It’s the Sun, after all

[longknife]

- Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

A leaked draft of the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forthcoming 5th assessment report has some explosive new revelations:

There is substantial influence on our climate by the radiation received from the Sun.

There is a breaking of the ranks. The previously touted consensus about the forces driving our climate appears to be falling apart.

The News

Specifically, the draft report says “The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.”

In layman’s terms: The radiation received by the earth has a larger effect on the climate than previously thought.

Read the full piece @ It’s the Sun, after all

 

[Mr. H.]

Less. More.

 

[daveman]

Impossible. We've been told for years that the two nonillion kilograms of superhot fusing hydrogen nuclei in the neighborhood has nothing to do with climate.

 

[mamooth]

Impossible. We've been told for years that the two nonillion kilograms of superhot fusing hydrogen nuclei in the neighborhood has nothing to do with climate.

Um ... sure Dave. Whatever your voices tell you. But seriously, you don't have to share.

Now, let's act like a rational AGW scientist instead, and look at more of the quote, a little beyond the cherry-picked snippet.

"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system...The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

It's just describing the theories of some other scientists (Svensmark), not saying those theories are true. Then it goes on to point out how the data doesn't support those theories. There's nothing there stating "the sun did it", being that the data contradicts such a conclusion.

Naturally, the whole denialist retardosphere is currently abuzz with this. They were told to parrot this amazing game changer that proves those dirty liberals were wrong all along, and so they all parrot.

 

[SSDD]

Um ... sure Dave. Whatever your voices tell you. But seriously, you don't have to share.

Congratulations, your instinct seems to be in working order even though your intellect has been completely bamboozled. It does sound beyond stupid for someone to claim that the sun has no real effect on climate doesn't it? But the truth is, mamooth, that climate science is, and has in fact claimed that the sun has little effect on the changing climate.

Sun's Variations Have Little Effect on Global Warming | LiveScience

Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated?

There are literally dozens of articles, and references (many pal reviewed) stating without doubt that the sun has little to do with climate change.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't done much research into the topic, and instead fall on the side of warmists due to some personal reason. You seem to be unaware that climate science claims that the atmosphere delivers more than twice as much energy to the surface of the earth than the sun does.

 

[IanC]

the sun's activity was very high during the last 50 years of the last century. because the rate wasnt changing the 'consensus' scientists decided that it couldnt be the cause of warming. that is like saying you need to keep turning up the gas under a pot of water to make it boil, that a constant high heat wouldnt work.

the problem with dismissing these types of variables is that the remaining variables are given exaggerated weight, like CO2.

 

[daveman]

Impossible. We've been told for years that the two nonillion kilograms of superhot fusing hydrogen nuclei in the neighborhood has nothing to do with climate.

Um ... sure Dave. Whatever your voices tell you. But seriously, you don't have to share.

The voices of the AGW cult told us this. Don't be stupid, unless, as I suspect, you simply can't help it.

Now, let's act like a rational AGW scientist instead, and look at more of the quote, a little beyond the cherry-picked snippet.

"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system...The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

It's just describing the theories of some other scientists (Svensmark), not saying those theories are true. Then it goes on to point out how the data doesn't support those theories. There's nothing there stating "the sun did it", being that the data contradicts such a conclusion.

Is this based on the model? You know, the models that are never changed as new data comes it -- the data is changed to fit the model, instead?

Naturally, the whole denialist retardosphere is currently abuzz with this. They were told to parrot this amazing game changer that proves those dirty liberals were wrong all along, and so they all parrot.

Sheer projection.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Impossible. We've been told for years that the two nonillion kilograms of superhot fusing hydrogen nuclei in the neighborhood has nothing to do with climate.

Um ... sure Dave. Whatever your voices tell you. But seriously, you don't have to share.

Now, let's act like a rational AGW scientist instead, and look at more of the quote, a little beyond the cherry-picked snippet.

"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system...The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

It's just describing the theories of some other scientists (Svensmark), not saying those theories are true. Then it goes on to point out how the data doesn't support those theories. There's nothing there stating "the sun did it", being that the data contradicts such a conclusion.

