it.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> My bolding.
> 
> 
> Now, tell us exactly what you'd consider "compelling proof".
> ...


Again....give me a peer reviewed paper. That is part of IPCC. IPCC in itself is not a peer reviewed paper.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> IF you have data that substantiates your claim.....
> 
> And the "20 times" doesn't go very far in the 135 times less effect of volcanoes.
> 
> ...


Are you saying the only source of CO2 is fossil fuel burning????


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

DryHeat said:


> Like the Koch brothers and people they fund to influence the AGW crowd? Someone asked to name a peer-reviewed paper? How about the recent one,


Give me a like or a citation. I don't know who Koch brothers and all that is. Send me a link to a paper.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Yay! Papers finally. Too bad I have to go to work now. I'll read them later.



roberte said:


> A small portion of the research that addresses how natural climate forcings - volcanic activity, solar - have been masked by the rapid rise of Anthropogenic CO2 .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> Are you saying the only source of CO2 is fossil fuel burning????


 Of course not. But it is one of the largest NEW sources entering the atmosphere. The levels of CO2 have been pretty constant for the past 15 million years, until we started digging up all that buried sunlight and burning it. 
Here is a look at 'recent' atmospheric CO2 levels from the ice core data... Notice the uptick at the end... that is from the burning of fossil fuels. 








dctruenorth.com


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Notice the uptick at the end... *that is from the burning of fossil fuels*.


That's one* THEORY.*

It's not been proven.
That's just the politiclly correct explanation.
Not all the research published is true



> Scientist Who Saw Drowned Polar Bears Reprimanded


Scientist Who Saw Drowned Polar Bears Reprimanded


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's one* THEORY.*
> 
> It's not been proven.
> That's just the politiclly correct explanation.
> ...


 LOL!! Must be one heck of a coincidence... right about the time humans start putting GIGATONS worth of CO2 into the air... the atmospheric levels of CO2 start rising... If you've got a better theory, then let us know!


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Isn't it true, that most (If not all) of that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, at one time, was IN the atmosphere? Fossil fuels are simply trapped hydrocarbons that once 'saw' the light of day, died, and had their carbon sequestered.

From a geological standpoint, there is nothing new under the sun... the earth has been warmer than it is now and also colder. There is nothing humans can do to alter this process... unless someone figures out how to nuke open a supervolcano, and if done, this would send the planet into another mini ice age.

Someone earlier mentioned nothing is going to be done about this issue... True, I doubt if few are willing to sequester their carbon and stop polluting/killing Mother Earth. It will take the four horsemen to 'cure' the AGW problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> LOL!! Must be one heck of a coincidence... right about the time humans start putting GIGATONS worth of CO2 into the air... the atmospheric levels of CO2 start rising... If you've got a better theory, then let us know!


Levels have been higher in the past without human influence.
We don't "create" it .
We just move it around.

And while your chart has pretty colors, all the temp readings older than a couple of hundred years are pretty much GUESSWORK


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Levels have been higher in the past without human influence.
> We don't "create" it .
> We just move it around.


 Yep. Levels of CO2 have been higher, many millions of years ago. And when it was, generally the ocean was a few hundred feet higher, *or* there were continent-wide mountain building episodes which lofted enough aerosols into the air to cool the planet despite the increased greenhouse effect. Yep. Now how does that mean we are not influencing things by bringing CO2 levels back to concentrations not seen in millions of years? 

Look, we all know we are in an interglacial. That much is obvious. And this one is not even the hottest there has been (if you believe the ice core data, if not, better come up with a good reason why).... the fact remains greenhouse gasses influence temperature and climate. And 99 times out of a 100, they move in a DIRECT relationship... when one goes up, the other does. 

*Unless you have some new info that contradicts 100 years of physics, chemistry, and climatology*, I'm going to have to go with the majority of scientists on this one who say we can indeed have a climatological effect by burning 250 million years worth of buried plant life in a 150 years time.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

texican said:


> Someone earlier mentioned nothing is going to be done about this issue... True, I doubt if few are willing to sequester their carbon and stop polluting/killing Mother Earth. It will take the four horsemen to 'cure' the AGW problem.


 I agree with ya there Texican.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

greg273 said:


> Yep. Levels of CO2 have been higher, many millions of years ago.


Actually if we go by DIRECT co2 measurements with methods known to be accurate we had higher co2 levels IN THE 40S. These were values believed valid at the time. It was one guy callendar who first warped this data, to fit what he thought was true. He however never used proof as to why we should ignore the bulk of the data. Several others have since made similar charts for those eras, also never having explained why most of the data should be ignored. 

That is then tied to icecore data. Which we have no way to test the accuracy of. In fact we know there is some level of mixing until some certain amount of ice builds up. Several other possible issues with it as well. No real way to prove or disprove them in a major way any time soon actually. 

We do know the validity of the methods used to collect 10s of thousands direct measurements however. Data almost entirely ignored, without proof beyond vague explanations that basically amount to it wasnt what they expect to see so its ignored. These were NOT anomalous readings however, the same trends were picked up by multiples people in different parts of the planet. 

Lets also keep in mind all those "gigatons" your talking about amount to a fraction of 1% of a difference between carbon sinks and sources over a given timeframe. The natural sinks and sources far far dwarf us. 

In fact there was a time that no one believed humans paltry amounts could even raise atmospheric co2 levels. the case we can is based entirely on the fact levels have consistently risen since the late 50s when modern direct measuring started. Of course if you dont dismiss the early measurements taken with systems known to be accurate then the modern accounting began at the lowest level in our direct measurement records. Also interesting to note, it is not rising faster now then it did as it rose to 400 or so in the 40s if you go by an average of all early measurements without using belief to ignore most of them.

The only other data point used to make this case is c14 levels. Which is BASELESS. The reason? Well other things affect c14 levels. Its claimed that fossil fuels have little to no c14 so burning thm lowers the concentration of c14. c14 stands at something like 1part per trillion. Science demands we ask is other recent changes affect c14? Well we DO have something. All C4 plants will use c14 directly. c4 plants account for something like 3-4 percent of land based plants. Humans have purposely planted large amounts of such plants, corn, sorghum, sugarcane, millet and others. So this indeed can be called into question. 

One other potential thing to note is natural sinks (even as we have continued to destroy some of them!!!) have still accounted for most of our released co2, and strangely if you look at the charts, apparently didnt soak up roughly the same amount of co2 this whole period. What Im getting at is Our outputs of co2 rose AS we ripped up some of the sinks, yet roughly the same amount of co2 was left each year to add to the atmosphere. Amazing coincidence Id say. Sinks shrunk, outputs grew fast yet seemingly consistent levels were added to the atmosphere. And levels rose actually slower then our direct measurements imply for the 40s. 

So without any doubt, with the same data there are other potential conclusions that could be drawn. With no one actually studying these in any depth, if there is truth to any alternative explanation its unlikely to be proven anytime soon. So right now its speculation most will dismiss without understanding. 

Then weve got stuff like this...

A study showing that our atmosphere simply is not holding in the heat it is claimed with the models. Something that is NOt directly proven by the way, its just assumed true since in a vague way our temps matched a small fraction of the claims. 

Welcome to Forbes

which was responded to with this one, claiming to fix in consistencies with data.. (or create them)
New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer | UW Today

Here is the response to that study from the first studies authors. who explain why their work was invalid. They didnt write a formal paper in response since there next set of data with more advanced measurements is set to come out soon. 
Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures Â« Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

So depending on what you take from that we potentially have proof co2 is not causing the effect it is claimed..

Here is another (there are many) recent paper that shows co2 is not a driver in our records. 

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming | Watts Up With That?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I might also point out in regards to our co2 records, leaf stomata data is generally dismissed. Possibly rightfully so. Either way it implies a much more variable co2 history then icecore data does. Id personally say leaf stomata data needs more study to be considered reliable, but known shifts in climate like the younger dryas barely register in icecore data, and are loud and clear in the leaf stomata co2 data. So there is something there imo. I couldnt use data beyond a few things not showing up in a significant way in the icecore data to dismiss it, but then you couldnt use actual proof to verify its accuracy either. Like I said we know multiple ways said data would be altered with a "mixing" effect that hasnt been fully studied itself! Its presumed this could in the least smooth out "short term" peaks and vallies in the data and some believe potentially make the entire dataset worthless. I point this out not to dispute AGW, heck this record doesnt even support AGW anyway, it shows temps driving co2 which is already proven to be true in a literal sense. I point it out only to show that potentially our co2 history is much different then we believe. *Also to say that imo, our modern direct measurements are the most reliable, and the bulk of those have been adjusted without proof to go in line with icecore data we cannot prove is correct. * Im talking actual direct measurements from even nobel level scientists dismissed without proof to fit data we also cannot currently PROVE is accurate. 

I also might point out that since we have proven that co2 tracks temps that when you look at the fact co2 is rising at a consistent rate despite us having altered some of the "sinks", (potentially driving it lower) and our burning of fuels, (potentially driving it higher) SOME of the rise of co2 would be solely because of the temp rise. I point this out because if we do not dismiss the early measurements (atleast without proof) then we had a temp rise in the 40s that drove co2 up to 400ppm, that rose and fell FASTER then the current rise. So we have records indicating co2 can both rise and fall faster then they are rising now over levels they are now, all while we released much less co2 then we do today. with part of the rise today being totally related to temps from a proven effect, that our records taken in a different light imply might even be completely from temps! Because depending on what records you go by parts of the 30s and 40s were as warm or very close as today. With co2 levels slightly higher then today. I WILL agree there might be some data we should dismiss out of the early set of modern measurements, but the high levels of the 40s were measured by many people all over the planet. With methods known to be within 3% accurate. So perhaps they didnt peak as high as it looks like, but dismissing the entire trend of direct co2 levels without PROOF speaks of agenda not science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Unless you have some new info that contradicts 100 years of physics, chemistry, and climatology, I'm going to have to go with the majority of scientists on this one who say we can indeed have a climatological effect by burning 250 million years worth of buried plant life in a 150 years time.




You work that phrase into many posts, but it's just *parroted rhetoric* too, since we would have to burn ALL the fossil fuels that exist to reach that figure.

It's just another example of how things are *repeated without thinking* about what they mean


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You work that phrase into many posts, but it's just parroted rhetoric too, since we would have to burn ALL the fossil fuels that exist to reach that figure.


 Its absolutely true. We are indeed working our way through those '250+ million years worth' of buried hydrocarbons in a few short generations time. Geologically speaking, of course, its burning up pretty quick.
And both you and I know there is no stopping till its gone. We're humans. We burn stuff.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Its absolutely true.
> We are indeed working our way through those *'250+ million years worth'* of buried hydrocarbons in a few short generations time.


PARROTING it once more doesn't mean it's true.

You (or really those you parroted the phrase from) are substituting the AGE of the deposits and implying it's a QUANTITY.

It's a meaningless sound byte, only meant to make things sound dramatic


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> I might also point out in regards to our co2 records, leaf stomata data is generally dismissed. Possibly rightfully so.
> .....


You are right; leaf stomata probably shouldn't count as a reliable source.

You'll note that no one has published anything about stomata and the 240 gigatons of Carbon injected and sucked out of our atmosphere in the 30-50's.

You'll note that no one has published anything about anything and the 240 gigatons of Carbon injected and sucked out of our atmosphere in the 30-50's.

You know, any kind of real proof that Beck used a reliable dataset in putting that upsurge and decline on his graph


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

"but the high levels of the 40s were measured by many people all over the planet."

Look up those studies. There is a reason why, even though Beck supplied his sources, those attempting to claim CO2, Anthropogenic CO2, isn't the primary driver use his data as proof and instead try to claim cosmic rays, sunspots, clouds, undersea volcanoes, increasing snow in the Antarctic, anything but CO2.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

More pesky science....


How Oil Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

The Energy Story - Chapter 8: Fossil Fuels - Coal, Oil and Natural Gas

Fossil fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Carboniferous Period

Carboniferous Period Article, Carboniferous Information, Prehistoric Facts -- National Geographic



Bearfootfarm said:


> PARROTING it once more doesn't mean it's true.
> 
> You (or really those you parroted the phrase from) are substituting the AGE of the deposits and implying it's a QUANTITY.
> 
> It's a meaningless sound byte, only meant to make things sound dramatic



Oh, might want to look up 'coal reserves' and 'petroleum reserves' and get a range of dates that show both to be finite sources.

Especially how we are burning through millions of years of what is essentially stored solar energy in a few centuries.

Millions of years burned up in a a few centuries.


Why do you think it is called the Carboniferous Period?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You are right; leaf stomata probably shouldn't count as a reliable source.
> 
> You'll note that no one has published anything about stomata and the 240 gigatons of Carbon injected and sucked out of our atmosphere in the 30-50's.
> 
> ...


Yet leaf stomata data DOES pick up events NOT present in ice core data. which doesnt speak well of icecores. 

Youll note that noone has published why we should ignore almost all of the early co2 measurements. 

and yes you can dig up the original sources of becks data. Youll have to do that yourself or not. It came from many, not a single source. 



roberte said:


> "but the high levels of the 40s were measured by many people all over the planet."
> 
> Look up those studies. There is a reason why, even though Beck supplied his sources, those attempting to claim CO2, Anthropogenic CO2, isn't the primary driver use his data as proof and instead try to claim cosmic rays, sunspots, clouds, undersea volcanoes, increasing snow in the Antarctic, anything but CO2.


You would have to direct me to said studies. Ive found no explanation for why the bulk of the early direct measurements have been ignored. Im talking actual proof, not vague explanations. 

By the way, this being correct or not doesnt prove or disprove AGW, although it would take a hit to the side a bit. Neither co2 record supports the idea co2 drives climate. That was proven solely in a lab and verified with models the researchers themselves set parameters to, with no real world proof of it being true, and nothing in our records to make us believe it. Co2 would track with temps whether or not it is driving them because of PROVEN outgassing. In ALL records co2 follows not leads temp changes. 

I will again point to this.... If accurate this is a real world measurement showing it simply isnt happening even close to the degree claimed.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

this was a response study.

New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer | UW Today

to which the authors of the first study responded with...
Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures Â« Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

They are about to release the next set of data. having apparently fixed the discrepancy int heir data rather then needing to adjust it. 

If accurate this by itself puts AGW to the ropes.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Is it churlish of me to note that one of the authors of that paper is listed as a "graduate student"

Just pointing that out since that was your argument against the paper that showed 98% agreement amongst scientists with expertise and the the IPCC findings that our burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.

Actually, "graduate student" could even be a 21 yr old starting work on a Masters, not even a Doctoral Candidate.......


Might also need to be reminded that this is the SECOND time the data from Christy/Alabama hasn't met close scrutiny. The first time he agreed that the data was inaccurate....

Odd, that. He's a denier and his data was found to be inaccurate in favor of his opinion.......






silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> which was responded to with this one, claiming to fix in consistencies with data.. (or create them)
> New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer | UW Today
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Yet leaf stomata data DOES pick up events NOT present in ice core data. which doesnt speak well of icecores.
> ....


I'd like you to show us how you 'know' that. 


As in what book, what database of data, what papers address this.

But I think the response is going to be (pick one or as many...)

1-'too busy to do your homework'

2- I did already, but I'm too busy to point to where'

3-it's hidden in an agenda driven conspriacy

4-go read a biology book

5- Can't be CO2 because that would be too inconvenient for me

6-maybe if we're lucky you'll come up with a new excuse to avoid supporting your claims


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Is it churlish of me to note that one of the authors of that paper is listed as a "graduate student"
> 
> Just pointing that out since that was your argument against the paper that showed 98% agreement amongst scientists with expertise and the the IPCC findings that our burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.
> 
> Actually, "graduate student" could even be a 21 yr old starting work on a Masters, not even a Doctoral Candidate.......


You might want to go back a reread. I never once used the fact that papers lead author was a college students an argument against it. I merely pointed that out as an explanation as to why his paper was so terribly flawed. In no way does it tell us what the bulk of climate scientists actually believe as it is portrayed. 



> Might also need to be reminded that this is the SECOND time the data from Christy/Alabama hasn't met close scrutiny. The first time he agreed that the data was inaccurate....
> 
> Odd, that. He's a denier and his data was found to be inaccurate in favor of his opinion.......


Which is why I didnt straight out say that this was proof, rather Im waiting for the facts to surface. And frankly I read the paper supposedly shooting holes in this one, it seemed very weak actually. The explanation from the original authors more then accounting for the claims of the seconds study. time will tell. 

and by the way, claims of the faithful to AGW are disproven all the time as well. Ive pointed to several there are many others. heck even as blatant as the IPCC citing activist groups a few dozen times as if it was science.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .....
> 
> If accurate this by itself puts AGW to the ropes.


Wow, a paper written by a "graduate student" is your proof?

A single paper about a problem with one measurement is going to rewrite a century plus of research?


I think the image you might be looking for is the denier cat's claws caught on the highwire rope, hanging, hanging on to any scrap of hope.

Or maybe something more akin to 'clutching at straws'.....




Oh, funny thing. Look up all the data on the 30's-50's CO2 levels.

See which ones agree and how closely.

Look at what sticks out, to use yet another simile, like a sore thumb.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> I'd like you to show us how you 'know' that.
> 
> 
> As in what book, what database of data, what papers address this.
> ...


 you crack me up. constantly you write nonsense like this and appear to believe your making a point. 

I will play your game though. I find it hilarious. Look it up, or not I couldnt care less.

We have several stomata records. None complete last I looked, they cover various periods. One thing is certain in them though, they imply a much more variable co2 history then the icecores do. My take on them after having looked through them, is that there is indeed something to them, but that they cant be taken as solid numbers, rather trends. The measured effect is real, however trees can be rather variable, and rarely do we get a truly wide selection of trees to make such a data base. 

the method is continually being looked into though, and its believed by some it will become more accurate for specific species as time goes on. We are finding some species this doesnt work at all.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> and by the way, claims of the faithful to AGW are disproven all the time as well. Ive pointed to several there are many others. heck even as blatant as the IPCC citing activist groups a few dozen times as if it was science.


I think you've tried a few, most don't stick.

And none materially affect the final findings.


BTW, What are the astrophysicists' numbers that disagree with the IPCC numbers?

BTW, What are the names of 'almost all the astrophysicists who disagree with the IPCC numbers'

BTW, Who as come up with any support for Beck's magical 240 gigaton surge up and down?

When are you going to show us a glacier that isn't melting?

When are you going to prove it isn't Anthropogenic CO2 but some undersea volcanoes burping?

Or whatever the recycled claim of the day from those attempting to deny the science....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> you crack me up. constantly you write nonsense like this and appear to believe your making a point.
> 
> I will play your game though. I find it hilarious. Look it up, or not I couldnt care less.
> 
> ...


Ahh, I see. We have yet another area of expertise.

And we know you're the expert on these because Ipse Dixit.


Sources for these studies?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Wow, a paper written by a "graduate student" is your proof?
> 
> A single paper about a problem with one measurement is going to rewrite a century plus of research?


you might want to look at what the paper is about actually. Its a literal realworld measure of whether or not the greenhouse effect is trapping the claimed heat. It wouldnt be re writing a century of research either. It would simply foster a different interpretation of the same data. We simply have no proof in our records that co2 lead a climate shift, while also having proof as to why it tracks them. The idea co2 traps heat at these levels has been proven in a lab alone, this is a real world measurement of whether it is happening directly. 




> I think the image you might be looking for is the denier cat's claws caught on the highwire rope, hanging, hanging on to any scrap of hope.
> 
> Or maybe something more akin to 'clutching at straws'.....


ok. If you say so, yet if we measure how much energy is being trapped in the atmosphere and it isnt matching the claims there is a problem. this isnt exactly grasping at straws, this is the entire enchilada. 




> Oh, funny thing. Look up all the data on the 30's-50's CO2 levels.
> 
> See which ones agree and how closely.
> 
> Look at what sticks out, to use yet another simile, like a sore thumb.


I have. Ive also poured through modern data. there is nearly the same variance. with a larger variance expected for the older data, given its 3% margin of error.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Ahh, I see. We have yet another area of expertise.
> 
> And we know you're the expert on these because Ipse Dixit.
> 
> ...


seriously hilarious! Who said I had expertise?? I have simply looked at those datasets is all. Some of them anyway. I couldnt care less if you believe me. In fact as best I can tell everyone already made up their minds no matter what the data shows. Some refuse to believe the same data could imply vastly different things. Some dismiss it all without ever trying to understand any of it. and lots of in betweens. 

There have been a higher number of things I asked you to cite, that Ive yet to get a response for. Yet to you if I say something on an internet forum I expect people to believe me just because I said it. Of course Im intelligent enough to know, no one cares what I say. at best I could initiate someone to study on their own.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .......
> 
> I have. Ive also poured through modern data. there is nearly the same variance. with a larger variance expected for the older data, given its 3% margin of error.


Where are you seeing this "3%"? 

Not that there are not issues with the rest of that post, but this point should be pretty easy for you to show us where you got your information.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Odd, that's the same argument you use for Beck's non-selective use of spurious data......



silverseeds said:


> seriously hilarious! Who said I had expertise?? I have simply looked at those datasets is all.
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Should be easy enough to link to where you think that happened.....




silverseeds said:


> ....There have been a higher number of things I asked you to cite, that Ive yet to get a response for.
> .....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> ok. If you say so, yet if we measure how much energy is being trapped in the atmosphere and it isnt matching the claims there is a problem. this isnt exactly grasping at straws, this is the entire enchilada.
> ....



"...measure how much energy is being trapped.."

"...it isnt matching the claims..."


Source?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Where are you seeing this "3%"?
> 
> Not that there are not issues with the rest of that post, but this point should be pretty easy for you to show us where you got your information.


I actually got that from a link you posted on the other forum we "debated" this on. In fact, I wasnt even bothering to mention the fact co2 might have been higher in the recent past, until you had linked something making the case that the AGW theory had been worked on for over 100 years. It explained the early ways we measured, and then I pointed out it was funny that you claim thiese methods are accurate when the AGW folks ignore our early data taken by these methods. (counter to your claim I tried to use this to prove AGW wrong) 

At that point you demanded I cite this. I told you I didnt care if you believed it and that you could look it up yourself or not. It went back and forth like that for awhile with you pretending you were making a point, then finally I decided to spend a few minutes on it. that is the first I had heard of beck and his charts. I posted those being much easier then digging up the original sources. 

so anyway, you already have or had a link showing this. It was a neat site actually. honestly I couldnt care less what you believe.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Then it should be no problem to source your claim.

Or claims.


Don't bother rushing, I'll check back later.

Time to do the first steps toward Duck Confit.



silverseeds said:


> I actually got that from a link you posted
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Odd, that's the same argument you use for Beck's non-selective use of spurious data......


An entire decades data is "spurious". hilarious! You claimed in five seconds you could prove why we ignored most of the direct measurements, but have yet to do so. Oh well. 



roberte said:


> Should be easy enough to link to where you think that happened.....


yeah I could spend the day citing our own discussion back to us. Doesnt sound fun. 


roberte said:


> "...measure how much energy is being trapped.."
> 
> "...it isnt matching the claims..."
> 
> ...


my source was the study we were talking about. I truly have to ask, is this question a joke?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Then it should be no problem to source your claim.
> 
> Or claims.


Are you making the case the methods used up until the late 50s were less accurate then within 3%? 

i cant figure why you think this is something to debate? i posted many interesting links with topics we could discuss, and you want to talk about this? whats the goal??


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I am having a great deal of difficulty believing you think a single paper, a paper that you're not even citing beyond the press release, disproves over a century of research.....

I was kinda hoping you'd have a second paper. That would double your number of sources......



IPCC's 4th has been out since 2007, the first part of the 5th is due out in a year.

The fourth has pages and pages of citations to the original research. More than the third, which has more than the second, which has more than the first.

What do you think the fifth will have? Hint, look at the body of research in the journals published since 2007.

And you bring up a single paper that shows yet another correction to the data UA as been putting out as proof that CO2 isn't the primary driver of our current climate.....


Think about it, take your time, I'll check back later.

Off to go do the first steps toward Duck Confit.

Have fun trying to find some straws to clutch at.



silverseeds said:


> An entire decades data is "spurious". hilarious! You claimed in five seconds you could prove why we ignored most of the direct measurements, but have yet to do so. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> I am having a great deal of difficulty believing you think a single paper, a paper that you're not even citing beyond the press release, disproves over a century of research.....
> 
> I was kinda hoping you'd have a second paper. That would double your number of sources......


Why would you have a hard time believing that I believe the paper might turn out to be accurate when I believe the rest of the data implies the same thing??? That doesnt make any sense at all. 

by the way my link had a link to the actual study. 

You realize science is 100% based on being able to replicate data right???
New Paper &#8220;On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth
That is the press release from this study. 


> Huntsvilleâs Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.
> 
> âThe satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,â





> âAt the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,â Spencer said.
> 
> This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.



So yes this study is indeed important. this is a test of the entire claim. We do however as I pointed out have a study claiming to find flaws in their work, however if you look at the response from the first studies authors they show the errors based on mis understanding the nature of the data of the second studies authors. 

This is literally make it or break it for AGW if anything ever was. either the heat is trapped as claimed, or it is not. They have new data coming out soon, we will see what happens. 


> IPCC's 4th has been out since 2007, the first part of the 5th is due out in a year.
> 
> The fourth has pages and pages of citations to the original research. More than the third, which has more than the second, which has more than the first.
> 
> What do you think the fifth will have? Hint, look at the body of research in the journals published since 2007.


Is your question what it WILL include, or what it SHOULD? the two are vastly different. 

The 4th you speak of also relies on cherry picking the data, and citations from activist groups as if it was science. It excludes various aspects as well. doesnt matter if I convinced yo ot not, it will remain true. 

Here is two such examples of downplayed variables.. heat island effect of cities is downplayed by the IPCC, and land use changes

Urban warming in Japanese cities and its relation to climate change monitoring - Fujibe - 2010 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
a group in china believe it accounts for up to 44% of temp changes.
New paper: UHI, alive and well in China | Watts Up With That?
then we have land use. A brazillian study showed vastly different temps associated with land use. this is something the IPCC nearly dismisses. Yet appears to be able to have a strong effect. 

New paper: UHI, alive and well in China | Watts Up With That?



> And you bring up a single paper that shows yet another correction to the data UA as been putting out as proof that CO2 isn't the primary driver of our current climate.....



Im not even sure what your saying here?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ...
> 
> So yes this study is indeed important. this is a test of the entire claim.
> ....


Actually, no it isn't. Read your own link, it is examining a small portion of one aspect.

But it is quite normal for those trying to deny the science to take a single piece that fits their pre-conceived opinion and attempt to claim it covers far more.

Also, quite normal for that contingent is to grab hold of any newly written paper and make claims that don't fit. Just to get it out there and repeated.

And that it upsets the apple cart full of thousands of papers.

You claim to know how science works. You know that that isn't how science works.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I wonder if we'll ever see the examples of the 'excluded aspects'..... You know, like actually attempt to support your claims.

Unless, of course, the Beck paper........



silverseeds said:


> .... It excludes various aspects as well. doesnt matter if I convinced yo ot not, it will remain true.
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Actually, no it isn't. Read your own link, it is examining a small portion of one aspect.
> 
> .


Yes one small aspect... like if it is even happening. You can reread it or not I dont care. 


> But it is quite normal for those trying to deny the science to take a single piece that fits their pre-conceived opinion and attempt to claim it covers far more.


How did I do that exactly? I of course didnt, I said the same thing the studies authors said, heck I quoted them saying it. 



> Also, quite normal for that contingent is to grab hold of any newly written paper and make claims that don't fit. Just to get it out there and repeated.


What didnt fit about what the studies own authors said?? 


> And that it upsets the apple cart full of thousands of papers.


Whoa, now AGW has 1000s of papers??? actually almost all of those simply assume its true. In fact there isnt a single shred in our entire records to indicate co2 drives temps. This is based entirely on this being proven in a lab. But things that work in labs dont always do so in the real world. This is the FIRST real world measurement testing if its even happening. It appears it is not. 



> You claim to know how science works. You know that that isn't how science works


Actually this is EXACTLY how science works. You must verify claims in repeatable ways. Interesting to see how you react to this though! someone who values science no matter their opinion Id have thought would be intrigued, but you shoot it down as heresy and try to claim it implies something it does not without telling anyone what exactly you think it actually tested. 




roberte said:


> I wonder if we'll ever see the examples of the 'excluded aspects'..... You know, like actually attempt to support your claims.
> 
> Unless, of course, the Beck paper........


Youve already gotten several to ignore including directly after the quoted text... 

Lets try another..

This study covered 7000 years. In the particular area studied weather is calmer when its warmer and more chaotic when it is cooler over the time period in question. take it as you will. 

CO2 Science


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh...





silverseeds said:


> ....
> In fact there isnt a single shred in our entire records to indicate co2 drives temps.
> .....


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Of course not. But it is one of the largest NEW sources entering the atmosphere. The levels of CO2 have been pretty constant for the past 15 million years, until we started digging up all that buried sunlight and burning it.
> Here is a look at 'recent' atmospheric CO2 levels from the ice core data... Notice the uptick at the end... that is from the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> ...


We do not know what the CO2 levels have been for last 100 years, let alone millions. There have been *estimates* created from proxy records but those estimates are far from certain, yet climate changers like to say things like "CO2 levels have been constant for the past 15 million years". BTW, when did the *estimates for paleo CO2 grow to 15 million years? Ice cores don't go that far, tree rings don't go that far...or are we talking about isotope studies of ocean sediments??? 

The assumptions and jumps of logic that go into these climate reconstructions are fantastic. Many scientists see the problems with them but they think along the lines of, "It's ok if they aren't very accurate because it is adding to the whole of science". That's a fine way to look at things except these things are being used to force policy that will affect every man woman and child on the planet. That requires a more vigorous assessment of the data quality and as far as I am concerned, proxy records don't meet the mark.

And please....quit with the "buried sunshine". The people here are not stupid and not small children who need some kind of characterization of what hydrocarbons are.*


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> A
> ARE NATURAL CLIMATE FORCINGS ABLE TO COUNTERACT THE PROJECTED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBALWARMING?


All these papers are about climate models. Climate models are inaccurate. Everyone knows this, including the modelers, yet the media, blogs and changers do not clearly state this. Headlines declare stuff like "Irreversible warming will cause sea levels to rise for thousands of years to come, new research shows". http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121001191531.htm

The cult of change has been built on a straw house of modeling, proxy records and remote sensing. None of these methods are proven or reliable. There is NO model that can accurately predict the climate, or even the weather. There are no verifiable proxy records. I don't know so much about remote sensing, but if it was working so well, then it would be incorporated into working models, which it isn't, so I will assume it's about as reliable as the rest of this junk.

It is all well and good that modelers continue to model and try to get it right. It's all well and good that proxy hunters continue to try to find new ways to tease reliable climate signal from whatever they can think of that might harbor that data. It's all well and good that satellites keep sending us data to analyze. 

All these things are adding to our collective knowledge about our climate, but *NONE* of them are accurate or precise enough to warrant the hype and hysteria spouted by climate changers. Climate science is nothing but smoke and mirrors, assumption after assumption used on data that is manipulated to fit the model. How can you manipulate the data to make the model work better, then claim that the model works???? 

If the model doesn't work with accurate data, then you need a better model, not "corrected" data! How hard is that to understand???? Apparently climate scientists are too dense to figure that one out because they just keep changing the data, making assumptions for the sake of the model, then pushing headlines that state their shakey conclusions as fact.

The thing that irks me the most is the harm these people are doing to science and scientists. They are irrepairably hurting the reputation of all science!! These stupid, hype-creating, blow-hards are screaming WOLF! constantly and deafeningly and it's gonna backfire. It's gonna backfire in a very big way...heck, it already has.

I resent that. I take it personally. Above all else, a scientist needs to be honest about their science. Good or bad, expected results or no results...honesty is key and these guys aren't.

End of rant. Find me some papers that aren't based on assumption, manipulated data and faulty models. I bet you can't find even one.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jena said:


> The thing that irks me the most is the harm these people are doing to science and scientists. They are irrepairably hurting the reputation of all science!! These stupid, hype-creating, blow-hards are screaming WOLF! constantly and deafeningly and it's gonna backfire. It's gonna backfire in a very big way...heck, it already has.
> 
> I resent that. I take it personally. Above all else, a scientist needs to be honest about their science. Good or bad, expected results or no results...honesty is key and these guys aren't.
> 
> End of rant. Find me some papers that aren't based on assumption, manipulated data and faulty models. I bet you can't find even one.


:bow: :bow: :bow:


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> We do not know what the CO2 levels have been for last 100 years, let alone millions. There have been *estimates* created from proxy records but those estimates are far from certain,
> ....


Actually, the records are quite compelling. There are in most cases multiple proxies and quite often the proxies are matched (overlapping) with direct measurements.

We also have a large body of background information based on research in many related fields.

So, while to a certain extent, there is 'estimation', it is based on a solid body of physical, chemical, evidence.

Examples would be ice cores that tie to direct measurements of CO2, Fossils that tie to the chemistry of the oceans, tree rings that tie to ice core and direct measurements.

We also have records of species migration, sea level, and many other factors to help understand the world and how it interacts.

We also have a long, unbroken record of the associated sciences advancing their fields of knowledge and how to obtain quality data.

The IPCC has developed four major reports. Each is a record of the science as it was known; each is a tier of improving -narrowing - of levels of uncertainty, a narrowing of ranges of probability. Each shows where more research needs be done. 

Those who deny that the science is compelling raise red herrings, attempt to claim that 'exposing' a tiny piece of research as not good enough for them and thus are attempting to 'prove' the whole body of science is unsound.

So we get stupid arguments like 'the paper was written by a student', and then the same person proclaims a piece of research done by yet another student is so sound that it could topple the whole body of research.

So we get stupid arguments like a paper written by a high school teacher proves that 240 gigatons of Carbon was injected into our atmosphere in a decade and then sucked back out. A paper that raises questions as to how the Earth could have done that yet not a single scientist has attempted to support the paper by bringing any other evidence that that giant injection and sucking actually happened nor how that could have happened.

So we get stupid arguments like 'we really don't know how the carbon cycle works'; we get stupid arguments like 'agenda 21; we get stupid arguments like it is politics or a scam to create new business, etc, etc, etc.

Basically, those attempting to deny that solid body of evidence don't want to take the personal responsibility that their lifestyle is creating negative changes - changes happening faster than any time previously - that will seriously effect our own lives, the lives of others on this planet, and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Think about that the next time you drive your truck to the big box to buy another plastic-cased electric can-opener shipped half way around the world on a fossil fueled vessel so you can feed your dog food shipped in a couple of thousand miles on a fossil fueled truck.

Think about why the US auto industry has a long history of fighting better mileage.

Think about why the US coal industry has a long history of fighting more environmentally clean extraction.

Think about why the US power industry has a long history of fighting emission controls.

Think.

Now, try to find how 'agenda 21 fits to what we know.

Now, try to find how a high school teacher's paper could in any sane world could upset a century plus of research from around the world, hundreds of scientists taking thousands of measurements.

Now, try to find how a 'student written' paper puts a body of evidence that has been being done for nearly a half century into question.

Now, try to find how any of dozens of 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' claims are supported.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well none of those made up charts, with made up false data are that is for sure. That hockey stick one comes to mind as one huge lie.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Actually, the records are quite compelling. There are in most cases multiple proxies and quite often the proxies are matched (overlapping) with direct measurements.


except for the pesky little fact we ignore almost all early direct measurements and have no way in the world to prove icecores are valid


> We also have a large body of background information based on research in many related fields.
> 
> So, while to a certain extent, there is 'estimation', it is based on a solid body of physical, chemical, evidence.


Not even vaguely actually. There is no real world data for instance. Temps drive co2 levels for proven reasons. temps changes up or down happen first with co2 to follow, even at times as temps drop and co2 peaks over levels claimed to cause warming. Heck even most of the claims about what will happen if the temps go up by those amounts is false. The records you believe we have were cherry picked to high heaven. The medieval warm period is an interesting example. The vast bulk of datasets it is warmer then today, even the first IPCC report it was warmer then today. Then suddenly the hockey stick was born with several AGW folks disagreeing with evidence the world over. That is just one of many examples though.


> Examples would be ice cores that tie to direct measurements of CO2, Fossils that tie to the chemistry of the oceans, tree rings that tie to ice core and direct measurements.


ut oh! we ignore the co2 data from trees. And our modern direct measurements connect to the ice cores only because we ignored the bulk of them, without proof. 



> We also have records of species migration, sea level, and many other factors to help understand the world and how it interacts.
> 
> We also have a long, unbroken record of the associated sciences advancing their fields of knowledge and how to obtain quality data.


Yes but no one who has studied the IPCC would believe they are a beacon of science. They quotes activist groups dozens of times. They use the most dramatic looking data even when the bulk of our data suggests other things, ALWAYS weighted towards AGW looking legit. It isnt science in the least. No other field works like this. 


> The IPCC has developed four major reports. Each is a record of the science as it was known; each is a tier of improving -narrowing - of levels of uncertainty, a narrowing of ranges of probability. Each shows where more research needs be done.


funny claim. An easy one to point to is the medieval warm period. To this date the bulk of the data still points to it being warmer and calmer then today for that matter. The 1990 IPCC report did as well. Then a few AGW folks came out with what we now call the hockey stick which contradicted the entire field. Yet its now held up as official despite disagreeing with most of our data. 


> Those who deny that the science is compelling raise red herrings, attempt to claim that 'exposing' a tiny piece of research as not good enough for them and thus are attempting to 'prove' the whole body of science is unsound.


It would have to be proven first to NEED to disprove it. Of course that isnt how AGW works anymore. Only one AGW follower Im aware of even attempted to explain why co2 was decoupled to temps most of earths history. which by the way is impossible if its an actual major greenhouse gas. Temps changes lead the co2 changes for proven reasons. Only place its been proven is in a lab, and many experiments work in labs that dont end up working in practicality. 

Its my belief AGW believers dont even understand how the theory came about, evolved and is supposedly backed. Look at the data backing it, and then branch out into the entire dataset... Its very obvious something isnt right. 



> So we get stupid arguments like 'the paper was written by a student', and then the same person proclaims a piece of research done by yet another student is so sound that it could topple the whole body of research.


OPPS as I pointed out and you witnessed if you were there this didnt happen. why the need to lie and re frame things??? 

and yes the FIRST real world measuring of whether or not the claimed heat is being trapped as the models claim would indeed topple the theory. SOrry but if it isnt happening, it isnt happening. Its pretty simple. 


> So we get stupid arguments like a paper written by a high school teacher proves that 240 gigatons of Carbon was injected into our atmosphere in a decade and then sucked back out. A paper that raises questions as to how the Earth could have done that yet not a single scientist has attempted to support the paper by bringing any other evidence that that giant injection and sucking actually happened nor how that could have happened.


And we fail to get proof of why this direct measurement data should be ignored. Which literally was the purpose of the paper. To force the issue, and get answers. Not that either dataset proves or disproves AGW anyway. 



> So we get stupid arguments like 'we really don't know how the carbon cycle works'; we get stupid arguments like 'agenda 21; we get stupid arguments like it is politics or a scam to create new business, etc, etc, etc.


Strangely it is the IPCC that doesnt appear to understand the carbon cycle. They downplay anything to do with land use differences despite study after study showing this being a factor. 

I have my guesses as to why this is, science isnt among them. Science never has to rely on cherry picked data and ignoring entire variables. downplaying aspects while inflating others. If you dont realize this as a fact, you simply are studying it from biased sources. 


> Basically, those attempting to deny that solid body of evidence don't want to take the personal responsibility that their lifestyle is creating negative changes - changes happening faster than any time previously - that will seriously effect our own lives, the lives of others on this planet, and the lives of our children and grandchildren.


What solid body of evidence? You better hurry and send it over to the IPCC!! That way they can stop relying on their cherry picked datasets! 

I will be among the first to say, the western worlds lifestyle is faulty and destined to fail. In fact my lifes work is all about adapting to this change I feel is inevitable. 



> Think about that the next time you drive your truck to the big box to buy another plastic-cased electric can-opener shipped half way around the world on a fossil fueled vessel so you can feed your dog food shipped in a couple of thousand miles on a fossil fueled truck.
> 
> Think about why the US auto industry has a long history of fighting better mileage.


Our gov fights better mileage as well!! there are several engines out there today from companies already selling here that are a lot better then what we have in that regard. While its true not everyone wants a smaller car, many do with we had solid options among them! I forget the specifics on one my friend really thinks is a winner, but I know in general in the states we test how much exhaust per gallon, whereas many european cars that get better mileage have more pollution per gallon they have less per MILE traveled. 


> Think about why the US coal industry has a long history of fighting more environmentally clean extraction.


No need to fight coal, just replace them. I think thorium is a winner. 





> Now, try to find how a high school teacher's paper could in any sane world could upset a century plus of research from around the world, hundreds of scientists taking thousands of measurements.


wow!! what a rewrite of history!!! Its was the high school science teacher who raised the question of why we should ignore that century of research. No one has yet to prove it with actual data. He outright said perhaps some of it is indeed false, but he wanted it to raise the question an initiate answers. It is indeed the AGW side that without proof wants us to ignore this mountain of data. (90k measurements I believe.) 


> Now, try to find how a 'student written' paper puts a body of evidence that has been being done for nearly a half century into question.


Hilarious how you claimed I argued against the paper you linked because he was a student when I did not, and you somehow thinks that proves something here even after makin g the case it didint in regards to the other study. Holy cow the cognitive dissonance runs deep with you! 

besides the work is the FIRST direct measurements of whether or not its actually happening, and considering the cherry picked datasets the theory relies on its not exactly standing on solid ground..

Its hilarious to hear you imply this might not disprove agw. Its a literal direct measurement of whether or not its even happening. It isnt. (or perhaps if it IS true some other effect is outweighing it, either way the heat is not being trapped as claimed) 




> Now, try to find how any of dozens of 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' claims are supported.


I think it would be more prudent to study the claims of the IPCC first. find all the massive holes in the theory, the cherry picked nature of their datasets... Its all obvious if you take the time. After that we can further study other ways humans are having an impact.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068 Â« JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Here another interesting study... 



> A blockbuster Chinese study of Tibetan tree rings by Liu et al 2011 shows, with detail, that the modern era is a dog-standard normal climate when compared to the last 2,500 years. The temperature, the rate of change &#8212; it&#8217;s all been seen before. Nothing about the current period is &#8220;abnormal&#8221;, indeed the current warming period in Tibet can be produced through calculation of cycles. Liu et al do a Fourier analysis on the underlying cycles and do brave predictions as well.


(by the way this ALSO shoots holes in the claims about the medieval warm period, which the IPCC claims was regional despite much data to the contrary showing it was in other regions as well)

Of course this study has a major flaw. They assume it will get cooler into the future simply because past cycles did. I posted it more because of what it showed rather then what it assumes for the future.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

This link covers MANY other records on the medieval warm period. Most of which agree with what the IPCC said in the 90s in their first report, and not their later hockey stick. In fact their hokey stick graphs agree solely with eachother and not the rest of our records. This is undeniable if you dig through the data. Yet we are told without bias the IPCC evaluates all the new data. Pour through the link, many actual studies in there. Many of which have come well AFTER the IPCC USED to agree this era was warmer.

If studied there isnt an honest person here who would dispute the medieval warm period even if they still believed the mythology of AGW. 


CO2 Science Medieval Warm Period Project Map
The above is an interactive map covering the medieval warm period data. Where it was collected and the like, which thoroughly show it WAS global, and it WAS warmer. Which the IPCC agreed to up until a much much smaller set of datasets now called the hockey sticks came about and apparently countered a much wider range of data in the eyes of true believers. 

This is indeed a big deal all by itself. If you understand the claims anyway.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068 Â« JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
> 
> Here another interesting study...
> 
> ...





silverseeds said:


> Youve already gotten several to ignore including directly after the quoted text...
> 
> Lets try another..
> 
> ...


CO2 Science

here is another study of different areas to go with the above.