Naturally, the whole denialist retardosphere is currently abuzz with this. They were told to parrot this amazing game changer that proves those dirty liberals were wrong all along, and so they all parrot.

There's nothing rational about AGW "Science"

The theory failed and that's even after alters and destroying the data they don't like

Yes, Virginia, that Big Yellow Thing in the Shy affects our climate and refuses to believe that CO2 drive climate on Earth; it is the ultimate Denier!

 

[mamooth]

Congratulations, your instinct seems to be in working order even though your intellect has been completely bamboozled. It does sound beyond stupid for someone to claim that the sun has no real effect on climate doesn't it? But the truth is, mamooth, that climate science is, and has in fact claimed that the sun has little effect on the changing climate.

"Little effect on changing climate" and "no real effect on climate" are two entirely different things. The first is quite correct, backed up by the facts, and thus held by all informed and intelligent people. The second is a dumb strawman that denialist political cultists insist on trotting out whenever they can.

There are literally dozens of articles, and references (many pal reviewed) stating without doubt that the sun has little to do with climate change.

Which, again, is entirely correct, and entirely different from yours and Dave's "you always say the sun has nothing to do with climate!" strawman.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't done much research into the topic, and instead fall on the side of warmists due to some personal reason.

It's not a difficult concept, the difference in those statements. You only fail to understand because you want to fail to understand. You'd be cast out of your political cult if you failed to mouth the cult dogma, and as denialists tend to be herdbeasts, being cast out would be like a death sentence. Hence, your fear of banishment drives you into willfully misunderstanding even the most simple logic.

 

[IanC]

Congratulations, your instinct seems to be in working order even though your intellect has been completely bamboozled. It does sound beyond stupid for someone to claim that the sun has no real effect on climate doesn't it? But the truth is, mamooth, that climate science is, and has in fact claimed that the sun has little effect on the changing climate.

"Little effect on changing climate" and "no real effect on climate" are two entirely different things. The first is quite correct, backed up by the facts, and thus held by all informed and intelligent people. The second is a dumb strawman that denialist political cultists insist on trotting out whenever they can.

There are literally dozens of articles, and references (many pal reviewed) stating without doubt that the sun has little to do with climate change.

Which, again, is entirely correct, and entirely different from yours and Dave's "you always say the sun has nothing to do with climate!" strawman.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't done much research into the topic, and instead fall on the side of warmists due to some personal reason.

It's not a difficult concept, the difference in those statements. You only fail to understand because you want to fail to understand. You'd be cast out of your political cult if you failed to mouth the cult dogma, and as denialists tend to be herdbeasts, being cast out would be like a death sentence. Hence, your fear of banishment drives you into willfully misunderstanding even the most simple logic.

while you are technically correct that the Sun has (an incredibly small) impact on the climate models, I dont believe that " Dave's "you always say the sun has nothing to do with climate!" strawman" is a strawman at all.

there are a lot of papers out there that show correlations of between .4-.7 with the sun's activity (not just TSI) over the last few hundreds to thousands of years.

I believe Rawls calls this ignoring of solar factors 'the omitted variable fraud'. if the IPCC report was a business statement someone would go to jail.

 

[IanC]

as well, the climate models are very weak in taking other factors into account. like ocean currents, clouds, ENSO, etc

 

[mamooth]

the sun's activity was very high during the last 50 years of the last century. because the rate wasnt changing the 'consensus' scientists decided that it couldnt be the cause of warming.

That's a very inaccurate summation. The data just doesn't support your "but the burner is already high, so temps will have to keep rising!" analogy. Temps _dropped_ and stayed low 1940-1970, even with rising solar activity on a baseline you said was already hot. That demonstrates the analogy is just wrong.

There's a mild correlation between the sun and temps, as expected, up to around 1980. Then everything changes, and the correlation vanishes altogether or reverses. Temperatures start running way up, in the opposite direction of solar activity and cosmic rays. That's the hard data that kills the "it has to be the sun!" theory.