> Reference
> Buntgen, U., Brazdil, R., Heussner, K.-U., Hofmann, J., Kontic, R., Kyncl, T., Pfister, C., Chroma, K. and Tegel, W. 2011. Combined dendro-documentary evidence of Central European hydroclimatic springtime extremes over the last millennium. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 3947-3959.
> 
> Background
> ...


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Actually, the records are quite compelling. There are in most cases multiple proxies and quite often the proxies are matched (overlapping) with direct measurements.


Better be careful with that "overlap". Isn't that what got Mann in so much trouble with is hockey stick? The proxies didn't show what he wanted so he just plugged some observational data on the end to make his graph look the way he wanted. Misleading!

Often the multiple proxies are used to define each other. For example, in the Vostok ice core, they needed to estimate the amount of annual ice accumulation. There is a relationship between delta 18O and temperature at which precipitation forms, so they used the delta 18O values from the ice core to estimate the paleo temperature, then used that to estimate the rate of accumulation. A bit later on in their paper they say "Annual accumulation is obviously well correlated to the delta 18O profile". Really??? No kidding. This kind of circular thinking is rampant!

That quote came from this paper, though many won't be able to access it for free: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6029/pdf/316591a0.pdf




> So, while to a certain extent, there is 'estimation', it is based on a solid body of physical, chemical, evidence.


It is *all* estimation and to say otherwise is patently false. 



> Examples would be ice cores that tie to direct measurements of CO2


Ice cores cannot tie to direct CO2 measurements because we have only been measuring CO2 for a few decades. An ice core, is not ice, nor a core for much longer than that. The CO2 they claim to recover from ice cores must come from deep in the core, where the pores have supposedly been closed off. I have my doubts about that whole mess as well.




> Fossils that tie to the chemistry of the oceans,


Again, huge assumptions there. The use of forams to *estimate* past ocean chemistry is again...just an estimate built on many broad assumptions.



> tree rings that tie to ice core and direct measurements.


Don't make me laugh. Read up on the divergence issue and tell me all about how tree rings tie into direct measurements. Read about WHY Mann constructed his hockey stick the way he did, then tell me all about how well tree rings tie in.


> We also have records of species migration, sea level, and many other factors to help understand the world and how it interacts


.

Yep we sure do. One of my favorite fossil creatures is often found in Greenland. An early tetrapod that lived in warm, shallow deltaic environments. And the shark tooth that changed my life...I dug that sucker up in Wyoming in a layer from the Cretaceous when it was all under the sea. Yep, our planet is dynamic. It's gonna stay that way too, at least until it is a cold, dead rock like Mars.



> We also have a long, unbroken record of the associated sciences advancing their fields of knowledge and how to obtain quality data.


We have a relatively short history of super computers and the ability to process huge amounts of data. This has enabled things like climate models and made all those *estimates* possible. I think we have a lot to learn about the power of computing and how to use it responsibly. 



> The IPCC has developed four major reports. Each is a record of the science as it was known; each is a tier of improving -narrowing - of levels of uncertainty, a narrowing of ranges of probability. Each shows where more research needs be done.


The IPCC is a joke. It was done by people with a considerable stake in the outcome of those reports and an interest in keeping them biased so as to continue their funding.



> Those who deny that the science is compelling raise red herrings, attempt to claim that 'exposing' a tiny piece of research as not good enough for them and thus are attempting to 'prove' the whole body of science is unsound.


All my arguments are valid and relevant. Not a red herring in the bunch.




> Basically, those attempting to deny that solid body of evidence don't want to take the personal responsibility that their lifestyle is creating negative changes - changes happening faster than any time previously - that will seriously effect our own lives, the lives of others on this planet, and the lives of our children and grandchildren.


Huge assumptions! The changers would be proud of you!



> Think about that the next time you drive your truck to the big box to buy another plastic-cased electric can-opener shipped half way around the world on a fossil fueled vessel so you can feed your dog food shipped in a couple of thousand miles on a fossil fueled truck.


Now that's just trolling. 




> Think.


Actually it's better to READ. READ the papers, then think, then read them again. The truth is in the papers that most people won't bother even trying to read.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

And still Jena and Silverseeds, you have shown nothing that disproves the science behind AGW. Casting doubts on the popularly accepted theory is a far cry from proving an alternate hypothesis. Actually, let me know when you even put forth an alternative theory. 
Silverseeds, most of your links don't dispute AGW,; knowing that temperature has changed before, (and I don't dispute that at all) does nothing to prove or disprove the commonly accepted theory that adding significant amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will change the climate in the troposphere. We already know the stratosphere is cooling, that dovetails perfectly with the troposphere warming, less heat is escaping into space... this fits with the known thermal and optical properties of CO2.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> And still Jena and Silverseeds, you have shown nothing that disproves the science behind AGW. Casting doubts on the popularly accepted theory is a far cry from proving an alternate hypothesis. Actually, let me know when you even put forth an alternative theory.
> Silverseeds, most of your links don't dispute AGW,; knowing that temperature has changed before, (and I don't dispute that at all) does nothing to prove or disprove the commonly accepted theory that adding significant amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will change the climate in the troposphere. We already know the stratosphere is cooling, that dovetails perfectly with the troposphere warming, less heat is escaping into space... this fits with the known thermal and optical properties of CO2.


I don't have an alternate hypothesis and never claimed to have one...unless you want to call "No one knows" a hypothesis.

I think that those who go around screaming about certainty when there isn't any do a great disservice to science and to the public. There is a misguided sense of purpose behind most of it, the perceived need to MAKE people believe that the truth is known, when in fact, it is not. I think that an honest approach, making clear the uncertainties in the methods and data is much better the the strong declarations and worse...the shouting down any other ideas. The whole "What to say to a skeptic" bit has no place in science. It serves only to stop dialog and the free flow of thoughts and ideas. Heck, if changers are so sure of their data, then what are they afraid of? They ought to welcome debate and entertain other ideas, not seek to shut people off.

If I ever get to the point where I am so sure of my science that I think I am absolutely RIGHT and not subject to questioning...well that is the day that someone ought to take my scientist hat away from me for good. 

Wish the changers would get that memo. They are turning a lot of people off to science in general with their shenanigans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And still Jena and Silverseeds, you have shown nothing that* disproves the science* behind *AGW*


The "science" is real.
It's the *CONCLUSIONS* that are false


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> Better be careful with that "overlap". Isn't that what got Mann in so much trouble with is hockey stick? The proxies didn't show what he wanted so he just plugged some observational data on the end to make his graph look the way he wanted. Misleading!


Perhaps the "Misleading" is coming from your claims.

So, try supporting them.

Maybe start with 'what sort of trouble' you think he's in 


BTW, you might also want to address the pesky issue of all the replicated 'hockey sticks'. Multiple sets of proxies all showing to the same shape.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> I don't have an alternate hypothesis and never claimed to have one...unless you want to call "No one knows" a hypothesis.
> ....


Ummm, even a hypothesis as a basis in reality, in some observations, some evidence.

So, where is your evidence that "No one knows"?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> The IPCC is a joke. It was done by people with a considerable stake in the outcome of those reports and an interest in keeping them biased so as to continue their funding.



Heard that claim a bunch. Since others making that claim couldn't, could you show us the evidence?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So, basically three threads, multiple dozens of threads, lots of links to blogs and copies of claims that have their own taxonomy.

And those attempting to deny the science haven't been able to address this:

"First, they have *not come up with any plausible alternative culprit* for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to *explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong*."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe

No support for Beck

No support for cosmic rays

No support for undersea volcanoes

No support for any other 'what if'

No support for 'financial gain'

No support for 'agenda21'

No support for 'world government'

Just a bunch of 'agenda', 'politics', and 'we don't know enough yet'....

Just a bunch of 'Anything but Anthropogenic CO2'.


Basically, those attempting to deny that solid body of evidence don't want to take the personal responsibility that their lifestyle is creating negative changes - changes happening faster than any time previously - that will seriously effect our own lives, the lives of others on this planet, and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Think about that the next time you drive your truck to the big box to buy another plastic-cased electric can-opener shipped half way around the world on a fossil fueled vessel so you can feed your dog food shipped in a couple of thousand miles on a fossil fueled truck.

Think about why the US auto industry has a long history of fighting better mileage.

Think about why the US coal industry has a long history of fighting more environmentally clean extraction.

Think about why the US power industry has a long history of fighting emission controls.

Think.

Now, try to find how 'agenda 21 fits to what we know.

Now, try to find how a high school teacher's paper could in any sane world could upset a century plus of research from around the world, hundreds of scientists taking thousands of measurements.

Now, try to find how a 'student written' paper puts a body of evidence that has been being done for nearly a half century into question.

Now, try to find how any of dozens of 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' claims are supported.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "science" is real.
> It's the *CONCLUSIONS* that are false


No, much of the science is NOT real. It's estimations built on wide assumptions and computer models that cannot adequately encompass such a complex system. Conclusions are predetermined and if the models don't work, then they alter the assumptions or "correct" the data until they do. All this is presented as empirical science, but it is not.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Perhaps the "Misleading" is coming from your claims.
> 
> So, try supporting them.
> 
> ...


You aren't even aware of the hockey stick controversy are you? Go look it up. I am not your google.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Perhaps the "Misleading" is coming from your claims.
> 
> So, try supporting them.
> 
> ...


Oh...and read the papers that your pretty little graphs come from. Circular reasoning, broad assumptions and crude estimations built on other assumptions and estimations abound! *READ THE PAPERS!*

If you find one that isn't full of all that, post it for us!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ahhh, shades of silverseeds.... 'go google it'

However, those are YOUR CLAIMS. Show us what informed your thinking.

Show us the information sources that you consider reliable.



Jena said:


> You aren't even aware of the hockey stick controversy are you? Go look it up. I am not your google.


And maybe actually attempting to support your claims would work better than attempting to insult...


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Heard that claim a bunch. Since others making that claim couldn't, could you show us the evidence?


Sorry, I forgot my hidden tape recorder when talking to some of those folks and every other word out of their mouths was "funding". 

Go look at the NSF grants and see how many are given for studying climate change and then follow the money.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Could you please tell us why we should accept your unsupported allegations?

Could you tell us why we should accept your pronouncements without showing us how you've established expertise on this topic?



Jena said:


> No, much of the science is NOT real. It's estimations built on wide assumptions and computer models that cannot adequately encompass such a complex system. Conclusions are predetermined and if the models don't work, then they alter the assumptions or "correct" the data until they do. All this is presented as empirical science, but it is not.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Ahhh, shades of silverseeds.... 'go google it'
> 
> However, those are YOUR CLAIMS. Show us what informed your thinking.
> 
> ...


I'm not insulting anyone, merely stating the obvious. 

The hockey stick controversy is not "my" claim. It is pretty well known amongst those who follow climate science. Google is your friend. Do your own homework.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Could you please tell us why we should accept your unsupported allegations?
> 
> Could you tell us why we should accept your pronouncements without showing us how you've established expertise on this topic?


I've said it before and I'll say it again....I've read the papers and I have a brain. Anyone can do it!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So square your "I've read the papers " with your inability or unwillingness to cite a source that informed your thinking.

And square your claims with the basic fact that your thinking runs opposite to 98% of the scientists with demonstrated expertise.

With virtually every government in the world.

With the majority of citizens of most of the industrialized world

With virtually every scientific organization in the world.








Jena said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again....I've read the papers and I have a brain. Anyone can do it!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> So square your "I've read the papers " with your inability or unwillingness to cite a source that informed your thinking.
> 
> And square your claims with the basic fact that your thinking runs opposite to 98% of the scientists with demonstrated expertise.
> 
> ...


98%? That's by far the funniest thing you've ever posted!

Why don't you prove that the ipcc and "scientists" like Hansen are un-biased! When you can do that I might pay more attention! Are you good with the habitat you have distroyed and continue to distroy?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The 98% is well documented.

Your claims, however, aren't.


Which could well explain why we get 'attitude' rather than substance in the posts with you and others attempting to deny the science.

IF you have data that supports your claims about the IPCC or Mann's or Hansen's or the rest of the 98% of the the scientists doing work in the field, you or others would have done so.

But all we get are recycled claims from old blog posts.

Now, if you were to actually bring some research to the claims ......


JeffreyD said:


> 98%? That's by far the funniest thing you've ever posted!
> 
> Why don't you prove that the ipcc and "scientists" like Hansen are un-biased! When you can do that I might pay more attention! Are you good with the habitat you have distroyed and continue to distroy?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> The 98% is well documented.
> 
> Your claims, however, aren't.
> 
> ...


It HAS been posted here, numerious times. It's been proven to you by their own words. You are so blinded by your preconcieved notions that you refuse to accept the fact that more scientist (by a LARGE magin) disagree with the ipcc, noaa. Prove the ipcc, Hansen, Mann are un-biased. You haven't answered my question about your distruction of habitat. Are you going too?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The continual attempts at false equivalency - a paper written by a high school teacher that is published in a low impact journal compared to a body of evidence reaching back over a century, a blog or press release compared to pages of cited data - is also a continual reminder that those attempting to deny the science have little more than rhetoric, deception, and public opinion manipulation as their main resources.

You'd think that if the case against ACC was as strong as those making the claims there would be a source similar to the IPCC with all that data.


Or maybe because those attempting that manipulation of public opinion know the case isn't strong, they've chosen to not develop such a resource.

So we are left with hodge podges of claims backed up by the latest and greatest 'paper' or press release.

But no alternative hypothesis, no comprehensive review of the literature, no large body of research findings; just unsupported claims of 'agenda', personal attacks, and ill considered efforts to claim anything but Anthropogenic CO2 as the cause.



JeffreyD said:


> It HAS been posted here, numerious times. It's been proven to you by their own words. You are so blinded by your preconcieved notions that you refuse to accept the fact that more scientist (by a LARGE magin) disagree with the ipcc, noaa. Prove the ipcc, Hansen, Mann are un-biased. You haven't answered my question about your distruction of habitat. Are you going too?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> The continual attempts at false equivalency - a paper written by a high school teacher that is published in a low impact journal compared to a body of evidence reaching back over a century, a blog or press release compared to pages of cited data - is also a continual reminder that those attempting to deny the science have little more than rhetoric, deception, and public opinion manipulation as their main resources.
> 
> You'd think that if the case against ACC was as strong as those making the claims there would be a source similar to the IPCC with all that data.
> 
> ...


Same old thing. Go back and re-read these threads from the begining and you will find what you seek.

How's that habitat distruction going for ya?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Are we ever going to see that list?

Or are you talking about the discredited OPP? The one with veterinarians saying they disagree? 



JeffreyD said:


> ,,,,more scientist (by a LARGE magin) disagree with the ipcc, noaa.
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Let's see:

Beck, a bunch of times

Some press releases

A couple of blogs

What have I missed?




JeffreyD said:


> Same old thing. Go back and re-read these threads from the begining and you will find what you seek.
> 
> 
> You know we can search the threads here, search posters' postings here; we can use the internal or an external engine.
> ...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Are we ever going to see that list?
> 
> Or are you talking about the discredited OPP? The one with veterinarians saying they disagree?


Oh, you mean the one that include almost 10,000 phd's in related fields compared to the ipcc's almost 1400 researchers and scientists? It seems that your group is severly out numbered here, and by a HUGE margin too! Let's have a list of all those on that ipcc list, and what is their position today, because a lot have distanced themselves from the program now. It seems that the ipcc and Hansen, Mann, et al... have discredited themselves by lying about their data.

Still distroying that habitat?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Let's see:
> 
> Beck, a bunch of times
> 
> ...


Well, the truth for starters!

What have you provided, false information from biased sources! Yup, that's about it! Some just can't handle the truth when it comes to proving their false reigion!

Now, about that habitat your distroying. How's that working out for ya?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Those attempting to deny the science in this thread and others have had ample opportunity to bring what they consider "the truth".

Those attempting to deny the science in this thread and others have had plenty of opportunity to bring whatever scholarship that supports their opinion.

And what has been brought forward are a miscellany of blogs, press releases, claims of 'agenda', claims of malfeasance, claims of.....

And that's about it. You claim sources were cited; show us.






JeffreyD said:


> Well, the truth for starters!
> 
> What have you provided, false information from biased sources! Yup, that's about it! Some just can't handle the truth when it comes to proving their false reigion!
> 
> Now, about that habitat your distroying. How's that working out for ya?


So, show us how you know we've posted "biased sources".

Show us how you see us trying to prove "..their false reigion(sic)".


Where is your data?

Names of the scientists with expertise who you claim disagree with NOAA, IPCC, etc; where are they?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IF you can prove the "10,000 phd's" were experts in a field of climate research, actually supporting your claim would increase your credibility.

Probably in orders of magnitude.




JeffreyD said:


> Oh, you mean the one that include almost 10,000 phd's in related fields compared to the ipcc's almost 1400 researchers and scientists? It seems that your group is severly out numbered here, and by a HUGE margin too! Let's have a list of all those on that ipcc list, and what is their position today, because a lot have distanced themselves from the program now. It seems that the ipcc and Hansen, Mann, et al... have discredited themselves by lying about their data.
> 
> Still distroying that habitat?


So, where are those 10s of thousands of research papers?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> IF you can prove the "10,000 phd's" were experts in a field of climate research, actually supporting your claim would increase your credibility.
> 
> Probably in orders of magnitude.
> 
> ...


I never mentioned any papers did I? I just mentioned the number of phd's that disputed the ipcc findings! Your credibility would increase if you could present any information that's not been proven a lie!

How is that habitat distruction going?

Why are there so many, many more scientists that disagree with the findings of the ipcc, than agree with it?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Those attempting to deny the science in this thread and others have had plenty of opportunity to bring whatever scholarship that supports their opinion.


hilarious! I used actual studies and source data to show most of the key claims of AGW are baseless. You responded to none of it. 

Face it. You and the IPCC are the science deniers. when you have to ignore most of reality to make your claims your well out of the realm of science. It will be interesting to see what you move into as the mythology of AGW falls apart. 

by the way, the year is almost out... wonder if this will come to pass??

The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> I never mentioned any papers did I? I just mentioned the number of phd's that disputed the ipcc findings!



So you have an unnamed list of unnamed PhDs in unnamed areas whom you claim have expressed some concern about something in one of the many IPCC reports.

PhDs who may or may not have actually done some research and may or may not have published some paper somewhere.

You do realize the issue is the science, right? Science has a body of literature.

Which you are now saying may or may not have a record of your PhDs' displeasure with something about an IPCC report.

So, basically, yet another example of the unsupported claims that are the mainstay of those who attempt to deny a broadbased, encompassing range of literature that supports the basic tenets of IPCC:

âMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â





JeffreyD said:


> Why are there so many, many more scientists that disagree with the findings of the ipcc, than agree with it?


Your claim, as yet still unsupported.

Wonder why....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> S
> 
> You do realize the issue is the science, right? Science has a body of literature.


someone should explain this to the IPCC. i wonder how many activist groups they will cite as science in the next round? How many variables they will ignore? How many cherry picked datasets their claims are based on?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I saw a few press releases, some blog postings, a paper that no one has been willing to bring any support for its claim about magically appearing and disappearing 240 gigatons of Carbon.

Did I miss something?

Like a comprehensive body of research?

Like a supported alternative hypothesis?


Nope.




silverseeds said:


> hilarious! I used actual studies and source data to show most of the key claims of AGW are baseless. You responded to none of it.
> ,,,


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Ahh so the dozens of studies I linked refuting most every major claim of AGW with actual data instead of supporting it by ignoring most data, is reduced to "blog posts"... Amazing! Yes roberte, it is you who is the climate denier. They were blog posts about actual studies, linked to actual studies. oh well. 

why even pretend you want to debate the topic? Your not fooling anyone who isnt already devout.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

"Dozens"?

Really?

Maybe counting multiple repostings of the same Beck, etc, etc, etc.....


No comprehensive body of evidence.

No alternative hypothesis.


silverseeds said:


> Ahh so the dozens of studies I linked refuting most every major claim of AGW
> ....


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Eh conservatives win either way. Either they're right and they gloat, or they're wrong and the tides rise and flood out numerous liberal states.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> "Dozens"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Heck I never even brought up beck, heritagefarm did. At this point the only one talking about him (and refusing to show us why we should ignore the bulk of 90k direct measurements) is you. Weve already finished that discussion. I believe we should use science to decide what data to ignore, you apparently agree with the AGW stance that we should ignore data we dont understand in the context of datasets we can never prove the validity of (icecores) taken over decades all over the planet. Not much more we can say to eachother on it. One of us values science, the other belief. end of story. 

Nope in actual reality, it was indeed dozens. You might have missed it, but many of the links had dozens of studies on the single link. Such as the one dealing with the medieval warm period and a few others.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> So you have an unnamed list of unnamed PhDs in unnamed areas whom you claim have expressed some concern about something in one of the many IPCC reports.
> 
> *They were named and their area of expertise was mentioned. Don't know how you missed that unless you didn't read any of my posts!*
> 
> ...


Sorry, it's YOUR science that is faulty. An scientist worth his salt would want to examine ALL evidence and extrapolate that information and then present it for peer review. Your heros have only presented their information to those that agree with their stance. They cannot be trusted, especially since many have been caught cheating the data to meet their criteria! Shame on them! Shame on you for believing them and not researching it on your own as many of us have!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The left has nothing to stand on only leftovers that are so out of date they should be thrown away years ago and should start from scratch, but the left will never do that they are always right, always on top of things, and never will admit a wrong even when it is in front of their eye balls. It is nothing but a cult religion they must follow. LOL


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

This is an awesome paper that explains climate models.



> The biggest problem with models is the fact that they are made by
> humans who tend to shape or use their models in ways that mirror their
> own notion of what a desirable outcome would be. (John Firor [1998],
> Senior Research Associate and former Director of NCAR, Boulder, CO,
> USA)





> As a result of
> data limitations, GCMs are used in order to &#8216;massage&#8217; the very data sets
> fed into the GCMs in the first place to render them consistent and broadly
> applicable (Edwards, 1999, 2001)


http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh, the Oregon Petition Project.

Got it.

The one that a BS qualified the respondent to pontificate with no supporting evidence.

Where a DMV degree meant the respondent had as much expertise as the electrical engineer and as much as the PhD in Chem .

And that was the best resource those who deny the science could bring to the table.

So, sorta like claiming 'almost all astrophysicists disagree with IPCC' and never seeing a list of names or their papers.


And just more schlock from the 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2 crowd.





JeffreyD said:


> Sorry, it's YOUR science that is faulty.\


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Show us all the new stuff that you think turns over a century's worth of research that 98% of the scientists agree with.




arabian knight said:


> The left has nothing to stand on only leftovers that are so out of date they should be thrown away years ago and should start from scratch, but the left will never do that they are always right, always on top of things, and never will admit a wrong even when it is in front of their eye balls. It is nothing but a cult religion they must follow. LOL


And we note more attacking and

really, "LOL"?

That's substantive....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

In case you missed it, the first sentence negates the point you are trying to make since we have a century plus of solid research:

"inverse relationship between the level of
certainty attached to any particular scientific construction and proximity to
its site of construction."




Jena said:


> This is an awesome paper that explains climate models.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you have something specific as proof the models are inaccurate, this would be a good time.....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Show us all the new stuff that you think turns over a century's worth of research that 98% of the scientists agree with.


98% of scientists agree with what exactly? Sorry but including only one realm of climate science, and even at that only a thin range of that one section of climate science in no way tells us what 98% of scientists believe. If this is completely obvious to you, well youve made it clear even the basic principles of science elude you. 

What centuries worth of research? 

Somehow you must have missed that the sole place it was "proven" was in a lab. thus far with zero real world data to support it beyond a loose corollary. Nothing in our geological records, nothing in modern records. unless of course you severely cherry pick. Then you can make weak cases. There is a reason the IPCC had to cite activist groups for many of their claims, because many of them havent even been cherry picked into a peer reviewed work.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> This link covers MANY other records on the medieval warm period. Most of which agree with what the IPCC said in the 90s in their first report, and not their later hockey stick. In fact their hokey stick graphs agree solely with eachother and not the rest of our records. This is undeniable if you dig through the data. Yet we are told without bias the IPCC evaluates all the new data. Pour through the link, many actual studies in there. Many of which have come well AFTER the IPCC USED to agree this era was warmer.
> 
> If studied there isnt an honest person here who would dispute the medieval warm period even if they still believed the mythology of AGW.
> 
> ...


this is another study from a completely different angle, like the vast bulk of studies also shows the medieval wamr period and others the "hockey stick" folks somehow miss. they still try to claim these were regional events, but our data contradicts them and always has. Of course with agenda, who cares! this is the new science, you only include what you like!!

CO2 Science

this is another dataset also picking up the medieval warm period. Very clear it was global. 

CO2 Science

here is another dataset from a completely different method, and area. 
CO2 Science

Strange how even the IPCC in 1990 knew this. Somehow several folks who have charts often called hockey sticks disagree with the bulk of the data but are currently the official stance of AGW believers. Its strange to see. Spend awhile going over the data, and then the source data for the hockey sticks. Apparently several of you will be surprised.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> 98% of scientists agree with what exactly?


Thanks for asking! (though we have gone over this before....)

"...97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."


And the "tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..":

"anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for âmostâ of the âunequivocalâ warming of the Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century".

And those attempting to deny that science have major problems to overcome:

The first is coming up with some plausible hypothesis that accounts for the temp. rise, the sea level rise, the (esp. in the case of silverseed) rise in CO2, the arctic sea ice anomalies, the glacier melting, the species migration, the shifting of season ending dates, .....

The second is coming up with a comprehensive body of evidence that could show errors in the IPCC findings.

The efforts of those attempting to deny the science is well documented; but is a hodge-podge of accusations that are often as self-contradictory as they are poorly or unsupported by research.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Oh, the Oregon Petition Project.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> ...


Why are they wrong?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If science is on your side, then there should be a body of evidence. If your chart is your proof, let's pretend you are the professor and please explain to the class just what we are seeing.

Are you attempting to claim that chart is "the rest of or records" or is the "agree solely with eachother"?


If you are attempting to disprove the "hokey stick" - the dozen or so that are in the 4th IPCC report, how does this chart do that?





silverseeds said:


> ....In fact their hokey stick graphs agree solely with eachother and not the rest of our records. This is undeniable if you dig through the data.
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And we are still waiting for the plausible hypothesis of Beck's magical 240gigatons of Carbon.....

AND that list of 'almost all astrophysicists'.

AND the number that those 'almost all astrophysicists' agree upon.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Thanks for asking! (though we have gone over this before....)
> 
> "...97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."


 A little bit confused here... 

Since you appear confused you just proved what I said correct. thanks Ig guess? :teehee:


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> If science is on your side, then there should be a body of evidence. If your chart is your proof, let's pretend you are the professor and please explain to the class just what we are seeing.
> 
> Are you attempting to claim that chart is "the rest of or records" or is the "agree solely with eachother"?
> 
> ...


Yep there is a body of evidence. You can study it or not. Im posting data for those that actually are reading the links, if there are any such folks. 

How does a chart that shows the medieval warm period was global disprove the hockey stick thats pieced together out of tiny fractions of the data??? If I have to explain that for you to get it, I wont bother. We can agree to disagree, and interested parties can study it or not... Its hard enough for me to find time to source these things let alone teach a class on them. 

Go through the work of those with the hockey sticks, and look at the tiny fragments of the data they relied on. Its very blatant actually. if you dont agree oh well, I doubt you went through the data if you dont agree though. Its very interesting to note that since 1990 when the IPCC also agreed with the bulk of the data on this point a large number of works have come out further showing it was indeed global. Yet several cherry picked works came out as well, and they went with those. Its amazing to watch this "science" unfold.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If science is on your side, then there should be a body of evidence. If your chart is your proof, let's pretend you are the professor and please explain to the class just what we are seeing.

Are you attempting to claim that chart is "the rest of or records" or is the "agree solely with eachother"?


If you are attempting to disprove the "hokey stick" - the dozen or so that are in the 4th IPCC report, how does this chart do that?





silverseeds said:


> ....In fact their hokey stick graphs agree solely with eachother and not the rest of our records. This is undeniable if you dig through the data.
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You probably meant to say something different that what you wrote. Or maybe you are thinking that sentence makes sense....





silverseeds said:


> ....How does a chart that shows the medieval warm period was global disprove the hockey stick thats pieced together out of tiny fractions of the data???
> ....


Show us how you 'know' "pieced together out of tiny fractions of the data"


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And we are still waiting for the plausible hypothesis of Beck's magical 240gigatons of Carbon.....

AND that list of 'almost all astrophysicists'.

AND the number that those 'almost all astrophysicists' agree upon.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

Here is a blog talking about some of the more complex aspects of the AGW mythology. Complete with citations. covering issues not often brought up in internet "debates"...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Why are they wrong?


If they were right, there would be a body of real climate scientists who also agree with them.

If they were right, there would be a body of real climate science to support the claims.

But the real problem is the transparent attempt at false equivalency. I ask a real meteorologist about weather. A vet for what's up with a dog. An astrophysicist for information on solar irradiance. A car mechanic for the brake problem. A good cook for a good recipe. 

You are trying to claim via the Oregon Petition Projects that having a Bachelor of Science degree, a degree that barely qualifies one to teach HS science gives one the expertise that a PhD who has published extensively on a narrow aspect of climate science has.

Basically, asking a horticulturist to diagnose a brain cancer. Or the brain surgeon to identify the cause of blossom end rot.

Except in those cases either have more information on their field of expertise than the BS holder pontificating via a postcard to OPP....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ah, is this one more of the 'dozens' of links.....


silverseeds said:


> ...a blog
> .....


Still waiting for your explanation of what your chart is about. 

Still waiting for your proof about how the hockey stick data was compiled.

Still waiting for the plausible hypothesis on Beck's magical 240 gigatons....

Still waiting for the 'almost all astrophysicists' number....

Still waiting for the 'almost all astrophysicists' names....


Oh you might like the op-ed your blog linked to:
*Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
*But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.
"But there's also one bit of good news: *The increasingly powerful evidence of a long-term warming trend is making climate-change denial more difficult to defend.* Take "Climategate" â the argument that scientists have based their evidence for global warming on fraudulent science. The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."
Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> If science is on your side, then there should be a body of evidence. If your chart is your proof, let's pretend you are the professor and please explain to the class just what we are seeing.
> 
> Are you attempting to claim that chart is "the rest of or records" or is the "agree solely with eachother"?
> 
> ...


Hmm you seemed to have missed my post in response to these exact questions. Perhaps you need new glasses? Do you have friends or family to read the forum to you? 




roberte said:


> You probably meant to say something different that what you wrote. Or maybe you are thinking that sentence makes sense....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See above response. study it or not I dont care. Its blatantly obvious if you do. I "know" they pieced their hockey sticks out of fragments of the data, because I have looked through the source material for them, and they bypassed the bulk of the worlds data. their claims are counter to the vast bulk of datasets. Although in their defense a tiny fragment of our overall source data does agree with them. they can cling to that I guess. 



roberte said:


> And we are still waiting for the plausible hypothesis of Beck's magical 240gigatons of Carbon.....
> 
> AND that list of 'almost all astrophysicists'.
> 
> AND the number that those 'almost all astrophysicists' agree upon.


Hilarious! and you havent explained why we should ignore the bulk of 90k direct measurements. 

I cant fathom what list your asking for?? I keep explaining I dont believe such a list exists. Do you want me to poll them myself??? Ive asked this already as well, but you have yet to answer it. why is that? Does some part of you believe your making a point with this? whats your point exactly? I cant produce a list that doesnt exist??? 

Id think it rather odd if astrophysicists agreed with the IPCC when if you read the IPCC on this topic complete with their single solar expert, they argue against the entire fields work, having cited a tiny fraction of it at that. i also encounter many skeptic astrophysics when studying this. Which is what I based what I said on. 

just in the last few years, the field has been moving fast. the IPCC bases their stance on but one aspect of the suns influence. If you dont agree oh well. Pretty obvious to me you have a one sided view, and never even studied your sides claims in any depth.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Some real good examples of the below show up on this and the other ACC thread:

*Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
*But the *skeptics keep shifting their arguments,* so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.

Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Hmm you seemed to have missed my post in response to these exact questions. Perhaps you need new glasses? Do you have friends or family to read the forum to you?


If it were really there, it would be really easy for you to provide a link to your "response to these exact questions.".

Instead, it seems you have to resort to attempts at insults to support your arguments....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Ah, is this one more of the 'dozens' of links.....


this is a new one actually. You will find the blog cites actual papers. Papers that refute major aspects of the mythology of co2 as a major climate driver. You will also find the data actually supports the claims of the works linked there. Without having to ignore most data.

Or you could dismiss it on the spot!!! and pretend it didnt link actual science that fits the actual data. Your life! 

I wonder if we will get the carbon taxes before the mythology is officially disbanded?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Besides being self-contradictory, your response seems rather coy....


silverseeds said:


> I cant fathom what list your asking for??


You keep claiming that 'almost all astrophysicists' disagree with the IPCC findings.

And your support is:





silverseeds said:


> I keep explaining I dont believe such a list exists.
> ...


So, basically, you can't find or create a list of any astrophysicists.....

Yet that claim is constantly repeated as your proof the IPCC report is wrong.

No science, just another unfounded claim.



Can I assume the same problem exists with:

Any number that your non-existent astrophysicists have proffered?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> If it were really there, it would be really easy for you to provide a link to your "response to these exact questions.".
> 
> Instead, it seems you have to resort to attempts at insults to support your arguments....


Its an insult to wonder if you need glasses? Are you sure about that? You seem incapable of reading anything I post in context. 

Heck in this instance you wonder if i responded, yet you had quoted a fragment of the post my response was in. Yet somehow missed it. 

If you want to study it yourself do it. If not oh well. 

when I first studied this, it was as a person who believed AGW was real. When someone tells me my world is in trouble, I take heed!! I want to understand it inside and out!! Of course this is how I realized they rely on cherry picked datasets. I will link the ignored data to you as Im able, in my haphazard way. You can study it or ignore it. No skin off my back. 

So where is the attack in wondering outloud if you need glasses? I could have wondered many other more plausible scenarios that would have actually been offensive. Instead Im giving you the benefit of the doubt and wondering if you simply have trouble seeing the screen.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .... Papers that refute major aspects of the mythology of co2 as a major climate driver.
> ....


You have a blog that is very selective not only of which papers it brings but also very selective of the findings of the paper being discussed.

"refute" isn't the word you are looking for. You claim to know how science works. If so, you know that a single paper isn't going to "refute major aspects".


And really, "mythology"?

OK, give us a plausible alternative hypothesis.....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Besides being self-contradictory, your response seems rather coy....
> 
> You keep claiming that 'almost all astrophysicists' disagree with the IPCC findings.
> 
> ...



In actual reality Ive posted piles of science contradicting the IPCC you have yet to even acknowledge let alone refute with actual data. 

I didnt use any "claims" to say the IPCC was wrong. In fact I showed you a bit about the IPCCs single solar expert and several other astrophysicists talking about how she altered the data. You responded to it at the time, then forgot it soon after. If you forgot it again, oh well..... Not much I can do unless you want me to list some herbs that help memory issues.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You have a blog that is very selective not only of which papers it brings but also very selective of the findings of the paper being discussed.
> 
> "refute" isn't the word you are looking for. You claim to know how science works. If so, you know that a single paper isn't going to "refute major aspects".
> 
> ...


Yes it was selective of the findings it used. You know findings completely contradictory of the IPCC claims. 

and yes those papers did indeed refute UNPROVEN claims of the AGW folks with REAL WORLD data. and it is indeed because I understand science that I understand this. 

If unproven assumptions that fit a theory dont stand up to real world data, the theory was faulty. This is very basic. I really doesnt matter how many cherry picked datasets the assumptions were based on, or if the data the assumptions were based on were collected over a billion years, if the real world data refutes it entirely on the points in question here, which it did, then it was false, and the data was weighted wrong.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Yes it was selective of the findings it used.


Thank you for acknowledging that your facts aren't a complete representation of the research into Climate Science.

The IPCC reports are a synthesis of thousands of papers that have been closely scrutinized. Research that is generally agreed upon not only by those with demonstrated expertise in their respective fields, but also by virtually every country in the world. By not only their governments, but also the general populace.

Research that is generally agreed upon by virtually every credible scientific organization in the world. Virtually every government. By a 98% majority of those with demonstrated expertise.



Let us know if you ever come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

More unsupported claims.

More attempts at insulting rather than producing a bit of evidence.


Got it.





silverseeds said:


> Hmm you seemed to have missed my post in response to these exact questions. Perhaps you need new glasses? Do you have friends or family to read the forum to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Thank you for acknowledging that your facts aren't a complete representation of the research into Climate Science.


hilarious!!! It was based on real world data that prove MODELS wrong. I take it you didnt read them yet? 



> The IPCC reports are a synthesis of thousands of papers that have been closely scrutinized. Research that is generally agreed upon not only by those with demonstrated expertise in their respective fields, but also by virtually every country in the world. By not only their governments, but also the general populace.


what is the point of this? If the models are wrong, they are wrong. Really doesnt matter how agreed upon the models are when real world data shows they are false. 

Besides, if you believe the IPCC is agreed upon representations of the covered fields, your completely confused. 


> Research that is generally agreed upon by virtually every credible scientific organization in the world. Virtually every government. By a 98% majority of those with demonstrated expertise.


Really doesnt matter. the real world data is counter to the claims on the points talked about in the link. Its that simple. You can verify it yourself through that link, or dismiss it. (the link does indeed give citations, and explain the actual physics at work, sjeptics have LOOOONG pointed to this by the way!!! showing the claims didnt fit our data, now we have some more real world data confirming the skeptic stance, and what physics already had showed us) the models will remain false however. 




> Let us know if you ever come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis.


hmm. you mean like the several studies of past climate I linked showing nothing out of the usual currently? You mean like the several variables I showed the IPCC downplays that have proven effects not in their models in a significant way? (land use differences and urban heat island effects? and others) 

Hmmm Im having trouble figuring out if we are in the same conversation honestly.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You claim to know how science works.

Using single studies, links to blogs and press releases, and claiming "refutes" and "proves" shows you don't.



silverseeds said:


> hilarious!!! It was based on real world data that prove MODELS wrong. I take it you didnt read them yet?
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> More unsupported claims.
> 
> More attempts at insulting rather than producing a bit of evidence.
> 
> ...


huh. In this particular stream of the conversation, your literally refusing to look at the offered evidence. I expressed that you could study it yourself or not. You choose not apparently. Then go so far as to claim it was unsupported? amazing!!! 

*why the need to lie though??? You know very well I cited a link that connected a wide range of studies on the topic in question. If you dont want to break it down yourself, oh well as I said, but why pretend I didnt link it? *

Also since you seem confused again. there was not "more attempts at insulting"... You quoted the EXACT text you had claimed was an insult last time. Funny to note, the text you quoted two times referring to it as if it were separate instances was me asking if you need glasses. Your really making me wonder.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You claim to know how science works.
> 
> Using single studies, links to blogs and press releases, and claiming "refutes" and "proves" shows you don't.


if you say so. If you understood what was linked to the blog, youd see your clear fallacy however. Real world data disproving models. complete with links to dozens of papers explaining the physics.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If you really had any solid science, you wouldn't need to be doing the following....



silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> Also since you seem confused again. there was not "more attempts at insulting"... You quoted the EXACT text you had claimed was an insult last time. Funny to note, the text you quoted two times referring to it as if it were separate instances was me asking if you need glasses. Your really making me wonder.


Maybe you should show us some published scientific work where the level of discussion from those 'refuting' and 'proving' have to resort to the level of rhetoric you have been employing on and off through this thread.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....your literally refusing to look at the offered evidence.
> ...


You're proffering excerpts from outlier data. Much as Beck did.

Take your papers and compare their results with the established data.

If you see significant variations and can't account for them in the methodology of the established data; i.e. show a valid reason why that established data is invalid, then you look at how the paper in question came to their results.

And you know that is how science works; compare, analyze, review, investigate, redo, discuss, revise. 

so, when you proffer a paper as 'proof' that CO2 isn't a primary driver, think about the rigor that needs to go into that study before it could hold up in comparing to the mountains of data showing the opposite. 



Of course, the other little problem is that the blog often misstates the actual findings, overblows the findings, or misinterprets (sometimes because the blogger doesn't understand, sometimes because the blogger has his agenda). That is one reason why a 'new paper' is so blithely trotted out and repeated through the blogosphere.

Go look at the actual paper, read the discussions, read who cites the paper and how. compare, analyze, review, investigate, redo, discuss, revise.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> If you really had any solid science, you wouldn't need to be doing the following....


Actually if I didnt have solid science you would have acknowledged it and responded to it. Instead you ignored it and played silly posting games instead. 


> Maybe you should show us some published scientific work where the level of discussion from those 'refuting' and 'proving' have to resort to the level of rhetoric you have been employing on and off through this thread.


huh? 

here is some more for you to ignore. Dont worry, the IPCC will ignore it also. they already did. 

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models



> Abstract
> 
> We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10â10.5, 20â21, 60â62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850â1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10â10.5, 20â21 and 60â62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations. We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700â2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3â1.2 Â°C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0â3.6 Â°C projected warming. The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.
> 
> ...


Notice that there is only .3-1.2 left over when you account for solars actual influence. Our data is based on datasets that many studies the IPCC folks downplay are affected by land use changes and the urban heat island effect. Ive posted a few of the many on each of those topics. 

then we have this
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

Just how do we collect our raw data??? A new paper touches on this and shows...



> A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-Franceâs Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
> 
> The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


This will be rejects by AGW believers Im sure because one of this papers authors wrote a similar paper before.



> Lead author of the paper, Anthony Watts, commented:
> 
> âI fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. However, the Leroy 1999 site rating method employed to create the early metadata, and employed in the Fall et al 2011 paper I co-authored was incomplete, and didnât properly quantify the effects.
> 
> The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.â


So what new method did they use to go over the actual sources for raw data we base our nations land surface temps on???


> > Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.
> >
> > Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.
> >
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You're proffering excerpts from outlier data. Much as Beck did.
> 
> Take your papers and compare their results with the established data.
> 
> ...


Where is this mountains of data showing co2 is a major climate driver??? Ive studied the topic for years, I never encountered it. Ive seen loose corollaries at best. That rely on cherry picked datasets at that! and besides the one paper I linked Im aware of no one even attempting to explain why co2 is a major climate driver today, but wasnt even tied to temps most of earths history. Especially if you read and understood the studies linked t the blog you want to ignore. It all makes perfect sense in that context, all without ignoring most data, all without being counter to real world data. 

Its hilarious that you consider what I posted "outlier"... Very clear you never bothered to read them or look at the source data. Also interesting that you believe real world measurements dont disprove models because lots of people believed the models after all!!! 

I would explain how science works to you, but it seems you understand. You simply have yet to apply it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ummmm, I have been acknowledging that the bits you and others have been proffering up are not solid science. Some are outlier data that is being touted by the blogs trying to deny the science as 'refuting'&'disproving' mountains of data (beck). Some are unreplicated (most of Watt, et al) . Some aren't even science (Oregon PP).


And I have to play "silly posting games" because you don't actually support your claims.

So we have to ask over and over again for:

The plausible hypothesis supporting Beck's 240 gigitons of magical [email protected]

The names of 'almost all' the astrophysicists. The ones you claim disagree with IPCC. Actually, beyond Piers the weatherforcaster, you haven't offered up any names. And certainly no astrophysicists.

And finally, you've offered up one paper that you claim offers up a number in dispute of the IPCC findings.

Weeks, and finally one paper.......

You claim to know how science works. If so, you'd know that one paper doesn't disprove or refute major, long established, solid research.

At the very least, you'd need to see if anyone else has come up with similar results.

t


silverseeds said:


> Actually if I didnt have solid science you would have acknowledged it and responded to it. Instead you ignored it and played silly posting games instead.
> ......


And if you are as well studied as you claim, then you could sit yourself right down and explain what the Medieval Warming link you brought was talking about.