Some other hard data is the heat balance. We look at the heat balance of the earth right now, with satellites, in a very detailed matter. More heat goes in than comes out. That's hard evidence for a greenhouse effect, and against a solar effect.

 

[IanC]

the sun's activity was very high during the last 50 years of the last century. because the rate wasnt changing the 'consensus' scientists decided that it couldnt be the cause of warming.

That's a very inaccurate summation. The data just doesn't support your "but the burner is already high, so temps will have to keep rising!" analogy. Temps _dropped_ and stayed low 1940-1970, even with rising solar activity on a baseline you said was already hot. That demonstrates the analogy is just wrong.

There's a mild correlation between the sun and temps, as expected, up to around 1980. Then everything changes, and the correlation vanishes altogether or reverses. Temperatures start running way up, in the opposite direction of solar activity and cosmic rays. That's the hard data that kills the "it has to be the sun!" theory.

Some other hard data is the heat balance. We look at the heat balance of the earth right now, with satellites, in a very detailed matter. More heat goes in than comes out. That's hard evidence for a greenhouse effect, and against a solar effect.

fair enough point. I could definitely quibble about the temp record and TSI being the meaningful description of solar activity but let us just consider your graphs. the sun has had a strong correlation for many hundreds of years. you say that stopped exactly at the time we started putting significant amounts of CO2 into the air.

why was the sun a major factor before but insignificant now? we dont really understand how the mechanism worked before, but now we know that it doesnt matter? that doesnt really make sense to me.

CO2 has been rising for the last 5000 years but the temps have been declining. but as soon as we started putting CO2 into the air it became nature's control knob? again it doesnt make sense to me.

I believe that CO2 makes some impact on climate and temperatures. I just dont think it is the all powerful factor that climate models make it out to be. when you omit the 'unknown' solar variable, all of that weight goes into the remaining variables. I think the IPCC should at least acknowledge our uncertainty with respect to solar influence (and other poorly understood variables) and dial back the stated certainties appropriated to CO2, aerosols, etc that we do have some semblance of knowledge about.

 

[westwall]

Congratulations, your instinct seems to be in working order even though your intellect has been completely bamboozled. It does sound beyond stupid for someone to claim that the sun has no real effect on climate doesn't it? But the truth is, mamooth, that climate science is, and has in fact claimed that the sun has little effect on the changing climate.

"Little effect on changing climate" and "no real effect on climate" are two entirely different things. The first is quite correct, backed up by the facts, and thus held by all informed and intelligent people. The second is a dumb strawman that denialist political cultists insist on trotting out whenever they can.

There are literally dozens of articles, and references (many pal reviewed) stating without doubt that the sun has little to do with climate change.

Which, again, is entirely correct, and entirely different from yours and Dave's "you always say the sun has nothing to do with climate!" strawman.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't done much research into the topic, and instead fall on the side of warmists due to some personal reason.

It's not a difficult concept, the difference in those statements. You only fail to understand because you want to fail to understand. You'd be cast out of your political cult if you failed to mouth the cult dogma, and as denialists tend to be herdbeasts, being cast out would be like a death sentence. Hence, your fear of banishment drives you into willfully misunderstanding even the most simple logic.

Sure it is junior, sure it is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0]Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

Congratulations, your instinct seems to be in working order even though your intellect has been completely bamboozled. It does sound beyond stupid for someone to claim that the sun has no real effect on climate doesn't it? But the truth is, mamooth, that climate science is, and has in fact claimed that the sun has little effect on the changing climate.

"Little effect on changing climate" and "no real effect on climate" are two entirely different things. The first is quite correct, backed up by the facts, and thus held by all informed and intelligent people. The second is a dumb strawman that denialist political cultists insist on trotting out whenever they can.



Which, again, is entirely correct, and entirely different from yours and Dave's "you always say the sun has nothing to do with climate!" strawman.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't done much research into the topic, and instead fall on the side of warmists due to some personal reason.

It's not a difficult concept, the difference in those statements. You only fail to understand because you want to fail to understand. You'd be cast out of your political cult if you failed to mouth the cult dogma, and as denialists tend to be herdbeasts, being cast out would be like a death sentence. Hence, your fear of banishment drives you into willfully misunderstanding even the most simple logic.