Not accuse others of not understanding, needing glasses, needing someone to read to them, etc, etc, etc

You'd think one would welcome the opportunity to help all of us more fully understand why you think this resource is valuable.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

All About Carbon Dioxide | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

The Carbon Cycle

ESA - Kids - Earth - Global warming

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

How Does Climate Change?

Global Warming : Feature Articles


The science of climate change | BIS

From Climate Change (2007) The Physical Science Basis,..
Frequently Asked Questions


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect





silverseeds said:


> ....
> Im aware of no one even attempting to explain why co2 is a major climate driver today
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Ummmm, I have been acknowledging that the bits you and others have been proffering up are not solid science. Some are outlier data that is being touted by the blogs trying to deny the science as 'refuting'&'disproving' mountains of data (beck). Some are unreplicated (most of Watt, et al) . Some aren't even science (Oregon PP).


It is very obvious you havent been reading the links and studies they linked to. 
Oh well, if you dont want an honest discussion then I cant force you. 

you realize we talk about everything but the actual content of the links I posted? very telling posting method you have. Exactly like the IPCC actually!!! notice that the solar study I posted above includes variables the IPCC doesnt even acknowledge with their single solar expert and her cooked datasets. 

Ive posted no outlier data. Not at all. Maybe if I had cited greenpeace like the IPCC instead of actual studies and raw data you would have looked at the links closer?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> All About Carbon Dioxide | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
> 
> The Carbon Cycle
> 
> ...


Yes thank you. you literally verified what i said if you actually go through their source data. but we can agree to disagree!


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

by the way roberte... Its hilarious you dismiss Watts work!!

An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?

If you go to the link above you can verify for yourself with raw source data that using the system built with multiple redundancies yields a july temp of 2.1 degrees cooler then the older system still in place NOAA uses, that needs the data adjusted for various local factors. 

Do we trust the data from a system built specifically to accurately gauge climate change over the long haul? Or the old patched work system that needs the data adjusted??? you can do the math yourself. the two datasets disagree completely. which do you put more stock in???

(you can ignore me if you like. I understand your predicament. If you put stock in the system with multiple redundancy then our entire past dataset of temps is in question, markedly higher then it should be. If you prefer the old system where all the data needss to be adjusted, then you are picking a patchwork over a modern system with multiple redundancy built for this exact purpose, that cant be an easy choice!! So feel free to keep pretending your not ignoring almost all direct questions while demanding I answer ones I already have!!!)


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

Here is another study for you to ignore. Originally published in the journal "energy and environment" titled "A null hypothesis for Co2" 

I can tell you right now you wont like it. He doesnt exclude variables others like to ignore, and the data fit his claims.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

By the way roberte, i posted that last one, just so you could continue to ignore the rest ive posted, and cling to the fact the journal its from admits it decides what to publish based on being politically motivated. Of course if you read it, he does back his claims well. Its an interesting piece for sure.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You might want to look at the data he chose to include.

Then look at his rational for that choice.

Then look at the available data from other sources.

Then cogitate on why he chose the methodology he did.

You know, that 'selectivity' that makes you argue so vehemently about Beck.



And note that the only people who cite this E&E paper is.....

Himself. Three times.

In 'papers' posted on a blog and a newspaper.....




Again, you have decided on an outcome and instead of doing thorough research, have chosen to pick 'a la carte' for the results that fit.

And you claim to know how science works......



silverseeds said:


> ...Its an interesting piece for sure.





silverseeds said:


> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
> 
> Here is another study for you to ignore. Originally published in the journal "energy and environment" titled "A null hypothesis for Co2"
> 
> I can tell you right now you wont like it. He doesnt exclude variables others like to ignore, and the data fit his claims.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Walk us through that.



silverseeds said:


> Yes thank you. you literally verified what i said if you actually go through their source data. but we can agree to disagree!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Read the author's corrigendum.

Big "could".

Not proof of anything.


But that is how those denying the science work; selective quoting, overstating, not correcting earlier claims as papers are revised.....


Not how science works. And you know that.




silverseeds said:


> ....
> ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So we have to ask again for:

The plausible hypothesis supporting Beck's 240 gigitons of magical [email protected]

The names of 'almost all' the astrophysicists. The ones you claim disagree with IPCC. Actually, beyond Piers the weatherforcaster, you haven't offered up any names. And certainly no astrophysicists.

And finally, you've offered up one paper that you claim offers up a number in dispute of the IPCC findings.

Weeks, and finally one paper.......

You claim to know how science works. If so, you'd know that one paper doesn't disprove or refute major, long established, solid research.

At the very least, you'd need to see if anyone else has come up with similar results.


Have they?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Y
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually if youve been reading my links its rather obvious it was the IPCC who do this. 

Dont want to admit to land use changes altering temps despte reams of studies! ignore it! dont want to include aspects of the suns influence? Ignore it! Dont want to include the verified heat island effect? Ignore it! dont want to include real world data that shows things arent matching your models? Ignore it! dont want to answer any more questions about the pesky medieval warm period? ignore the bulk of the data and theres no need!! Cant find a source for your claims? no worries cite an activist group!!! case closed, nothing to see. 

its hilarious to watch you ignore reams of data, pretend its outlier, then focus on one piece i pointed out myself was published in a biased journal. i did read it actually, there are indeed less holes in his claims then the AGW folks. its an interesting piece.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> by the way roberte... Its hilarious you dismiss Watts work!!
> 
> An âinconvenient resultâ â July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?
> 
> ...


You responded to posts after this one, but didnt respond to this. am I to take it you wont??

Also noticed you failed to respond to the solar study I posted, that used actual solar data including variables the IPCC ignored .


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> The names of 'almost all' the astrophysicists. The ones you claim disagree with IPCC. Actually, beyond Piers the weatherforcaster, you haven't offered up any names. And certainly no astrophysicists.


Yep, your definitely not reading my links. there have been a good number of astrophysicists in them. Piers corbyn is an astrophysicist as well though of course. 



> And finally, you've offered up one paper that you claim offers up a number in dispute of the IPCC findings.
> 
> Weeks, and finally one paper.......


huh??? there were DOZENS. youve only seen one so far? Your definitely not looking at the links. 



> You claim to know how science works. If so, you'd know that one paper doesn't disprove or refute major, long established, solid research.


it depends. If the paper is based on real world data that displaces long established models thatt rely on ignoring many variables then one paper can be enough. that isnt of course anything like what I did though. anyone reading my links and following what they link to as well knows this. 



> At the very least, you'd need to see if anyone else has come up with similar results.
> 
> 
> Have they?


get back to me when your willing to read what Ive been posting. In fact before you start demanding I re post it, go back and read all the data youve been ignoring thus far.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Land use is in the IPCC report AND has been linked to in this thread several times.











Maybe, if you don't like the numbers used by the IPCC report or don't like the forcing level they came up with, you should set down and explain how you or your author of choice came up with the numbers they or you are liking better. Show us how whatever data you have is at least or more reliable than the papers the IPCC used. Show us how the author's methodology is better based on your expertise and knowledge.

Might also want to go back and check the data on that "verified heat island effect". As well as consider how applicable -how much effect - it has globally to the temp. Sure not much in Kansas, or New Mexico, or Sahara, or Antarctic......

And you have been asked -politely, I might add - for your explanation of what the MWP site you posted meant. You've, instead, chosen to be snarky and insulting rather than sit down and explain it to all the readers.





silverseeds said:


> Actually if youve been reading my links its rather obvious it was the IPCC who do this.
> 
> Dont want to admit to land use changes altering temps despte reams of studies! ignore it! dont want to include aspects of the suns influence? Ignore it! Dont want to include the verified heat island effect? Ignore it! dont want to include real world data that shows things arent matching your models? Ignore it! dont want to answer any more questions about the pesky medieval warm period? ignore the bulk of the data and theres no need!! Cant find a source for your claims? no worries cite an activist group!!! case closed, nothing to see.
> 
> its hilarious to watch you ignore reams of data, pretend its outlier, then focus on one piece i pointed out myself was published in a biased journal. i did read it actually, there are indeed less holes in his claims then the AGW folks. its an interesting piece.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....there were DOZENS. youve only seen one so far? Your definitely not looking at the links.
> 
> ....


So you are positing there were "DOZENS" of papers linked or through-linked that show a significantly different number for solar irradiance?


Yet no one has taken all that hard research and synthesized it into a probable range?

Yet no one has taken the names of the authors and compiled a list of 'almost all astrophysicists' whe have done the research that disputes the IPCC number and probability range?


And then you complain that I'm not looking at 'real-world data'?

So, a mythical list of astrophysicists. A mythical number from their research....


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> In case you missed it, the first sentence negates the point you are trying to make since we have a century plus of solid research:
> 
> "inverse relationship between the level of
> certainty attached to any particular scientific construction and proximity to
> ...


In case you missed it, the point I was trying to make was that this paper gives a good explanation of how climate models are constructed and some of the problems that are inherent in them. 

The first sentence has nothing to do with that, but then I suppose you don't read much beyond that, do you? Maybe an abstract on a good day? Whatever.

For anyone else who is wondering...this paper contains a very good description of climate models, explained in a way most people can understand. There are section headings that should get someone in the right part.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> If the paper is based on real world data that displaces long established models thatt rely on ignoring many variables then one paper can be enough.
> .....


I wouldn't hang my hat on Popper. Esp. since we haven't even seen a plausible alternative hypothesis to explain:

Beck's magical CO2

Anything pointing to something other than our burning of fossil fuels for the current CO2 level.

Anything pointing to something other than that Anthropogenic CO2 causing most of the rise in temp and its other effects.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> In case you missed it, the first sentence negates the point you are trying to make since we have a century plus of solid research:
> 
> "inverse relationship between the level of
> certainty attached to any particular scientific construction and proximity to
> ...


Oh! And 100% of scientists agree that climate models are inaccurate! 

Find me any paper or source that says climate models are accurate. You can't.

Read any paper regarding climate models and report back what they have to say about uncertainty and inaccuracies. This will be in every single one.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Thanks for asking! (though we have gone over this before....)
> 
> "...97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."


But wait! That's a big difference from "98% of all scientists", isn't it??? 

Just like it's a huge difference to say that the earth will heat X degrees in the next X years rather than the more truthful...
a climate model predicts X with X amount of uncertainty in the estimate created with assumption X, Y and Z.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> But wait! That's a big difference from "98% of all scientists", isn't it???




Only if you are attempting a logical fallacy....

If you wanted a brain scan read, would you count the pediatrician as an equal to the brain surgeon ?

Note that I state it much as the paper does, 'scientists with demonstrated expertise in the field'.






Jena said:


> Just like it's a huge difference to say that the earth will heat X degrees in the next X years rather than the more truthful...
> a climate model predicts X with X amount of uncertainty in the estimate created with assumption X, Y and Z.


If you can find a paper that states their results as "..will heat X degrees in the next X years " , you'd have some credibility on that argument. The paper, not the press release, the blog, the chain email,.....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> Oh! And 100% of scientists agree that climate models are inaccurate!
> 
> Find me any paper or source that says climate models are accurate. You can't.
> 
> Read any paper regarding climate models and report back what they have to say about uncertainty and inaccuracies. This will be in every single one.



Yes, uncertainties are listed in any measurement. Your car's crankshaft, the permissible amount of variation in your gas mileage, thermometers, polls,....


Again, you are making a case with no support. Show us a paper that claims absolute certainty on any aspect we are touching on here.




It may be a bit technical, but Hansen discusses modeling accuracy in Global temperature change

Also discussed in the Science Basics portion of AR4

Roe discusses how models tend to be conservative in their results in Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?

Also discussed in Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model



Peter M. Cox*,


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> ....
> The first sentence has nothing to do with that,



Remember 'thesis statement' in English class?

How about 'topic sentence'?



Jena said:


> ....
> but then I suppose you don't read much beyond that, do you? Maybe an abstract on a good day? Whatever.
> ....


If you had some solid science you wouldn't be quite so likely to need to use that rhetorical device.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

roberte said:


> Remember 'thesis statement' in English class?
> 
> How about 'topic sentence'?
> 
> ...


Well you don't and others do have solid science behind them. All the GW folks can hope for is by posting some chart over and over and over again it will be taken as the truth. But too many others KNOW what the agenda of the GW Cult really is, we are on to them.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> So you are positing there were "DOZENS" of papers linked or through-linked that show a significantly different number for solar irradiance?
> 
> 
> Yet no one has taken all that hard research and synthesized it into a probable range?


 Is this a joke??? Did you miss the solar influence paper I posted?? (then pointed out you missed it several times) 

when did I say those dozens of papers were about solars influence? Also funny you framed it that way though!! because of solars influence that is the only one the IPCC doesnt ignore. 



> Yet no one has taken the names of the authors and compiled a list of 'almost all astrophysicists' whe have done the research that disputes the IPCC number and probability range?
> 
> 
> And then you complain that I'm not looking at 'real-world data'?
> ...


the entire field is against the IPCC number roberte!! this is why they relied on a single solar scientist who had to use faulty data. 

Yes very obvious your not looking at real world data. You have yet to acknowledge a whole range of posts. 

I never once said there wass a list of astrophysicists. You made this up then rambled on about it. so yes its mythical. the number from their research isnt mythical, you simply arent ready the links. 

this is well into la la land by now by the way. Youve ignored so much Ive posted its not even a conversation. Is your plan to bury everything Ive posted under your strange dances that do everything but address the content of my links???


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Land use is in the IPCC report AND has been linked to in this thread several times.


Yes, but their claims are counter to most of the research.



> And you have been asked -politely, I might add - for your explanation of what the MWP site you posted meant. You've, instead, chosen to be snarky and insulting rather than sit down and explain it to all the readers.


hilarious! you were told nicely you can study it yourself or not. That you could ultimately agree or disagree it wasnt my concern. Rather then being reasonable you keep coming up with nonsense like this. Its amazing to see. I have to wonder if you even take yourself seriously at this point. 

Notice we talk about everything but the actual content of th links I gave. Notice you failed to even acknowledge the bulk of links Ive posted. My sides hurt laughing so hard.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> by the way roberte... Its hilarious you dismiss Watts work!!
> 
> An âinconvenient resultâ â July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?
> 
> ...


Still going to ignore the question? 


By the way I noticed you still didnt acknowledge the solar paper I posted, but you took off the solar influence question from your demanded list I answered long long ago. VERY interesting to look at the precise point you still failed to acknowledge the study, but stopped listing that particular item. Very telling indeed.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Only if you are attempting a logical fallacy....
> 
> If you wanted a brain scan read, would you count the pediatrician as an equal to the brain surgeon ?
> 
> ...


Did you not ask for proof that climate models are inaccurate just a few posts ago???? So now you are saying they are????


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> Did you not ask for proof that climate models are inaccurate just a few posts ago???? So now you are saying they are????


All measurements have a +- range; the fuel pump at the gas station, the thermometer, weather forecasts, polls, how much chicken feed is in your 40 lb sack, % of viable seeds in a pack, .....


You are claiming that the models state x in y years. They don't. They say x +- in Y +- with a z% probability. 

And you might want to do a bit of research on how a certain person got up in front of congress and made fake claims about the IPCC projections. Inhofe loved him, blogs loved him, then when he was questioned about it/ Turns out he only used the 5% probability numbers, not the 95% numbers. He had to retract his statements. But his fake chart still floats around the blogosphere......

And if you'd done any research, rather than touting some blog talking point, you'd know that the models have a pretty steady history of narrowing the +- 's and show to be pretty accurate in their predictions.

You might also want to check on 'backcasting'


And you haven't been able to bring us an paper that claims a model says x in y without qualifying probability and range of accuracy.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans
> 
> Here is a blog talking about some of the more complex aspects of the AGW mythology. Complete with citations. covering issues not often brought up in internet "debates"...


So while real world data continues to mount against the AGW mythology, in the backround we are finding out more about what is actually going on....




silverseeds said:


> here is some more for you to ignore. Dont worry, the IPCC will ignore it also. they already did.
> 
> ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models


Here is one you werent likely to see, if you are in the church of AGW... According to a few reviewers of the IPCCs next report this will NOt be in there. Yet its direct real world evidence hinting at the suns true role. which is even greater then the study above, which didnt include this variable. IThe study above did include variables of the suns role the IPCC ignores completely though.

It is interesting to note, the climate modellers admit they dont understand clouds much. You would have thought data explaining this would be of interest. Didnt support their mythology (in fact ripped it in half and killed it if you understand what your looking at here, and it continues to be verified, thus far we have both real world data and all our data in our records that show this is a MAJOR player, it was ignored in our records, and this experiment verified it. for those "skeptics" that are skeptics for political reasons and point to the sun without understanding it, THIS is the dataset missing the does indeed make the sun account for all not just most climatic changes.) Well the links below are experiments from CERN verifying a theory on the suns direct role. You can rest assured though it might not be front page new there is study the world over on this. 

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action Â« Calder's Updates

Accelerator results on cloud nucleation (2) Â« Calder's Updates

Despite the IPCC ignoring this, you can be sure governments the world over have not. In fact Id bet that this is the reason why feet started shuffling last time it came round to make treaties over carbon. who wants to sign binding treaties on carbon when we are realizing the suns true role??

I was waiting to post all this. I like watching roberte dance around and ignore reams of data as he assures us the science is settled.

Sorry but if you understand the above, its very obvious it isnt even close to settled. In fact AGW is likely about to fade away. Now if you understand the above, one must really wonder why the IPCC continues to ignore this?? I thought it was all about the science for them? Citing those activist groups as if they were legit science was a mistake afterall right?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Still going to ignore the question?
> 
> 
> By the way I noticed you still didnt acknowledge the solar paper I posted


Only one paper? That was your proof of what?




silverseeds said:


> , but you took off the solar influence question from your demanded list ...



Sorry Here you go:

Where is the list of 'almost all astrophysicists' that you claim dispute the IPCC numbers?

And just what papers have a number substantively different than the IPCC number? 

If your claim is truthful, then it should be a simple matter of taking any of the names on your list, the list that seems to be a bit of mythology, and reviewing any papers they might have published in a journal.

Heck, at this point, I wouldn't be too picky on the credibility, the relevance, the political slant, of the journal.

Just show us a number by one of those astrophysicists.

Of course, by your claim, you'd really need to bring a large body of research that centers around a number that has a fair level of agreement from your list of 'almost all'


Until then, what we have is yet another example of the 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2'



( Oh, don't forget you haven't been able to bring a plausible hypothesis for Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon. And by your own claim, if the paper can be shown to be false in an aspect, then it is wrong in its entirety; it's that Popper bit ......)


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....Despite the IPCC ignoring this, you can be sure governments the world over have not.
> .....


What is your evidence the the IPCC is "ignoring" that bit?

And why would "governments" be so observant of it?

Quite the rant your fellow did:
"Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996."

Not so odd that there are no links to anything that could support his claims.
Other than "close personal observation"...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Only one paper? That was your proof of what?


 hilarious!

Did you read the question??? 

Do you trust the old patchwork system that all the temps need adjusted that tells us this last july was the hottest on record.

OR

Do you trust the system we built with multiple redundancy built literally to measure the change in temps over the long term that shows it was 2.1 degrees cooler then the old system claims???

Which of the two datasets do you trust? i guess you can pretend not to understand the question again instead. But it would be a SIMPLE ANSWER if you valued science. 



> by the way roberte... Its hilarious you dismiss Watts work!!
> An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?
> 
> If you go to the link above you can verify for yourself with raw source data that using the system built with multiple redundancies yields a july temp of 2.1 degrees cooler then the older system still in place NOAA uses, that needs the data adjusted for various local factors.
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Yes, but their claims are counter to most of the research.
> 
> ....


Still waiting for that body of evidence.

Wonder why you, et al, have danced around with great efforts to bring anything substantive forward to support your claims.

Doesn't it seem the least bit strange that if this is such an important issue that no one has compiled such a list?

Or is it just so much easier to repost a blog claim?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> What is your evidence the the IPCC is "ignoring" that bit?
> 
> And why would "governments" be so observant of it?


I know the IPCC ignored it, because a reviewer of the 5th report have talked about the fact they have downplayed the suns role to a greater degree then they did last time. 

Why would governments pay attention to something that shows the sun is the driver of all observed changes?? before they sign onto international treaties that are binding?? Id think its pretty obvious actually. 




> Quite the rant your fellow did:
> "Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996."
> 
> Not so odd that there are no links to anything that could support his claims.
> Other than "close personal observation"...


this is what you say to data that shows AGW was a puff of hot air??? You do realize AGW died in the cern chamber right? Granted there is still more research to go, but ALL of our real world data pointed to this, we just didnt have a way to test it until recently. When tested it proved legit. Being science we need more tests of course, but thus far our entire dataset of past records, and direct real world experiments both verify it. cant say the same for the co2 mythology.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Still waiting for that body of evidence.
> 
> Wonder why you, et al, have danced around with great efforts to bring anything substantive forward to support your claims.
> 
> ...


huh... so you still ignored my direct questions about whether or not you value the old patchwork NOAA system which needs all the temps adjusted, or the new system built with multiple redundancy that shows it was 2.1 degrees cooler.

You have yet to even acknowledge the solar study, and when you responded to the CERN experiment verifying that its likely the sun is the sole driver of our observed climate changes you respond about how someone worded this??? interesting. All while claiming I didnt offer a solid body of research. hmmm. 

Feel free to cling to your models that already have real world data showing their in accuracy while some of the rest of us follow the science. It will be interesting to see how long the mythology can cling on as more data mounts.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> Feel free to cling to your models


Models are just one of many lines of proof.





silverseeds said:


> that already have real world data showing their in accuracy


Which neither you nor jena have been able to bring any proof of.





silverseeds said:


> while some of the rest of us follow the science.



Here, I'll fix your statement:

"some of the rest of us" -- a shrinking number as the lack of scientific rigor of those proffering talking points for those wanting to deny the science is continually exposed - "follow the science" that has been selected so the 'some of the rest of us' will have some unsupported talking points.



silverseeds said:


> It will be interesting to see how long the mythology can cling on as more data mounts.



Again, where is this growing mountain of data?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> huh... so you still ignored my direct questions about whether or not you value the old patchwork NOAA system which needs all the temps adjusted, or the new system built with multiple redundancy that shows it was 2.1 degrees cooler.
> 
> ....


That was Watts, the ex weatherman, claim. 

I'd suggest you read the comments on his blog about the problems with his analysis; if he hasn't deleted them.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Models are just one of many lines of proof.


What other lines of proof are there? Its certainly not in our geological records. 



> Which neither you nor jena have been able to bring any proof of.


OPPS actually I did, you just arent reading the links. 





> Here, I'll fix your statement:
> 
> "some of the rest of us" -- a shrinking number as the lack of scientific rigor of those proffering talking points for those wanting to deny the science is continually exposed - "follow the science" that has been selected so the 'some of the rest of us' will have some unsupported talking points.


interesting stance. in actual reality my stance is based on the data, yours is based on a political stance supported by cherry picked datasets and ignoring many variables. 

doesnt matter if you admit it, its rather obvious on its own. Interesting how you relate to the reams of data Ive now posted. You dont have a scientific bone in your body. 






> Again, where is this growing mountain of data?


hmmm... Are we in the same conversation???


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> That was Watts, the ex weatherman, claim.
> 
> I'd suggest you read the comments on his blog about the problems with his analysis; if he hasn't deleted them.


Ut oh!! Nope it wasnt his "claim"... you can do the math yourself...

Its all explained in the link you apparently have yet to read. You can get the data directly from the source, our new updated multiple redundancy system...

An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?

So can we get an honest answer yet???

Do you trust the old patchwork system that needs nearly all the numbers adjusted???

Or do you believe the new system made with multiple redundancy for this exact purpose that show a vastly cooler temp?? 

You can literally verify the numbers yourself. Nice dodge though!! Others who didnt read the link might believe you made a point!!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....You do realize AGW died in the cern chamber right?


Hyperbole, meet your creator.....



silverseeds said:


> Granted there is still more research to go


Backtracking, wonder why.....





silverseeds said:


> , but ALL of our real world data pointed to this,
> ....




First, your "ALL" means - using your Popper conceit - only one paper needs be brought forward to make your claim false.

Second, if there were an "ALL", then it would be compiled so those throwing out your talking point could point to that "ALL" mountain.

And, not so oddly at all, we get silence. No list of astrophysics number that shows agreement on a number different than the IPCC number, no names of the 'almost all', no plausible hypothesis for Beck's magical CO2.

Crickets.........


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Read. And quite interesting that the source you cling to most is a blog.

A blog written by an ex-weatherman.

A blog written by an ex-weatherman who bans posters for linking to data showing how he manipulates and selects his data.


Let us know when you have something substantive; published work with public scrutiny and discussion.

You know, the real science that.........

Oh bother, if Watts is considered science...... that explains a lot in terms of the criticality with which the data is viewed. Sorta Beckian......




silverseeds said:


> Ut oh!! Nope it wasnt his "claim"... you can do the math yourself...
> 
> Its all explained in the link you apparently have yet to read.
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Hyperbole, meet your creator.....


Its true actually if you understand what I posted. the data has looong hinted at exactly this, well weve finally tested and proven it true. 


> Backtracking, wonder why.....


Hilarious! That isnt backtracking at all. This is simply how science works. In fact this was the SECOND experiment of the same thing, the AGW devout were saying it was a fluke, but then the second experiment verified the same thing. 




> First, your "ALL" means - using your Popper conceit - only one paper needs be brought forward to make your claim false.


Hilarious!! so only one paper is needed to prove what I say false, but a paper on real world data versus co2 climate models cant prove models wrong. Interesting stance. Very "scientific"... and yes, ALL the data on this particular variable did show a link with the sun, its only now it could be proven though. 



> Second, if there were an "ALL", then it would be compiled so those throwing out your talking point could point to that "ALL" mountain.
> 
> And, not so oddly at all, we get silence. No list of astrophysics number that shows agreement on a number different than the IPCC number, no names of the 'almost all', no plausible hypothesis for Beck's magical CO2.
> 
> Crickets.........


hilarious! still bringing up answered questions as if your making a point! Still ignoring MY questions, and my links such as the solar study linked above I pointed out to you probably a dozen times now and reposted 2-3 yet have yet to even be acknowledged. very very telling.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> in actual reality my stance is based on the data
> ....


Then it should be no problem citing it.

Just like every published paper has at the end.

Just like every IPCC report has. Pages and pages of citations.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Hilarious!! so only one paper is needed to prove what I say false, but a paper
> ....


Just parroted one of your claims...... Look up Popper.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Read. And quite interesting that the source you cling to most is a blog.
> 
> A blog written by an ex-weatherman.
> 
> ...


hilarious!! instead of answering a very simple question where you could literally verify the numbers yourself... you ramble on and on... 

YOU CAN VERIFY the numbers yourself straight from the source!!! he links it at the site!!! Your hiding under a shadow here. 

Its ok!! i understand. If you say that you value the updated system with multiple redundancy then its not actually warmer this year, its cold. If you want to go by the old patchwork system where the numbers need adjusted to make up for local variables then your obviously picking agenda over accuracy. thats got to be a tough spot to be in for the devout.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> hilarious! still bringing up answered questions
> .....


If you post where you answered:

A list of names of the 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with the IPCC number.

A number those 'almost all' have agreed upon.
(you do realize, I hope, that that number has to be over an order of magnitude larger than the IPCC number.)

Anyone with a plausible hypothesis for Beck's magical 240gigatons of Carbon. 

Link to what you consider your answers.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ...
> the AGW devout were saying it was a fluke,
> ....


Where?

Your claim. Support it.

Or do we have to add that to the list?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Where?
> 
> Your claim. Support it.
> 
> Or do we have to add that to the list?


Feel free to add it to the "list". Your cracking me up! Its amazing to see you list all your "questions" as if I didnt answer them many times. I cant fathom what point you think your making. 

It does show me that you havent followed this. 

ISNT IT TELLING MOST OF MY LINKS WERE ENTIRELY IGNORED, AND WE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE LINKS YOU DID ACKNOWLEDGE!!!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You bring a smidge and attempt to smear whole bodies of evidence.

Then refuse to show us your 'mountains' and 'growing' data.

Or quote a press release or a blog or a paper written by a high school teacher, or try to claim a vet has the expertise of a published climate scientist.


When you are ready to argue the science, you'll find you have no science to argue with.

Til then, all we seem to see are those high school teacher papers, blogs and press releases.


And you claim to know science.



silverseeds said:


> Feel free to add it to the "list". Your cracking me up! Its amazing to see you list all your "questions" as if I didnt answer them many times. I cant fathom what point you think your making.
> 
> It does show me that you havent followed this.
> 
> ISNT IT TELLING MOST OF MY LINKS WERE ENTIRELY IGNORED, AND WE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE LINKS YOU DID ACKNOWLEDGE!!!


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> When you are ready to argue the science, you'll find you have no science to argue with.
> 
> Til then, all we seem to see are those high school teacher papers, blogs and press releases.
> 
> ...


Heck my friend, i barely scratched the surface, and I did indeed post science showing the fallacy of all major claims of AGW. there is much more data on each topic, in fact it becomes VERY obvious how the IPCC cherry picked their claims if you actually study this.

I also posted alternative explanations that fit the actual data. And you say I posted no science? 

Oh well. If you arent going to look at it honestly, you of course wont see it in context.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Where?
> 
> Your claim. Support it.
> 
> Or do we have to add that to the list?


How about you tell us how the AGW folks account for this??? 

(they dont, because if acknowledged there is no room left for their theory) 

Or is this one of those outlier datapoints we should ignore?? (despite us now knowing more on the scope of the suns actual role) 

this is perhaps the best link, its from those that did the experiment. 
Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover

Currently they are modelling what effect this will have on the suns role in our current climate. If you followed this before it was actually proven as it now is as I have, you know that this explains our current climate with a high degree of accuracy. By including now proven roles of the sun.

Im literally telling you we have proven this role of the sun now. this WILL change the models. 

Keep in mind the IPCC ALREADY ignored other proven roles of the sun in their last report!!!

The study here..

Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover

This paper above though it included things the IPCC ignored, doesnt include the other variable relating to clouds I just linked about. Because this is basically cutting edge. Its been a long time theory, but only recently proven. 

you can ignore it all you like roberte. These things will indeed change the theory of AGW. Currently they are gauging just what effect this has had on past climate, and working it into climate models, but Looking at past data, its clear the effect is huge and better explains our recent climate shifts, that werent even large in a historical sense.

So was does the AGW church say about it? Or is it still mostly off radar??? Will you dismiss the science since you dont agree with it? You pretend I dismissed science, in reality I offered alternative interpretations of it. In fact interpretations that better fit the data.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If you have proof, this would be a good time to bring it forward.

Like a link to where here you "..did indeed post science showing the fallacy of all major claims of AGW."

Or where there "..is much more data on each topic.."

And how you know ".. the IPCC cherry picked their claims.."

And where you "..posted alternative explanations.."


Til then, more and more empty claims.......

Which you know isn't how science works.


So, show us where you stand.




silverseeds said:


> Heck my friend, i barely scratched the surface, and I did indeed post science showing the fallacy of all major claims of AGW. there is much more data on each topic, in fact it becomes VERY obvious how the IPCC cherry picked their claims if you actually study this.
> 
> I also posted alternative explanations that fit the actual data. And you say I posted no science?
> 
> Oh well. If you arent going to look at it honestly, you of course wont see it in context.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

From the abstract:

" *Model *calculations *suggest* that *almost half* of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer *may *originate "

How does that 'disprove', 'blow holes into, 'proves', or any other hyperbolic claim is made about this paper?

You claim to know how science works. But those two together for us. Show us how one paper does all you claim.

Show us how:



silverseeds said:


> ...modelling what effect this will have on the suns role in our current climate


fits to your claims.






silverseeds said:


> How about you tell us how the AGW folks account for this???
> 
> (they dont, because if acknowledged there is no room left for their theory)
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

After the data I have linked, if this is your response, its obvious an honest discussion was never an option. 

Oh well. I expected that, Ive debated this with you before. I gave you the ebenfit of the doubt though. 

when you would like a serious discussion let me know. Which would mean discussing the actual content of my links rather then pretending I didnt link them or the other games you play. For some of us the truth is more important then our personal opinions. As far as Im concerned basing a society on fossil fuel usage is one of the most short sighted things humans ever did. I dont let that cloud how I interpret the data however. 

Anyone actually reading the links want to discuss this??


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

BTW,

Did you ever figure out how those "random names" were connected?

Maybe I should add that to the list of unsupported claims.......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> After the data I have linked, if this is your response, its obvious an honest discussion was never an option.


How? You proffered a paper that the press release makes much bigger claims than the abstract.

I quoted from the abstract.



silverseeds said:


> Oh well. I expected that, Ive debated this with you before. I gave you the ebenfit of the doubt though.


Repeating unsupported claims is not 'debating', what this is, is just rhetoric.



silverseeds said:


> ....
> pretending I didnt link them or the other games you play.
> ...




If you really have those links, it would be a simple matter of showing us where you've posted them.

But the history of unsupported claims, the misrepresentation of scientists' work, the selective citings, the inability to bring forward basic information that would support the hollow claims tends to show why you haven't yet.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> But the history of unsupported claims, the misrepresentation of scientists' work, the selective citings, the inability to bring forward basic information that would support the hollow claims tends to show why you haven't yet.


:stars: actually the fact you had to ignore the vast bulk of what i posted is the telling thing here. You dealt with the debate as if it was political posturing, rather then an attempt at a scientific discussion. 

You win!! I want off your merry go round. You win by boredom!!! perhaps if someone shows up who wants to discuss the science and the dozens of posted studies I linked I will come back. I will continue to follow the science myself. You can cling to your beliefs, cherry picked out of partial datasets. You will be surprised in coming years though. Hopefully as AGW dies, it doesnt take science with it, or our other REAL environmental threats, several of which are more dangerous then warming could ever be.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

hurry up roberte! if you post a few more times everything I posted will be buried enough people new to the thread might never see it!!!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The "vast bulk" of what you've posted are press releases, blog postings, high school teacher papers, ex-weatherman's posts, and a figurative ton of claims that those "disprove", "refute", and other hyperbolic claims.

If you were to actually take the numbers and statements from your press releases, blog postings, high school teacher papers, ex-weatherman's posts and directly compare them to the science and explain why you are putting so much credence on outlier data, overblown press releases, papers written by people with little to no expertise, then you'd be on the way to establishing some credibility for your 'science'.


But instead, we get a lot of protesting and whining. 









silverseeds said:


> :stars: actually the fact you had to ignore the vast bulk of what i posted
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

For those looking:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/search.php?searchid=3894733




silverseeds said:


> ...everything I posted ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .... as AGW dies,
> ...


Even in attempting to quit the discussion, we get more unsupported claims and rhetoric.


Real sciencey......


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> The "vast bulk" of what you've posted are press releases, blog postings, high school teacher papers, ex-weatherman's posts, and a figurative ton of claims that those "disprove", "refute", and other hyperbolic claims.


If thats what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, oh well. You apparently didnt read those links, and the numerous links therein. 

Like I said we discussed everything but the actual content of the links I posted, and data linked therein. why is that? Why the need to use political posturing rather then data? 

Even when I linked real world data disproving models, youd ramble on about the fact the studies showing why the models failed were linked through a blog. As if this was relevant in any way. You didnt of course acknowledge the actual studies and science explaining why the models had failed. 

that is of course but one example of the posturing you called a scientific debate. If this is how you believe science discourse works it makes more sense why you believe AGW is dangerous let alone happening. the few things you did acknowledge, which was the minority of the total you simply dismissed for various reasons. that isnt how science works though. Well it wasnt before AGW.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

My bolding.

Here's a couple of lists covering "most every major claim of AGW"

Perhaps you could show us how you've shown how you've been "disputting" them.




silverseeds said:


> Im not even sure what you mean, or what your basing this on. *I posted real science disputing most every major claim of AGW.* Along with datasets you could verify for yourself the AGW folks cherry picked horribly.
> 
> I can only assume you dont know what the IPCC actually uses to support their claims, and didnt study the links I gave, and data they linked in cases it wasnt directly on what I posted.





Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Palaeoclimate
Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Climate Models and their Evaluation
Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Global Climate Projections
Regional Climate Projections

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
1.1 Observations of climate change
1.2 Observed effects of climate changes
1.3 Consistency of changes in physical and biological systems with warming
1.4 Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change
2 Causes of change
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
2.2 Drivers of climate change
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks
2.4 Attribution of climate change
3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios
3.1 Emissions scenarios
3.2 Projections of future changes in climate
3.3 Impacts of future climate changes
3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changes
4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
4.1 Responding to climate change
4.2 Adaptation options
4.3 Mitigation options
4.4 Relationship between adaptation and mitigation options and relationship with sustainable development
4.5 International and regional cooperation
5 The long-term perspective: scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Convention, and in the context of sustainable development
5.1 Risk management perspective
5.2 Key vulnerabilities, impacts and risks &#8211; long-term perspectives
5.3 Adaptation and mitigation
5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation
5.5 Technology flows and development
5.6 Costs of mitigation and long-term stabilisation targets
5.7 Costs, benefits and avoided climate impacts at global and regional levels
5.8 Broader environmental and sustainability issues
6 Robust findings, key uncertainties
6.1 Observed changes in climate and their effects, and their causes
6.2 Drivers and projections of future climate changes and their impacts
6.3 Responses to climate change

AR4 SYR Synthesis Report



What did you post about each?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> What did you post about each?


I truly wonder, have you been reading the threads? Remember all those ignored posts of mine? Remember the few you acknowledged but apparently didnt read because you didnt like the place the data was linked through?? It was there.

You did this on the last forum I "debated" this with you on. Its political posturing for you, not science. 

I showed you how real world data showed why models were wrong on a particular point. you just rambled on about 100 years of data, and the fact it was linked through a blog. Yet its clear, the models were wrong, and we have science explaining why. 

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans

This was one of many things you refused to discuss in context. why the political posturing instead of an honest discussion???

or what about this?
An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?

you can do the math yourself! its clear that with the system we built specifically to track climate over the long term it was 2.1 degrees COOLER then when you use the old patchwork system NOAA uses where most of the raw data needs to be "adjusted" for local effects. Instead of discussing this in context you rambled on about watts as a person. THE MATH IS RIGHT THERE FOR YOU TO DO YOURSELF. you refused to discuss this in context. 

or what about....
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models

Ive asked for you to respond to this study many times and linked it for the third time now. You didnt even acknowledge it yet. the IPCC and their single solar expert didnt include all known solar influences, this study models how the charts change when you do. By the way, this one doesnt include the now proven fact that the sun is playing a role in cloud formation. 

you did this type of thing with everything else I posted as well. i could repost them all and ask for an actual discussion, but first I guess we can see if re posting these ones gets some legit conversation rolling.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ...Ive asked for you to respond to this study many times
> 
> ...


If the data holds up, we'll see what the IPCC does with the data.

Until then, what you have is an example of a paper that looks at one tiny part of the field and posits that it might have an effect.

Of course, there is a bit of an attempt to self-prophesy .. "The *proposed *astronomical empirical climate model *assumes*"

Still waiting for your 'mountains' of data, your 'astrophysicists, your number, your plausible hypothesis.......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You link to THE HOCKEY SCHTICK then complain about me doing "political posturing"?


Tell us why we should believe the author of that blog over the established expertise of the published scientists.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ...wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-
> 
> ...


Discussed already.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

My bolding.

Here's a couple of lists covering "most every major claim of AGW"

Perhaps you could show us how you've shown how you've been "disputting" them.




silverseeds said:


> Im not even sure what you mean, or what your basing this on. *I posted real science disputing most every major claim of AGW.* Along with datasets you could verify for yourself the AGW folks cherry picked horribly.
> 
> I can only assume you dont know what the IPCC actually uses to support their claims, and didnt study the links I gave, and data they linked in cases it wasnt directly on what I posted.





Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Palaeoclimate
Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Climate Models and their Evaluation
Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Global Climate Projections
Regional Climate Projections

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
1.1 Observations of climate change
1.2 Observed effects of climate changes
1.3 Consistency of changes in physical and biological systems with warming
1.4 Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change
2 Causes of change
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
2.2 Drivers of climate change
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks
2.4 Attribution of climate change
3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios
3.1 Emissions scenarios
3.2 Projections of future changes in climate
3.3 Impacts of future climate changes
3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changes
4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
4.1 Responding to climate change
4.2 Adaptation options
4.3 Mitigation options
4.4 Relationship between adaptation and mitigation options and relationship with sustainable development
4.5 International and regional cooperation
5 The long-term perspective: scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Convention, and in the context of sustainable development
5.1 Risk management perspective
5.2 Key vulnerabilities, impacts and risks &#8211; long-term perspectives
5.3 Adaptation and mitigation
5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation
5.5 Technology flows and development
5.6 Costs of mitigation and long-term stabilisation targets
5.7 Costs, benefits and avoided climate impacts at global and regional levels
5.8 Broader environmental and sustainability issues
6 Robust findings, key uncertainties
6.1 Observed changes in climate and their effects, and their causes
6.2 Drivers and projections of future climate changes and their impacts
6.3 Responses to climate change

AR4 SYR Synthesis Report



What did you post about each?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Ok. Youve given your answer. More political posturing instead of discussing the content of the posts or links. oh well. and that was three out of a much larger pool. Gee should I re link them all for you to ignore, and then go dig up more data on the same topics for you to ignore? this is just to the silly level. 

By the way, by pretending that we discussed the link below in any meaningful way, you are literally by default telling me you value the old patchwork system where all the values need to be adjusted because of local factors, over the new system with multiple redundancy and impeccably sited locations. You can do the math yourself literally getting the data right from the source. the old system gave us the hottest temp for july in modern records, the new system gave us a temp 2.1 degrees cooler then this. I happen to think the new system that by design doesnt need adjusted because of local factors is the accurate one, you refuse to even answer in a legit way despite being ablle to do the math yourself. Why??? Is this how you believe science works? authority over raw data? 

An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?

I should add that you seem terribly confused about what is on the hockey schtick site. you mis characterized or perhaps mis understood the solar study as well. It simply including already proven variables, the IPCC ignored in their last report. Its safe to assume they will ignore it again. Even if the paper gave values that were off somewhat, it is still including proven variables the IPCC has a history of ignoring. this isnt exactly a single paper standing against the IPCC. (and their single solar expert)


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Where asking for the actual science - as opposed to press releases, high school teacher paper, overblown blog postings where new papers are routinely claimed as 'proof' all the science is wrong - 

is labeled as "political posturing"


Or is _Alice in Wonderland_ more applicable?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> already proven variables, the IPCC ignored in their last report
> 
> ....



What "variables" are you talking about?

And what proof can be brought for "already proven"?

And how do you know the "the IPCC ignored" them?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

All the numbers are right there roberte. This is as basic as science gets, sorry. You can get the numbers from the literal source just as watts did. You have nothing to say here but political posturing. 

Data direct from the new system shows the old system where the numbers need adjusted for local factors disagree by 2.1 degrees. the new system was built with multiple redundancy. You can get the data direct from the source. there is nothing you can say. Its rather obvious the new system is the more trustworthy having been built literally so data didnt need adjusted and for accuracy. you can ignore this all you like, but you have access to the actual raw data. 

If all my posts had been nothing but blog postings without valid content as you imply I have a hard time believing you would have ignored the bulk of them completely as you did. Perhaps you might even had addressed the few you did acknowledge in context had they taken the shape you claim. 

Oh well. I will follow the data myself.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Make sure to proclaim it loudly when it's written up the literature.




silverseeds said:


> All the numbers are right there
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

My bolding.

Here's a couple of lists covering "most every major claim of AGW"

Perhaps you could show us how you've shown how you've been "disputting" them.




silverseeds said:


> Im not even sure what you mean, or what your basing this on. *I posted real science disputing most every major claim of AGW.* Along with datasets you could verify for yourself the AGW folks cherry picked horribly.
> 
> I can only assume you dont know what the IPCC actually uses to support their claims, and didnt study the links I gave, and data they linked in cases it wasnt directly on what I posted.





Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Palaeoclimate
Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Climate Models and their Evaluation
Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Global Climate Projections
Regional Climate Projections

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
1.1 Observations of climate change
1.2 Observed effects of climate changes
1.3 Consistency of changes in physical and biological systems with warming
1.4 Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change
2 Causes of change
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
2.2 Drivers of climate change
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks
2.4 Attribution of climate change
3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios
3.1 Emissions scenarios
3.2 Projections of future changes in climate
3.3 Impacts of future climate changes
3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changes
4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
4.1 Responding to climate change
4.2 Adaptation options
4.3 Mitigation options
4.4 Relationship between adaptation and mitigation options and relationship with sustainable development
4.5 International and regional cooperation
5 The long-term perspective: scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Convention, and in the context of sustainable development
5.1 Risk management perspective
5.2 Key vulnerabilities, impacts and risks &#8211; long-term perspectives
5.3 Adaptation and mitigation
5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation
5.5 Technology flows and development
5.6 Costs of mitigation and long-term stabilisation targets
5.7 Costs, benefits and avoided climate impacts at global and regional levels
5.8 Broader environmental and sustainability issues
6 Robust findings, key uncertainties
6.1 Observed changes in climate and their effects, and their causes
6.2 Drivers and projections of future climate changes and their impacts
6.3 Responses to climate change

AR4 SYR Synthesis Report



What did you post about each?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Make sure to proclaim it loudly when it's written up the literature.


So raw data direct from the source doesnt become real until its written up in literature? 

You can do the math yourself. Using the old patchwork system this last july was the hottest on record. This system has sites situated in poor locations and the data literally needs adjusted. Alternatively we have a system literally built to track climate change, with multiple redundancy. Like I said, you can get the raw source data. There is a 2.1 degree difference between these two sources of data. 

you certainly seem to be saying you believe the old system is the trust worthy one. the one we already replaced to get better accuracy but simply fail to use the updated system. this is very telling to me. As is your refusal to discuss anything in the links I gave, such as the dropping ocean temps and the rest. but whatever. its your life.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> My bolding.
> 
> Here's a couple of lists covering "most every major claim of AGW"
> 
> Perhaps you could show us how you've shown how you've been "disputting" them.


Perhaps you could go back and read my posts??? reply to some of the links in actual context??? We might then have something resembling an honest conversation. If you ignore the bulk I post, and the few you acknowledge we talk about everything but the actual content, it isnt exactly a conversation. You dont appear to be trying to debate a topic of science. Your political posturing. I had more data to post on most of the topics i already covered. I was waiting for some responses to the actual data I posted though. you know like data backing the AGW side, to which I expected to continue to back my opinion and vice versa. instead of discussing it, its buried under a sea of posts like yours above. Oh well! you win i guess. 

I have to ask, is this how you believe a scientific discussion should go? I understand this is just an internet forum, and such things can be tricky in such a place but we could have certainly done better then whatever you called our exchange up to this point.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Perhaps you could go back and read my posts??? reply to some of the links in actual context??? We might then have something resembling an honest conversation.


Let us know when you've got a body of evidence that overturns the century plus of world wide research that disproves anything in the IPCC findings.

You know, those astrophysicists names.

Their number.

The ignored aspects.

How CO2 isn't the primary driver.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Let us know when you've got a body of evidence that overturns the century plus of world wide research that disproves anything in the IPCC findings.
> 
> You know, those astrophysicists names.
> 
> ...


uh huh... let me know when youd like an actual discussion, instead of whatever you call this. 

by the way it wouldnt be upending a century of study, in fact the bulk of the data sides with me. rather it would b simply acknowledging the ignored data and making models the fit all of it rather then cherry picking out what we want to be true. 

We can for instance expect a warmer world to be calmer NOT more chaotic. It is potentially true people would have to leave coasts with enough warming, but most of the rest of the dire claims have to be cherry picked out of the data. I posted a few of the studies showing this, but that was barely the beginning. By the way most of this century you talk about, the handful who thought co2 was a major climate driver in the bulk of that century (its only been widely believed recently) thought we should purposely raise temps to get to the better climates the data suggests we will have. You didnt know this?? Im sure you will demand I prove it, and Im not going to bother if you do. Up until the mid 70s or so that was very common in the field though. That was before it became politics instead of science though. 

In fact if I actually believed co2 was a major climate driver Id be arguing we purposely raise its levels so we can bypass iceages. In geological time we are "due" for a DEEP iceage any time for the next few thousand years. Unlike global warming we can indeed expect this to take a MAJOR hit on humanity. With warming our lives would get easier and easier. If we could actually end the cycles of iceages humanity would have a much more secure future.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> let me know when youd like *an actual discussion*, instead of whatever you call this.


That's never going to happen


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> That's your science??? A blog????


Feel free to actually find credible anti-AGW information above the blog level.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

silverseeds said:


> We can for instance expect a warmer world to be calmer NOT more chaotic.


False. A frozen world is actually quite calm. Our warmth is creating more tropical storms.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's never going to happen


Id think this is painfully obvious at this point no matter your stance on the topic. 

he posts on almost a single topic, and structures his end of the conversation in such a way to try to hinder not encourage any actual discussion. 

which I saw a thread from the owner of the forum, saying this was a no no. 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/admin-archives/admin/124414-what-evangelizing.html

Id say it was pretty clear we have an evangelist here. By the definition above. 

Id love an honest conversation on the topic. Im a freaking environmentalist that doesnt buy AGW, and wishes the rest of them would give it up so we can move on to much more pressing issues. 

Heck, even if you believe AGW as far as Im concerned the oceans are in much more trouble. I will also go on record as I already have, saying I personally feel if humans continue to rest more and more of our future on fossil fuels, the short sighted nature of this is sure to catch up with us in time AGW or not. I think wed be wise to shift hard over to thorium reactors, as we hopefully perfect true alternatives that rely on long term solutions. 

So basically I dont believe we have a need to regulate co2 specifically but I want to see as fast of action switching off of fossils as any of the cap and trade schemes seem to suggest. Heck if were going to tax energy, lets bypass all the international hands that get into it, and straight out use the tax to switch to thorium or another source ASAP. 

every single smaller point within the greater debate I try to discuss is danced around. Some of these points I posted only preliminary data waiting for responses to get further into it, a few I posted a solid amount of data. Data from legit sources even if many studies I linked were linked through blogs. that was just for simplicity. I posted a handful of opinions, but most of my links were indeed hard science. 

this is how people discuss politics, it shouldnt be how science is discussed. Not if we want to tell our selves the conversation had any meaning anyway.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> That's your science??? A blog????


Actually, not a blog.

And the writing is supported by the science; at least 5 papers directly linked and others passing through.

If you are going to complain about SkepticalScience, then you should be protesting the links to Watts, the Guardian, AirVent, etc. That you are not is significant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Our warmth is creating more tropical storms.


There's no *hard data* to prove that since ACCURATE counts of tropical storms only go back to about the mid 40's.




> The impact of future anthropogenic forcing on the frequency of tropical storms in the North Atlantic basin has been the subject of intensive investigation. However, whether the number of North Atlantic tropical storms will increase or decrease in a warmer climate is still heavily debated and *a consensus has yet to be reached*.


10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections



> A study with roughly 100-km grid spacing shows a *decrease* in tropical cyclone frequency globally


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Might want to read to the end of the section you linked to....

And 3.8.3 Evidence for Changes in Tropical Storms - AR4 WGI Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change


Also see Tropical Cyclone Intensity | Climate Change | US EPA with three or four more years of research.....






Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no *hard data* to prove that since ACCURATE counts of tropical storms only go back to about the mid 40's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

silverseeds said:


> Id think this is painfully obvious at this point no matter your stance on the topic.
> 
> he posts on almost a single topic, and structures his end of the conversation in such a way to try to hinder not encourage any actual discussion.
> 
> which I saw a thread from the owner of the forum, saying this was a no no.


I always love it when the skeptics resort to personality attacks and methodology attacks. It's so obviously a red herring, the only possible explanation is that they become too embarrassed to admit they're wrong. So they just start attacking anything they can get their fingers on, no matter how ridiculous it it. Happens every time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

roberte said:


> *Might want to read* to the end of the section you linked to....


I did:



> The TAR noted that *evidence *for changes in tropical cyclones (both in number and in intensity) across the various ocean basins *is often hampered by classification changes*.
> 
> In addition, considerable *inter-decadal variability reduces significance of any long-term trends.*


Your second link:



> Over time, *data collection methods have changed* as technology has improved. For example, wind speed collection methods have evolved substantially over the past 60 years. How these changes in data gathering technologies *might affect data consistency* over the life of the indicator is not fully understood.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I did:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second link:


TAR is the 3rd Assessment Report. That is what the quote in AR4 was stating. And that was written for publication in 2007.

Lot of water under the bridge since then.



Much more research - a larger body of evidence - pointing to frequency, intensity, precipitation, wind changes.

Might also note you are being EXTREMELY SELECTIVE in your quoting. That's why I suggested to readers that reading the WHOLE section would be intellectually profitable.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> I always love it when the skeptics resort to personality attacks and methodology attacks. It's so obviously a red herring, the only possible explanation is that they become too embarrassed to admit they're wrong. So they just start attacking anything they can get their fingers on, no matter how ridiculous it it. Happens every time.


Youve got to be kidding??? In actual reality my response was literally directed at the fact he did EXACTLY what your saying I did. heck hes still rambling on about a point you brought up from a conversation I had earlier with you, rather then the vast bulk I actually brought up in this conversation. Even items I reposted several times, if I even get him to acknowledge a link we talk about everything but the content of it. 

So Im attacking roberte by pointing out he wont even acknowledge most Ive posted let alone use actual data to dispute it??? interesting. 

Your bias is clear my friend. 

by the way your last response to me was out of context.


> False. A frozen world is actually quite calm. Our warmth is creating more tropical storms.


I wasnt comparing a warmer world to a frozen one. I was comparing a warmer one to our current one. It is actually the differences in temps that make the harsh weather, it is not heat overall. Many get confused on this. A warmer world has a smaller difference between the extremes. I posted studies from several regions already that mentioned this by the way... I will get more to you later when I have time. 

I will agree, an actual frozen world is calmer, but that wasnt what I was talking about.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Is Global Warming Causing Wild Weather?
By Amy Harder

Does climate change cause extreme weather like the heat waves much of the country has been enduring for the past few weeks?



Is there a direct link from climate change caused by human activity and use of fossil fuels to extreme weather? What kind of research or studies should be done, if any, to determine a connection? Will this kind of extreme weather prompt action by the Obama administration or Congress to take action on climate change?


Is Global Warming Causing Wild Weather? - Energy and Environment Experts


There are 15 voices discussing this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Might also note you are being EXTREMELY SELECTIVE in your quoting. That's why I suggested to readers that reading the WHOLE section would be intellectually profitable.


LOL
Reading the whole section doesn't negate the fact they themselves stated as to the data being INCONSISTANT.


A few more years of RECENT study does nothing to make up for the* LACK of past data* for a realistic comparison.
It's just more of your babble to dodge the truth


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Note that the IPCC is acknowledging more research needs to be done. There is evidence that extreme weather is effected by our rising global temperature; not enough to make a 90-95% probability claim, but more than not pointing to what we are doing to the weather.

Quite a contrast to the blogosphere claims that a single paper, often one not even in press much less available, will 'destroy', 'disprove', refute, the mountains of data that has been collected and synthesized into the IPCC reports.

Science builds on observation and experimentation. We are seeing the results of our 'experimentation' with the myriad of effects that are being observed globally. We are seeing the fruits of experimentation via constantly improving models. Models with a history; with accurate backcasting, forward casting from backdating.

And the effect on tropical storms is just one of many lines of evidence. A newer line that developed after decades of observing warming temperatures. Yet another line after observing icemelt, ocean acidification, species migration, rising ocean levels, ocean warming, effects on coral, asymmetric record breaking weather. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Reading the whole section doesn't negate the fact they themselves stated as to the data being INCONSISTANT.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

silverseeds said:


> Youve got to be kidding???
> 
> *You seem to say that a lot.*
> 
> ...


The underlined part has the sound of a threat. Do I need "getting to later?" Anyhow, if we got any warmer we would have worse weather. If we got warm enough, we would have a desert. Even a desert is not calm, as evidenced by Mars.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Note that the IPCC is acknowledging *more research needs to be done*


That's the only SOLID conclusion that can be drawn



> There is evidence that extreme weather is effected by our *rising global temperature*;


Check out the headlines about all the record LOW temperatures today


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Yes, uncertainties are listed in any measurement. Your car's crankshaft, the permissible amount of variation in your gas mileage, thermometers, polls,....
> 
> 
> Again, you are making a case with no support. Show us a paper that claims absolute certainty on any aspect we are touching on here.
> ...


Ok troll...you told me to "prove that climate models are inaccurate" and now you are changing your tune. 

Meh, you go on ignore.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Ok troll...you told me to "prove that climate models are inaccurate" and now you are changing your tune.
> 
> Meh, you go on ignore.


His post referenced climate models and how they work. Perhaps you should actually take them into consideration before calling someone a troll? 
But the kettle calls the pot black... In this case the kettle calls the lamp black.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> The underlined part has the sound of a threat. Do I need "getting to later?" Anyhow, if we got any warmer we would have worse weather. If we got warm enough, we would have a desert. Even a desert is not calm, as evidenced by Mars.


Nope. no threats of course I will assume your joking. 

And warmer doesnt lead to a desert in any way. Opposite actually.
In fact warmer leads to more water in the atmosphere and a wetter world over all. And yes a warmer world then today is calmer then today according to many of our past records. Including things Ive already linked. 

By the way deserts have to do with precipitation levels NOT heat levels. Do you know the two largest deserts on the planet? One is in antarctica, the other the arctic pole. 


And even within a desert heat or lack of it doesnt make a HUGE difference. It will lead to a more evaporation and transpiration but other factors lead the vast bulk of this. It is direct sunlight, wind and the overall dry air that drives those things much more then temps. By the way this is part of my field of study. Working at correcting desertification.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

silverseeds said:


> And yes a warmer world then today is calmer then today according to many of our past records. Including things Ive already linked.


 LOL! You read ONE study that attempted to show that based on mud from the bottom of the Mediterranean... Most agree that stronger storms will increase, while overall numbers of storms may decrease. Increased water vapor in a warmer atmosphere will lead to more extreme rainfall events. 
So now are you saying that we are indeed heading for a warmer world?? With all the back and forth, its hard to remember exactly what your contentions are.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

greg273 said:


> LOL! You read ONE study that attempted to show that based on mud from the bottom of the Mediterranean... Most agree that stronger storms will increase, while overall numbers of storms may decrease. Increased water vapor in a warmer atmosphere will lead to more extreme rainfall events.
> So now are you saying that we are indeed heading for a warmer world?? With all the back and forth, its hard to remember exactly what your contentions are.


What back and forth? I never exactly made a stance on where i think climate is going. I made stances on what the data imo shows is driving it. You might be confused in that I said the sun, which is key imo, is doing things that will take us cooler IF THEY CONTINUE.

Heck the text you quoted isnt even me saying we ARE headed warmer, it was me saying a warmer world is calmer. So Im not even sure your point???

and no I didnt base my opinion on one study. where did you get that idea? Since roberte and the rest of you wont discuss the content of my links, Im going to do this another way. You can pretend I based my opinion on that one study if you like, truth is. You will see in time if you keep following the threads. 

Who exactly is this "most"?? It is actually the temp difference between to weather systems that cause the severity of a storm, the higher the temps the less of a difference between the extremes. Same reason a frozen world is calmer as well actually.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

silverseeds said:


> It is actually the temp difference between to weather systems that cause the severity of a storm, the higher the temps the less of a difference between the extremes. Same reason a frozen world is calmer as well actually.


 There is a lot more to it than that Silverseeds... There is water content, size of the air masses, shear, lots of factors go into it. 
Remember too, that if the entire globe heats up, the poles will STILL be colder than the equator, and there will STILL be contrasting air masses. 
The circulation of the earths atmosphere is driven by the sun, along with the rotation of the earth. And what makes it go is both fluid and thermal dynamics.
Adding energy to the system will INCREASE the difference between Earth and space... and ultimately, that is responsible for the dynamics of the atmosphere.
Perhaps storms will be less prevalent, only to make up for it by being more intense, as the latest research seems to indicate.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> How about you tell us how the AGW folks account for this???
> 
> (they dont, because if acknowledged there is no room left for their theory)
> 
> ...


Ok, if you followed the above... Im going to pick up this line of study for awhile. somehow an entire realm of research on climate bypassed the AGW folks and IPCC. Its obvious because it is counter to their theory, but people wont believe it until they see it. So I will post some of the studies in the field. Keep in mind the link given above talks about the fact weve now PROVEN that there is a connection between cosmic influences and clouds. The AGW folks mostly ignore clouds since they cant explain them, and ASSUME despite the data we do have that this is a POSITIVE feedback. 

So from there I will start with this...
Understanding sudden changes in cloud amount: The Southern Annular Mode and South American weather fluctuations


> This work investigates the cause and effects of extreme changes in synoptic-scale cloud cover operating at daily timescales using a variety of satellite-based and reanalysis data sets. It is found that the largest sudden increases detected in globally averaged cloud cover over the last ten years of satellite-based observations occur following positively correlated shifts in the phase of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) index. The associated pressure anomalies are found to generate frontal cloud formation over large areas of the South American continent, increasing regional cloud cover by up to 20%; these changes are correlated to statistically significant reductions in local temperatures of approximately &#8722;2.5Â°C with a +1 day time lag, indicating the SAM index is associated with large scale weather fluctuations over South America.


So here we see clouds can have a large effect. 

Keep in mind when reading these the link between clouds and cosmic influences has now been PROVEN.... when most of these were written it was just a theory with corollary evidence as AGW is today. Except unlike AGW you didnt have to cherry pick the data to make the claims. 

Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> Satellite observations have recently revealed a surprising imprint of the 11-year solar cycle on global low cloud cover. The cloud data suggest a correlation with the intensity of galactic cosmic rays.* If this apparent connection between cosmic rays and clouds is real, variations of the cosmic ray flux caused by long-term changes in the solar wind could have a significant influence on the global energy radiation budget and the climate.* However a direct link between cosmic rays and clouds has not been unambiguously established and, moreover, the microphysical mechanism is poorly understood. New experiments are being planned to find out whether cosmic rays can affect cloud formation, and if so how.


here is another
Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink



> Abstract
> A correlation between a global average of low cloud cover and the flux of cosmic rays incident in the atmosphere has been observed during the last solar cycle. The ionising potential of Earth bound cosmic rays are modulated by the state of the heliosphere, while clouds play an important role in the Earth''s radiation budget through trapping outgoing radiation and reflecting incoming radiation. *If a physical link between these two features can be established, it would provide a mechanism linking solar activity and Earth''s climate.* Recent satellite observations have further revealed a correlation between cosmic ray flux and low cloud top temperature. The temperature of a cloud depends on the radiation properties determined by its droplet distribution. Low clouds are warm (>273thinspK) and therefore consist of liquid water droplets. At typical atmospheric supersaturations (sim1%) a liquid cloud drop will only form in the presence of an aerosol, which acts as a condensation site. The droplet distribution of a cloud will then depend on the number of aerosols activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and the level of super saturation. Based on observational evidence it is argued that a mechanism to explain the cosmic ray-cloud link might be found through the role of atmospheric ionisation in aerosol production and/or growth. Observations of local aerosol increases in low cloud due to ship exhaust indicate that a small perturbation in atmospheric aerosol can have a major impact on low cloud radiative properties. Thus, a moderate influence on atmospheric aerosol distributions from cosmic ray ionisation would have a strong influence on the Earth''s radiation budget. Historical evidence over the past 1000 years indicates that changes in climate have occurred in accord with variability in cosmic ray intensities. Such changes are in agreement with the sign of cloud radiative forcing associated with cosmic ray variability as estimated from satellite observations.



heres another
The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming - Pall[] Bag[] - 2001 - Astronomy & Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

I will again point out the link has now been PROVEN.
Space Science Reviews, Volume 93, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> During the last solar cycle the Earth's cloud cover underwent a modulation in phase with the cosmic ray flux. Assuming that there is a causal relationship between the two, it is expected and found that the Earth's temperature follows more closely decade variations in cosmic ray flux than other solar activity parameters. If the relationship is real the state of the Heliosphere affects the Earth's climate.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Geomagnetism and Aeronomy


> Abstract
> 
> Analysis of data from long observations of atmospheric transparency at stations Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, and Leningrad has shown that in a number of solar cosmic ray events with high intensities of solar protons, atmospheric transparency deteriorates. In all cases, this deterioration is associated with the aerosol weakening effect. A two- to fourfold increase in the concentration of large aerosol particles from 0.1 to 1.0 \mum in radius was observed.


Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification


> The question of the mechanism for solar-variability effects on weather and climate can be separated into (1) the identification of the carrier of the solar variability and (2) the identification of the physical link between the carrier and the meteorological response. The suggestion that galactic cosmic rays (GCR), as modulated by the solar wind, are the carriers of the component of solar variability that affects weather and climate has been discussed in the literature for 30 years, and considerable evidence for it has now accumulated. Variations of GCR occur with the 11-year solar cycle, matching the time scale of recent results for atmospheric variations, as modulated by the quasi-biennial oscillation of equatorial stratospheric winds (QBO). Variations in GCR occur on the time scale of centuries with a well-defined peak in the coldest decade of the little ice age. Here we present new evidence on the meteorological responses to variations on the time scale of a few days. The occurrence of correlations of GCR and meteorological responses on all three time scales strengthens the hypothesis of GCR as carriers of solar variability to the lower atmosphere. The responses reported here include changes in the vertical temperature profile in the troposphere and lower stratosphere and in the northern hemisphere vorticity area index, associated with Forbush decreases in GCR. The meteorological responses to Forbush decreases are in the opposite sense but otherwise are quite similar to responses that immediately follow solar flares. This is to be expected, based on the hypothesis that particles with energy about 100â1000 MeV are the external forcing function for the tropospheric response, since large solar flares increase the particle flux and ionization and minor species production in the lower stratosphere, whereas Forbush decreases reduce them. The mechanism or mechanisms linking changes in low-energy GCR and other particles in this energy range of 100â1000 MeV to tropospheric temperature and dynamic responses have not been identified. This can be attributed to current uncertainties regarding the microphysical and electrical properties of aerosols and clouds. One possibility is that changes in clouds lead to changes in cloud radiative forcing. The height distribution of the tropospheric response and the amount of energy involved and the rapidity of the time response suggest that the release of latent heat could also be involved. These could lead to the observed tropospheric responses which are understandable in terms of changes in the intensity of cyclonic disturbances. Theoretical considerations link such changes to the observed latitudinal movement of the jet stream.


Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate


> The indirect radiative forcing of atmospheric aerosols is sensitive to particle size and concentration, which are influenced significantly by nucleation processes. Via its role in aerosol formation, cosmic ray may affect the cloud condensation nuclei abundance and hence the global cloud properties and climate. Systematic variations in ionization rates due to the modulation of cosmic ray radiation by the solar cycle are sufficient to cause notable variations in aerosol production, and we find that the signs of such variations are altitude-dependent. Our study indicates that an increase in cosmic ray fluxes generally leads to an increase in particle production in the lower troposphere but a decrease in particle production in the upper troposphere. The main reason of such an altitude-dependent influence is that the dependence of particle production rate on ionization rate is a complex function of ionization rate itself, as well as precursor gas concentration and ambient conditions. The implications of altitude variations of cosmic ray-induced aerosol production on global cloudiness and climate are discussed. In addition to the reported positive correlation between cosmic ray variations and low cloudiness, our analysis reveals that high cloudiness may be anti-correlated with cosmic ray variations if volcano and El NiÃ±o impacts are excluded. The observed different correlations between cosmic ray variations and low, middle and high cloud anomalies appear to be consistent with the predicted different sensitivities of particle production to cosmic ray changes at different altitudes. A systematic change in global cloudiness may change the atmosphere heating profile, and if confirmed, may provide the external forcing needed to reconcile the different surface and troposphere temperature trends. Much more work is needed to understand how and how much the cosmic ray variations will affect the global cloud properties and climate.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Shielded by the wind: the influence of the interstellar medium on the environment of Earth


> Abstract
> 
> We report on the recent studies on the long-term influence of cosmic rays on the Earth's environment. While on short time-scales solar activity is the driver for atmospheric changes suspected to be due to cosmic rays, for long time-scales the heliosphere, i.e. the circumsolar region occupied by the expanding part of the Sun's atmosphere, has to be considered. The heliosphere is identified as an important shield against interstellar influences and hazards. It has been demonstrated by quantitative modelling that a change of the interstellar medium surrounding the heliosphere as a result of the Sun's quasi-Keplerian motion around the galactic center triggers significant changes of planetary environments caused by enhanced fluxes of neutral atoms as well as by the increased cosmic ray fluxes. We give a compilation of recent space science results of interest to the atmospheric science community.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> Monthly cosmic-ray data from Inuvik (0.16 GV) and Climax (2.96 GV) Neutron Monitor stations has been studied with the aid of solar activity parameters for the time period 1947â1995. Systematic differences in the overall shape of successive 11-year modulation cycles and similarities in the alternate 11-year cycles seem to be related to the polarity reversals of the polar magnetic field of the Sun. This suggests a possible effectiveness of the Hale cycle during even and odd solar activity cycles. Our results can be understood in terms of open and closed models of the heliosphere. Positive north pole of the Sun leads to open heliosphere where particles reach the Earth more easily when their access route is by the heliospheric oolar regions (even cycles) than when they gain access along the current sheet (odd cycles). In this case as the route of access becomes longer due to the waviness of the neutral sheet, the hysteresis effect of cosmic-rays is also longer. This interpretation is explained in terms of different contributions of convection, diffusion and drift mechanisms to the whole modulation process influencing cosmic-ray transport in the heliosphere.


ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Variations of the cosmic rays as one of the possible links between the solar activity and the lower atmosphere


> Abstract
> 
> Effects of the solar and galactic cosmic ray variations on the large-scale circulation of the lower atmosphere have been investigated. The results obtained show that these effects do really exist both on the time scale of a few days and in the 11-year solar cycle. Thus, the variations of the cosmic rays, both solar and galactic, may be responsible for the changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation associated with solar activity phenomena, the energy of cosmic particles being &#8764;0.1â1 GeV. A possible mechanism of the cosmic ray effects on the lower atmosphere involves changes in the atmospheric transparency and cloud cover due to the changes in the stratospheric ionization produced by the considered cosmic particles. Experimental evidence of the cosmic ray influence on the high-level cloud formation is provided.


ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Cosmic ray variation effects in the temperature of the high-latitudinal atmosphere


> Abstract
> 
> Dynamics of the temperature profiles, as well as the changes of other meteorological characteristics associated with the solar cosmic ray bursts with the particle energy Ep>90 MeV have been examined, the data of soundings from SodankylÃ¤ (Finland) being used. The first effect which is observed on the average within the first 10 hours after the burst consists in the tropospheric heating and the stratospheric cooling. The second effect which takes place on the third day after the event onset is opposite to the first one. The main temperature changes have been found at the heights &#8764;3â6 and 10â12 km. These changes seem to be due to the cloud formation that may be associated with the changes in the ionization of the stratosphere during the solar cosmic ray bursts.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics - Cloudiness decreases associated with Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays


> Abstract
> 
> Variations of the amount of cloud following Forbush-decreases of the galactic cosmic ray flux have been investigated in different latitudinal belts. It has been found that decreases of the total cloud cover are most distinctly seen in the latitudinal belt &#981; &#8764; 60â64Â°, and disappear at lower latitudes. In the auroral zone:, the apparent effects are weaker than in the subauroral zone. The cloudiness variations associated with the Forbush-decreases are shown to correlate mainly with the presence of cirrus clouds, at heights reached by protons with energy &#8764; 1000 MeV.


geomag1_96p108abs


> AbstractâVariations in total cloudiness observed at a number of stations in different latitudinal zones during
> flashes of solar cosmic rays (SCR) are investigated. A noticeable increase in cloudiness after the beginning of
> a flash has been observed at a number of stations located at a higher latitude than the geomagnetic cutoff for
> particles with energies of ~90 MeV. At middle latitudes, the increase in cloudiness precedes a burst of SCR and
> may be connected with x-rays from the solar flashes.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation


> This paper evaluates whether there is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that solar variability is linked to the Earth's climate through the modulation of atmospheric precipitation processes. Using global data from 1979â1999, we find evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux (CRF), precipitation (P) and precipitation efficiency (PE) over ocean surfaces at mid to high latitudes. Both P and PE are shown to vary by 7â9% during the solar cycle of the 1980s over the latitude band 45â90Â°S. Alternative explanations of the variation in these atmospheric parameters by changes in tropospheric aerosol content and ENSO show poorer statistical relationships with P and PE. Variations in P and PE potentially caused by changes in CRF have implications for the understanding of cloud and water vapour feedbacks.


[physics/0005072] Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays


> The influence of solar variability on climate is currently uncertain. Recent observations have indicated a possible mechanism via the influence of solar modulated cosmic rays on global cloud cover. Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds (<= 3km), which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionisation due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the Heliosphere is important for climate on Earth.


Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> Satellite observations have recently revealed a surprising imprint of the 11-year solar cycle on global low cloud cover. The cloud data suggest a correlation with the intensity of galactic cosmic rays. If this apparent connection between cosmic rays and clouds is real, variations of the cosmic ray flux caused by long-term changes in the solar wind could have a significant influence on the global energy radiation budget and the climate. However a direct link between cosmic rays and clouds has not been unambiguously established and, moreover, the microphysical mechanism is poorly understood. New experiments are being planned to find out whether cosmic rays can affect cloud formation, and if so how.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

silverseeds said:


> I made stances on what the data imo shows is driving it.


 What is 'driving it' is the Sun. Now what does that have to do with the fact we are steadily changing the radiative qualities of our atmosphere by a few percent? Yes, the sun is the most important factor,but it is not the only factor. 



> Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle.* The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.*


 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/nature05072.html


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Evidence for a link between the flux of galactic cosmic rays and Earth's climate during the past 200,000 years


> Abstract
> 
> The possibility that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influence the Earth's cloud cover and therefore have an important impact on the Earth's radiative climate forcing has become a leading candidate to explain the observed sunâclimate connection. A correlation between GCR and low cloud cover has been ascertained in models and observations over the past few years. The deposition of cosmogenic radionuclides in ice cores and deep sea sediments can be used as a proxy for the past GCR-flux and provides an important tool to study the supposed GCRâclimate connection on glacialâinterglacial timescales. In this study, a record of geomagnetic paleointensity based on View the MathML source from deep sea sediments is used as proxy for GCR-flux over the past 200,000 years. It is compared with climate records from marine, terrestrial and ice core archives. Our results are consistent with the GCRâclimate theory and suggest the existence of a GCRâclimate connection over the past 200,000 years.


Toward a solution to the early faint Sun paradox: A lower cosmic ray flux from a stronger solar wind


> Standard solar models predict a solar luminosity that gradually increased by about 30% over the past 4.5 billion years. Under the faint Sun, Earth should have been frozen solid for most of its existence. Yet, running water is observed to have been present since very early in Earth's history. This enigma is known as the faint Sun paradox. We show here that it can be partially resolved once we consider the cooling effect that cosmic rays are suspected to have on the global climate and by considering that the younger Sun must have had a stronger solar wind such that it was more effective at stopping cosmic rays from reaching Earth. The paradox can then be completely resolved with the further contribution of modest greenhouse gas warming. When we add the cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate in the Milky Way, we recover the long-term glacial activity on Earth. As to the future, we find that the average global temperature will increase by typically 10Â°K in the coming 2 Gyr.


Solar Physics, Volume 218, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> Bidecadal fluctuations in terrestrial climate were analyzed. It was shown that this variability might arise if Earth's climate reacts to galactic cosmic-ray intensity, integrated over its full quasi-11-year cycle. It was further shown that this integral effect should also lead to an effective link between climate and the duration of the quasi-11-year cycle in cosmic ray flux. That, in turn, must result in appearance of some connection between climate and the length of the solar cycle, which is currently a topic of active debate. Analyses of temperature proxies, obtained for northern Fennoscandia, confirmed the connection of the climate in this region and the length of the cycle in galactic cosmic-ray intensity. Decadal and bidecadal variability of integrated cosmic-ray flux was quantitatively estimated.


This one is a PDF and I couldnt copy and paste the abstract. VERY interesting piece though, showing a link between cosmic influences going back to the phanerozoic. 
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf

The role of cosmic rays in the atmospheric processes - Abstract - Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics - IOPscience


> The energy flux of galactic cosmic rays falling on the earth's atmosphere is small in comparison with solar electromagnetic irradiation (by 108 times). But at altitudes of h ~ 3 to 35 km in the atmosphere, cosmic rays are the only ionization source (from the ground level up to h ~ 3 km, natural radioactivity is an additional source of ionization). Solar activity modulates cosmic ray flux. The cosmic rays produce atmospheric ions that define the electrical properties of the atmosphere. The electric charges play a very important role in the processes of cloud and thundercloud formation in the operation of the global electric circuit. The changes in electric properties of the atmosphere influence weather and climate. Thus, we have the following chain of the solar terrestrial relationship: solar activityâcosmic ray modulationâchanges in the global electric properties of the atmosphereâchanges in weather and climate. The following questions are discussed in this paper: light ion production in the atmosphere, role of electric charges in the formation of clouds and thunderclouds, experimental evidences of the relationships between cosmic ray flux and atmospheric current and lightning.


Space Science Reviews, Volume 107, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> An increasing number of studies indicate that variations in solar activity have had a significant influence on Earth's climate. However, the mechanisms responsible for a solar influence are still not known. One possibility is that atmospheric transparency is influenced by changing cloud properties via cosmic ray ionisation (the latter being modulated by solar activity). Support for this idea is found from satellite observations of cloud cover. Such data have revealed a striking correlation between the intensity of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and low liquid clouds (<3.2 km). GCR are responsible for nearly all ionisation in the atmosphere below 35 km. One mechanism could involve ion-induced formation of aerosol particles (diameter range, 0.001â1.0 &#956;m) that can act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). A systematic variation in the properties of CCN will affect the cloud droplet distribution and thereby influence the radiative properties of clouds. If the GCR-Cloud link is confirmed variations in galactic cosmic ray flux, caused by changes in solar activity and the space environment, could influence Earth's radiation budget.


Galactic cosmic ray and El NiÃ±o&#8211;Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties


> The recently reported correlation between clouds and galactic cosmic rays (GCR) implies the existence of a previously unknown process linking solar variability and climate. An analysis of the interannual variability of International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 (ISCCP-D2) low-cloud properties over the period July 1983 to August 1994 suggests that low clouds are statistically related to two processes, (1) GCR and (2) El NiÃ±oâSouthern Oscillation (ENSO), with GCR explaining a greater percentage of the total variance. Areas where satellites have an unobstructed view of low cloud possess a strong correlation with GCR, which suggests that low-cloud properties observed in these regions are less likely to be contaminated from overlying cloud. The GCR-low cloud correlation cannot easily be explained by internal climate processes, changes in direct solar forcing, or UV-ozone interactions. Instead, it is argued that a mechanism involving solar variability via GCR ionization of the atmosphere is consistent with these results. However, the results are marginal when including the recently extended ISCCP-D2 data covering the period until September 2001. This, we believe, is related to problems experienced with the ISCCP intercalibration between September 1994 and January 1995.


[astro-ph/0209252] The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth


> The short term variability of the Galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) reaching Earth has been previously associated with variations in the global low altitude cloud cover. This CRF variability arises from changes in the solar wind strength. However, cosmic ray variability also arises intrinsically from variable activity of and motion through the Milky Way. Thus, if indeed the CRF climate connection is real, the increased CRF witnessed while crossing the spiral arms could be responsible for a larger global cloud cover and a reduced temperature, thereby facilitating the occurrences of ice ages. This picture has been recently shown to be supported by various data (Shaviv, 2001). In particular, the variable CRF recorded in Iron meteorites appears to vary synchronously with the appearance ice ages.
> Here we expand upon the original treatment with a more thorough analysis and more supporting evidence. In particular, we discuss the cosmic ray diffusion model which considers the motion of the Galactic spiral arms. We also elaborate on the structure and dynamics of the Milky Way's spiral arms. In particular, we bring forth new argumentation using HI observations which imply that the galactic spiral arm pattern speed appears to be that which fits the glaciation period and the cosmic-ray flux record extracted from Iron meteorites. In addition, we show that apparent peaks in the star formation rate history, as deduced by several authors, coincides with particularly icy epochs, while the long period of 1 to 2 Gyr before present, during which no glaciations are known to have occurred, coincides with a significant paucity in the past star formation rate.


Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate


> It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth's average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El NiÃ±o. Nevertheless, the observation has raised the intriguing possibility that a cosmic rayâcloud interaction may help explain how a relatively small change in solar output can produce much larger changes in Earth's climate. Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

the effects of galactic cosmic rays


> Abstract
> The results of analyzing the paleodata on solar activity variations (variations of cosmogenic 14C and 10Be isotopes in the terrestrial records, such as glaciers, tree rings, sea-floor marine and lacustrine sediments, loess, etc.), the paleomagnetic and archeomagnetic data, as well as the paleoclimatic data, prove that the flows of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by heliomagnetic and geomagnetic fields, affect the climate of the Earth. In this study we analyzed different periods of time, namely, the last millennium, the Holocene epoch (up to 10-12 thousand years ago), and the time interval of 10-50 thousand years ago. Our analysis suggested that the variations of the cosmic ray fluxes seemed to be the most effective factor responsible for long-term climate variations.


Solar Physics, Volume 224, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> The temporal variation of the cosmic-ray flux at Earth directly influences the production rate of cosmogenic isotopes in the Earthâs atmosphere. Here we put the emphasis on problems of the modulation of cosmic rays in the heliosphere. The physics of the modulation region, e.g., the heliosphere, is described and also the transport theory of the cosmic rays through the heliosphere is presented. The discussion includes more recent ideas of the modulation in the heliosheath. In the light of these ideas the cosmic-ray fluxes during the Maunder minimum are discussed. It is also discussed, that the 22-year cycle observed in the cosmogenic isotopes is a modulation effect of the cosmic rays, and hence directly connected with the physics of the outer heliosphere.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Precipitation, cloud cover and Forbush decreases in galactic cosmic rays


> Abstract
> 
> The results of a study to explore variations in cloud cover, over regions that are minimally affected by rainfall and heavy rainfall, and that are coincident with variations in the galactic cosmic ray flux, are presented. Using an extensive record of global satellite derived cloud and rainfall products from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D1 data series and Xie and Arkin (J. Climate 9 (1996) 840), epoch superposition analysis of a sample of events of short term decreases in the galactic cosmic ray flux, is conducted. Analysis of data that is largely free from the influence of rainfall and heavy rainfall, averaged over 10-degree geomagnetic latitude (&#981 bands reveals that cloud cover is reduced at high latitudes, and at middle and lower (including equatorial) latitudes over regions of relatively higher cloud cover, over both land and ocean surfaces, while increasing over ocean surfaces at middle and lower latitudes in regions of thinner cloud.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - External forcing of the geomagnetic field? Implications for the cosmic ray fluxÃ¢â¬âclimate variability


> Abstract
> 
> Data on the relation of past climate variations and changes in the geomagnetic field can contribute to the research on a cosmic rayâclimate link. This paper presents a synthesis of geological and astrophysical results about the link of magnetic field variations and Earth's climate and external forcing. On millennial timescales, geomagnetic intensity lows are apparently in phase with times of low solar magnetic activity and climate cooling. Reconstructions of quaternary continental climate systems indicate colder and dryer conditions during and after geomagnetic reversals. In the Milankovitch frequency band geomagnetic field reversals can occur in conjunction with minima in the carbonate content related to the View the MathML source eccentricity cycle of the Earth's orbit. A quasi View the MathML source cyclicity (in phase with orbital eccentricity) is discussed in the literature for both geomagnetic intensity and solar magnetic activity. On mega-cycle periods external forcing seems to play a role in the appearance of superchrons of the geomagnetic field. When applying current spiral arm models superchrons developed during times when the solar system was located between spiral arms. This suggests that the galactic environment may force the geomagnetic field to switch from its reversing mode into superchron stages probably via modulations of the Sun. Interestingly, there is a link to the structuring of magnetic fields in our galaxy. While the galactic magnetic fields between spiral arms are homogenous, the passage of the solar system through turbulent magnetic fields along the spiral arms parallels high geomagnetic reversal rates. Occurring in conjunction with a low intrinsic cosmic ray flux the superchrons probably lowered the cosmic ray flux at Earth even further. This may also have played a role in the evolution of life on Earth and the timing of some mass extinction events.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Atmospheric transparency changes associated with solar wind-induced atmospheric electricity variations


> Abstract
> 
> Variations in atmospheric transmission of several percent in nominally clear air are found to accompany solar wind events associated with variations on the day-to-day timescale in the flow of vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit. The effect has been observed only for stations at high latitudes (>55Â°N). Increases in transmission are present when inferred Jz decreases occurred without changes in tropospheric ion production. These events occurred when there was a high loading of stratospheric aerosols. Responses of opposite sign, i.e., decreases in transmission, are present when Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic ray flux occur, but only during periods of low stratospheric aerosol loading. Forbush decreases are associated with both tropospheric ion production decreases and Jz decreases. Similar effects are present on the 11-year solar cycle, with climate consequences that have yet to be analyzed. The mechanisms for these phenomena are not understood, but the nature of the observations suggests that explanations should be sought in terms of theories of the effects of electric charge on the formation of aerosols, and/or effects of charged aerosols on the microphysics of vaporâwaterâice conversions.


Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization


> Abstract. The formation of large nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) particles has important implications for denitrification and ozone depletion. Existing theories have difficulty in explaining the formation of large NAT particles at temperatures above the ice frost point, which has been observed recently over wide Arctic regions. Our analyses reveal that high-energy comic ray particles might induce the freezing of supercooled HNO3-H2O-H2SO4 droplets when they penetrate these thermodynamically unstable droplets. The cosmic ray-induced freezing (CRIF) appears to be consistent with the observed, highly selective formation of NAT particles. We suggest a possible physical process behind the CRIF mechanism: the reorientation of polar solution molecules into the crystalline configuration in the strong electrical fields of moving secondary ions generated by passing cosmic rays. A simple formula connecting the CRIF rate to cosmic ray flux is derived with an undefined parameter constrained by observed NAT formation rates. Our simulations indicate that strong solar proton events (SPEs) may significantly enhance the formation of large NAT particles and denitrification. The CRIF mechanism offers a possible explanation for the observed high correlations between the thin nitrate-rich layers in polar ice cores and major SPEs, and the observed enhancement in the aerosol backscattering ratio at PSC layers shortly after an SPE and the significant precipitation velocity of the enhanced PSC layers. The key uncertainty in the CRIF mechanism is the probability (P) of freezing when a CR particle hits a thermodynamically, unstable STS droplet. Further studies are needed to either confirm or reject the CRIF hypothesis.


Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 051102 (2002): Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection


> We construct a Galactic cosmic ray (CR) diffusion model. The CR flux reaching the Solar System should periodically increase with each crossing of a Galactic spiral arm. We confirm this prediction in the CR exposure age record of iron meteorites. We also find that although the geological evidence for the occurrence of ice-age epochs in the past eon is not unequivocal, it appears to have a nontrivial correlation with the spiral arm crossings and the CR flux variabilityâagreeing in period and phase.


Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization


> A significant correlation between the annual cosmic ray flux and the amount of low clouds has recently been found for the past 20 years. However, of the physical explanations suggested, none has been quantitatively verified in the atmosphere by a combination of modelling and experiment. Here we study the relation between the global distributions of the observed low cloud amount and the calculated tropospheric ionization induced by cosmic rays. We find that the time evolution of the low cloud amount can be decomposed into a long-term trend and inter-annual variations, the latter depicting a clear 11-year cycle. We also find that the relative inter-annual variability in low cloud amount increases polewards and exhibits a highly significant one-to-one relation with inter-annual variations in the ionization over the latitude range 20â55Â°S and 10â70Â°N. This latitudinal dependence gives strong support for the hypothesis that the cosmic ray induced ionization modulates cloud properties.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Effects of energetic solar proton events on the cyclone development in the North Atlantic


> Abstract
> 
> Short-term effects of the energetic solar proton events (SPE) on the different characteristics of the lower atmosphere were studied in the North Atlantic region, which is an area of intensive cyclone genesis and development. The data of aerological soundings over the set of Danish stations (Greenland, Faeroe Islands and Denmark), the vorticity data at the different pressure levels and weather charts at the Earth's surface were used. It was shown that the SPE under study are accompanied by noticeable pressure and temperature decreases at the high-latitudinal stations in the cold (OctoberâMarch) half of year as well as by relative vorticity increases in the troposphere. The most pronounced effects were found in the region of the arctic front near the south-eastern Greenland coasts and Iceland. The weather chart analysis showed that the effects discovered seem to be related to the intensification of the deepening of well developed cold cyclones in this region. The results obtained suggest that the SPE with particle energies sufficient to penetrate the stratospheric heights may influence the cyclone evolution over the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean, a possible physical mechanism involving the radiative forcing of the cloudiness changes which may be associated with cosmic ray variations.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

geomag1_0p90abs

Modulation of cosmic ray precipitation related to climate


> High energy cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds and thus impact weather and climate. Due to systematic solar wind changes, the intensity of cosmic rays incident on the magnetopause has decreased markedly during this century. The pattern of cosmic ray precipitation through the magnetosphere to the upper troposphere has also changed. Early in the century, the part of the troposphere open to cosmic rays of all energies was typically confined to a relatively small high&#8208;latitude region. As the century progressed the size of this region increased by over 25% and there was a 6.5Â° equatorward shift in the yearly averaged latitudinal position of the subauroral region in which cloud cover has been shown to be cosmic ray flux dependent. We suggest these changes in cosmic ray intensity and latitude distribution may have influenced climate change during the last 100 years.


In regards to the above, now that this connection is proven, there are now two or more groups figuring out exactly what effect this connection is having. 

Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5027 (1998): Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate


> During the last solar cycle Earth's cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earth's temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earth's climate.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Effects of the galactic cosmic ray variations on the solar radiation input in the lower atmosphere


> Abstract
> 
> The influence of galactic cosmic rays on the solar radiation input to the lower atmosphere was investigated in the different latitudinal belts. Increases of the total radiation fluxes associated with Forbush-decreases in the galactic cosmic rays were found at the stations with high frequencies of cirrus clouds situated at latitudes &#981;&#8776;60Â°â68Â°. It is shown that the total radiation input in the winter months at stations in subauroral zone anticorrelates with the galactic cosmic ray intensity in the 11 yr solar cycle. In the auroral zone the solar radiation input seems to be affected by auroral phenomena. The variations of the total radiation fluxes associated with different cosmophysical phenomena seem to be of great importance for the radiation budget of the lower atmosphere.


this one doesnt even give us the abstract, but its from one of the leaders in studying this. 
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Reply to comments on Ã¢â¬ÅVariation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage Ã¢â¬â a missing link in solarÃ¢â¬âclimate relationships

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverageÃ¢â¬âa missing link in solar-climate relationships


> Abstract
> 
> In the search for a physical mechanism that could account for reported correlations between solar activity parameters and climate, we have investigated the global cloud cover observed by satellites. We find that the observed variation of 3â4% of the global cloud cover during the recent solar cycle is strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux. This, in turn, is inversely correlated with the solar activity. The effect is larger at higher latitudes in agreement with the shielding effect of the Earth's magnetic field on high-energy charged particles. The observed systematic variation in cloud cover will have a significant effect on the incoming solar radiation and may, therefore, provide a possible explanation of the tropospheric and stratospheric 10â12 year oscillations which have been reported. The above relation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover should also be of importance in an explanation of the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature, that has been found.


ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Meteorological characteristic changes in the high-latitudinal atmosphere associated with Forbush decreases of the galactic cosmic rays


> Abstract
> 
> Variations of the pressure level heights, temperature profiles and wind characteristics in the troposphere and lower stratosphere have been studied during Forbush-decreases of the galactic cosmic rays, the data of aerological soundings from SodankylÃ¤ (Finland, &#981; &#8776; 67Â°) being used. It has been found that the Forbush-decreases are accompanied by the pressure increase in the whole troposphere, the maximum of the effect taking place on the 3â4th day after the event onset. Simultaneously the temperature decrease is observed in the troposphere during the first few days of the Forbush-decreases. The pressure increase might be related to the changes of wind characteristics in the middle and upper troposphere. A possible mechanism of the observed effects seems to involve radiation budget changes in the atmosphere due to the cloudiness variations associated with Forbush-decreases of the galactic cosmic rays.


ANGEO - Abstract - Enhancement of stratospheric aerosols after solar proton event


> Abstract. The lidar measurements at Verhnetulomski observatory (68.6Â°N, 31.8Â°E) at Kola peninsula detected a considerable increase of stratospheric aerosol concentration after the solar proton event of GLE (ground level event) type on the 16/02/84. This increase was located at precisely the same altitude range where the energetic solar protons lost their energy in the atmosphere. The aerosol layer formed precipitated quickly (1â2 km per day) during 18, 19, and 20 February 1984, and the increase of R(H) (backscattering ratio) at 17 km altitude reached 40% on 20/02/84. We present the model calculation of CN (condensation nuclei) altitude distribution on the basis of an ion-nucleation mechanism, taking into account the experimental energy distribution of incident solar protons. The meteorological situation during the event was also investigated.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Ok this is getting boring, I will give the links alone now. and any that are particularly interesting maybe some text.

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
[astro-ph/0503306] Ice Age Epochs and the Sun's Path Through the Galaxy
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays
Online versions of scientific journals
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Prediction of expected global climate change by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based on solar magnetic field data
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Estimation of long-term cosmic ray intensity variation in near future and prediction of their contribution in expected global climate change
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Possible influence of cosmic rays on climate through thunderstorm clouds
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7 - SpringerLink
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7 - SpringerLink
Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges - Svensmark - 2007 - Astronomy & Geophysics - Wiley Online Library
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 47, Number 1 - SpringerLink
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 47, Number 1 - SpringerLink
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate
Space Science Reviews, Volume 127, Numbers 1-4 - SpringerLink
Different response of clouds to solar input
Cosmic rays and the biosphere over 4 billion years - Svensmark - 2006 - Astronomische Nachrichten - Wiley Online Library
Browse Results - SpringerLink
Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds
Initial results of a global circuit model with variable stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols
Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Numbers 1-4 - SpringerLink
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 46, Number 1 - SpringerLink
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Long-term cosmic ray intensity variation and part of global climate change, controlled by solar activity through cosmic rays
Link Between Cosmic Rays and Clouds on Different Time Scales
ON THE LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE : International Journal of Modern Physics A: Vol. 20, No. 29 (World Scientific)
Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth's temperature: A millennium-scale comparison
Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth's temperature: A millennium-scale comparison


> Previous studies of a solar influence on climate variations have often suffered from the relatively short length of continuous direct solar observations of less than 400 years. We use two recently reconstructed series of the sunspot number and the cosmic ray flux to study this question over time intervals of up to nearly 1800 years. Comparison of the Sun-related data sets with various reconstructions of terrestrial Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperatures reveals consistently positive correlation coefficients for the sunspot numbers and consistently negative correlation coefficients for the cosmic rays. The significance levels reach up to 99% but vary strongly for the different data sets. The major part of the correlation is due to the similarity of the long-term trends in the data sets. The trend of the cosmic ray flux correlates somewhat better with the terrestrial temperature than the sunspot numbers derived from the same cosmogenic isotope data.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Im still going
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Aerosol Science - Aerosol nucleation in an ultra-low ion density environment
Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth - Svensmark - 2012 - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society - Wiley Online Library
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations
ACPD - Abstract - Effects of cosmic ray decreases on cloud microphysics
ANGEO - Abstract - Cosmic rays and space weather: effects on global climate change


> Abstract. We consider possible effects of cosmic rays and some other space factors on the Earth's climate change. It is well known that the system of internal and external factors formatting the climate is very unstable; decreasing planetary temperature leads to an increase of snow surface, and decrease of the total solar energy input into the system decreases the planetary temperature even more, etc. From this it follows that even energetically small factors may have a big influence on climate change. In our opinion, the most important of these factors are cosmic rays and cosmic dust through their influence on clouds, and thus, on climate.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/abs/nature10343.html
ASTRA - Abstract - Forbush decreases Ã¢&#8364;&#8220; clouds relation in the neutron monitor era
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Dependence of GCRs influx on the solar NorthÃ¢&#8364;&#8220;South asymmetry
Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam
ACP - Abstract - Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Galactic cosmic rays-clouds effect and bifurcation model of the Earth global climate. Part 1. Theory
ACP - Abstract - Model of optical response of marine aerosols to Forbush decreases
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Solar rhythms in the characteristics of the Arctic frontal zone in the North Atlantic
ACP - Abstract - Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment
ScienceDirect.com - Physics Reports - Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays and solar irradiation over the Earth
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Regional millennial trend in the cosmic ray induced ionization of the troposphere
The Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Flux: Its Importance for Climate
A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings - Dengel - 2009 - New Phytologist - Wiley Online Library
Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Inderscience Publishers - Journal Article
Moscow University Physics Bulletin, Volume 64, Number 2 - SpringerLink
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 2 - SpringerLink
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 73, Number 3 - SpringerLink
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 73, Number 3 - SpringerLink
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118501 (2009): Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 1 - SpringerLink
ADGEO - Abstract - Natural hazards for the Earth's civilization from space, 1. Cosmic ray influence on atmospheric processes
ScienceDirect.com - Comptes Rendus Geoscience - Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: Possible connection
Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 28, Numbers 5-6 - SpringerLink
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7 - SpringerLink

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d78522x2qw55544t/


> Abstract
> The effect of changes in the total solar irradiance and intensity of galactic cosmic rays on the increase in the global temperature of the Earth over the last 120 years was investigated using a one-dimensional energy-balance climate model. It is shown that the joint effect of solar and cosmic factors during this periodcan lead to an increase in the average temperature of the northern hemisphere by 0.25&#8211;0.35Â°C. It is concluded that the solar luminosity and the cosmic-ray flux can make a significant contribution to the global warming of the last century.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Ok. So why did I post all that?? Well for one if I linked a source that listed al these, it would have been ignored as evidenced by past things Ive posted. 

So this last set of posts covered a topic that is no proven, with studies going back decades into this, and including timescales going way into earths distant past. (which you cant do with co2 theory since it was de coupled with climate most of earths history) 

So here is a now proven link between cosmic influences and clouds. The sun playing a role at times in regulating how much of this reaches us. 

Between the sun and these IGNORED cosmic forces THESE are the real climate drivers even if co2 plays the claimed role. 

so why does the IPCC whom claim to cover all the science basically ignore this? No doubt we need more study, and atleast two groups are working on modeling these factors into climate models. One of those doing this modelling hasnt released their work yet but seems to think it explains our current climate. (without the idea of co2 as a driver present) we will see.

My bigger point though is simply that this now proven and LOOOONG studied link is KEY to understanding earths climate AGW or not, and it is NOT currently in the models used to forecast the future temps. WHY????


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Name calling is hardly a boon to your argument....

You were claiming models were 'inaccurate' and implying useless.

And not offering any definition of 'inaccurate' or what you'd consider as accurate.

And the case of the matter is that the models are accurate. We can see the results from older models on today's conditions. Hansen's 1988 projections are accurate. And doubly so when variables like the recession are taken into consideration.

We also can see their accuracy by taking a modern modeling program and setting it to a back date and see how it 'forecasts' today's conditions.


We also need to note that if you are arguing that the science is not good because you don't like models, or want them to be at 100% on every aspect, that there are multiple lines of evidence.





Jena said:


> Ok troll...you told me to "prove that climate models are inaccurate" and now you are changing your tune.
> 
> Meh, you go on ignore.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

One of the torrent of links is to "_Prediction of expected global climate change by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based
on solar magnetic field data_"

Published in 2004

So, I wonder if the last eight years have been kind to their predictions?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And which one of those papers offers an RF number or a range that is significantly - as in at least an order of magnitude - larger than the IPCC number?

If all those papers don't offer up that, then that list is essentially useless as proof that Solar or Cosmic rays are the dominant forcing mechanism.


Now to go back through that list and see which address the 'it can't be anthropogenic CO2' claim.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> And which one of those papers offers an RF number or a range that is significantly - as in at least an order of magnitude - larger than the IPCC number?
> 
> If all those papers don't offer up that, then that list is essentially useless as proof that Solar or Cosmic rays are the dominant forcing mechanism.
> 
> ...


You might want to read through them some more. Pretty clear your not understanding the implications, and for that matter mechanisms. We have data going back 100s of millions of years that show a link here, we now have proven this link to go with our extended records. Now we have two groups going over all the data in this new light, and thus far its rather obvious these interactions of cosmic rays, the sun and clouds played a much bigger role then the IPCC claims, (heck I just posted their single solar expert saying much of this as well) according to many it explains it all. 

Yet several proven climate drivers are ignored by the IPCC??? WHY? You tell me. 

You can pretend it isnt true all you like. Majors climate drivers are not "outlier"... It is going to get interesting in coming years as the AGW folks get into a frenzy as the mythology falls apart. Even if co2 is having an effect its a much smaller one then claimed, that much is obvious if your reading these links.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If you can't produce a number, then you don't have a case.

Or, if you accept the IPCC number, then you need to develop a large body of evidence that supports CO2 not having the effect that is well accepted.


IPCC reports are what is called a review of the literature or a synthesis of the data that has been published.

You've listed a number of papers, how many did you check to see if they were included in the IPCC reports?

Many of your papers deal with rather arcane bits of astrophysics and don't directly address what is happening to our climate.

Which is pretty obvious in reading the conclusions, the findings of the paper. IF their finding was directly effecting climate, they would be pointing it out.

What the majority of your selection of papers point to is cloud formation, some ionization aspects (which very often are a discussion on how things get measured, not how it effects something else), or historical data.

Which is why your papers don't say something like 'strong correlation with' or 'mitigates' or other claims.


Thanks for bringing what you thought would support your claims, but they don't.


Show us the RF numbers you claim astrophysicists agree on that is so far from the IPCC number that it could actually be the primary driver of what is happening to our climate.








silverseeds said:


> You might want to read through them some more. Pretty clear your not understanding the implications, and for that matter mechanisms. We have data going back 100s of millions of years that show a link here, we now have proven this link to go with our extended records. Now we have two groups going over all the data in this new light, and thus far its rather obvious these interactions of cosmic rays, the sun and clouds played a much bigger role then the IPCC claims, (heck I just posted their single solar expert saying much of this as well) according to many it explains it all.
> 
> Yet several proven climate drivers are ignored by the IPCC??? WHY? You tell me.
> 
> You can pretend it isnt true all you like. Majors climate drivers are not "outlier"... It is going to get interesting in coming years as the AGW folks get into a frenzy as the mythology falls apart. Even if co2 is having an effect its a much smaller one then claimed, that much is obvious if your reading these links.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Maybe you should give us a list of the "several proven climate drivers" that you claim are "ignored by the IPCC".

Please....



silverseeds said:


> Yet several proven climate drivers are ignored by the IPCC???


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Even if co2 is having an effect its a much smaller one then claimed.....


Which papers did you link to that support that statement?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Maybe you should give us a list of the "several proven climate drivers" that you claim are "ignored by the IPCC".
> 
> Please....


I just posted a bunch of data on one of them. I posted data on two others before, more to come later. 

Considering your responses Im going to assume you havent studied these yet or you want to ignore them. when or if you do it will be obvious that the IPCC ignored a major climate driver and that this factor made up a large or complete portion of changes claimed to be caused by co2. 

You can do all the political posturing you like. This is science. you claim to understand this.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Odd bit of circumlocution to avoid a simple list of the

"several proven climate drivers" that you claim are "ignored by the IPCC".

"one of them" "two others" "more to come"

How about:

1-
2-
3-
4-
5-

On until you get to whatever qualifies as "several".


Or, even how about many of the "several"? Or even some of the "several".



Or, a few of the of the "several"?







silverseeds said:


> I just posted a bunch of data on one of them. I posted data on two others before, more to come later.
> .....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....ignored a major climate driver and that this factor made up a large or complete portion of changes claimed to be caused by co2.
> .....



So, what is the "a major climate driver"?

A few minutes ago you were claiming "several proven climate drivers".


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .....
> You can do all the political posturing you like.
> ....




Well, color me perplexed. I'm used to you making a lot of unsupported claims, but manufacturing them out of whole cloth is a bit much.

Or quote me doing "political posturing" in this thread.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> springerlink.com/content/d78522x2qw55544t



This paper has been cited by one other paper.

And that paper was from the IPCC.

Here's what they say:

"The earth infrequently receives energy from high-energy cosmic rays&#8221; that play a role in increasing in global temperatures (Ogurtsov, 2007). However, they occur too episodically and infrequently to be a significant cause for the current warming, but they can magnify its effects."



So, tell us why you are claiming 'major driver' for what is "infrequently" and "play a role"?


And where in the Ogurtsov paper is a claim 'major driver?

The paper says .25-.35 C

So you need to square it with:










or










Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> So, what is the "a major climate driver"?
> 
> A few minutes ago you were claiming "several proven climate drivers".


Yes its several. You seriously missed the series of posts on the "major climate driver"

Are you a climate denier now roberte? What do you have against science? 

honestly your response couldnt be funnier. I will post some more science for you to ignore when I get some more time.

And thanks for the last post wit a chart!! It verifies the IPCC is ignoring a now proven climate driver!! Definitely will be funny to watch the alarmists deny the science as more and more data surfaces.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm rather flummoxed as to why you haven't / can't / won't name this "...now proven climate driver"




silverseeds said:


> ...a now proven climate driver!! Definitely will be funny to watch the alarmists deny the science as more and more data surfaces.



Would "more data" include an RF number?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> I'm rather flummoxed as to why you haven't / can't / won't name this "...now proven climate driver"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You get funnier all the time. I posted dozens of studies on the same topic, and yo dont know what Im talking about. 

Oh well. So this far you ignored the content of the vast bulk of posts on a range of topics then pretended I never posted anything. Claiming that if there had been merit to "blogs" you would have acknowledged them. Somehow you missed all the hard science linked to them. Instead you kept bringing up two points on astrophysicists in a context that had no relevancy, and rambling on about beck whom I never even brought up in the conversation. demanding answers for those points even after you got them a dozen times. 

Now I link dozens of studies on a topic and ask some real basic questions, also posted thorough explanations from some of the leading researchers of the field. and now you cant even figure out what the conversation is about??? sure thing! I bet that is honest!! lol. You also try to mis portray the same topic your ignoring with your RF question. Its not even vaguely relevant in this context. 

why pretend you want to debate a topic of science and then use nothing but political posturing to do so?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ...yo dont know what Im talking about.
> .....


Well, I will admit that I'm really unclear why pages of links can't be coalesced - synthesized - into a coherent case for what you are attempting to prove.

So, let's see - and correct me if I'm wrong - if I have your claims correct:

1- CO2 is not the primary driver

2- It is something else
a- maybe cosmic rays
b- possibly Jupiter and Saturn
c- maybe solar flux
d- stuff that hasn't been researched

3- IPCC has "ignored" data
a- because of an "agenda"


And - again, correct me if I'm wrong - 

1- there is no RF number to bring forward as proof of (2)
2- there is no set of numbers that move (2) an order of magnitude higher so it overpowers CO2
3-the "agenda" is some sort of NWO


Or, if you don't want to address those:

Just let us know.......


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> 3- IPCC has "ignored" data
> a- because of an "agenda"


yep, this is rather obvious actually. I just covered one such ignored topic well. 

We have data going back 100s of millions of years that show this cosmic radiation is playing a key role in climate. Because of how the sun influences the levels of cosmic radiation, and then from there how the cosmic radiation affects cloud cover. (the ignored cyclical nature of the sun being another. which by the way I just linked the IPCCs SINGLE solar expert talking about the ignored cyclical nature of the suns influence, i guess you could also demand the IPCCs single solar expert explain what the IPCC ignored about the suns role :bash

There is no doubt in the world, co2 as a driver or not, if you ignore a proven climate driver your models cant be correct. Heck the AGW folks KNOW that clouds are a big hole in their theories, they have no idea how to factor them in, and make a huge difference. Instead of getting major funding for researching a long recognized link to clouds though, this was basically ignored by most outside of the field. After the particle accelerators confirmed this link however it has really gained traction and wont be ignored much longer. It will be an interesting few years.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Heck the AGW folks KNOW that clouds are a big hole in their theories, they have no idea how to factor them in, and make a huge difference. Instead of getting major funding for researching a long recognized link to clouds though, this was basically ignored by most outside of the field. After the particle accelerators confirmed this link however it has really gained traction and wont be ignored much longer. It will be an interesting few years.


I'd really like to know how you 'know' :

1- "clouds are a big hole in their theories"
2- " no idea how to factor them in"


And perhaps we could see what you think constitutes "confirmed".

As in the exact wording from the papers that says that.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> yep, this is rather obvious actually.
> 
> ....


Here's all the questions. Again. Note that none of your response actually addressed any of them with substantive data:

1- CO2 is not the primary driver

2- It is something else
a- maybe cosmic rays
b- possibly Jupiter and Saturn
c- maybe solar flux
d- stuff that hasn't been researched

3- IPCC has "ignored" data
a- because of an "agenda"


And - again, correct me if I'm wrong - 

1- there is no RF number to bring forward as proof of (2)
2- there is no set of numbers that move (2) an order of magnitude higher so it overpowers CO2
3-the "agenda" is some sort of NWO


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Here's all the questions. Again. Note that none of your response actually addressed any of them with substantive data:
> 
> 1- CO2 is not the primary driver
> 
> ...


Reason I didnt answer your "questions" is because the few that are relevant will be answered soon. They arent one post answers. Most of them however are simply political posturing. 

science dictates we include ALL known factors. It also dictates when we have strong evidence for a variable we should study it if we expect to eventually have accurate understandings. 

If you want to believe the IPCC and the AGW folks in general give the cosmic ray influence its full due, oh well. 

Its funny that in your mind if we follow ALL the science we are simply grasping at straws to ignore AGW. somehow this seems like "science" to you. Ignore what you dont like, mock new data as we see more variables. Oh well. You make my case is all. Even if you dont see it yourself. It will get more obvious as i cover more of the topics, and you continue to re frame the conversation instead of acknowledge and account for anything posted. We barely started my friend! 

Lucky for you its tricky for me to find several hours in a row to do the research. this lets you have windows your pretending you made points before you have to go into cycles of denying the science again.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Most of them however are simply political posturing.
> ....


Here are the questions, again:


1- CO2 is not the primary driver

2- It is something else
a- maybe cosmic rays
b- possibly Jupiter and Saturn
c- maybe solar flux
d- stuff that hasn't been researched

3- IPCC has "ignored" data
a- because of an "agenda"


And - again, correct me if I'm wrong - 

1- there is no RF number to bring forward as proof of (2)
2- there is no set of numbers that move (2) an order of magnitude higher so it overpowers CO2
3-the "agenda" is some sort of NWO




Now, tell us which are "political posturing".

A reminder; I wasn't the one claiming 'agenda21' or any other IPCC or other organization having an 'agenda'.

So, how is asking how Jupiter effects our climate "political posturing"?

So, how is asking for an RF number "political posturing"?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Even if co2 is having an effect its a much smaller one then claimed, that much is obvious if your reading these links.



Which of your links support that claim?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Which of your links support that claim?


Start reading. If you dont understand after reading what Ive posted already, I really cant help you.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Ok. So why did I post all that??
> ....


For a sense of perspective, the following is one quarter of one page of citations.


Of ten pages. Single spaced. Two columns.



From one chapter of the Fourth Assessment Report.

One quarter of one of ten pages of citations from one chapter of one report.


AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling
observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.
Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot.
Science, 288, 1042&#8211;1047.
Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for
an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274&#8211;
278.
Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate
extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.
Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly
historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-
2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816&#8211;5842.
Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891&#8211;892.
Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in
optimal fi ngerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419&#8211;434.
Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in
climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224&#8211;232.
Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic
climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228&#8211;228.
Allen, M.R., and P.A. Stott, 2003: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal
fi ngerprinting, Part I: Theory. Clim. Dyn., 21, 477&#8211;491.
Allen, M.R., J.A. Kettleborough, and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Model error
in weather and climate forecasting. In: ECMWF Predictability of
Weather and Climate Seminar [Palmer, T.N. (ed.)]. European Centre for
Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, http://www.ecmwf.
int/publications/library/do/references/list/209.
Allen, M.R., et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of
anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617&#8211;620.
Ammann, C.M., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and C. Zender, 2003: A
monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations
of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(12), 1657.
Anderson, T.L., et al., 2003: Climate forcing by aerosols: A hazy picture.
Science, 300, 1103&#8211;1104.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

And here is how that chapter starts:

....
Human-induced warming of the climate system is
widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can
be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface,
in the troposphere and in the oceans. Multi-signal detection
and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions
of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed
changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the
past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the
observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling
effect from aerosol and other forcings.
It is *extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of
warming during the past half century can be explained without
external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known
natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the
ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural
external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.*

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> For a sense of perspective, the following is one quarter of one page of citations.
> 
> 
> Of ten pages. Single spaced. Two columns.


Im curious?? in what way did you believe this was relevant?

"Look the IPCC cited lots of stuff on different topics!!" 

I posted all those links on a single topic. How many citations does the IPCC give on the influence of cosmic rays? (you know a topic that went from theory to proven since the last IPCC report) 

Id say with the IPCC its more interesting what they ignore and downplay more then what they cite. (although the few dozen citations of activist groups as if it was science are funny) Again, Ive just covered one in depth, we will cover the others as I have more time.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

One quarter of one page of ten single spaced, double column citation for one topic /one chapter of one report.

So, take ALL your research, come up with a number, and then plug it into










The numbers there are a coalescing, a synthesis, of all the research.

What are your numbers?




silverseeds said:


> Im curious?? in what way did you believe this was relevant?
> 
> "Look the IPCC cited lots of stuff on different topics!!"
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

You missed the most important part of the quoted post..

>>>>>>>>>How many citations does the IPCC give on the influence of cosmic rays? <<<<<<<<

Sorry roberte. We now know atleast part of what drives cloud formation. Im not sure why this bothers you. 

Im also not sure why you believe citing the IPCC changes anything. Nothing you linked changed the fact we now know part of what drives cloud formation. Past work makes it clear this explains atleast part of our current warming with two major groups working on ironing out the details as we speak. 

Why does this bother you? This is science. Not politics right??


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You are - though please correct me if I'm misunderstanding - claiming that this new research fundamentally changes what is known about Climate Science, how human and natural forcings are effecting what we are observing.

But you can't or won't give us a number that shows how your new research actually effects the research we have.

So, basically, more unsupported claims. Otherwise, you or someone with expertise would posit a number that the particles from space cause in forming clouds.

And then you or someone with expertise could take that number and plug it into diagram at FAQ 1.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science that is based on the Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) research.

So, why can't / won't you or someone with expertise do that?


--
Little hint: it has something to do with the measured effects.




silverseeds said:


> You missed the most important part of the quoted post..
> 
> >>>>>>>>>How many citations does the IPCC give on the influence of cosmic rays? <<<<<<<<
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> So, basically, more unsupported claims.


Nope sorry. We do indeed now know part of what drives cloud levels. Which does indeed give us a better understanding of our planet climate system. Officially we are still ironing out the exact effect with two groups working on this. Looking at our past body of work though, its pretty obvious this will account for much of the recent warming we have had. 

Im curious what makes you believe this is unsupported? We have studies supporting this from all angles. From studies of past data showing the link, to studies showing parts of the effect happening in real time on our planet in relation to the cosmic influences, to experiments showing directly that this will indeed seed clouds. Its proven from every angle now. Its just a matter of those in the field coming together and figuring out the exact effect. A few did this independently if you read the links, but the two groups working on this now are what the field is waiting to rest its hat on. 

What exactly do you believe is unsupported here? Read the body of work i posted its supported from every angle actually. Just a matter of ironing out the details now.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....Officially we are still ironing out the exact effect with two groups working on this. Looking at our past body of work though, its pretty obvious this will account for much of the recent warming we have had.
> ....


But no range, even from the "past body of work".

Interesting. Esp. given that of the claims is based on research that is either not vetted or even done yet.....


But you are willing to claim "..its pretty obvious this will account for much of the recent warming.."


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, not so much 'theory to proven', since the influence was acknowledged already.

What some of your links show is efforts to quantify that effect.

And that is what you haven't been willing to bring to the table.

Wonder why.....

"Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous."


" The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions. "

" Because of the difficulty in tracking the influence of one particular modification brought about by ions through the long chain of complex interacting processes, quantitative estimates of galactic cosmic-ray induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation have not been reached."

2.7.1.3 Indirect Effects of Solar Variability - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
That's one chapter.

And you've claimed the IPCC said there was no influence, claimed there was a deliberate 'ignoring'.....


And then you claim I'm doing "political posturing"....



silverseeds said:


> ....
> How many citations does the IPCC give on the influence of cosmic rays? (you know a topic that went from theory to proven since the last IPCC report)
> ....



Basically, you are hinging a major portion of your 'it can't be Anthropogenic CO2 on unvetted research or research that isn't even done or published yet.

And then you claim I'm doing "political posturing"....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> But no range, even from the "past body of work".
> 
> Interesting. Esp. given that of the claims is based on research that is either not vetted or even done yet.....
> 
> ...


Who said there was no range? Its all in the studies I linked. 

What claims are based on research that hasnt been done?? This is all proven. Now we have two groups working at figuring out the exact effect. the studies that studied the effects of this before now were much smaller, and considering the ramifications of this now having been proven there is a great need to be very precise. 

And yes Im willing to "claim" its pretty obvious this will account for much of our recent warming because Ive followed this topic for over a decade as we gathered more and more data. Its not me "claiming" this by the way, it is the scientists working in the field. We should have studied this in greater detail LOOOONG ago. Instead this research went mostly ignored off on the side. That changed of course when the theory was proven correct. Its getting much more focus now.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So there shouldn't be a problem with citing them.....



silverseeds said:


> Who said there was no range? Its all in the studies I linked.
> 
> What claims are based on research that hasnt been done?? This is all proven. Now we have two groups working at figuring out the exact effect. the studies that studied the effects of this before now were much smaller, and considering the ramifications of this now having been proven there is a great need to be very precise.
> 
> And yes Im willing to "claim" its pretty obvious this will account for much of our recent warming because Ive followed this topic for over a decade as we gathered more and more data. Its not me "claiming" this by the way, it is the scientists working in the field. We should have studied this in greater detail LOOOONG ago. Instead this research went mostly ignored off on the side. That changed of course when the theory was proven correct. Its getting much more focus now.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Kinda answered your own question there.....




silverseeds said:


> ...What claims are based on *research that hasnt been done*?? This is all proven. Now we have two groups *working at figuring out* the exact effect. the studies that studied the effects of this before now were much smaller, and considering the ramifications of this now having been proven there is a great need to be very precise.
> 
> ....



It seems you've taken a position claimed from those who deny the science - the claim that IPCC "ignored" cosmic rays - and morphed it into a claim that new research will 'destroy' previous findings.

First problem is that the IPCC wrote about cosmic rays in AR4 - cited above.

Second problem is that your new research really doesn't have much in the way of numbers.

No real range of possible strength.

No real discussion if these clouds are a warming or cooling forcing.

So, until we see numbers from your research (or from your future research) that show something that increases what the IPCC gives for solar or clouds so significantly that they (or either) crowd out the well developed research showing CO2's contribution, you really haven't made a case.

All you have done is attempt to make yet another unsupported claim.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> So there shouldn't be a problem with citing them.....


I literally did already. You wade through the links if you like. I did my part.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Sorry, those are your claims. 

That would make it your homework.

What you've done is roughly equivalent to handing in a math assignment with only the answers and without showing your work.

From the wrong page. Maybe even the wrong textbook. Possibly not even the right class.



silverseeds said:


> I literally did already. You wade through the links if you like. I did my part.


What do these cosmic ray induced clouds do? Warm or cool? How much?

Who has a measurement for the 'solar flux' or 'space particle' or cosmic ray' induced clouds? Their effect?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Kinda answered your own question there.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh? I cant figure out what is so confusing about all this to you. 

Who said new research would destroy previous findings? the new research is literally an assessment of the past work. And yes its very obvious this isnt factored into the past IPCC work, it wasnt even proven at the time. And yes it is telling they wanted to downplay it despite it already having been a rather established theory at the time of their last report. considering the magnitude of clouds influence this is indeed interesting, especially when including it would have taken much of the steam out of the idea co2 is a mjaor driver of climate. 



> First problem is that the IPCC wrote about cosmic rays in AR4 - cited above.
> 
> Second problem is that your new research really doesn't have much in the way of numbers.


huh? precisely which new research are you referring to??? This is a now proven theory. several of the studies did indeed give us numbers. 

what part are you thinking isnt proven about this? Please be specific. This is a theory going back decades that has now been proven. Which part of this arent you getting. 


> No real range of possible strength.


OPPS might want to go reread the studies. 



> No real discussion if these clouds are a warming or cooling forcing.


This is somewhat of a different topic you bring up. This research shows us part of what affects cloud levels, other research needs to tell us what clouds do. and has. pretty sure one of your links covered that actually. 


> So, until we see numbers from your research (or from your future research) that show something that increases what the IPCC gives for solar or clouds so significantly that they (or either) crowd out the well developed research showing CO2's contribution, you really haven't made a case.


if you say so. Yet in reality its all there in black in white, your just not reading it. Also the fact we now know part of what drives the level of cloud coverage really has little bearing on an IPCC report that only offhandedly mentions the topic. research on co2 has no bearing on whether or not we understand what seeds a portion of our clouds. Sorry. 



> All you have done is attempt to make yet another unsupported claim.


Which part is unsupported? You really need to read the studies or atleast this..

Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover

for us to discuss this. You dont seem to be understanding the relevancy at all. You keep portraying the whole matter out of context. Of course it isnt surprising the AGW folks have done this to this theory from the start, now that its proven Im doubting they are happy. Already they are scrambling to figure out what is causing our current climate, (temps levelled off for over a decade counter to the models of AGW folks) most of them afraid to admit the obvious and what solar scientists are telling us. Its the sun. Although the IPCCs single solar expert now believes it is the sun.... which I find utterly hilarious myself. 

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Sorry, those are your claims.
> 
> That would make it your homework.
> 
> ...


they seed regular clouds roberte, LOL!!! they do what regular clouds do. Thanks for that though, it was funny. 

and no I wasnt in the wrong textbook or class. And yes as I told you several times there are numbers in the linked studies. I also told you that two groups are going over that past work to give us a more precise assessment. You know exactly how any field of science does when it moves from a theory to having been proven.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .... two groups are going over that past work to give us a more precise assessment.....


"more precise" means there are already a range of numbers.

And you have been oddly reluctant to cite any.

Not a 5% probability.

Not a 95% probability.

Wonder why.

Could it be that there is nothing that comes close to the well established RF numbers in IPCC? That would be the only reason to use them as a claim for the 'it can't be Anthropogenic CO2' claims.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> they do what regular clouds do.
> ....


So, here's a graphic:










FAQ 1.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

How much does the changes in cosmic rays change the amount of cloud cover?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> "more precise" means there are already a range of numbers.
> 
> And you have been oddly reluctant to cite any.
> 
> ...


In actual reality I cited several. And yes of course there is a range of numbers, there is in most fields, especially something like climate that is so inter connected. Same is true with co2 claims as well. Of course. 

No need to "wonder why"... Im waiting for the two groups who are working this as I keep explaining. 

Its hilarious you believe I want to include this now proven factor because I want the truth to be anything but co2. In science we must include ALL known variables, especially the ones we have solid proof for. Heck you wont even admit the science has already proven it!! 

Heck I will throw you a bone! the LOW range (if I remember right, I dont feel like wading through all those studies again) is that this caused .25-.35 of a degree of warming. which as you know isnt the full effect currently attributed to co2. (although the sun makes up the rest if you listen to astrophysicists) 

So even if the official stance becomes this low range of the numbers past studies give us, it still greatly changes the debate. Especially when we include the suns other effects at full value, we ae heading for cooler times.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> How much does the changes in cosmic rays change the amount of cloud cover?


Youll have to forgive me, I dont feel like wading back through it, 3-4% I believe. But youd have to look if you want to base some debate on that.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Youll have to forgive me, I dont feel like wading back through it, 3-4% I believe. But youd have to look if you want to base some debate on that.


Let us know when you've actually got the numbers and cites.

Your claim, your homework...


But, 4%? Really? That is what your claiming 'disproves' co2 and whatever else you are magically ascribing to space particles, cosmic rays, solar flux. ,,,,,


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Let us know when you've actually got the numbers and cites.
> 
> Your claim, your homework...
> 
> ...


Actually this would NOT disprove co2 drives climate of course. 

Rather we HAVE proven that this cosmic influence DOES affect cloud cover. So this needs to be factored into our models. Co2 or not, we will have more reliable models after this. 

According to one of those working on going over past data now that we know this, it accounts for all of our recent warming. I will say, I didnt see any of the past studies go THAT far. Although their group HAS had the ability to go deeper into the data, so we will see. 

Of course like i said, I believe the lowest I saw when going over those studies was .25-.35 of a degree. Which still of course leaves room for co2. Heck maybe co2s effect is 10 times greater then currently believed but something else we release counters it, its not relevant to this aspect of this conversation. 

I never brought this up to disprove co2 as a driver. I brought this up, because it is a now proven factor that does change our knowledge on the climate system.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, the cosmic ray / cloud connection was supported in 2006.


"In 1959, Edward Ney suggested that cosmic rays could affect the weather (Ney 1959), an idea revived by the positive correlation found between monthly galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and satellite-retrieved low cloud amount from 1983 to 1994 (Marsh & Svensmark 2000). Close associations have also been observed between cosmogenic isotopes and paleoclimate records, such as for the monsoon (Neff et al. 2001) and ocean temperatures (Bond et al. 2001). Cosmic rays are known to have variations on a wide range of timescales (Wolfendale 1963). An increase in cosmogenic isotope production occurred during the Maunder Minimum in solar activity (Beer 2000), and on longer times, there is some evidence for cosmic ray increases during passages of the galaxy's spiral arms (Shaviv 2002).&#8221;
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full

What your new research MIGHT come up with is a narrowing of the range of variability in amount of cloud to a given percentage of change in cosmic rays.

Which MIGHT lead to a small increase in the reliability / accuracy / precision of some of the models.

What that new research doesn't do is change the amount of clouds, their effect on forcing.

And so, doesn't effect in any dramatic way the role of Anthropogenic CO2 in the observations we have of the climate.

And you spent days / weeks claiming without any evidence that CO2 wasn't the primary driver.

Science builds on data. Not trying to find some data that fits what you wish.




Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds



silverseeds said:


> Actually this would NOT disprove co2 drives climate of course.
> 
> Rather we HAVE proven that this cosmic influence DOES affect cloud cover. So this needs to be factored into our models. Co2 or not, we will have more reliable models after this.
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So........





silverseeds said:


> ....mythology of co2 as a major climate driver.
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> What your new research MIGHT come up with is a narrowing of the range of variability in amount of cloud to a given percentage of change in cosmic rays.
> 
> Which MIGHT lead to a small increase in the reliability / accuracy / precision of some of the models.



It isnt "my" research. 

You still need to read what Ive been posting. It WILL not "might" lead to an increase in the accuracy of the models. We currently are not including a now proven factor into our models. 


> What that new research doesn't do is change the amount of clouds, their effect on forcing.


Of course not, but now we know part of what caused the changes in cloud cover. 


> And so, doesn't effect in any dramatic way the role of Anthropogenic CO2 in the observations we have of the climate.


Sorry it does. Atleast part of the warming currently attributed to co2 was in fact because of the relationship of cosmic rays and clouds. 



> And you spent days / weeks claiming without any evidence that CO2 wasn't the primary driver.


OPPS sorry Ive posted a good amount youve ignored it all. Dont worry though weve only just begun. By the way it isnt that co2 isnt the primary driver, it isnt a driver at all. We have a loose cherry picked dataset, and ignoring all other factors so we can leave room for co2 to have a claimed effect. 



> Science builds on data. Not trying to find some data that fits what you wish.


Exactly!! It doesnt work by ignoring what you dont want to include either, like the suns true impact or the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation and several others we will get deeper into. If you dont realize for instance that the IPCC downplayed the role of the sun, your simply not reading the studies Ive posted. I really cant help that of course, but its interesting to see, while your saying things such as you did above. Even the IPCCs single solar expert admits they focused on but one aspect of the suns influence. which is obvious when you read the work I posted along with the IPCC stance. 

Where did you get this idea anyone studies this or cares about it because it fits what we wish? I want the truth, and after study co2 simply cant be true, heck you realize that temps leveled off for over a decade now right? You realize we have no hot spot in the atmosphere which is key to the theory right? Lots more of course all completely counter to the theory. heck the claimed feedback loops that cause most of the warming in models arent doing what was claimed, the skeptics were correct there, we cant simply assume most feedbacks are positive as they do. If such run away feedbacks existed we should expect a much crazier climate then the planet has had. Its all good in the magical co2 theory though! Where bringing up now proven variables is anti science if it displaces some of co2s claimed effect!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Dont worry though weve only just begun.


LOL. :hysterical:

I think this is the first time I've seen any topic here carry on as long as this one has - just a week shy now of 2 months - and you say you've only just begun? :shocked:

Reminds me of "The Never Ending Story" and "this is the song that never ends" - it doesn't look to be going anywhere but round and round and round. :stars:

Oh well, I guess it's better than politics and it does seem to keep you both harmlessly occupied but I do wish the discussion would get more interesting and enlightening.

Less sarcasm and condescension between you guys would be rather nice. :hohum: 

Carry on. :bored:

.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

naturelover said:


> it doesn't look to be going anywhere but round and round and round.
> 
> 
> 
> .


I probably find it more boring then you do. I have to admit I find it hilarious as well though. 

Look at this last point I covered. One poster tried to reframe it 100 different ways except what the scientists studying it tell us. Its actually a simple concept, and this person is clearly intelligent yet clearly wanted to confuse the topic as completely as possible instead of try to understand it in context. I think th person has made it clear they are intelligent enough to understand it, so why is it they want to convince people it doesnt mean what the science tells us it means? why the agenda? 

Heck the poster went so far as to say science build on data not belief, after having spent several dozen posts fighting tooth and nail to confuse what decades of data and recently experiments have proven. Is it because he doesnt like the results? Obviously. Yes framed in in such a way that anyone who DOES want the truth on the topic is against the "science". The twisted process that formed such a though interests me greatly. Im trying to figure out if its a severe case of cognitive dissonance or a poster with other reasons to confuse the issue.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net



> The hunt for this missing energy, and the search for the mechanisms, both natural and artificial, that caused the temperature hiatus are, in many ways, a window into climate science itself. Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures -- a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts -- there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming. Many question whether energy is missing at all.


I posted this a few times now, but its going to take me awhile until ive gathered the links for the next section of my case.

So I thought perhaps in the meantime roberte or someone else could explain which of the theories in the link above do you believe explains our current climate. BOTH ocean and surface temps have been essentially flat for over a decade. This is completely counter to the models. AGW or not our past models are invalid. Its a simple fact. (especially when you look at the influence of the sun as per actual solar scientists and the influence of cosmic rays on clouds- wich literally can more then explain current warming and in fact actually implies humans may have caused cooling not warming-which would be hilarious if we find this is true one day) 

should we believe the IPCCs single solar expert (judith lean) that its the sun as the rest of the field suggests? Is it because we didnt weigh aerosols heavily enough as hansen suggests? (which implies a different things humans released are causing as much cooling as the co2 and others are claimed to cause warming) (funny how while hansen wants to use downplayed solar variables he believes the official stance on co2 is correct so naturally the aerosol forcing levels must not be. Does he have any data that leads him to think this? not really, I read the study hes done, its linked in the article above, he offers no proof simply a new theory. All while the science already points to the sun. but then if we admit the sun can cause this cooling, then well it caused much of the warming as well so it cant be that!! ) 

Or one of the others? 

To me its rather obvious its the sun. We have a lot of recent work out of the field showing us we are headed for cooler times. But thats only true if we weight the suns role as solar sciences do rather then the AGW crowd wants us to. 

I find this interesting to point out also...


> It is difficult to overstate how important pollution has been to blocking the sun's energy. According to an influential energy budget prepared several years ago, human pollution, along with volcanic eruptions, masked 70 percent of the heating caused by greenhouse gases between 1950 and 2000. Another 20 percent of this heating escaped into space, with 10 percent going into warming the climate, largely in the oceans.
> 
> By the late 1990s, much of this pollution had vanished. The sun was unleashed, no longer filtered, and greenhouse gases were continuing to trap more of its heat. There had been no eruptions since Pinatubo. El NiÃ±o flared. Conditions were perfect for a record.


If our models were correct, not only should we still be climbing in temps but as the skies cleared in the late 90s we should have had MUCH faster warming, NOT a leveling off!! Again AGW or not the models are dead wrong. (although all this makes sense if you weight the sun as the solar scientists do) 


i also find it curious only one mentioned the failed water vapor feedback loop!

Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

where it is most influential water vapor levels rose substantially through the 80s and 90s, and has since fallen substantially. Its simple science, this played both a role in past warming, as well as with the current leveling off of temps. I find it a bit odd only one of these folks in the link mentioned it. 

this part is just funny..


> "That makes the sun a bit more important, because the solar variability modulates the net planetary energy imbalance," Hansen said. "But the solar forcing is too small to make the net imbalance negative, i.e., solar variations are not going to cause global cooling."


that is a quote from hansen. I think hed have a hard time finding astrophysicists who agree with that. Several recent studies suggest we can expect such cooling NOW, and we have many past works making the same case for past eras the sundid what it is doing now. frankly I will believe the studies done from those experts in solar sciences myself. 

Its going to be a few days atleast before I can post anything of depth to the discussion. I thought this might be interesting for the mean time.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> LOL. :hysterical:
> 
> I think this is the first time I've seen any topic here carry on as long as this one has - just a week shy now of 2 months - and you say you've only just begun? :shocked:
> 
> ...


Actually this level of sarcasm could be considered professional when compared to past debates. I think the reason this thread has lasted so long is because the general GC population is not trolling these threads. It is over their heads....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think the reason this thread has lasted so long is because the general GC population is not trolling these threads. *It is over their heads*....


Or it's just too stupid to deserve many comments.


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

I sure am glad I have managed to keep the kool-aid drinkers confined to one place. I guess it's about time to start another thread - this one has too many posts. What a joke.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ,,,,
> that is a quote from hansen. I think hed have a hard time finding astrophysicists who agree with that.
> .....


From one of your papers, cited in the other thread:


"amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% "


*0.07%*


Until you can find any reputable paper with a bigger number, let's think about that 0.07%....

That's how many orders of magnitude too small to make the effect you want?

If you are trying to make a case for anything other than Anthropogenic CO2, you need to get your forcing to be at least as much as the RF number we've posted many, too many, times already.

If you want to make anything other than Anthropogenic CO2 your primary driver, then you'd need to have that forcing have a consistent variation that closely matches the rise in temp we have been observing.

And, the sunspots don't match, the space particles don't match, the voting records of libertarians don't match, yadda yadda, yadda......

So, Dr. Hansen is right. Solar variations, etc. won't offer up the numbers needed to make a case.

And I find it odd that you continue to make a claim about the 'almost all astrophysicists' without a single source to support it.

Or, maybe I don't. There is a loooooonnnnnnnggggggg trail of unsupported claims in these threads. Kinda wonder how long you'd last on an actual science cite. Or even Watts or .......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is a loooooonnnnnnnggggggg trail of unsupported claims in these threads


It just *appears* long because you keep *reposting* the same things endlessly


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> From one of your papers, cited in the other thread:
> 
> 
> "amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% "
> ...


I actually find it hilarious you take this number from a highly respected astrophysicists paper and believe your making a point of some type. the paper literally made the case this explains ALL of our warming. Im pretty sure he has a grasp of his field. 


> If you are trying to make a case for anything other than Anthropogenic CO2, you need to get your forcing to be at least as much as the RF number we've posted many, too many, times already.
> 
> If you want to make anything other than Anthropogenic CO2 your primary driver, then you'd need to have that forcing have a consistent variation that closely matches the rise in temp we have been observing.


I wonder who this "we" is you speak of, because a friend of mine believes your more then one person, and no one else has posted such that Ive seen besides you. 

I can clearly see your not reading the solar studies Ive posted. It seems climate is almost 2 dimensional to many AGW folks. 


> And, the sunspots don't match, the space particles don't match, the voting records of libertarians don't match, yadda yadda, yadda......
> 
> So, Dr. Hansen is right. Solar variations, etc. won't offer up the numbers needed to make a case.


what doesnt match what exactly? Weird how so many astrophysicists disagree with your premise, and the entire way the AGW crowd frames the suns influence actually. Weird how you believe hansen when he says this but not astrophysicists when they tell us the suns role. I dont ask my doctor how to fix my jeep. 


> And I find it odd that you continue to make a claim about the 'almost all astrophysicists' without a single source to support it.


Except the dozens now littered throughout my links of course. Heck even the IPCCs single solar scientist said much of what I did as I quoted. i find it probably much stranger you dont see the validity of this yet. Id again ask you to cite a second solar scientist that agrees with the IPCC stance on the suns role but if you read what I quoted from her, the single solar scientist who worked on their last report doesnt even agree with them entirely. 



> Or, maybe I don't. There is a loooooonnnnnnnggggggg trail of unsupported claims in these threads. Kinda wonder how long you'd last on an actual science cite. Or even Watts or .......


heck man, you havent even refuted anything Ive posted with actual data. Most of the time you even attempt a response that even vaguely touches on the content of a link I gave you post on a different topic such as you did with the influence of cosmic rays and a few others. You wanted everyone to believe anything but what the science shows us. Science actually proven unlike the science that backs co2 as any major driver of climate. 

My earlier links almost entirely went unanswered. you kept repeating they were just blogs, but in most of the cases you apparently hadnt read them because there were indeed the studies I had referenced linked therein. you kept repeating that the cosmic ray influence was unsupported as well, showing clearly you simply had no idea what your were talking about or were purposely lying yet you were adamant. I asked you repeatedly what was unsupported about it to you, got no response. 

You approached this as if it was a political argument rather then a scientific debate.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Then walk through how you see "ALL of our warming" from that paper. That 0.07%

Or do it using the energy level of your forcing.



silverseeds said:


> I actually find it hilarious you take this number from a highly respected astrophysicists paper and believe your making a point of some type. the paper literally made the case this explains ALL of our warming. Im pretty sure he has a grasp of his field.
> 
> 
> I wonder who this "we" is you speak of, because a friend of mine believes your more then one person, and no one else has posted such that Ive seen besides you.
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Then walk through how you see "ALL of our warming" from that paper. That 0.07%
> 
> Or do it using the energy level of your forcing.


How about you read the study and let an expert in the field walk you through it? 

that seems more practical to me.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

YOU showing us what you took - in terms of understanding - from that paper could point to how much you know or how much you are talking through your hat.

Until then - much like the inability to name the astrophysicists, inability to explain why 240 gigatons of carbon magically appearing and disappearing, unwillingness to bring a single RF number, or unwillingness to explain why 0.07% is an important forcing - most of what we are seeing from your posts is a bunch of talking through your hat.




silverseeds said:


> How about you read the study and let an expert in the field walk you through it?
> 
> that seems more practical to me.


Look at the energy power ascribed by the author and show us how it can be such an important forcing.

The math doesn't support your claims. The author isn't trying to support your claims. The author's purpose isn't what you are claiming.

This is yet another paper you'll have to claim really doesn't support your position; just like your backtracking on Beck.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> YOU showing us what you took - in terms of understanding - from that paper could point to how much you know or how much you are talking through your hat.


I take from this and the other studies I posted on the topic with the same conclusion to mean that depending on who you ask, the suns influence CAN explain our current warming. Of course I said this already. It also more accurately explains the current end of warming. Temps have been essentially stable for over a decade now. 



> Until then - much like the inability to name the astrophysicists, inability to explain why 240 gigatons of carbon magically appearing and disappearing, unwillingness to bring a single RF number, or unwillingness to explain why 0.07% is an important forcing - most of what we are seeing from your posts is a bunch of talking through your hat.


What inability to name astrophysicists? There have been dozens peppered through out these links now. 

funny post while bringing up talking through a hat. 





> Look at the energy power ascribed by the author and show us how it can be such an important forcing.
> 
> The math doesn't support your claims. The author isn't trying to support your claims. The author's purpose isn't what you are claiming.


That would be "the math doesnt support the astrophysicists claims", I merely related it to you. They arent my claims. Weird I keep telling you this, but you seem to think I wrote this up myself or something. 

and yes the author (who is head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences) was indeed making the case I said he was, as were other studies I posted on the topic. Why the need to lie? 



> This is yet another paper you'll have to claim really doesn't support your position; just like your backtracking on Beck.


What backtracking on beck?? why the need to lie? I said the SAME THING the entire time. Pointing out to you that I wasnt even using it to make a point beyond that they used belief rather then fact to ignore most of the direct measurements, and that a different member brought it up in this particular set of conversations isnt backtracking, its simply reality. Feel free to explain how I backtracked, despite having said the SAME thing every time I brought it up including when talking to you about it on a different forum many moons ago. Why the need to lie? 

Also what makes you think Id "backtrack"... I believe the sun is the leading factor here, I dont believe the cherry picked datasets used to back the co2 theory. Especially in light of the reality that co2 was de coupled from temps most of earths history. Especially when we have had no warming for over a decade. Especially when we dont have the hot spot in the atmosphere AGW theory predicts, especially when water vapor rose over the decades we had warming, and fell as things stayed level. Especially considering the cosmic affect on clouds explain much of the warming anyway, especially when we have solar scientists all over the planet telling us the sun is doing something that its believed causes mini iceages. Especially when weighted as the IPCc does the sun couldnt be able to cause the mini iceages our records show clearly they do. and on and on...

Here we have studies (there was more then one) that make the case the sun caused our changes. there has been no backtracking from me elsewhere, and certainly not here. Not until I see the bulk of astrophysicists telling me something different anyway. Im following the science in all this, just happens to be the parts you need to ignore to believe AGW is a major threat.

here is an excerpt from the study. 


> The most notable event of XX century's life of the Sun has been an irregularly high level and a century-long growth of the solar radiation flux (the TSI). A similar increase of the solar radiation flux as in XX century has not been observed for more than 700 years. However, its effect &#8213; the observed global warming &#8213; is not an abnormal, but a regular and natural event for the Earth. The climate of the Earth have always been periodically changing and our planet have already experienced several global warmings, similar to the one we observe. The global warmings have always been followed by deep coolings within regular 2-century cycles. Neither a deep cooling nor a global warming cannot last longer than they are permitted by the corresponding 2-century variations of the size and luminosity of the Sun.


http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

This is from the paper as well.



> Our calculations show that the maximum amounts of energy absorbed by CO2 (within the absorption bands 3.6 &#8211; 4.7 micrometers; 8.9 &#8211; 10.0 micrometers; 10.0 &#8211; 11.4 micrometers; 12.1 &#8211; 17.3 micrometers) and by H2O vapour (4.4 &#8211; 8.8 micrometers and more than 15 micrometers) account for approximately 80% of integral power of the Earth radiation. Of these 80% approximately 68% are absorbed by H2O vapour and only 12% by CO2. This proportion is caused by a partial overlap of the absorption bands of these gases and a constant humidity of the atmosphere for small variations of pressure and temperature. The atmosphere of the Earth releases approximately 10% of the Earth radiation to space, the remaining 10% are absorbed by clouds and by the molecules of other greenhouse gases, among which methane (CH4) within the absorption band 7.2 &#8211; 8.5 micrometers is probably the most active one. Thus, the atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth is defined mainly by the concentration of water vapour which is responsible for 68% of the absorbed radiation, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is less important.
> 
> If we imagine a hypothetical possibility to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then the atmospheric absorption would fall from 80% to 77%. But the increase of CO2 concentration, given its presently high level, will not lead to any considerable increase in atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth. It can be explained by the following circumstances. Within the band 4.7 &#8211; 12.8 micrometers carbon dioxide virtually very little absorb infrared radiation of the Earth. It is known that the main spectral window of the atmosphere is within 8&#8211;13 micrometers band and that the maximum of the Earth own radiation is around 10 micrometers. Outside the spectral window the Earth radiation is not released to space even with the current concentration of CO2. Only a minor change of absorption rate near the boundaries of the spectral window is possible.
> 
> It should be noticed that not only carbon dioxide does not help global warming, but it is also very useful as it stimulates the development of life on the Earth being a critically essential "food" for the plants &#8213; the major cleaners of the nature. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide accelerates the growth of forests and plants. The evidence of this fact is the so-called "green revolution" &#8213; a sharp and global increase in the productivity of agriculture all over the world in XX century. The direct proportionality of agricultural productivity and the concentration of CO2 is confirmed by a number of experiments. In case the supply of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere ceased, the plants would exhaust its reserve in approximately 10 years. After this, every living thing on the Earth may cease to exist. CO2 is not toxic! CO2 does not react with any substance within a human body and it is a harmless gas unlike CO. CO2 is very important for life.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Which papers support your claim of "...the suns influence CAN explain our current warming..."?

Which support your claim of "...more accurately explains the current end of warming..."?




silverseeds said:


> I take from this and the other studies I posted on the topic with the same conclusion to mean that depending on who you ask, the suns influence CAN explain our current warming. Of course I said this already. It also more accurately explains the current end of warming. Temps have been essentially stable for over a decade now.
> 
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Which papers support your claim of "...the suns influence CAN explain our current warming..."?
> 
> Which support your claim of "...more accurately explains the current end of warming..."?


I often wonder if we are in the same conversations. 

I was going to get into the medieval warm period next, but i guess we can finish up the solar section first. You didnt think I was done did you? We only truly covered the single topic of the cosmic radiation influence on clouds alone. (there are other factors there, but no real need to go there.) 

First, here are two Ive already posted. 

ASTROMETRIA
CO2 Science
Here is another one mentioning the cycles of the sun. They also seemed to have confused the IPCCs truth, and believe this can explain our previous warming trend. 
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 8 - SpringerLink



> Abstract
> Such high-resolution indirect data on solar activity as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes have been considered. The long-term solar activity cyclicity during the last millennium with periods of approximately 90 and 210 years, which can be related to substantial climatic warming and cooling events in this millennium, has been established based on an analysis of these data. It has been indicated that long-term recent climate warming can result from the effect of the &#8764;90- and &#8764;210-year solar cycles on the climatic system, which is characterized by the nonlinear dynamics.


Keep in mind we also have la nina, the increase of water vapor over the 80s and 90s and subsequent drop from 2000 on, and of course our buddy the cosmic rays. All while the AGW crowd scrambles to explain why temps have leveled off for over a decade. 

This next one doesnt exactly fit my context here, but touches slightly on part of what the above study did.

Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 1 - SpringerLink


> Abstract
> The response of the nonlinear oscillatory system to an insignificant external disturbance has been considered as applied to the effect of solar activity on climatic processes. Based on a simplified model, it has been indicated that the response of a nonlinear oscillator to a weak disturbing impact can be substantial. The oscillator fluctuation spectrum can decrease under the action of a disturbing factor. *This means that the effect of an even weak solar or cosmophysical signal to the Earthâs climatic system can lead to significant climate variations if this system is nonlinear.* However, it will be rather difficult to identify the solarâclimatic nature of these variations because a linear relation between the cause and response is absent.


These talk about a 60 year cycle. 

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications



> Abstract
> 
> We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25Â°C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon's orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. *It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030â2040.* Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators.


ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature


> Abstract
> 
> Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10â11, 20â21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa.
> 
> ...


Notice that the last two linked papers are from the same person. Notice that in 2010 he attributed 60% of recent warming to the suns influence, and by 2012 it was 60-70%

Here is an older paper from the same person. Before there was a decent amount of study into the 60 year cycle her references. 

Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite


> We study, by using a wavelet decomposition methodology, the solar signature on global surface temperature data using the ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite by Willson and Mordvinov. These data present a +0.047%/decade trend between minima during solar cycles 21â23 (1980â2002). *We estimate that the ACRIM upward trend might have minimally contributed &#8764;10â30% of the global surface temperature warming over the period 1980â2002.*


This last one covers the years from 1980 to 2002, instead of 1970 on as the later studies, but they were all from the same person. The last linked study that attributes 10-30% to the sun, was from 2005 before the last IPCC report. The later two came out in 09 and 2012 respectively. 

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900â2000 global surface warming
this is also from the same fellow written in 2006, attributing 25-35% of the temp change from 1980-2000 to the sun. Again notice it increases as time goes on and more is learned. 

This same person wrote this.. which factors this new understanding of the sun into the IPCC work. Keep in mind this is a guy who previously believed the suns influence had been MUCH smaller over this same period. As evidenced directly by the studies I linked above that over time attribute more and more influence to the sun. 

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

and here are a few of the recent studies suggesting the sun will take us to a colder era. Actually many of those above said the same thing. And there are more then Im going to spend time to dig up showing us the same thing. The first ones abstract should make roberte smile. LOL
Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed - Energy & Environment - Volume 20, Number 1 - 2 / January 2009 - Multi Science Publishing
Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response - Energy & Environment - Volume 17, Number 1 / January 2006 - Multi Science Publishing
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page
Solar Cycle 24: Expectations and Implications - Energy & Environment - Volume 20, Number 1 - 2 / January 2009 - Multi Science Publishing
ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - Solar Minima, Earth's rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: The North AtlanticÃ¢â¬âEuropean case
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age | Abdussamatov | Applied Physics Research
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on JupiterÃ¢â¬âSaturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle


These might be interesting to some as well
Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Variability of rainfall and temperature (1912Ã¢â¬â2008) parameters measured from Santa Maria (29ÃÂ°41Ã¢â¬Â²S, 53ÃÂ°48Ã¢â¬Â²W) and their connections with ENSO and solar activity
A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing | A&A
Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate - Energy & Environment - Volume 20, Number 1 - 2 / January 2009 - Multi Science Publishing
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Episodes of relative global warming
Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing


And now Im bored... I get the impression the AGW folks are still arguing against our knowledge of the sun as of the 2007 IPCC report. (the same one they only had a single solar scientist involved with who herself told us the IPCC didnt factor in the suns cyclical nature) 

Last time I related this to a true believer in AGW, they got the impression since it didnt support what they thought they knew it was probably agenda driven. which honestly brought a smile to my face. have to laugh at this stuff.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Have fun dumping your stuff.

Problem is there is a far more extensive list of papers published with each chapter of each IPCC report.

AND

Your stuff is a hodge-podge. Find amongst your posted lists a consistent range of numbers for any one effect you are attempting to prove.

Which is why you won't cite us a number. Which is why your papers result in a hodgepodge of hypotheses and blog created overblown headlines. 

Won't cite us a body of research that shows repeatability and consistancy.

And why your stuff tends to come from some journals that 'specialize' in research that can't get printed elsewhere.

Good luck in your continued efforts to delude yourself.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Meanwhile: An overview of what is really happening:

James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change | Video on TED.com


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Have fun dumping your stuff.
> 
> Problem is there is a far more extensive list of papers published with each chapter of each IPCC report.


Yes its best you ignore it. 

You do realize Ive linked more studies on the sun influence then the IPCC has? With their single solar expert. 

You realize these came out AFTER the last IPCC report? 

You realize we are better understanding the sun all the time?

You realize studies in earlier decades already would attribute this much of a change to the sun, but they couldnt fully prove or understand it? Now we can as our datasets expand??? 
*
I wonder if you realize the met office released the new numbers recently???*
*
Temps have officially leveled out for 16 years now. Which is basically the period it rose before.*

With new solar work showing us the sun indeed did play a major role in the warming, with the effect of el nino, with the effect of water vapor as it rose those exact decades and fell since, with the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover.... 

There is little or nothing left for co2, but then even ignoring that, its very obvious its claimed effect is not the biggest driver even if you still believe it is one. Its been overpowered for 16 years now. 

Posted this one already, but its interesting to see some recognized names scramble around looking to fix their theory. 

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net





> Good luck in your continued efforts to delude yourself.


Thats what im thinking reading your posts. The more hard science I post on topics yo want to ignore, the more you seem to regress. 


The rest of your response wasnt worth responding to. 

I wonder if AGW will hang on another decade as the sun takes us cooler??? If it hangs on another 4 years which is likely it will have been 20 years since weve had warming. That is unless co2 truly can overpower the suns influence.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

What does 

"You realize studies in earlier decades already would attribute this much of a change to the sun, but they could fully prove or understand it? Now this is happen as our datasets expand??? "

mean?



silverseeds said:


> Yes its best you ignore it.
> 
> You do realize Ive linked more studies on the sun influence then the IPCC has? With their single solar expert.
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Gee, a "new number" and you can't be bothered to actually cite it.


Interesting......


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Gee, a "new number" and you can't be bothered to actually cite it.
> 
> 
> Interesting......


I probably find it more interesting you keep repeating I havent cited things even directly after I do.

I guess you hope people will continue to line up in political lines rather then scientific ones? ... and will just pretend you made points? If that isnt the case Im having a hard time understanding how you think youve even attempted a debate against most Ive offered thus far.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Where?




silverseeds said:


> I probably find it more interesting you keep repeating I havent cited things even directly after I do.
> 
> I guess you hope people will continue to line up in political lines rather then scientific ones? ... and will just pretend you made points? If that isnt the case Im having a hard time understanding how you think youve even attempted a debate against most Ive offered thus far.



No real need to "debate" what you are posting. It is a hodgepodge of studies that don't point to any conclusive findings. 

If there were a consensus in the studies you are posting, then there would be a synthesis paper showing the range and probabilities.

If those studies actually supported what you claim them to, then there would be a range or even a number that could be brought forward in support of your claims.


And there isn't.

And there is no reason to wonder why.

Just as we don't need to wonder why you can't address the pesky little issue of your 'cause of warming' being at least an order of magnitude too small.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

> If those studies actually supported what you claim them to, then there would be a range or even a number that could be brought forward in support of your claims.


They werent my claims nor my studies. I simply posted them for you. 


roberte said:


> And there isn't.


Very clear to me you arent reading the links. 




> Just as we don't need to wonder why you can't address the pesky little issue of your 'cause of warming' being at least an order of magnitude too small.


I didnt need to address it. the experts in the studies I posted did. Most everything I posted has been published AFTER the IPCC report. Weird how you only believe its science if you like the outcomes. 

Weird how if we look at the sun and other influences how Ive laid out or recent rise and then leveling of temps makes sense, while the AGW folks currently are proposing a multitude of reasons why the models didnt pan out. while also seemingly ignoring new research in other fields.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> I didnt need to address it. the experts in the studies I posted did.
> ....


Actually, no. Most don't make any claim as to their study showing that space particles or cosmic rays or solar output variations 'prove' that CO2 isn't the primary driver.

Nor do they even suggest any more than some small percentage of influence in the global average temp.

Could they improve some modeling accuracy? Possibly; but the influence level is small enough that the difference would wind up being somewhat minimal.

That small influence is why you are unwilling to post any numbers you've learned from those papers. They talk about ONE of the factors, the general consensus is that it is a small factor.

But guess which group hangs their hat on them in hopes of proving some IPCC agenda or something.


Which group? The 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' group.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But guess *which group hangs their hat on* them in hopes of proving some *IPCC agenda* or something.


 
The AGW pushers who want the grant money and control


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And your evidence?



Bearfootfarm said:


> The AGW pushers who want the grant money and control


Or are you comfortable just spouting off unsupported talking points?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> "Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice."





silverseeds said:


> Do we want to prove a previously held belief? Or see what the science ACTUALLY shows??? The skeptical science link above doesnt have the up to date data. (as per usual)
> 
> According to our ICEsat data, we are gaining LAND ICE slowly, they even claim this is because of warming by the way. This is the most intricate accounting of land ice levels to date, or was meant to be at any rate. This paper was done in part by a guy who once claimed all seaice would be gone by 2012 by the way.
> 
> ...





roberte said:


> Yup, because of the warming temps, the air can hold enough humidity to have precipitation.....


I forgot to get back to you on this...

First you respond to the OP with a patently false and misleading link that claimed the difference the skeptics werent getting is the difference between land ice and sea ice...

I then posted on this showing with actual data your link was simply wrong, an pointed out that AGW folks even attribute this to warming. with which you agreed... (never having acknowledged your link was faulty, huh same source you got that faulty graph from that pretended temps havent flatlined for 16 years..) 

I thought Id point out though that the AGW modelling predicted melting of antartica not gaining ice as has happened. Interesting to note imo

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record High: IPCC Models Predicted The Opposite | The Global Warming Policy Foundation


> We examine the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 models that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE [sea ice extent] cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small a SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum. In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979 &#8211; 2005 shows a decrease in each month, with the greatest multi-model mean percentage monthly decline of 13.6% dec-1 in February and the greatest absolute loss of ice of -0.40 Ã 106 km2 dec-1 in September. The models have very large differences in SIE over 1860 &#8211; 2005. Most of the control runs have statistically significant trends in SIE over their full time span and all the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-Nineteenth Century.The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 &#8211; 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Actually, no. Most don't make any claim as to their study showing that space particles or cosmic rays or solar output variations 'prove' that CO2 isn't the primary driver.
> 
> Nor do they even suggest any more than some small percentage of influence in the global average temp.


Very obvious your not even reading what im posting. Or simply want to mis portray it I guess. 



> Could they improve some modeling accuracy? Possibly; but the influence level is small enough that the difference would wind up being somewhat minimal.


strange how depending on how you weight things I listed more then one things that there are experts in the field who believe they account for all to most of our past warming, and you call this minimal. While also implying the warming is new and dangerous. 


> That small influence is why you are unwilling to post any numbers you've learned from those papers. They talk about ONE of the factors, the general consensus is that it is a small factor.


Why do you keep repeating I havent posted numbers for the covered topics? Most of them have been posted more then once by now. 


> But guess which group hangs their hat on them in hopes of proving some IPCC agenda or something.
> 
> 
> Which group? The 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' group.


I simply understand science is all. Im not sure you do.

As far as "consensus", would you believe the IPCC? Since you want to ignore all those scientists in the studies Ive linked? Your continued purposeful mis portrayal of what Ive said, and the content of links I gave is getting us nowhere.

2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

We will come back to the link above!! 

Notice that for solar irradiance they list consensus as insufficient. They list LOSU (level of scientific understanding) as LOW. 

Its the same for the affects of cosmic rays which have had a LOT of work since this IPCC report in 07. In fact all the truly important work in the field took place since then. 

Its also the same for several other factors they list including FACTORS THAT MAKE UP FOR 1/3 of the claimed warming!!!!!!! namelythe influence of water vapor feedback loop which they laso list as low consensus and LOSU. Of course new data already shows us where its most important water vapor rose from the 60s and 90s and dropped since, have made a large impact on the rising then stabilizing temps. this was supposed to cause 1/3 of the warming! the models were wrong. 

I would have thought the work I posted made it OBVIOUS thereis NOT consensus on these points, you want to deny this however. Dont you get it? This is why skeptics have not trusted the IPCC, despite they themselves admitting low consensus on all these topics that play MASSIVE roles according to some works and experts they weight it all in such a way that minimizes these factors. 

You realize the ONLY source youve thus far used to make a case for solars influence has been the IPCC, and yeah there are also published works with similar results, but its CLEARLY nothing like you think. the chart you posted so many times with solars claimed influence the IPCC themselves admit has low consensus and level of scientific understanding (LOSU)

So you can pretend all you like that we cant explain climate with these other factors, but we can indeed. You can pretend there is solid consensus, but there simply is NOT. Even the IPCC admits this!
\EDITED To ADD: glad we took a break, Ive got a slight cold, and havent finished digging up data on the topics I will soon be posting on....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

So roberte and the rest? I guess we arent going to finish the debate? I cant exactly just keep posting by myself.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There is no new charts to tell the newest studies done that GW stopped 16 years ago. It is so funny that they just drag out the fixed up charts over and over and over, and then have nothing to back them up. And can't dispute the newest scientific studies there is no GW happening now and is reversing. LOL


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> I forgot to get back to you on this...
> 
> First you respond to the OP with a patently false and misleading link that claimed the difference the skeptics werent getting is the difference between land ice and sea ice...
> 
> I then posted on this showing with actual data your link was simply wrong, an pointed out that AGW folks even attribute this to warming. with which you agreed... (never having acknowledged your link was faulty, huh same source you got that faulty graph from that pretended temps havent flatlined for 16 years..)



You might want to come back and edit that so it makes some sense.

I'd start out by putting in some links to what you are thinking you are talking about. At this point, I can't tell where you started getting confused between the data and what you wish the data says.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Waiting with bated breath for you to fulfill your promise.

That would be the 'more later when I have time'. As in you actually bringing something substantive, esp. something that has been discussed in the literature, cited in following papers, and providing something in the order of actual evidence that focuses on your claims.

And, of course, some sort of explanation in your own words as to why those papers support your claims. You know, like a number that shows the energy levels that your claims need.



IF you want to post "the basics", do so. If you want to post "the complex stuff", then do so.

Just make sure to explain why you think the particular source is valid and important.

You know, not something from a "respected astrophysicist" who hasn't published in 3+ years and even then wasn't published on the topic you cited.

You know, not something from a highschool teacher whom you had to back off your support when you couldn't answer the basic questions about statistics that he didn't bother with either.

Or a 'paper' that makes claims without any numbers showing energy levels of what they think is a major driver.

Or from people who think Saturn or Jupiter have a strong influence on our climate.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You might want to come back and edit that so it makes some sense.
> 
> I'd start out by putting in some links to what you are thinking you are talking about. At this point, I can't tell where you started getting confused between the data and what you wish the data says.


Interesting. 

The links are there of course. Clearly I am not the confused one. 
The data says exactly what I had said it did, sorry. 

In response to the OP you posted a shoddy opinion piece, to which I responded with the actual data. Later I came back and added a study that went over past claims of what would happen in antarctica because of AGW, which were counter to what happened and is now blamed on AGW, namely it didnt melt as predicted its growing (yep land ice also) 

So your stance is you dont understand I guess? Why respond then?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

silverseeds said:


> Interesting.
> 
> The links are there of course. Clearly I am not the confused one.
> The data says exactly what I had said it did, sorry.
> ...


There you go, the "pandoras' box" is open again. LOL


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Waiting with bated breath for you to fulfill your promise.
> 
> That would be the 'more later when I have time'. As in you actually bringing something substantive, esp. something that has been discussed in the literature, cited in following papers, and providing something in the order of actual evidence that focuses on your claims.
> 
> ...


LOL I notice you didnt respond to me pointing out that the IPCC themselves give LOW consensus and level of scientific understanding to the same thing I posted studies from the field that can also explain our climate. In fact closer then AGW. 

You claimed there were no alternative explanations, Ive given them to you, right out of the literature. 

You keep repeating the same tired responses clearly not even trying to look at or understand what Ive posted. Everything you ask for above has been provided numerous times on the topics covered thus far. You acting like it has not is VERY telling, as you downplay all variables you do not want to take influence away from co2. 

You do understand what it means that the IPCC admits several of the factors Ive listed have low consensus and level of scientific understanding correct? The same factors you assured us WERE settled and would repeat the IPCC stance.


> IF you want to post "the basics", do so. If you want to post "the complex stuff", then do so.
> 
> Just make sure to explain why you think the particular source is valid and important.
> 
> You know, not something from a "respected astrophysicist" who hasn't published in 3+ years and even then wasn't published on the topic you cited.


hilarious you question whether or not the man you speak of is respected considering his positions. You might have a small point if I hadnt posted other published work from others in the field with the same conclusions and explained it and all... oh well... 



> You know, not something from a highschool teacher whom you had to back off your support when you couldn't answer the basic questions about statistics that he didn't bother with either.


absolutely never "backed off" of support of beck. You simply keep trying to create my reason for having mentioned it. Of course he didnt try to explain WHY co2 was at the levels from our large dataset of ignored direct early measurements. His intent was to get the field to use PROOF not belief to show us why it should be ignored. Later if the official numbers had changed would we then figure out why if it was out of the realm of our current understanding. You see beck understood basic science is all. what makes you think I backed off of beck? I asked you this repeatedly privately, and explained this VERY basic premise of the nature of his work. which part confuses you? 


> Or a 'paper' that makes claims without any numbers showing energy levels of what they think is a major driver.
> 
> Or from people who think Saturn or Jupiter have a strong influence on our climate.


You keep repeating this number thing. best I can tell your simply not reading the linked studies. otherwise apparently numbers wont show up on your computer? I couldnt say.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> There you go, the "pandoras' box" is open again. LOL


Heck Ive been begging him to come back through PMs. I wanted it open, I was sick awhile but Im healed up now. I want to finish up the debate. Im tired of being told I have no scientific grounds to not believe co2 is a driver of climate. People who believe such do a disservice to science and for that matter environmental causes.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Interesting.
> 
> The links are there of course. Clearly I am not the confused one.
> The data says exactly what I had said it did, sorry.


No links in 


silverseeds said:


> I forgot to get back to you on this...
> 
> First you respond to the OP with a patently false and misleading link that claimed the difference the skeptics werent getting is the difference between land ice and sea ice...
> 
> I then posted on this showing with actual data your link was simply wrong, an pointed out that AGW folks even attribute this to warming. with which you agreed... (never having acknowledged your link was faulty, huh same source you got that faulty graph from that pretended temps havent flatlined for 16 years..)



So let us know when you have a substantive body of research that points to a rational and supported hypothesis. You know, something beyond a highschool teacher making claims about C levels jumping up and down by 240 gigatons, others espousing that Saturn and Jupiter effect our climate, or space particles or cosmic rays having energy levels orders of magnitude larger than any math, physics, or chemistry can support.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> I forgot to get back to you on this...
> 
> First you respond to the OP with a patently false and misleading link that claimed the difference the skeptics werent getting is the difference between land ice and sea ice...
> 
> ...





roberte said:


> No links in


thats weird. Somehow you missed a link that came up when I quoted the same exact post. *You literally had to erase it to claim there were no links. *then of course there were the links in the earlier posts I quoted from myself and you. 

So we will not get an honest response I take it??? 

oh well.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> thats weird. Somehow you missed a link that came up when I quoted the same exact post. *You literally had to erase it to claim there were no links. *then of course there were the links in the earlier posts I quoted from myself and you.
> 
> So we will not get an honest response I take it???
> 
> oh well.


1- The part I quoted has no links to support the claims you make in the portion I quoted.

2- Your source (ANTARCTIC SEA ICE REACHES RECORD HIGH: IPCC MODELS PREDICTED THE OPPOSITE) doesn't support their claim. So, yet again, you make unsupported claims. In this case it seems that the headline was the most important part for you to develop an argument on.

BTW - here is the IPCC report section dealing with sea ice. Quote us the part that makes the headline true. 9.5.5 Cryosphere Changes - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

It is patently obvious that you are attempting to make this an argument about how you perceive this discussion is going rather than take the time to actually come up with a substantive hypothesis and the data to support it. 


So, again. WHEN you post what you consider substantive scientific argument - a hypothesis based on some well researched data - we can discuss the science.

Until then, here is a short list of some basic science; well established, well researched, well analyzed.

It is patently obvious that you are attempting to make this an argument about how you perceive this discussion is going rather than take the time to actually come up with a substantive hypothesis and the data to support it. 


So, again. WHEN you post what you consider substantive scientific argument - a hypothesis based on some well researched data - we can discuss the science.

Until then, here is a short list of some basic science; well established, well researched, well analyzed.


Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Climate Research

Climate Change (2007) The Physical Science Basis, a report accepted by 
Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Frequently Asked Questions

Climate - Met Office

Stanford University - The Global Climate and Energy Project - energy research, climate change, global climate, global warming, greenhouse emissions, greenhouse gases, hydrogen economy, hydrogen power, renewable energy

RealClimate: Start here

Climate Impacts Group

Climate and Society - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

Weather and Climate Basics


*Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Revisiting the Facts*
Stefan Rahmstorf
_*The Observed Climatic Warming
*_"It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This
can be broken into two parts. The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This
is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so
we deal with it only briefly.32 The two leading compilations of data measured
with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate
Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different
data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures,
they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8Â°C since
the late nineteenth century." http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

*Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
*
*9.7	Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change
*
"The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system and the pattern and amplitude of warming in the different components, together with evidence that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest in 1.3 kyr (Chapter 6) indicate that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely to be the result of internal processes alone. The consistency across different lines of evidence makes a strong case for a significant human influence on observed warming at the surface. The observed rates of surface temperature and ocean heat content change are consistent with the understanding of the likely range of climate sensitivity and net climate forcings. Only with a net positive forcing, consistent with observational and model estimates of the likely net forcing of the climate system (as used in Figure 9.5), is it possible to explain the large increase in heat content of the climate system that has been observed (Figure 5.4)."
9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

*The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
*Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, &#8220;As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change&#8221; (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: &#8220;Human activities &#8230; are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents &#8230; that absorb or scatter radiant energy. &#8230; [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations&#8221; [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: &#8220;Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise&#8221; [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: &#8220;The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue&#8221; [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords &#8220;climate change&#8221; (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> 1- The part I quoted has no links to support the claims you make in the portion I quoted.


Simple reason for that. You "forgot" to quote the link. (actually you had to purposefully erase it from your quoted text) 

Ok again, so no honest response is to be expected? 



> 2- Your source (ANTARCTIC SEA ICE REACHES RECORD HIGH: IPCC MODELS PREDICTED THE OPPOSITE) doesn't support their claim. So, yet again, you make unsupported claims. In this case it seems that the headline was the most important part for you to develop an argument on.


huh? Clearly you did not read the linked study. You do realize your loosing credibility with anyone actually reading the links right? This is a bizarre thing for you to do honestly. 


> BTW - here is the IPCC report section dealing with sea ice. Quote us the part that makes the headline true. 9.5.5 Cryosphere Changes - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change


Bizarre!! do you read your own links?? this is from your link, they mention ONE study that the observations have not fit the models. The link I gave you lied about mentioned many more then one. They give a potential reason for the discrepancy as well. But they literally verified my "claims"... except they supported it with one source whereas the study I linked included many. The models suggested something different then what happened. 


> However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations. They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations.





> It is patently obvious that you are attempting to make this an argument about how you perceive this discussion is going rather than take the time to actually come up with a substantive hypothesis and the data to support it.


except I did support it. Heck YOU just supported it through the IPCC. 



> So, again. WHEN you post what you consider substantive scientific argument - a hypothesis based on some well researched data - we can discuss the science.
> 
> Until then, here is a short list of some basic science; well established, well researched, well analyzed.


And you get back to me, when you want to use actual data to prove why the things Ive been posting are not science. So far youve given only political posturing. Even the IPCC admits these topics Ive covered thus far have LOW consensus and low scientific level of understanding, and most everything Ive posted has been published AFTER their last report.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> Bizarre!! do you read your own links?? this is from your link, they mention ONE study that the observations have not fit the models. The link I gave you lied about mentioned many more then one. They give a potential reason for the discrepancy as well. But they literally verified my "claims"... except they supported it with one source whereas the study I linked included many. The models suggested something different then what happened.
> ....


Try reading it again. There is no prediction. The discussion is a review of the research.

"Unlike in the Arctic, a strong decline in sea ice extent has not been observed in the Antarctic during the period of satellite observations (Section 4.4.2.2). Fichefet et al. (2003) conducted a simulation of Antarctic ice thickness using observationally based atmospheric forcing covering the period 1958 to 1999. They note pronounced decadal variability, with area average ice thickness varying by Â±0.1 m (compared to a mean thickness of roughly 0.9 m), but no long-term trend. However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations. They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations." 9.5.5 Cryosphere Changes - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

SHOW US THE PREDICTION.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> .....
> And you get back to me, when you want to use actual data to prove why the things Ive been posting are not science. So far youve given only political posturing. Even the IPCC admits these topics Ive covered thus far have LOW consensus and low scientific level of understanding, and most everything Ive posted has been published AFTER their last report.



OK, take all the actual research you've found. Plug that research into the body of research already cited by AR4. If you want to focus on Solar Irradiance for example.

Show us a substantive change in the levels.

At best, you'll narrow down the range of uncertainty. But you've brought no numbers from any research that will move that red bar the 10x plus it would need to to become a major driver.

If you want to focus on Cosmic Rays; show us an energy level that supports them becoming the major driver.

Ditto for space particles, Jupiter's influence, or whatever is the claim du jour.

Or even add them all up and see where you go ......


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Try reading it again. There is no prediction. The discussion is a review of the research.
> 
> "Unlike in the Arctic, a strong decline in sea ice extent has not been observed in the Antarctic during the period of satellite observations (Section 4.4.2.2). Fichefet et al. (2003) conducted a simulation of Antarctic ice thickness using observationally based atmospheric forcing covering the period 1958 to 1999. They note pronounced decadal variability, with area average ice thickness varying by Â±0.1 m (compared to a mean thickness of roughly 0.9 m), but no long-term trend.* However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations.* They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations." 9.5.5 Cryosphere Changes - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
> 
> SHOW US THE PREDICTION.




The only thing I can say, is indeed, read it again. I quoted it for you already. I made it bold for you this time. The IPCC referenced one model that predicted antarctic ice to drop, the study I linked referenced many. This is just weird. 

Honestly if you cant admit what is right there in black and white is basically impossible to discuss anything of meaning with you.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ummmm, That is ONE paper. Of several they discuss.



Not a prediction...... SHOW US THE PREDICTION

And I'd suggest you read up on what "review of the literature" means.

And what a "synthesis report" is.




silverseeds said:


> The only thing I can say, is indeed, read it again. I quoted it for you already. I made it bold for you this time. The IPCC referenced one model that predicted antarctic ice to drop, the study I linked referenced many. This is just weird.
> 
> Honestly if you cant admit what is right there in black and white is basically impossible to discuss anything of meaning with you.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Ummmm, That is ONE paper. Of several they discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats weird, its the only paper I see mentioned on the topic. In black and white they say the models of the cited paper implied a loss of seaice but we got the opposite.

Feel free to point out the other studies they reference as you claim. I assume they are in a different section of the report??? They definitely arent in this section. No doubt we will get more political posturing instead. 



> Unlike in the Arctic, a strong decline in sea ice extent has not been observed in the Antarctic during the period of satellite observations (Section 4.4.2.2). Fichefet et al. (2003) conducted a simulation of Antarctic ice thickness using observationally based atmospheric forcing covering the period 1958 to 1999. They note pronounced decadal variability, with area average ice thickness varying by Â±0.1 m (compared to a mean thickness of roughly 0.9 m), but no long-term trend. *However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations.* They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations.


9.5.5 Cryosphere Changes - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

for those actually following this...

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record High: IPCC Models Predicted The Opposite | GWPF

So you first claim I didnt give links, having quoted my post with the links and erasing them so they dont show up in your post. Now you cant read what is right there, and claim they cited other works that arent in fact listed? This is after having been shown your skeptical science link was false when we discussed this topic at the beginning of the thread... Is this what you call a scientific debate? really?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

There are three...

For just the Antarctic.




silverseeds said:


> Thats weird, its the only paper I see mentioned on the topic.
> ....



BTW, the Chapter is : Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

And the reference list is quite long (References - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change).

And the little hodgepodge of oft spurious papers, papers that haven't been cited positively, unsupported claims, blog posts with overstated 'findings', press releases, etc don't bring a consistent view, a supported hypothesis that equal the solid body of research shown there.