Sure it is junior, sure it is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0]Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube[/ame]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

-- Richard Feynman

"If it disagrees with experiment, the experiment is wrong."

-- Climate scientist

 

[skookerasbil]

- Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

A leaked draft of the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forthcoming 5th assessment report has some explosive new revelations:

There is substantial influence on our climate by the radiation received from the Sun.

There is a breaking of the ranks. The previously touted consensus about the forces driving our climate appears to be falling apart.

The News

Specifically, the draft report says “The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.”

In layman’s terms: The radiation received by the earth has a larger effect on the climate than previously thought.

Read the full piece @ It’s the Sun, after all

Of course its the sun.........plus any number of other variables. Doesnt fit the narrative of the environmental radicals however, who couldnt give a rats ass about the environment but would be exceedingly pleased to see the destruction of the capitalistic system.


Thankfully...........their shit is losing.

 

[Old Rocks]

the sun's activity was very high during the last 50 years of the last century. because the rate wasnt changing the 'consensus' scientists decided that it couldnt be the cause of warming.

That's a very inaccurate summation. The data just doesn't support your "but the burner is already high, so temps will have to keep rising!" analogy. Temps _dropped_ and stayed low 1940-1970, even with rising solar activity on a baseline you said was already hot. That demonstrates the analogy is just wrong.

There's a mild correlation between the sun and temps, as expected, up to around 1980. Then everything changes, and the correlation vanishes altogether or reverses. Temperatures start running way up, in the opposite direction of solar activity and cosmic rays. That's the hard data that kills the "it has to be the sun!" theory.

Some other hard data is the heat balance. We look at the heat balance of the earth right now, with satellites, in a very detailed matter. More heat goes in than comes out. That's hard evidence for a greenhouse effect, and against a solar effect.

fair enough point. I could definitely quibble about the temp record and TSI being the meaningful description of solar activity but let us just consider your graphs. the sun has had a strong correlation for many hundreds of years. you say that stopped exactly at the time we started putting significant amounts of CO2 into the air.

why was the sun a major factor before but insignificant now? we dont really understand how the mechanism worked before, but now we know that it doesnt matter? that doesnt really make sense to me.

CO2 has been rising for the last 5000 years but the temps have been declining. but as soon as we started putting CO2 into the air it became nature's control knob? again it doesnt make sense to me.

I believe that CO2 makes some impact on climate and temperatures. I just dont think it is the all powerful factor that climate models make it out to be. when you omit the 'unknown' solar variable, all of that weight goes into the remaining variables. I think the IPCC should at least acknowledge our uncertainty with respect to solar influence (and other poorly understood variables) and dial back the stated certainties appropriated to CO2, aerosols, etc that we do have some semblance of knowledge about.

No, Ian, that statement is not correct. It has been going up and down for the last 9000 years in a range from 270 ppm to slightly over 280 ppm. And in the last 150 years has risen to almost 400 ppm. In fact, prior to the industrial revolution, it had started down again.

Global Warming & Carbon Dioxide

 

[percysunshine]

the sun's activity was very high during the last 50 years of the last century. because the rate wasnt changing the 'consensus' scientists decided that it couldnt be the cause of warming.

That's a very inaccurate summation. The data just doesn't support your "but the burner is already high, so temps will have to keep rising!" analogy. Temps _dropped_ and stayed low 1940-1970, even with rising solar activity on a baseline you said was already hot. That demonstrates the analogy is just wrong.

There's a mild correlation between the sun and temps, as expected, up to around 1980. Then everything changes, and the correlation vanishes altogether or reverses. Temperatures start running way up, in the opposite direction of solar activity and cosmic rays. That's the hard data that kills the "it has to be the sun!" theory.

Some other hard data is the heat balance. We look at the heat balance of the earth right now, with satellites, in a very detailed matter. More heat goes in than comes out. That's hard evidence for a greenhouse effect, and against a solar effect.

Gosh...that resembles a hockey stick...