I'd suggest that you take a few more days off and go do some background reading on the science.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> There are three...
> 
> For just the Antarctic.
> 
> ...


*
Feel free to actually link the relevant texts to the discussion. Thus far the IPCC link given had a single paper cited and it agreed with the study I posted. So lets see the other two please.

As i suspected, we got political posturing instead. *






> And the little hodgepodge of oft spurious papers, papers that haven't been cited positively, unsupported claims, blog posts with overstated 'findings', press releases, etc don't bring a consistent view, a supported hypothesis that equal the solid body of research shown there.


You win roberte. Every study that doesnt agree with you or the IPCC as off 2007, even on topics they admit we have low levels of understanding on as well as low levels of consensus (the suns influence and cosmic rays for examples Ive covered in depth as you demanded we ignore it) are all spurious. Clearly youve proven this by continually citing the IPCC from 2007 even though most everything posted on those topics was published after that point. 



> I'd suggest that you take a few more days off and go do some background reading on the science.


I know the topic very well thanks. Both sides of the argument actually. I started as a firm believer of AGW. I know the stance well, and keep up to date on the topic.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....You win roberte. Every study that doesnt agree with you or the IPCC as off 2007, even on topics they admit we have low levels of understanding on as well as low levels of consensus (the suns influence and cosmic rays for examples Ive covered in depth as you demanded we ignore it) are all spurious. Clearly youve proven this by continually citing the IPCC from 2007 even though most everything posted on those topics was published after that point.
> ....


IF your science is as good as you think, it will show up in IPCC's fifth assessment.

But the 'the new stuff is better' claim also works for the huge amount of research you aren't citing. 


And that 'the new stuff is better' gambit is really just another attempt of 'let's throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks' 

Hasn't worked with 'it's been 10 years, 15 years....', it's 'space particles', it's 'all the CO2 science is backward', 'it's natural', 'it's cosmic rays', 'it's the sun', 'there was a spike in CO2 a half century','it's water vapor' 'it's clouds', 'in the 70's they were predicting an ice age', etc, etc, etc.........

I'm waiting with bated breath......


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

It isnt "my" science roberte. I do love your new tactic. Ignore it all, and claim Im just hoping "something" sticks. Even after your caught in several lies. Even as you are unable to offer reasons why the studies linked should be ignored. 

I notice you STILL refuse to back your last claim in any way.(as talked about in my post above yours) You literally just made claims and hope they stuck. Atleast I posted studies that backed what I was saying!! Your just proclaiming things. heck your links proved ME right on this not you. Apparently you were unable even to read the text quoted over and over for you. Oh wait, will you suddenly be confused what Im even talking about? hehe... you must be fun at parties.


By the way you seem confused why Ive covered these topics as I have. You kept saying there is NO alternative explanation to co2. There indeed is. I covered some of them. I know very well several of these topics are still being ironed out among their respective fields. I said this myself!! point is, there ARE explanations in our peer reviewed work.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> It isnt "my" science ...
> 
> ....
> 
> ....there ARE explanations in *our* peer reviewed work.




Oh, I see. Got it.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Oh, I see. Got it.


Still not going to back the claims above?? Just hoping they will stick huh.??

Sorry roberte, as the study I linked referenced the models suggested antarctica would melt. Your own link confirmed this. Despite your claims otherwise and inability to read your own link, or back a stance you claim was at your link.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IF your peer reviewed work actually gets developed into a substantive hypothesis, one that shows the necessary energy to materially affect the science, then the fifth assessment report will look very different than the fourth. But science doesn't get turned head over heels very easily.

Especially when there is all of the math, the chemistry, and the physics showing how and why Anthropogenic CO2 is now the major driver of what we are observing, it just doesn't leave much room for space particles, cloud ionization, water vapor, spurious CO2 readings, or cosmic rays. What you are calling "alternative explanation(s)" are minor players. Orders of magnitude smaller than what is well documented.

Our - yes, yours, mine, every human on Earth - profligate burning of fossil fuels has added .6 watts per sq meter of energy into our oceans and atmosphere. Roughly the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshimas a day.

And you are saying 'it can't be Anthropogenic CO2. You and a small group of people that tout talking points that just don't have the math to support them.



And that is why I ask you to support your claims with the numbers.

And why you haven't. And can't




silverseeds said:


> .....
> By the way you seem confused why Ive covered these topics as I have. You kept saying there is NO alternative explanation to co2. There indeed is. I covered some of them. I know very well several of these topics are still being ironed out among their respective fields. I said this myself!! point is, there ARE explanations in our peer reviewed work.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> IF your peer reviewed work actually gets developed into a substantive hypothesis, one that shows the necessary energy to materially affect the science, then the fifth assessment report will look very different than the fourth. But science doesn't get turned head over heels very easily.
> 
> Especially when there is all of the math, the chemistry, and the physics showing how and why Anthropogenic CO2 is now the major driver of what we are observing, it just doesn't leave much room for space particles, cloud ionization, water vapor, spurious CO2 readings, or cosmic rays. What you are calling "alternative explanation(s)" are minor players. Orders of magnitude smaller than what is well documented.


We already know that this wont be in the 5th report actually. doesnt change the fact that the cosmic ray influence specifically is gaining a lot of steam. Indeed literally because of the math. 



> Our - yes, yours, mine, every human on Earth - profligate burning of fossil fuels has added .6 watts per sq meter of energy into our oceans and atmosphere. Roughly the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshimas a day.
> 
> And you are saying 'it can't be Anthropogenic CO2. You and a small group of people that tout talking points that just don't have the math to support them.


hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life. 



> And that is why I ask you to support your claims with the numbers.
> 
> And why you haven't. And can't


if you say so. You would literally claim I didnt offer numbers the post directly after I did posted studies that covered them. I can and did. sorry. 

and of course this post is AGAIN you trying to not prove what you said about the AGW stance on antarctica we talked about above. You lied outright and pretended you couldnt see that your IPCC link verified what I said. you claimed then moved on to claim they cited three sources when only ONE was on your link. I asked for the other two, and havent seen them yet. All we got was a link to the references of the section and I gues sIm supposed to fish them out. Ipse dixit 

Oh well nothing new.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life.
> 
> 
> ....


Lots of asinine and unsupported claims in this post.

But let's look at this one a bit closely:



silverseeds said:


> ....
> hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life.
> 
> 
> ....


With what information did you form that thinking?

Really.

What did you read?

What evidence will you bring forward?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Lots of asinine and unsupported claims in this post.
> 
> But let's look at this one a bit closely:
> 
> ...


Nice dodge. Still yet to show that the study I linked about the failed models in regards to antarctica melting. You pretended you did, but your link verified what I said as you pretended it didnt. 


I also have been repeatedly asking you to prove that our models are getting more accurate over time as you said in the other thread. You havent answered this yet. You just keep finding ways to try to change the subject. Its actually almost as sad as it is funny....

I read the claims and data from both sides of the debate and crannies in between. I have seen no proof of increasingly accurate models you speak of. Heck the field cant even agree to what caused the current lag in warming.

Somehow you missed me asking you to prove the models are getting better? and then act like I need to prove they are not?? All while refusing to prove what you said about antarcitica and the failed models there?? holy cow!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Nice dodge.

Now, tell us about the "failed models".



silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> 
> hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life.





silverseeds said:


> Nice dodge. Still yet to show that the study I linked about the failed models in regards to antarctica melting. You pretended you did, but your link verified what I said as you pretended it didnt.
> 
> 
> I also have been repeatedly asking you to prove that our models are getting more accurate over time as you said in the other thread. You havent answered this yet. You just keep finding ways to try to change the subject. Its actually almost as sad as it is funny....
> ...


AR4 Chapter 8 Climate Models and Their Evaluation 

Now, where is your proof of 


silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> 
> hilarious claim since the *AGW models fail entirely in real life.*


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm thinking you are considering a few blog pages and papers in odd journals as 'proof' of a "lack on consensus".

Your claim about "failed models" is not supported by citing a single model that didn't fit observations. Especially when the rest of the section discusses several papers based on modeling that were accurate.

And, btw, your claim was: 


silverseeds said:


> hilarious claim since the *AGW models fail entirely in real life.*


 my bold

So you need to bring a lot of examples to prove that.

What you have been doing for weeks now is tossing out a series of claims. Claims 'supported' by a single paper, if that much. And that paper winds up being something written by a highschool teacher or a "respected astrophysicist" whose one paper written in the last three years has earned one citation in a following paper and whose previous work is focused on other areas. So he basically wrote a paper out of his field, one that has had no impact on any other scientist's thinking or writing. And published it in a journal that typically doesn't publish on the topic.



silverseeds said:


> Roberte, you seem, confused. I had literally posted about the failed models in regards to antarctica. You claimed this was false, then posted an IPCC link verifying what I said. then you pretended to prove they did not but failed to do so.
> 
> Ive literally been asking YOU to prove the models are accurate in other threads, despite our current lag in warming and lack on consensus as to the cause. Here in this thread I DID already link a study showing the failure of the models on tis particular point, and you keep changing the subject..
> 
> NOONE IS DODGING EXCEPT FOR YOU!!! you lied, you were called on it. Now please back your claims before demanding I back what I said. No mor elies in these threads, sorry. Previously Id lugh at you and go to the next topic. We can end the games now and have somewhat of a real discussion. We are about to head into more complex topics. Your games will make it much to confusing.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> I'm thinking you are considering a few blog pages and papers in odd journals as 'proof' of a "lack on consensus".
> 
> Your claim about "failed models" is not supported by citing a single model that didn't fit observations. Especially when the rest of the section discusses several papers based on modeling that were accurate.


In actual reality your IPCC link verified what the study of the various antarctica models had said. (the models suggested ice would melt it did not) Sorry. You keep refusing to cite where this proof is in the IPCC literature. The link you gave mentioned a single failed model on this topic. 

Please back your claim now. No more games please. 




> What you have been doing for weeks now is tossing out a series of claims. Claims 'supported' by a single paper, if that much. And that paper winds up being something written by a highschool teacher or a "respected astrophysicist" whose one paper written in the last three years has earned one citation in a following paper and whose previous work is focused on other areas. So he basically wrote a paper out of his field, one that has had no impact on any other scientist's thinking or writing. And published it in a journal that typically doesn't publish on the topic.


Sorry, the only two topics I covered in depth had many studies. Still funny that you imply astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences isnt respected in his field. Its just silly you keep mis characterizing why I brought up beck in entirely different threads, heritagefarm brought him up here. I explained why, but you keep repeating something else.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You've made a claim you've been unwilling to support:



silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> hilarious claim since* the AGW models fail entirely in real life.*


my bolding

One example doesn't suppport that claim.



silverseeds said:


> In actual reality your IPCC link verified what the study of the various antarctica models had said. (the models suggested ice would melt it did not) Sorry. You keep refusing to cite where this proof is in the IPCC literature. The link you gave mentioned a single failed model on this topic.
> 
> Please back your claim now. No more games please.


The portion of the IPCC report we are talking about (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-5.html) discusses three papers on Antarctic sea ice.

They note ONE paper doesn't agree with the observations. They discuss TWO that do.

They also discuss where models are weak.

So, first, that doesn't support your claim of


silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> hilarious claim since* the AGW models fail entirely in real life.*


my bolding

Since there are a majority of papers showing agreement with the observations.

And there are all the models discussed in the Arctic ice (the preceding paragraph), not to mention all the rest of the discussion of models in the balance of the reports.

And not to mention that you keep hammering about your stuff being new. Have you checked on what has been published in the last 5 years on the Antarctic?






silverseeds said:


> Sorry, the only two topics I covered in depth had many studies.


You could actually support that claim by going back and citing where you've posted those "many studies". 

Wouldn't hurt to actually show us your "only two topics".





silverseeds said:


> Still funny that you imply astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences isnt respected in his field.


He has published one paper in three years. And that paper covers a topic he's not published on before.

In a journal that does not have a history of publishing on the topic he wrote about.

A paper that has been cited one time by any other scientist. A paper that hasn't been translated into English.

You called him "respected". Maybe your criteria are different, but I'd say if others aren't discussing his work and he's publishing rarely and outside his field in obscure journals, he hasn't earned much respect on this topic.




silverseeds said:


> Its just silly you keep mis characterizing why I brought up beck in entirely different threads, heritagefarm brought him up here. I explained why, but you keep repeating something else.


I'm confused also. You've hammered several times about how he used 'all the data' and how that 'proves' that Callendar's efforts were somehow faulty. So saying "heritagefarm brought him up here" is rather beside the point; you defended Beck. Beck's work hasn't stood the test of time - no one has come forward to defend his inclusion of data that was demonstrably inaccurate.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> BTW - here is the IPCC report section dealing with sea ice. Quote us the part that makes the headline true. 9.5.5 Cryosphere Changes - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change





> Unlike in the Arctic, a strong decline in sea ice extent has not been observed in the Antarctic during the period of satellite observations (Section 4.4.2.2). Fichefet et al. (2003) conducted a simulation of Antarctic ice thickness using observationally based atmospheric forcing covering the period 1958 to 1999. They note pronounced decadal variability, with area average ice thickness varying by Â±0.1 m (compared to a mean thickness of roughly 0.9 m), but no long-term trend. *However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations. *They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations.


this is the entire section from your link on antarcticas ice. It mentions a single study, verifying what the study I linked had said. which is that models suggested antarctica would melt. It is not. this is a basic point we should have been past this MANY posts ago... thsat is if this discussion had anything to do with science.

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record High: IPCC Models Predicted The Opposite | GWPF




heck the first time I pointed out the data above you quoted me, without the accompanying link and responded asking where the link was. very clear an honest debate wasnt on the table. Oh well.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You've made a claim you've been unwilling to support:
> 
> my bolding
> 
> One example doesn't suppport that claim.


Ive been asking for some of these accurate models for a long time actually. Ive never seen one. 







> You could actually support that claim by going back and citing where you've posted those "many studies".
> 
> Wouldn't hurt to actually show us your "only two topics".


If you didnt see them by now, reposting wont help. 






> He has published one paper in three years. And that paper covers topics he's not published on before.
> 
> In a journal that does not have a history of publishing on the topic he wrote about.
> 
> ...


if you say so. 




> I'm confused also. You've hammered several times about how he used 'all the data' and how that 'proves' that Callendar's efforts were somehow faulty. So saying "heritagefarm brought him up here" is rather beside the point; you defended Beck. Beck's work hasn't stood the test of time - no one has come forward to defend his inclusion of data that was demonstrably inaccurate.


I never exactly defended beck, yes you are confused. despite me having explained it dozens of times over two forums to you. 

uh, no the data was NOT demonstrably inaccurate. or rather if it is, the field has failed to date to do so beyond a vague way. the entire point of his work was to have the field demonstrate why we should ignore the bulk of the early data. You missed the entire point of becks charts. You claimed you could prove this in five seconds loooong ago in one of these threads and have yet to do so. It serves no actual purpose to our conversation anyway, as I keep repeating I only mentioned it to show how belief dictates the data in this field. neither becks charts that included ALL data, nor the cherry picked works support the AGW theory anyway. Nor would I use that as a point to disprove it. In fact I originally brought this up when on another forum toy posted something about how long weve built the AGW case, and all our early measurements. I told you we ignored most of them without proof then cited beck. I didnt bring this upon the context you keep trying to force onto the conversation. It wasnt true then its not now.

Of course that was the nature of the entire "debate"... talk about everything but the content of the links I give.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nothing but political posturing since post 447 on. (which is when I first brought back up this line of the discussion) Of course the entire discussion went this way as well. Same thing in the closed thread, you have yet to show how watt mis represented what noaa said. You have yet to show one of these "accurate" models. 
Oh well.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Ive been asking for some of these accurate models for a long time actually. Ive never seen one.


Well, to start with, there are two other papers being discussed in that paragraph. Perhaps you should dig up those papers and read up on the models they used.

References - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change will get you there.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> > Originally Posted by roberte View Post
> > I'm thinking you are considering a few blog pages and papers in odd journals as 'proof' of a "lack on consensus".
> >
> > Your claim about "failed models" is not supported by citing a single model that didn't fit observations. Especially when the rest of the section discusses several papers based on modeling that were accurate.
> ...


thought I should re quote this, so you dont simply respond to later posts as per usual. in over a dozen posts youve failed to back your claims. 

You havent were wrong about watts as well. he quoted NOAA and you implied this mis represented what they aid, when it had not. 

I keep asking for some of these increasing accurate models you speak of, but you just started asking me for proof of their instead. (in a thread where we were discussing the failed models in regards to ice in antarctica no less) political posturing instead of science.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Well, to start with, there are two other papers being discussed in that paragraph. Perhaps you should dig up those papers and read up on the models they used.
> 
> References - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change will get you there.


feel free to explain how this disproves a peer reviewed paper that covered much more then the listed studies. 

You do realize it couldnt have passed peer review if it was so blatantly false that the models it covers that implied antarctica would melt were not realistically portrayed. right??? 

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record High: IPCC Models Predicted The Opposite | GWPF


> A recent paper in the Journal of Climate finds that most climate models erroneously predict that Antarctic sea ice extent decreased over the past 30 years, which âdiffers markedly from that observed.â As noted in the abstract, Antarctic sea ice has confounded the models by instead increasing over the satellite era. In fact, it is currently at a record extent that is more than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average.
> 
> The authors lament, âThe negative [Antarctic sea ice] trends in most of the model runs over 1979 â 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.â
> 
> We examine the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 models that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE [sea ice extent] cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small a SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum. In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979 â 2005 shows a decrease in each month, with the greatest multi-model mean percentage monthly decline of 13.6% dec-1 in February and the greatest absolute loss of ice of -0.40 Ã 106 km2 dec-1 in September. The models have very large differences in SIE over 1860 â 2005. Most of the control runs have statistically significant trends in SIE over their full time span and all the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-Nineteenth Century.The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 â 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.


*If you thought your position had a basis then why when I first brought this up did you quote my post, excluding the links and ask for links as if they werent given???
*


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> uh, no the data was NOT demonstrably inaccurate. or rather if it is, the field has failed to date to do so beyond a vague way.


To start with:

Discuss why you feel the 240 gigatons of carbon that Beck claims appeared in the atmosphere and then disappeared is accurate. 

Show us any paper that came up to support the mechanism for either or (preferably) both.


He also doesn't bother to attempt to 'correct' the record in regard to his claim " Limestone weathering, surface coal oxidation and non-volcanic degassing are not quantified in detail in the IPCCs carbon cycle" by showing where that combination actually has quantifiable data or where there is even a reasonable hypothesis that those factors are even something to consider.

Basically, you are citing a high school teacher discussing stuff way out of his field, citing a few papers and ignoring a huge amount of research in an attempt to make a point.

And that selective use of findings is a typical tactic of those attempting to 'prove' the science is wrong.







silverseeds said:


> the entire point of his work was to have the field demonstrate why we should ignore the bulk of the early data. You missed the entire point of becks charts. You claimed you could prove this in five seconds loooong ago in one of these threads and have yet to do so. It serves no actual purpose to our conversation anyway, as I keep repeating I only mentioned it to show how belief dictates the data in this field. neither becks charts that included ALL data, nor the cherry picked works support the AGW theory anyway. Nor would I use that as a point to disprove it. In fact I originally brought this up when on another forum toy posted something about how long weve built the AGW case, and all our early measurements. I told you we ignored most of them without proof then cited beck. I didnt bring this upon the context you keep trying to force onto the conversation. It wasnt true then its not now.
> 
> Of course that was the nature of the entire "debate"... talk about everything but the content of the links I give.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> feel free to explain how this disproves a peer reviewed paper that covered much more then the listed studies.


That sentence doesn't make sense.



silverseeds said:


> You do realize it couldnt have passed peer review if it was so blatantly false that the models it covers that implied antarctica would melt were not realistically portrayed. right???


Or this one.



silverseeds said:


> Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record High: IPCC Models Predicted The Opposite | GWPF
> 
> 
> *If you thought your position had a basis then why when I first brought this up did you quote my post, excluding the links and ask for links as if they werent given???
> *



Which probably explains your confusion there.

BTW, your source mischaracterized the " recent paper". It is in press. Not yet published. No discussion. No comments publicly available. Paper isn't even available yet.

But, it is the 'latest' and for those trying to find anything, anything, to 'disprove' the well established evidence of the effect of our profligate burning of fossil fuels it fits the bill.

So, how about going through the scientific literature and finding something that has been out long enough to have established a track record that supports your claims?

But that probably won't happen. The blogs don't bring up the stuff after it has been analyzed and discussed and all too often found to have been overstated or having some fundamental error.

There is something over 8,000 journals covering the sciences. The IPCC reports have pages and pages of citations for each chapter.

You've offered up a hodgpodge of unpublished or published in obscure journals papers. We don't know what you consider "many studies", but even 10 would constitute a minor portion of what has been published over the years.

Yet another example of the selectivity that needs to be done to attempt to make a claim.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> To start with:
> 
> Discuss why you feel the 240 gigatons of carbon that Beck claims appeared in the atmosphere and then disappeared is accurate.
> 
> ...


I know you believe your making a pint, but you are not. 

The point of beck paper was to force the field to use PROOF as to why we should ignore the bulk of the data. If the numbers changed from there we would then figure out how to understand it. this is how science works. 

Beck didnt try to prove co2 was higher in those eras, he tried to get the field to explain why we are ignoring most of the data. you want to put the cart before the horse here...

Also why do you think this is relevant exactly? rambling on about an out of context (out of the context I brought it up) point that I didnt even make in this discussion with you! I mentioned this in a different thread entirely to heritagefarm, youve taken it out of context here and continually demand answers that simply do not exist currently. 

I keep explaining all this, Its very very basic. I cant fathom what point you think your making??? 

Of course I guess it gives you more room to bypass answering the series of mis characterizations youve made across the two threads in jsut the last few days. good show! more political posturing without the need for substance!!


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> That sentence doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If yo say so. In actual reality in post 447 I brought this up. You rambled on for awhile, then in post 457 you quoted post 447 of mine and "forgot" the link. you stated "no link". Except for it not to be in your quoted text, you would have had to have erased it. Sorry its all right there in the thread...

If the other two sentences do not make sense to you, there isnt much I can do unless you want me to read my posts to you over the phone or something. The study of the various models in regards to antarctica were covere din a peer reviewed work. It would have been shoot down if it lied about what the various false models had predicted.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

by the way roberte, a much wiser course instead of pretending the models were accurate on antarctica since they obviously were not... would have been, something like....

"as we accumulated data we found that for the time being warming is increasing the variables that lead to rainfall in the region and is leading to ice gain"

which is the official stance on the topic currently. Instead we have many posts of you arguing a baseless point youve failed to back. 

we would have moved on long ago. 

this link has some interesting quotes from some big names in the field...

Prof. Judith Curry on 16 year global temps: ' Nothing in Met Office's statement...effectively refutes Rose's argument that there has been no increase in global avg. surface temps for past 16 years' | Climate Depot

this one fits the other line of discussion...


> Excerpt from Judith Curry:
> 
> JC note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years:
> 
> ...


http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/

this covers some of the opposing views of some pretty big names in the field. Pretty clear there isnt a consensus about the current lack of a warming trend.

still waiting for proof of the "increasing accurate" climate models. In actual reality the field is in a major state of flux and it will be some time before consensus is made. your simply wrong. you can make a case though. Id love to see it. In the mean time now PROVEN variables are being studied to see their full effect, namely cosmic rays. according to one of the two groups doing this, it accounts for both the past warming AND current lag. you can pretend all you like, its been proven, now we just need to see the true effects.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The simple basic fact that no one has come forward to prove Beck's work was accurate says volumes.

No hypothesis. No study showing how spurious readings are as accurate as the values that have multiple lines of evidence for.

Not even the publisher, E&E, has a paper in support.

A journal that the editor, Boehmer-Christiansen, said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"

And you claim I'm doing "political posturing" without a shred of evidence of.





silverseeds said:


> I know you believe your making a pint, but you are not.
> 
> The point of beck paper was to force the field to use PROOF as to why we should ignore the bulk of the data. If the numbers changed from there we would then figure out how to understand it. this is how science works.
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> The study of the various models in regards to antarctica were covere din a peer reviewed work. It would have been shoot down if it lied about what the various false models had predicted.


What were you trying to say there? 

Your blog makes it sound like it is published. It hasn't been. No "shoot down" or even discussion about its findings or methodology are publicly available yet.


And, of course, no mention of any other research in the past five years....

Wonder why....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> still waiting for proof of the "increasing accurate" climate models.
> ....


I cited the chapter discussing that. I'll take a card from your playbook and say it's there and you can go find it.

Unless you decide to actually list your 'two topics' and the "many studies" you claim you've cited.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> The simple basic fact that no one has come forward to prove Beck's work was accurate says volumes.
> 
> No hypothesis. No study showing how spurious readings are as accurate as the values that have multiple lines of evidence for.
> 
> ...


yep obvious political posturing. Heck man your still confused why I even brought it up in entirely different conversations. No one proved becks work wrong either, which speaks volumes. The others that covered the same periods failed to use proof as to why we should ignore the bulk of the data. Hence becks paper. 



roberte said:


> What were you trying to say there?
> 
> Your blog makes it sound like it is published. It hasn't been. No "shoot down" or even discussion about its findings or methodology are publicly available yet.
> 
> ...


In reality it was published in the journal of climate as it says right on the link I keep giving. 

Im not sure your point about 5 years? the paper was published this year. 
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 You are simply wrong. The models predicted antarctica would melt. it is not. 



roberte said:


> I cited the chapter discussing that. I'll take a card from your playbook and say it's there and you can go find it.
> 
> Unless you decide to actually list your 'two topics' and the "many studies" you claim you've cited.


I read the entire chapter. 

amazing stance though. Baffling as well. The two topics Ive covered in a bit of depth are the fact there ARE alternative theories for the sun s influence, and I covered the cosmic rays. Taking a chapter from my book would have meant when you repeatedly said I hadnt covered these topics, I kept posting them for you again, and quoting point from them. You wanted me to explain the relevance of a few parts, but I figured the explanation given by the scientists in the papers was enough...

I didnt post a few hundred page link that agreed with you as you did with me, then later post a link to a long list of citations and tell you to go fishing. Vastly different, sorry. 

Very telling though. 

Still no proof that watts mis represented what NOAA had said, still nothing showing the increasingly accurate models. just strange political posturing arguing a side point that isnt even in question except in your mind.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> 
> In reality it was published in the journal of climate as it says right on the link I keep giving.
> ...




An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models
John Turner, Tom Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth J. Marshall, J. Scott Hosking
Journal of Climate
*Volume 0, Issue 0 ( ) pp.*
doi: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
[Abstract] [PDF (2108 KB)] [Add to Favorites] 


How 'bout you go to the library and photocopy it then? Or actually quote from someone who has actually read it.


The main point is that it is yet another of the 'latest and greatest that will disprove everything' that those who attempt to deny the science trot out with great fanfare.

Then become really , really quiet about after it receives some detailed review and analysis.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> yep obvious political posturing.
> ....


Wow, just wow.

Show us the words that make you think that.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> The others that covered the same periods failed to use proof as to why we should ignore the bulk of the data. Hence becks paper.
> 
> ....



What are "the same periods"?

Who are "the others" who "covered the same periods "?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Wow, just wow.
> 
> Show us the words that make you think that.


Most everything you write actually. Your obviously wrong on watts thus you stopped responding and wont back what you said. well you tried after many requests, but the text you quoted didnt support your stance in any way You wont offer these increasingly accurate models. You keep bringing up beck out of the context I brought him up, in entirely different conversations. Not only that you STILL dont understand the point of his work despite it being very basic and obvious. 

You keep trying to imply we are still warming when in actual reality the field is trying to explain it and thus far disagrees as to why. Your dead worng on antarctica, and you dance around instead of admit it. heck you quote posts of mine with links on the subject except you erased the link then wonder where the links were. then later act confused what I am even talking about saying that even though you did it yourself and I pointed out post numbers to you.

And these are only some the delusions of the last few days, you did similar the entire time.... 

I second the "wow just wow"...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Typical. No details about the "amazing stance" or why you were 'baffled'.



silverseeds said:


> ....I read the entire chapter.
> 
> amazing stance though. Baffling as well.
> ....


Many universities are offering full courses online in envronmental and climate science. Most are free and taught to the same standards as on-campus.

You even get a certificate attesting to satisfactory completion of the work.


Or try the Summary for Policy Makers; less technical, cites where in the main report the details are.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Typical. No details about the "amazing stance" or why you were 'baffled'.


In actual reality the part of the text you neglected to quote explains why I was baffled and the amazing stance... good job though!

you never had to admit you were wrong on antarctica not following the models, you were wrong that watts had mis represented what NOAA said, and never gave us some of these increasingly advanced and accurate models, that presumably predicted the current flatline of temps... Just change the subject instead!!!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> I didnt post a few hundred page link that agreed with you as you did with me,..



IF you are referring to citing the chapter, it was only 70-some pages. And since it walks through the history from the first Assessment Report to the fourth in a lot of detail it makes more sense to read and absorb first.

Not start some digression based on quoting a portion that depends on the previous parts having been understood (whether or not one agrees with it).



silverseeds said:


> ... then later post a link to a long list of citations and tell you to go fishing.
> ....


You are conflating two different threads. I linked to the References of a different chapter so you could get the title and publishing information so you could go read the paper.

That was your "failed models" thread.

The one where you made a sweeping statement about ALL models and pointed to ONE.

In a paragraph that discussed three. 

In a section that discussed ~10. That were accurate.


I might at this point also note that you have routinely refused to cite a number from any of your papers that supports your 'alternatives'.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Typical.

Can't support your claim.

So you attempt some broad, sweeping statement that is unprovable.

Just like the claim.






silverseeds said:


> Most everything you write actually.
> ....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> In a section that discussed ~10. That were accurate.
> 
> 
> I might at this point also note that you have routinely refused to cite a number from any of your papers that supports your 'alternatives'.


ahh I see now its 10... Okay. Im sure its a fluke that the peer reviewed paper suggesting most of the models predicted melting got through the peer review process with such glaring falsities. 

sorry I gave you numbers each time you asked. Weird you imply otherwise, there was one point I kept referring back to cited studies on cosmic rays Im assuming your talking about. Later I gave the numbers to you directly after having already cited them. 

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

the link still works by the way...

still nothing to back what you said about watts. Still nothing on these accurate models that dont exist, (in reality the field is scrambling to explain why we havent had warming for 16 years, with much disagreement as per several articles Ive linked with the dissenting views) hmmm... just political posturing.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> In actual reality the part of the text you neglected to quote explains why I was baffled and the amazing stance...
> ...
> 
> ....


Um, you've done it again.

Two different threads.

Your "amazing stance" claim was originally about the chapter discussing the accuracy of modeling.

That was your full comment about 70 pages of discussion.

Your "neglected to quote" claim was about Watts' mischaracterizing by truncating a NOAA quote. 

I'd suggest that you stick to one of your 'alternative' causes and develop a thorough explanation of it.

Or at least link to someone you rely on who has done so.

Until then, I'm quite tired of arguing about how you are arguing.


Bring some science.

Not empty claims like "political posturing".


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Typical.
> 
> Can't support your claim.
> 
> ...


Actually I supported these "claims" the entire time. Of course you wont admit it, why would you?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Um, you've done it again.
> 
> Two different threads.
> 
> ...


huh??? so I said amazing claim more then once, and your thinking it was all part of the same amazing claim? 

thats just silly. 


> Your "neglected to quote" claim was about Watts' mischaracterizing by truncating a NOAA quote.


And youve failed to back this. I cited the actual piece he got the qute from and the page. nothing disqualifies what NOAA said about 15 years of no warming telling us that would be the point to question the models. after a lot of dancing you finally offered one paragraph, but it didnt support what you said in any way. 



> I'd suggest that you stick to one of your 'alternative' causes and develop a thorough explanation of it.
> 
> Or at least link to someone you rely on who has done so.
> 
> ...


Not empty, very obvious and telling. You cant even admit the simplest of points when your dead wrong and its glaring at you in the face. 

Candid comments from global warming scientists | Climate Etc.

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net

curious which of the explanations for the current lack of warming you prefer???


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Until the discussion gets back to the actual science, here is a short list of sources covering the basics.




Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Climate Research

Climate Change (2007) The Physical Science Basis, a report accepted by 
Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Frequently Asked Questions

Climate - Met Office

Stanford University - The Global Climate and Energy Project - energy research, climate change, global climate, global warming, greenhouse emissions, greenhouse gases, hydrogen economy, hydrogen power, renewable energy

RealClimate: Start here

Climate Impacts Group

Climate and Society - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

Weather and Climate Basics


*Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Revisiting the Facts*
Stefan Rahmstorf
_*The Observed Climatic Warming
*_"It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This
can be broken into two parts. The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This
is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so
we deal with it only briefly.32 The two leading compilations of data measured
with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate
Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different
data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures,
they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8Â°C since
the late nineteenth century." http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

*Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
*
*9.7	Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change
*
"The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system and the pattern and amplitude of warming in the different components, together with evidence that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest in 1.3 kyr (Chapter 6) indicate that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely to be the result of internal processes alone. The consistency across different lines of evidence makes a strong case for a significant human influence on observed warming at the surface. The observed rates of surface temperature and ocean heat content change are consistent with the understanding of the likely range of climate sensitivity and net climate forcings. Only with a net positive forcing, consistent with observational and model estimates of the likely net forcing of the climate system (as used in Figure 9.5), is it possible to explain the large increase in heat content of the climate system that has been observed (Figure 5.4)."
9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

*The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
*Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, &#8220;As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change&#8221; (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: &#8220;Human activities &#8230; are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents &#8230; that absorb or scatter radiant energy. &#8230; [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations&#8221; [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: &#8220;Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise&#8221; [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: &#8220;The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue&#8221; [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords &#8220;climate change&#8221; (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Until the discussion gets back to the actual science, here is a short list of sources covering the basics.


hilarious!! I am fully ready to go to the next section of the science. I was attempting however to get you to stop doing your political posturing and actually have a scientific discussion, because it gets more complicated from here...

youve failed to back a single claim youve made since your last hiatus. In fact you mis portrayed what I wrote entirely. 

Having a science based discussion under these conditions is impossible. Oh well, I failed to get you to reply with honesty and in context... 

No worries, tomorrow when you show up we can move onto the next phase of the discussion for you to ignore and downplay. No need to back your increasingly accurate models claim, or to back your claim that the study showing the models were wrong about antarctica, or your false claim about watts mis representing NOAA, which he did NOT. 

No worries, you can ignore it all and call it "science"!! We can move onto to the failed feedback loops now as promised. feedbacks MANDATORY for the claimed warming to be even close to the claims. feedbacks are claimed to account for 2/3 of the warming according to models, real world data disproves this however.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Im going to assume I dont have to prove that feedbacks loops account for 2/3 of the claimed warming, right? Last time I discussed this with a member here on a different forum, this was fought bitterly even after his own links confirmed it. guess I can deal with that if it comes up...

There are several claimed feedback loops. The most important in the models seem to be water vapor, and released GHGs like methane and co2. 


this first one covers co2 released from soils. It seems the models falsely portrayed black carbon, which is longer lived in the soil then models claim.
Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon


> PhysOrg.com) -- A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.
> 
> A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.
> 
> ...


It would be tricky for me to show the effect this has on the models. So I will leave it hear instead. Take it as you will, but I havent personally seen models adjust for this yet. 

Perhaps they have, and these are the increasingly accurate models roberte talked about, which would have to explain the current lag in temps the field is trying to explain with no consensus. (hence my dis belief such accurate models exist, there isnt even consensus on the current lag in temps yet!) 

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

This second study is from NOAA. surely cornell and NOAA are sources true believers of AGW wont dismiss out of hand for disagreeing with past models right???

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card



> A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earthâs surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
> 
> Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. *The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate*.
> 
> ...


Please take note of the fact the most influential section of water vapor rose through the 80s and 90s accounting for 30 percent of the temp rise (the models predict 1/3 of the warming comes from increased water vapor in ALL areas, this is the most influential section though) and is currently accounting for 25% less warming. AKA water vapor is now a negative feedback where it is most influential, rather then a positive one. 

Also note this is the FIRST actual real world changes in stratospheric water vapor to what happened in the climate. 

this last one doesnt exactly fit the context here, but is worth posting. remember the big scare of all the methane being released off Spitsbergen? turns out this wasnt a new thing, much of it (we arent sure exactly yet) has been seeping for hundreds of years. 

Â Â«Â GEOMAR - Helmholtz-Zentrum fÃ¼r Ozeanforschung Kiel[tt_news]=903&tx_ttnews[backPid]=185&L=1

I meant to post more, but my net messed up. I had about 30 windows open and it crashed. I also hopefully will not be around much for a week or two. I believe I have some temporary work lined up. Crossing my fingers. I will still e around, just not a ton. If I get the work that is. this is a good start though. The two feedbacks listed above are pretty big factors actually. The water vapor in the stratosphere by itself vastly changes the models. This is the most influential section of it.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I forgot to post this earlier in the conversation. a ember tried to imply the movements in clouds over time wasnt enough to force climate. So lets hit this from another angle for a bit. 

First this nasa link covers the topic somewhat, and gives a few links. 

Earthshine - NASA Science



> Phil Goode of Big Bear Solar Observatory is principal investigator of Project Earthshine, a NASA-supported effort to monitor Earth's albedo (the astronomer's term for reflectivity). He says, "it's not surprising that Earth's albedo changes with the seasons." After all, most of the sunlight reflected from our planet is reflected from clouds -- and cloud cover changes from one season to the next.
> 
> Clouds dominate the "shininess" of our planet, adds Goode. "They reflect about 50% of the sunlight that hits them -- more than oceans (10%) or land (10% to 25%). Only snow and ice reflect more (40% to 90%) than clouds do, but snowy areas tend to be cloud covered anyway."
> 
> Although the spring peak wasn't surprising to Goode, its size was. The extra Earthshine in April and May was about twice as much as computer models predicted based on actual satellite observations of ice and cloud cover. It's a lingering mystery.





Linked to the nasa link is this study. 

Moon illuminates climate study - physicsworld.com


> After compensating for scattering in our atmosphere and the elevation of the Moon, Goode's team puts Earth's albedo at 0.297. This means that nearly a third of the sunlight that impinges on Earth is reflected into space, a value that closely matches the team's earlier computer simulations. "But we found a surprisingly large seasonal variation - up to 20% - in the Earth's reflectance", explains Goode.
> 
> The result of a comparison with similar observations in the mid-1990s was also unexpected. "We found a hint of a 2.5% decrease in the albedo in the last five years", says Goode. A proven drop in the Earth's reflectivity over that time - during which the Sun's activity has climbed from a minimum to a peak - would support the theory that the 11-year solar cycle directly affects the Earth's climate. Scientists also believe a drop of just 1% could play a role in global warming


notice it can range over 20% over decades, and a difference of just one percent can alter temps. 

Youll notice one of the same men from the last study linked who works with the nasa supported group at the big bear solar observatory. 

Earthshine Reveals Climate Changes



> = Earth's average albedo is not constant from one year to the next; it also changes over decadal timescales. The computer models currently used to study the climate system do not show such large decadal-scale variability of the albedo.
> 
> = The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.
> 
> = *The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.* This "dimming" of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures.


pretty interesting huh, in those same years a nasa supported project tells us changes in albedo pushed double the warming of co2, we also had water vapor driving 30% of the warming. (and despite the IPCCs insistence the suns effect wasnt nearly zero being at a grand maximum of increasing intensity over many decades before its recent drop) and the ENSO effect is still in question actually but this possibly accounted for a good portion as well. Even ignoring these last two, very little would have been left for co2. 



> "Our results are only part of the story, since the Earth's surface temperature is determined by a balance between sunlight that warms the planet and heat radiated back into space, which cools the planet," said Palle. "This depends upon many factors in addition to albedo, such as the amount of greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane) present in the atmosphere. But these new data emphasize that clouds must be properly accounted for and illustrate that we still lack the detailed understanding of our climate system necessary to model future changes with confidence."





> Goode says the earthshine observations will continue for the next decade. "These will be important for monitoring ongoing changes in Earth's climate system. It will also be essential to correlate our results with satellite data as they become available, particularly for the most recent years, to form a consistent description of the changing albedo. Earthshine observations through an 11-year solar cycle will also be important to assessing hypothesized influences of solar activity on climate."


 If you guys arent aware, there are many hypothesized connections of the sun and climate basically ignored since they are not currently proven. I didnt really post on those being basically unbacked, but there are several potentials actually. I guess AGW gets more of the funding for climate research. 

Officially we do not know what alters cloud cover. Conflicting data on the bit we do know. Until the cosmic influence we have confirmed recently which doesnt affect all types of clouds in all areas of the climate system but does affect certain types in certain positions. (covered in past posts of mine if you really care) 

My point being, is that yes, clouds play a major role.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

This is nasa talking about a completely different section of water vapor then the NOAA study above. Im not aware of this part of the water vapor feedback loop failing. According to them this accounts for a doubling of co2s effect. Dont forget the NOAA study above however on a completely different section of water vapor that showed the stratospheric section increased warming with 30% additional warming through the 80s and 90s and now it is a negative feedback of 25% less now. 

I havent yet found a source that discusses both of these in depth, but its obvious this leaves little room for co2. these are two entirely different sections of water vapor, both having a strong influence. this should surprise no one, water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases. (AKA 950,000 ppm whereas co2 is less then 400ppm)


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, yes you do.

I've bolded in in your post a few reasons why.


Not to mention that science is based on facts, not assumptions.



silverseeds said:


> Im going to assume I dont have to prove that feedbacks loops account for 2/3 of the claimed warming, right? *Last time I discussed this* with a member here on a different forum, this was fought bitterly even after his own links confirmed it. guess I can deal with that if it comes up...
> 
> There are several *claimed *feedback loops. The most important in the models* seem* to be water vapor, and released GHGs like methane and co2.
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Im sure you believe you made a point. I have no idea what that could be though... If you understand everything I posted you understand even if you believe co2 is a major driver that the feedbacks needed for it to be a major issue arent complying with the assumptions. 

You also understand that thus far there is little room left for co2, to have had an effect. I didnt even cover ENSO. 

By the way, you were right about the IPCC stance on antarctica. You just kept posting the wrong section entirely. 

10.7.4.4 Antarctic Ice Sheet - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections

I will have to try to figure out what models the study I linked was based on. It said "most" imply antarctica should be melting. Its newly published I cant seem to find what citations it uses.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....You also understand that thus far there is little room left for co2, to have had an effect. I didnt even cover ENSO.
> 
> ....


I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The point is that whatever 'alternative' explanations that have been so far posited here - space particles, cosmic rays, clouds from ionization, influence of Jupiter, water vapor, spurious jumps in C02, whatever the blogosphere's cause du jour is - don't have the energy levels needed to account for the energy imbalance.

You are making - or at least repeating - extraordinary claims.

_"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." 
Pierre-Simon Laplace _


Which is why I ask for your numbers. 

Not press releases about the 'latest and greatest'; the cause du jour.

Show us the science. 

I think by continuing to post unsupported claims that are based on "political posturing", you are implicitly insulting the level of awareness of the issues involved by the readership here.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The point is that whatever 'alternative' explanations that have been so far posited here - space particles, cosmic rays, clouds from ionization, influence of Jupiter, water vapor, spurious jumps in C02, whatever the blogosphere's cause du jour is - don't have the energy levels needed to account for the energy imbalance.


huh. You seem to believe your making a point. I guess your point is that nothing counts except for co2??? Otherwise Im completely baffled at what point you believe your making? You sound a bit silly honestly. Feel free which of the recently linked points you believe is false. Otherwise your just blowing smoke. 


> You are making - or at least repeating - extraordinary claims.
> 
> _"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
> Pierre-Simon Laplace _
> ...


Which numbers didnt you get exactly? You keep repeating this. The conversation would be helped if you were reading my actual posts. Numbers are right there in the links. In fact I pointed most of them out which was the point in posting them. 

Notice your not addressing any of the links directly. Besides the posts from the other night were not my "claims". They were mainly the work of people at cornell, nasa, and NOAA. 



> Not press releases about the 'latest and greatest'; the cause du jour.
> 
> Show us the science.


ahh political posturing. It makes sense, since there was nothing I posted that you have the room to dis credit. So pretend it isnt science!!! That works I guess. Let me know when you want to have an actual discussion about what was actually posted. 


> I think by continuing to post unsupported claims that are based on "political posturing", you are implicitly insulting the level of awareness of the issues involved by the readership here.


ha! 

I covered a range of topics the other night, all with hard science, numbers listed for all topics covered. You imply I havent proven any of them all without responding to anything directly, since your point is completely without backing or basis in reality, and then call it political posturing. You should run for congress. Your doublespeak is STRONG!!! 

You are indeed insulting the intelligence of anyone still bothering to read the threads. Lucky for you I guess most people made up their minds on political grounds. 

Let me know when you want to post something relevant to the discussion. More rambling posts not even addressing anything I posted arent really helping your case.

ETA= lets take this "debate" back to the science. Please instead of another post like your last address the actual science Ive posted. Whatever you want to call your last post, it had no relevance to the conversation. It was an obvious dodge from discussing the science.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> I covered a range of topics the other night, all with hard science, numbers listed for all topics covered.
> .....


IF the science you are attempting to use is sound, there will be a clear explanation from the author as to the extent of effect.

That is, if the author's intent was to prove some level of effect.

Most of your papers - that is, when the link is to the paper - is about some relatively minor aspect. Something that might help narrow a range of probability or in some minor way nudge a forcing up or down a tiny bit. 

But not call for a complete reanalysis of all the previous research.

Which is why your claims, like the blogs that post them, are generally overstated, misrepresented, or often later found to be spurious. Authors have publicly stated that xyz blog was in error and reposted their conclusions in efforts to clarify their research.

So, if you have some piece of research - let's say cosmic rays - that you or the blogs that posted it think have some outstanding effect on the observed changes in our oceans and atmosphere and land, there will be some part of that research that will describe the level of energy. The level of forcing, the level of effect on a feedback. Some hard number.

And you are constantly NOT willing to quote that part.

We are in an energy imbalance that has been described as the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs a day over past years. We know that number. We can cite it bombs, in W/sqM. We can show the effects in a multiple lines of evidence.

But you are unwilling to show us how that particular paper or even any combination of them can bring that level of energy.

Then you call the science "political posturing". 

So, show us the energy levels from any or even all the 'alternative' points you are attempting to raise.

Or show us some accounting by someone with real expertise.


But, until you can bring something that can support your claims to this level:

_"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."_ Pierre-Simon Laplace

_
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."_ C. Sagan

_
"A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence"_ David Hume

you, and the blogs that feed out the 'latest and greatest' 'alternatives' don't have a case.

----\
btw, look up how and when to use 'your' and 'you're'.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Does anyone want to discuss the science here at all??? Clearly the poster above isnt even reading my links, nor responding to them if he thinks what he wrote above was relevant. simply responding to stories about the links I gave that he wrote himself.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> IF the science you are attempting to use is sound, there will be a clear explanation from the author as to the extent of effect.
> 
> That is, if the author's intent was to prove some level of effect.
> 
> ...


lets have a discussion of the science now please. Your banter isnt moving the conversation forward. in actual reality roberte i posted the hard numbers for everything Ive discussed thus far. More evidence your not even reading my posts. you have posted three times since the last round of science was posted, you have yet to even address a shred of it. 

Why is that??? My sources were cornell, NOAA and NASA, and a NASA supported solar observatory that studies moonshine linked through NASAs site. which isnt science to you?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> lets have a discussion of the science now please. Your banter isnt moving the conversation forward.


We could do that as soon as you show us the numbers needed to show how your 'alternatives' have the energy levels to do what you are claiming for them.

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for
the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a
culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have
been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that
variations in the sun's output might be responsible fails a number of
elementary scientific tests.)

Second, *having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't
even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one,* which
is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about
the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is
wrong."

John P. Holdren


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

the numbers are all listed, so Im not real sure what your talking about???? besides of course burying the data under mountains of diatribe as per usual.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....simply responding to stories about the links I gave that he wrote himself.


???????????


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> ???????????


Go back and read the last round of links. the numbers are there. Nothing youve said thus far addresses anything posted. 

After that perhaps we can discuss the data??? Or your not going to lower yourself to discussing science in what was supposed to be a scientific debate?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun&#8217;s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven&#8217;t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe




If you seriously want to learn what is going on, I'd suggest a primer:


* Basics | Climate Change | US EPA
*Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming
* The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

* Climate Kids: How do we know the climate is changing?

Longer lists of beginner resources are at


* RealClimate: Start here
&
* Newcomers, Start Here







*NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
*

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> Go back and read the last round of links. the numbers are there. Nothing youve said thus far addresses anything posted.
> 
> After that perhaps we can discuss the data??? Or your not going to lower yourself to discussing science in what was supposed to be a scientific debate?



You are telling me to prove a negative. You made the extraordinary claims.

And you are the one refusing to show your work.

Extraordinary claims. Show us the evidence.

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, you are citing the press release.


And, fyi, the study is based on modeling.

You've claimed 'models entirely fail'

But now it is valid......





silverseeds said:


> ....This second study is from NOAA. surely cornell and NOAA are sources true believers of AGW wont dismiss out of hand for disagreeing with past models right???
> 
> NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card
> .....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You are telling me to prove a negative. You made the extraordinary claims.


Nope,. it was cornell, nasa, noaa and a group working with nasa cited in my last round of links. they werent my "claims"..




> And you are the one refusing to show your work.
> 
> Extraordinary claims. Show us the evidence.


I just did on several topics. Your pretending I didnt. 

Very telling!!! Very telling indeed! Anyone that fell for your dance wouldnt be likely to understand what I posted anyway, so you only lost ground at best. There was nothing I posted you can refute though, so I guess your dance makes sense for someone who argues politics instead of science. 

Youve made it clear you wont acknowledge or understand the feedbacks, or albedo, which were the topics covered. 

So anyone else want to discuss the actual data linked? Preferably someone able to see the numbers are indeed all there.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Actually, you are citing the press release.
> 
> 
> And, fyi, the study is based on modeling.
> ...


you took what I said out of context actually. But you knew that of course. I meant the models you claim are increasingly accurate at predicting temps of course. 

So all you have to say after several posts is "the study was based on modeling" hmmm yes roberte I can read, modeling ANd real world data about what the water vapor actually did.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

From your source:
"With new observations, the scientists *confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated *theoretically."

Hmmm, that rather throws a monkey wrench into the 'models fail entirely' claim made earlier......





silverseeds said:


> NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
> 
> This is nasa talking about a completely different section of water vapor then the NOAA study above. Im not aware of this part of the water vapor feedback loop failing. According to them this accounts for a doubling of co2s effect. Dont forget the NOAA study above however on a completely different section of water vapor that showed the stratospheric section increased warming with 30% additional warming through the 80s and 90s and now it is a negative feedback of 25% less now.
> 
> I havent yet found a source that discusses both of these in depth, but its obvious this leaves little room for co2. these are two entirely different sections of water vapor, both having a strong influence. this should surprise no one, water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases. (AKA 950,000 ppm whereas co2 is less then 400ppm)


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You can always support your claim by bringing the evidence.




silverseeds said:


> you took what I said out of context
> ....


But since you have a history of not doing that,




silverseeds said:


> hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> From your source:
> "With new observations, the scientists *confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated *theoretically."
> 
> Hmmm, that rather throws a monkey wrench into the 'models fail entirely' claim made earlier......


except that your taking what I said out of context..

Feel free to post some of the increasingly accurate climate models you claim we have. We were talking about modelling temps based on known variables affecting climate of course at the time. 

You refused to link such models, which makes is understandable considering the field is scrambling to even explain the current lag in warming with no consensus yet.

You do realize the study your referring to has shown that this particular area of water vapor used to be causing 30% additional warming now it is causing 25% decrease? so from 130% of the baseline to 75%....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> except that your taking what I said out of context..






silverseeds said:


> you took what I said out of context
> ....


You can always support your claim by bringing the evidence.


But since you have a history of not doing that,




silverseeds said:


> hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You can always support your claim by bringing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yep discuss everything but the science. You have a history of that actually. You seriously crack me up. Ive discussed this topic with you over months, I have yet to see you discuss the science once we try to break it down past what some official source you like 

Ive seen you do what you have done above MANY times though. Make completely false claims or mis representations of what Ive said in the past to derail the conversation away from the science and if I dont jump through your hoops, well it proves something. What? who knows you can never say. 

anyone want a scientific discussion??

ETA hilarious!! you just proved what I said right with that quote! you indeed took me out of context. the AGW models talked about at the time were of course future projections of temps. As well as projections of the effects of warming. 

you want to focus on everything but the data!!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IF your peer reviewed work actually gets developed into a substantive hypothesis, one that shows the necessary energy to materially affect the science, then the fifth assessment report will look very different than the fourth. But science doesn't get turned head over heels very easily.

Especially when there is all of the math, the chemistry, and the physics showing how and why Anthropogenic CO2 is now the major driver of what we are observing, it just doesn't leave much room for space particles, cloud ionization, water vapor, spurious CO2 readings, or cosmic rays. What you are calling "alternative explanation(s)" are minor players. Orders of magnitude smaller than what is well documented.

Our - yes, yours, mine, every human on Earth - profligate burning of fossil fuels has added .6 watts per sq meter of energy into our oceans and atmosphere. Roughly the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshimas a day.

And you are saying 'it can't be Anthropogenic CO2. You and a small group of people that tout talking points that just don't have the math to support them.



And that is why I ask you to support your claims with the numbers.

And why you haven't. And can't.



silverseeds said:


> yep discuss everything but the science. You have a history of that actually. You seriously crack me up. Ive discussed this topic with you over month I have yet to see you discuss the science.
> 
> Ive seen you do what you have done above MANY times though. Make completely false claims or mis representations of what Ive said in the past to derail the conversation away from the science and if I dont jump through your hoops, well it proves something. What? who knows you can never say.
> 
> anyone want a scientific discussion??


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

hilarious! you pretend you cant even see the numbers on the citations I gave, and you claim I dont have the numbers to support what I said. the last series of links were about the feedbacks some of them FAILED feedbacks mandatory for the scary levels of warming. One of the failed feedbacks is working strongly the opposite direction of the AGW models currently. this segment of the discussion has nothing to do with proving or disproving co2 as a driver obviously as you imply above. logical fallacy. I also covered the fact that albedo played a role in the years that were the hottest in modern times. Literally DOUBLE the impact of co2 driven warming according to the solar observatory nasa linked. on those specific years. 

which coupled with the strong water vapor feedback also covered from the same years which gave us up to 30% of the warming this leaves little for co2. Its simple math. You cant refute it. 

By the way pretending I dont believe water vapor can do what the study shows because of the real world data plugged into models is funny. water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. accounting for 95% of it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Hilarious isn't the word I'd use for for your unwillingness to pull a quote from the research you are claiming upsets the mountains and years of climate research.

Research showing how our yearly injection of gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere is effecting the changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.





silverseeds said:


> hilarious! you pretend you cant even see the numbers on the citations I gave, and you claim I dont have the numbers to support what I said. the last series of links were about the feedbacks some of them FAILED feedbacks mandatory for the scary levels of warming. One of the failed feedbacks is working strongly the opposite direction of the AGW models currently. this segment of the discussion has nothing to do with proving or disproving co2 as a driver obviously as you imply above. logical fallacy. I also covered the fact that albedo played a role in the years that were the hottest in modern times. Literally DOUBLE the impact of co2 driven warming according to the solar observatory nasa linked. on those specific years.
> 
> which coupled with the strong water vapor feedback also covered from the same years which gave us up to 30% of the warming this leaves little for co2. Its simple math. You cant refute it.
> 
> By the way pretending I dont believe water vapor can do what the study shows because of the real world data plugged into models is funny. water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. accounting for 95% of it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

hmmmm,

seems that "out of context" isn't an arguable point now......


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Hilarious isn't the word I'd use for for your unwillingness to pull a quote from the research you are claiming upsets the mountains and years of climate research.
> 
> Research showing how our yearly injection of gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere is effecting the changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.


Nothing in the last series of links had anything to do with co2, sorry. They dealt with albedo and failed feedbacks mandatory for the scary claims. there is no work on these topics suggesting anything else, despite your memes here. 



roberte said:


> hmmmm,
> 
> seems that "out of context" isn't an arguable point now......


??? of course it is. (although Id much rather be arguing the science, oh well) 

Let me know when your vision returns, you can see the numbers and actual topics covered in the last series of links, then perhaps we can discuss the science???


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Hilarious isn't the word I'd use for for your unwillingness to pull a quote from the research you are claiming upsets the mountains and years of climate research.

Research showing how our yearly injection of gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere is effecting the changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.



silverseeds said:


> Nothing in the last series of links had anything to do with co2, sorry. They dealt with albedo and failed feedbacks mandatory for the scary claims.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Yeah, since attempts at insults are so sciencey......





silverseeds said:


> ....Let me know when your vision returns, you can see the numbers and actual topics covered in the last series of links, then perhaps we can discuss the science???


Let us know when you want to express a modicum of willingness and pull some quotes from the research you are claiming upsets the mountains and years of climate research.

Research showing how our yearly injection of gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere is effecting the changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Hilarious isn't the word I'd use for for your unwillingness to pull a quote from the research you are claiming upsets the mountains and years of climate research.
> 
> Research showing how our yearly injection of gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere is effecting the changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.


Whats your point? Co2 wasnt the topic covered. albedos role in specific years and failed feedbacks one of which currently going strongly negative was the topic. 

Let me know when you want to discuss the science. 



roberte said:


> Yeah, since attempts at insults are so sciencey......


Where as the insult??? You said there were no numbers. There are. You keep talking and posting about completely different topics. So to give you the benefit of the doubt we can pretend its a simple vision issue and not a purposeful attempt to derail the topic... You have yet to even address the topics raised in any way at all after 16 posts from you since the last set of links. 

Is this what you call a scientific debate? If so you seem utterly confused. discuss everything but the topics raised and pretend you cant see the numbers?? 





> Let us know when you want to express a modicum of willingness and pull some quotes from the research you are claiming upsets the mountains and years of climate research.
> 
> Research showing how our yearly injection of gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere is effecting the changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.


sorry, your on the wrong topic still. 100% irrelevant to the topics raised. Which is obvious if you read said links. 

anyone want to discuss the actual topics raised???


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Any AGW advocates want to discuss the science here? rambling memes arent advancing the conversation. the debate gets more complex from here.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You are making extraordinary claims.

Without bringing the evidence forward to support your claim.

That's just to support your claim. Refusing to bring forward the numbers that say what you think supports your claim.

Much less, actually proving your claim.


So, until you can bring enough data forward to literally overthrow the mountains and years of research in thousands of pieces of research, you haven't done your job.

Hence, CO2. Since the consensus is Anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver.

Not your hodgepodge of 'alternatives' which offer no numbers to show for the amount of energy we have been putting into the atmosphere by our profligate burning of fossil fuels.





silverseeds said:


> Whats your point? Co2 wasnt the topic covered. albedos role in specific years and failed feedbacks one of which currently going strongly negative was the topic.
> 
> Let me know when you want to discuss the science.
> 
> ...


So, if you won't bring your 'proof' forward, don't bother responding.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You are making extraordinary claims.


 The last set of links on albedos effect over a specific period, and failed feedback loops were sourced from cornell, noaa and nasa, also a solar observatory working with and linked from nasa. 

* THE CLAIMS WERE THEIRS*, I merely posted them. Of course Ive said this already, your pretending you dont understand I guess. oh well. 


> So, if you won't bring your 'proof' forward, don't bother responding.


Conversely Id point out I did cite proof for the last section of the debate I gave links for. Again the factors cited was work done by people at cornell, noaa and nasa, and a solar observatory working with and linked from nasa. 

After well over a dozen posts your still claiming to have not even seen the cited data, or acknowledge *gasp* they include numbers and all. 

So Id wonder truthfully why you keep responding if you dont want to discuss the cited material? Im the one trying to make the case that skeptics do indeed have ground to stand on. The science is not settled when even the IPCC admits we have low consensus and scientific level of understanding on most aspects of the climate. If you dont want to discuss what Im actually posting, your just derailing it as far as Im concerned.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You need to find some reliable source that shows us that you have an energy input that matches the observed observations. We can account through the math, chemistry, and physics of the added CO2 we are injecting into the atmosphere for the observed changes to our oceans, land, and atmosphere.

Before your 'alternatives' can be considered a primary driver, we need to see the same level of energy coming from them or some combination of them.


Basic science.



silverseeds said:


> The last set of links on albedos effect over a specific period, and failed feedback loops were sourced from cornell, noaa and nasa, also a solar observatory working with and linked from nasa.
> 
> * THE CLAIMED WERE THEIRS*, I merely posted them. Of course Ive said this already, your pretending you dont understand I guess. oh well.
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> You need to find some reliable source that shows us that you have an energy input that matches the observed observations. We can account through the math, chemistry, and physics of the added CO2 we are injecting into the atmosphere for the observed changes to our oceans, land, and atmosphere.
> 
> Before your 'alternatives' can be considered a primary driver, we need to see the same level of energy coming from them or some combination of them.
> 
> ...


Your rather confused here. the current topic is the albedo of specific years that was causing double the effect of co2. This came from a solar observatory working with and linked from NASA. Your saying this isnt a reliable source? 

Also failed feedback loops, one of which was causing up to 30% of the warming over the 80s and 90s and since turning the other way counter to past understandings is causing a 25% reduction of the claimed warming effect of co2. This is according to a study put out by folks at NOAA. This isnt a reliable source?? The other failed feedback covered was a study done by folks at cornell , who showed black carbon was not being looked at as it actually functions and less co2 will be released then previously thought. this isnt a reliable source to you>? 

So I guess the ONLY acceptable source of data is the 2007 IPCC report? LOL
*
Please respond to the actual data posted if you want to continue. These were all reliable sources, which is obvious to anyone who looked. the numbers are there, also obvious to anyone who looks. Your games are not advancing the conversation or anyones knowledge! *


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> So I guess the ONLY acceptable source of data is the 2007 IPCC report?


When those who attempt to deny the science and the sycophants who repost those blog claims can deliver a body of solid evidence that supports their claims, then those claims will have some substance.

Those who attempt to deny the science and the sycophants who repost those blog claims cite 'latest and greatest' - a bit here, a piece there, some press release about a paper that may be published in some obscure journal or another, a blog about some finding in some paper once in a while.

Meanwhile, in the 8,000 + science journals that have a solid reputation we have paper after paper adding to the data about climate change. Some adding to the knowledge about Anthropogenic CO2 - that stuff coming out of your and my and everyone else's tailpipes, powerplants, etc. Other paper's work toward improving our knowledge of minor drivers and the complexity of the forcings and feedbacks. Others work toward improving measuring any of the myriad factors in the multiple lines of evidence. Other review and discuss the prior work, Others are comparing results from replicating experiments.

So, yes. You need to have something with the weight of the evidence that is in IPCC's AR4.



silverseeds said:


> Your rather confused here. the current topic is the albedo of specific years that was causing double the effect of co2. This came from a solar observatory working with and linked from NASA. Your saying this isnt a reliable source?



Also failed feedback loops, one of which was causing up to 30% of the warming over the 80s and 90s and since turning the other way counter to past understandings is causing a 25% reduction of the claimed warming effect of co2. This is according to a study put out by folks at NOAA. This isnt a reliable source?? The other failed feedback covered was a study done by folks at cornell , who showed black carbon was not being looked at as it actually functions and less co2 will be released then previously thought. this isnt a reliable source to you>? 

So I guess the ONLY acceptable source of data is the 2007 IPCC report? LOL
*
Please respond to the actual data posted if you want to continue. These were all reliable sources, which is obvious to anyone who looked. the numbers are there, also obvious to anyone who looks. Your games are not advancing the conversation or anyones knowledge! *[/QUOTE]


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> When those who attempt to deny the science and the sycophants who repost those blog claims can deliver a body of solid evidence that supports their claims, then those claims will have some substance.
> 
> Those who attempt to deny the science and the sycophants who repost those blog claims cite 'latest and greatest' - a bit here, a piece there, some press release about a paper that may be published in some obscure journal or another, a blog about some finding in some paper once in a while.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Not one of your sources have been reliable!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I can understand you wanting to move to another topic. Having shown an unwillingness to actually bring a number forward to show the previous claims have some validity...

Claims that include:

1-Jupiter or Saturn influencing our climate
2- Cosmic Rays being a major (or maybe the whole) driver
3- Something about how old CO2 readings, even ones that can't be accounted for, 'prove' it can't be CO2
4-Space Particles (or maybe that was Cosmic Rays in a bad translation
5-Clouds
6- Cosmic Rays causing clouds
7-non-Anthropogenic Co2 sources (ie. Volcanoes, outgassing, )
8- Models "entirely fail"

And let's not forget the panoply of claims sorted out by Skeptical Science

So, add your latest bit to the pile. Get a number.


Show us how you come up with enough energy from any or all of your claims to account for the energy imbalance that is driving the changes we are observing in our oceans, land, and atmosphere.




silverseeds said:


> Your rather confused here. the current topic is the albedo of specific years that was causing double the effect of co2.
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Same request for you. Show us how you '_know_' that.

Be careful though, silverseeds has quite the eye for "political posturing"; they may call you on any attempts to do so.




JeffreyD said:


> Not one of your sources have been reliable!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ahhh, time for 'that chart' again.

JeffreyD claims the data is not "reliable" without a shred of evidence.

silverseeds claims it could be any of several or maybe some combination of claims based on blogs and press releases.

And here is the easy to understand 'What WE are doing to the planet' chart:










Now do you understand why you need to bring real numbers? Well supported numbers?

If you don't then basically you are trying to claim that we humans are not responsible.
Without bringing forward any substantive hypotheses.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> I can understand you wanting to move to another topic. Having shown an unwillingness to actually bring a number forward to show the previous claims have some validity...


 I brought numbers from peer reviewed studies for everything Ive said. Including the last series of links Ive given. Sorry repeating it many times doesnt make your claim true. It just makes you look funny to anyone actually reading the links Ive given. 

We are approaching 2 dozen posts now and you have yet to even address the current topic. 

are you seriously going to pretend you want an honest discussion after trying to derail the conversation? As biased as people are on the topic Im doubting many are buying your line of thought unless they simply havent read the posts Ive made.

You are making it impossible to discuss the topic roberte. Which you no doubt realize. Please stop the games. Id like an honest conversation of the topics I brought up in my last round of links. The sources were reliable, the numbers are all there. You have yet to address them despite trying to mis characterize the nature and content of the links given. You not helping your case.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Let us know when you can bring the numbers that show your 'alternatives' have the energy level to account for the changes we are observing.

Current energy imbalance is .6 Watt/m2. 

You need to show that in Cozmik Raz or whatever your cause du jour is.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Your up to 23 posts since the last round of links I gave. You have yet to even address any of them. The numbers are all there the sources reliable. If you refuse to discuss them all your doing is derailing the topic. 

Your debate tactics are very telling, but arent helpful to the conversation or the advancement of anyones knowledge.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Show us the numbers that you think are relevant.



silverseeds said:


> Your up to 23 posts since the last round of links I gave. You have yet to even address any of them. The numbers are all there the sources reliable. If you refuse to discuss them all your doing is derailing the topic.
> 
> Your debate tactics are very telling, but arent helpful to the conversation or the advancement of anyones knowledge.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Show us the numbers that you think are relevant.


They are literally all there with the links, as anyone who looked at them knows. Are you asking me to repost all the same exact data? 

24 posts now, and your still pretending the numbers arent there. Very telling. and actually pretty funny.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Tell us what this means in relation to your claims.

From the paper that you cited only the press release of....

"...this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000â2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

Sure doesn't sound like it's proving anything about how Anthropogenic CO2 isn't the cause of what we are observing.


So, maybe you need to find something that actually says what you claim them to say....


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> Tell us what this means in relation to your claims.
> 
> From the paper that you cited only the press release of....
> 
> ...


It means exactly what it says. Water vapor in the stratosphere was contributing 30% additional warming over the 80s and 90s, currently it is a negative feedback. I covered another failed feedback loop, and also the albedo effect of specific years that contributed double the effect of co2 the years we had the highest temps. Water vapor in an entirely different section of the atmosphere then the one you just quoted also doubled co2s effect. Whuch leaves little room for co2. especially when you consider ENSO as well, which I didnt cover. 


> So, maybe you need to find something that actually says what you claim them to say....


Everything Ive posted says what I "claim" it did. Atleast your not still trying to say nasa and NOAA are not reliable sources. 

SO all your going to do is mis characterize the point of the topic and then pretend it doesnt say what I said it does? what in the world? anyone who read the links and responses to your de railments knows why I posted these things and the topic, except the person Im "debating" with? seems a bit odd. You have thought youd read my posts.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Ahhh, time for 'that chart' again.
> 
> JeffreyD claims the data is not "reliable" without a shred of evidence.
> 
> ...


You keep posting this chart as gospel, but you have been shown how it is wrong, yet you still post it as "proof". ound: Just like the rest of your "science". Garbage!! Your "scientists" have a track record of lies and deciet, yet you ignore it all.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm not entirely clear about how you think this study 'proves' CO2 isn't the major driver.

Tell us how you consider this a"negative feedback"

Tell us how you consider this a "failed feedback loop".




silverseeds said:


> It means exactly what it says. Water vapor in the stratosphere was contributing 30% additional warming over the 80s and 90s, currently it is a negative feedback. I covered another failed feedback loop, and also the albedo effect of specific years that contributed double the effect of co2 the years we had the highest temps. Water vapor in an entirely different section of the atmosphere then the one you just quoted also doubled co2s effect. Whuch leaves little room for co2. especially when you consider ENSO as well, which I didnt cover.
> 
> 
> Everything Ive posted says what I "claim" it did. Atleast your not still trying to say nasa and NOAA are not reliable sources.
> ...



And show us exactly how you are considering I "mis characterize". 
The other ACC thread was closed down because of your insistence, and inability to prove, "lie". Maybe you are now trying to get this one shut down as well.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Still waiting for your numbers.


Show us where your 'alternatives' have the energy that has unbalanced the system.

An energy imbalance that can account for the observed changes we have recorded in our atmosphere, oceans, and land.




silverseeds said:


> They are literally all there with the links, as anyone who looked at them knows. Are you asking me to repost all the same exact data?
> 
> 24 posts now, and your still pretending the numbers arent there. Very telling. and actually pretty funny.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> hilarious claim since the AGW models fail entirely in real life.



From your source:

"With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. "

So, models only 'fail entirely' when those models don't support your claims?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Big claim there. ""scientists" have a track record of lies and deciet,(sic)"

And that is at least the second time you've made broad sweeping claims without a shred of evidence to support your claim.




JeffreyD said:


> You keep posting this chart as gospel, but you have been shown how it is wrong, yet you still post it as "proof". ound: Just like the rest of your "science". Garbage!! Your "scientists" have a track record of lies and deciet, yet you ignore it all.



Btw, here is the chart:










Perhaps you will point to where in the thread we "have been shown how it is wrong".


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Im going to assume I dont have to prove that feedbacks loops account for 2/3 of the claimed warming, right? Last time I discussed this with a member here on a different forum, this was fought bitterly even after his own links confirmed it. guess I can deal with that if it comes up...

There are several claimed feedback loops. The most important in the models seem to be water vapor, and released GHGs like methane and co2.

Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon
this first one covers co2 released from soils. It seems the models falsely portrayed black carbon, which is longer lived in the soil then models claim.
Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon


> PhysOrg.com) -- A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.
> 
> A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.
> 
> ...


It would be tricky for me to show the effect this has on the models. So I will leave it hear instead. Take it as you will, but I havent personally seen models adjust for this yet.

Perhaps they have, and these are the increasingly accurate models roberte talked about, which would have to explain the current lag in temps the field is trying to explain with no consensus. (hence my dis belief such accurate models exist, there isnt even consensus on the current lag in temps yet!)

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

This second study is from NOAA. surely cornell and NOAA are sources true believers of AGW wont dismiss out of hand for disagreeing with past models right???


> A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earthâs surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
> 
> Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate.
> 
> ...


Please take note of the fact the most influential section of water vapor rose through the 80s and 90s accounting for 30 percent of the temp rise (the models predict 1/3 of the warming comes from increased water vapor in ALL areas, this is the most influential section though) and is currently accounting for 25% less warming. AKA water vapor is now a negative feedback where it is most influential, rather then a positive one.

Also note this is the FIRST actual real world changes in stratospheric water vapor to what happened in the climate.

this last one doesnt exactly fit the context here, but is worth posting. remember the big scare of all the methane being released off Spitsbergen? turns out this wasnt a new thing, much of it (we arent sure exactly yet) has been seeping for hundreds of years. 

-Â«-GEOMAR - Helmholtz-Zentrum fÃ¼r Ozeanforschung Kiel[tt_news]=903&tx_ttnews[backPid]=185&L=1


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I forgot to post this earlier in the conversation. a ember tried to imply the movements in clouds over time wasnt enough to force climate. So lets hit this from another angle for a bit.

First this nasa link covers the topic somewhat, and gives a few links. 

Earthshine - NASA Science



> Phil Goode of Big Bear Solar Observatory is principal investigator of Project Earthshine, a NASA-supported effort to monitor Earth's albedo (the astronomer's term for reflectivity). He says, "it's not surprising that Earth's albedo changes with the seasons." After all, most of the sunlight reflected from our planet is reflected from clouds -- and cloud cover changes from one season to the next.
> 
> Clouds dominate the "shininess" of our planet, adds Goode. "They reflect about 50% of the sunlight that hits them -- more than oceans (10%) or land (10% to 25%). Only snow and ice reflect more (40% to 90%) than clouds do, but snowy areas tend to be cloud covered anyway."
> 
> Although the spring peak wasn't surprising to Goode, its size was. The extra Earthshine in April and May was about twice as much as computer models predicted based on actual satellite observations of ice and cloud cover. It's a lingering mystery.


Linked to the nasa link is this study. 

Moon illuminates climate study - physicsworld.com



> After compensating for scattering in our atmosphere and the elevation of the Moon, Goode's team puts Earth's albedo at 0.297. This means that nearly a third of the sunlight that impinges on Earth is reflected into space, a value that closely matches the team's earlier computer simulations. "But we found a surprisingly large seasonal variation - up to 20% - in the Earth's reflectance", explains Goode.
> 
> The result of a comparison with similar observations in the mid-1990s was also unexpected. "We found a hint of a 2.5% decrease in the albedo in the last five years", says Goode. A proven drop in the Earth's reflectivity over that time - during which the Sun's activity has climbed from a minimum to a peak - would support the theory that the 11-year solar cycle directly affects the Earth's climate. Scientists also believe a drop of just 1% could play a role in global warming


notice it can range over 20% over decades, and a difference of just one percent can alter temps. 

Youll notice one of the same men from the last study linked who works with the nasa supported group at the big bear solar observatory. 

Earthshine Reveals Climate Changes


> = Earth's average albedo is not constant from one year to the next; it also changes over decadal timescales. The computer models currently used to study the climate system do not show such large decadal-scale variability of the albedo.
> 
> = The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.
> 
> = The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This "dimming" of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures.


pretty interesting huh, in those same years a nasa supported project tells us changes in albedo pushed double the warming of co2, we also had water vapor driving 30% of the warming. (and despite the IPCCs insistence the suns effect wasnt nearly zero being at a grand maximum of increasing intensity over many decades before its recent drop) and the ENSO effect is still in question actually but this possibly accounted for a good portion as well. Even ignoring these last two, very little would have been left for co2.


> "Our results are only part of the story, since the Earth's surface temperature is determined by a balance between sunlight that warms the planet and heat radiated back into space, which cools the planet," said Palle. "This depends upon many factors in addition to albedo, such as the amount of greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane) present in the atmosphere. But these new data emphasize that clouds must be properly accounted for and illustrate that we still lack the detailed understanding of our climate system necessary to model future changes with confidence."





> Goode says the earthshine observations will continue for the next decade. "These will be important for monitoring ongoing changes in Earth's climate system. It will also be essential to correlate our results with satellite data as they become available, particularly for the most recent years, to form a consistent description of the changing albedo. Earthshine observations through an 11-year solar cycle will also be important to assessing hypothesized influences of solar activity on climate."


If you guys arent aware, there are many hypothesized connections of the sun and climate basically ignored since they are not currently proven. I didnt really post on those being basically unbacked, but there are several potentials actually. I guess AGW gets more of the funding for climate research.

Officially we do not know what alters cloud cover. Conflicting data on the bit we do know. Until the cosmic influence we have confirmed recently which doesnt affect all types of clouds in all areas of the climate system but does affect certain types in certain positions. (covered in past posts of mine if you really care)

My point being, is that yes, clouds play a major role. 

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change




> This is nasa talking about a completely different section of water vapor then the NOAA study above. Im not aware of this part of the water vapor feedback loop failing. According to them this accounts for a doubling of co2s effect. Dont forget the NOAA study above however on a completely different section of water vapor that showed the stratospheric section increased warming with 30% additional warming through the 80s and 90s and now it is a negative feedback of 25% less now.
> 
> I havent yet found a source that discusses both of these in depth, but its obvious this leaves little room for co2. these are two entirely different sections of water vapor, both having a strong influence. this should surprise no one, water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases. (AKA 950,000 ppm whereas co2 is less then 400ppm)


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I forgot to post this earlier in the conversation. a ember tried to imply the movements in clouds over time wasnt enough to force climate. So lets hit this from another angle for a bit.

First this nasa link covers the topic somewhat, and gives a few links. 

Earthshine - NASA Science



> Phil Goode of Big Bear Solar Observatory is principal investigator of Project Earthshine, a NASA-supported effort to monitor Earth's albedo (the astronomer's term for reflectivity). He says, "it's not surprising that Earth's albedo changes with the seasons." After all, most of the sunlight reflected from our planet is reflected from clouds -- and cloud cover changes from one season to the next.
> 
> Clouds dominate the "shininess" of our planet, adds Goode. "They reflect about 50% of the sunlight that hits them -- more than oceans (10%) or land (10% to 25%). Only snow and ice reflect more (40% to 90%) than clouds do, but snowy areas tend to be cloud covered anyway."
> 
> Although the spring peak wasn't surprising to Goode, its size was. The extra Earthshine in April and May was about twice as much as computer models predicted based on actual satellite observations of ice and cloud cover. It's a lingering mystery.


Linked to the nasa link is this study. 

Moon illuminates climate study - physicsworld.com



> After compensating for scattering in our atmosphere and the elevation of the Moon, Goode's team puts Earth's albedo at 0.297. This means that nearly a third of the sunlight that impinges on Earth is reflected into space, a value that closely matches the team's earlier computer simulations. "But we found a surprisingly large seasonal variation - up to 20% - in the Earth's reflectance", explains Goode.
> 
> The result of a comparison with similar observations in the mid-1990s was also unexpected. "We found a hint of a 2.5% decrease in the albedo in the last five years", says Goode. A proven drop in the Earth's reflectivity over that time - during which the Sun's activity has climbed from a minimum to a peak - would support the theory that the 11-year solar cycle directly affects the Earth's climate. Scientists also believe a drop of just 1% could play a role in global warming


notice it can range over 20% over decades, and a difference of just one percent can alter temps. 

Youll notice one of the same men from the last study linked who works with the nasa supported group at the big bear solar observatory. 

Earthshine Reveals Climate Changes


> = Earth's average albedo is not constant from one year to the next; it also changes over decadal timescales. The computer models currently used to study the climate system do not show such large decadal-scale variability of the albedo.
> 
> = The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.
> 
> = The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This "dimming" of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures.


pretty interesting huh, in those same years a nasa supported project tells us changes in albedo pushed double the warming of co2, we also had water vapor driving 30% of the warming. (and despite the IPCCs insistence the suns effect wasnt nearly zero being at a grand maximum of increasing intensity over many decades before its recent drop) and the ENSO effect is still in question actually but this possibly accounted for a good portion as well. Even ignoring these last two, very little would have been left for co2.


> "Our results are only part of the story, since the Earth's surface temperature is determined by a balance between sunlight that warms the planet and heat radiated back into space, which cools the planet," said Palle. "This depends upon many factors in addition to albedo, such as the amount of greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane) present in the atmosphere. But these new data emphasize that clouds must be properly accounted for and illustrate that we still lack the detailed understanding of our climate system necessary to model future changes with confidence."





> Goode says the earthshine observations will continue for the next decade. "These will be important for monitoring ongoing changes in Earth's climate system. It will also be essential to correlate our results with satellite data as they become available, particularly for the most recent years, to form a consistent description of the changing albedo. Earthshine observations through an 11-year solar cycle will also be important to assessing hypothesized influences of solar activity on climate."


If you guys arent aware, there are many hypothesized connections of the sun and climate basically ignored since they are not currently proven. I didnt really post on those being basically unbacked, but there are several potentials actually. I guess AGW gets more of the funding for climate research.

Officially we do not know what alters cloud cover. Conflicting data on the bit we do know. Until the cosmic influence we have confirmed recently which doesnt affect all types of clouds in all areas of the climate system but does affect certain types in certain positions. (covered in past posts of mine if you really care)

My point being, is that yes, clouds play a major role. 

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change




> This is nasa talking about a completely different section of water vapor then the NOAA study above. Im not aware of this part of the water vapor feedback loop failing. According to them this accounts for a doubling of co2s effect. Dont forget the NOAA study above however on a completely different section of water vapor that showed the stratospheric section increased warming with 30% additional warming through the 80s and 90s and now it is a negative feedback of 25% less now.
> 
> I havent yet found a source that discusses both of these in depth, but its obvious this leaves little room for co2. these are two entirely different sections of water vapor, both having a strong influence. this should surprise no one, water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases. (AKA 950,000 ppm whereas co2 is less then 400ppm)


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

silverseeds said:


> ....
> albedos(sic)(sic) role in specific years and failed feedbacks one of which currently going strongly negative was the topic.
> ....


Basically, your argument is that it can't be Anthropogenic CO2 that is causing the observed changes in our oceans, land, and atmosphere. 

So you post a myriad of bits and pieces about whatever forcing has a paper that purports to increase the level of that particular forcing.

Today's cause du jour is albedo.

With a well accounted for RF of -0.2 to 0.1 .

We have a well accounted for RF of CO2 of 1.66 .

I'll make the assumption that you do understand what 'order of magnitude' means.

And you are attempting to claim, via an article, that you can show how albedo and whatever other causes you may think can add up to account for that RF of 1.6 

We are back to the Holdren quote:

You, and the blogs and sycophants, haven't come up with any solid evidence that the IPCC findings are inherently flawed.

You have had 19 pages of postings of you trying to disprove this:

âMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â IPCC AR4





You, and the blogs and sycophants, haven't been able to come up with a solid alternative hypothesis. 

We know the energy imbalance. The amount of energy we - that is you and I and every human on earth - have been dumping into our biosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. 


Years, decades, literally centuries of burning fossil fuels - pumping that stored solar energy in those fossil fuels - and dumping that Carbon into our oceans, land, and atmosphere.

And you bring a press release or two about a change in measuring amounts of water vapor or albedo or cosmic rays or cloud ionization or whatever the blogs and sycophants have decreed is the the claim du jour.


And you and the blogs and the sycophants steadfastly refuse to bring a number that can come close to explaining the observed changes we have been recording for over a century.




You posted one article about albedo.

Show us the numbers from your source that moves the bar in this chart enough to account for the changes we are observing in our oceans, land, and atmosphere:


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Maybe try reading the links this time roberte? 

It seems no one else wants to debate. I cannot go forward if you continue the games, it gets more and more complex as we go. So please stop. Numbers are all clearly there just as they were in previous topics covered. Sources are reliable despite your insistence they are not.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If the "Numbers are all clearly there" then you should have no problem quoting them exactly and showing us how the create the proof you claim they do.

STILL waiting for a number from all or any of your causes du jour that you can add up and show some alternative to Anthropogenic CO2's energy.




silverseeds said:


> Maybe try reading the links this time roberte?
> 
> It seems no one else wants to debate. I cannot go forward if you continue the games, it gets more and more complex as we go. So please stop. Numbers are all clearly there just as they were in previous topics covered. Sources are reliable despite your insistence they are not.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> If the "Numbers are all clearly there" then you should have no problem quoting them exactly and showing us how the create the proof you claim they do.
> 
> STILL waiting for a number from all or any of your causes du jour that you can add up and show some alternative to Anthropogenic CO2's energy.


They arent my claims. The current rounds of "claims" came from nasa, noaa cornell and a solar observatory working with and linked from nasa. 

I just recited them all. Numbers are all clear. in fact including showing how cloud cover Is a major driver. (albedo) 

Please lets stop the games.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The hodgepodge of papers you are citing - that tiny bit of the papers being printed monthly in 8,000 + scientific journals - don't actually show what you are claiming.

That is why you won't post a number from any one of them that shows how that particular aspect of the research can define an amount of energy that can account for what is well known.

We have an energy imbalance of .6 W/m2 

If you are attempting to claim that cosmic rays, clouds, volcanoes, albedo, water vapor, or any other cause (or any combination of them) can show that level of energy, then you need to support that claim by showing us how those numbers are cited in the research you are pointing to.

And the pure simple case is that you won't.

Now, I'm not going to make guesses why you won't. I'll let you tell us why.

But I will note that there isn't a blog, a paper, a single source that offers up that explanation either.

So, once again:

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun&#8217;s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven&#8217;t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe



If you seriously want to learn what is going on, I'd suggest a primer:


* Basics | Climate Change | US EPA
*Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming
* The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

* Climate Kids: How do we know the climate is changing?

Longer lists of beginner resources are at


* RealClimate: Start here
&
* Newcomers, Start Here

This has something to do with it:

*NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
*

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf







silverseeds said:


> They arent my claims. The current rounds of "claims" came from nasa, noaa cornell and a solar observatory working with and linked from nasa.
> 
> I just recited them all. Numbers are all clear. in fact including showing how cloud cover Is a major driver. (albedo)
> 
> Please lets stop the games.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

roberte said:


> The hodgepodge of papers you are citing - that tiny bit of the papers being printed monthly in 8,000 + scientific journals - don't actually show what you are claiming.
> 
> That is why you won't post a number from any one of them that shows how that particular aspect of the research can define an amount of energy that can account for what is well known.


In actual reality, all the numbers are there for this and all other topics I covered. In actual reality they were not my claims but those of NASA, NOAA, Cornell, and a solar observatory working with NASA... 

Youve made it clear we will NOT have an honest debate.... :shrug: 

30 odd posts without ever addressing the topic raised and completely lying about its content and purpose in the conversation. Its amazing to watch. unfortunately for anyone who wanted to learn it makes debate impossible. 

We had a loooong way to go. 


You win. debate over. I cant keep up with your mis representations and lies. If you refuse to debate the actual topics in question one might wonder why you keep responding? 

Oh well feel free to re post your memes. maybe an honest AGW advocate will see this and decide to have an ACTUAL debate. not much else I can do.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, yes you do. Reasons are bolded below.



silverseeds said:


> Im going to assume I dont have to prove that feedbacks loops account for 2/3 of the claimed warming, right? Last time I discussed this with a member here on a different forum, this was fought bitterly even after his own links confirmed it. guess I can deal with that if it comes up...
> 
> There are *several claimed* feedback loops. The most important in the models* seem to be* water vapor, and released GHGs like methane and co2.
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

These are all very pre-2007. How do you know they are not accounted for in AR4?












silverseeds said:


> I forgot to post this earlier in the conversation. a ember tried to imply the movements in clouds over time wasnt enough to force climate. So lets hit this from another angle for a bit.
> 
> First this nasa link covers the topic somewhat, and gives a few links.
> 
> ...


----------

