The science against climate change

[Saigon]

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!

 

[IanC]

a change in natural conditions brought the world out of the Little Ice Age, increasing temperatures and melting glaciers. until the 'thermostat' is turned down the earth will continue to warm. why do the alarmists think the 'thermostat' was turned down at exactly the same moment that CO2 took over? we have a rudimentary understanding of conditions in the recent past but basically a very limited and general idea of the measurements of only 100 years ago.

the hubris of scientists that claim the cause of warming must be CO2 because they can't figure out any other explanation is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[flacaltenn]

No problem, Flac!

I can't really answer questions until I've seen the material. I'll read it now.

I have understood that solar variations functioned on an eleven year cycle, which would do little to explain current changes in the climate or temperature.

No... Listen very carefully... YOU'VE BEEN TOLD that solar functions are on an eleven year cycle (which is a true statement when you're talking about sunspots) to HIDE THE MORE relevent fact that TOTAL SOLAR output has increased over 300 yrs and is stuck at a relatively high point in recent history..

EVERYTIME anyone posts a historical chart of TSI --- YOUR gurus pull a sunspot chart out their ass and tell you nothing's happened.. To understand the TRUE story -- you first have to realize that you've PURPOSELY been deceived.... So the myth of CO2 induced warming can survive....

 

[flacaltenn]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

5. Conclusions
We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.

Our results obviously suggest the need for further research to investigate in greater depth the causes of this Sun-temperature decoupling, but, at the same time, they appear as a clear contribution to the debate on the causes of recent global warming.

Total yip yap... Do you see any evidence that TSI in the 1960s allows them to rule out solar influence? Look at the damn chart... And understand what you're reading...

 

[flacaltenn]

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.. I'll take Franks comment over your investment in understanding the issue anyday...

 

[Old Rocks]

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.. I'll take Franks comment over your investment in understanding the issue anyday...

One seeks their own peer level

 

[Old Rocks]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

5. Conclusions
We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.

Our results obviously suggest the need for further research to investigate in greater depth the causes of this Sun-temperature decoupling, but, at the same time, they appear as a clear contribution to the debate on the causes of recent global warming.

Total yip yap... Do you see any evidence that TSI in the 1960s allows them to rule out solar influence? Look at the damn chart... And understand what you're reading...

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

between solar radiation and global
temperature

Antonello Pasini1,3, Umberto Triacca2 and Alessandro Attanasio1
1 CNR, Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research, Monterotondo Stazione, Rome, Italy
2 Department of Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of L’Aquila,
L’Aquila, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Received 26 June 2012
Accepted for publication 16 August 2012
Published 4 September 2012
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034020
Abstract
The Sun has surely been a major external forcing to the climate system throughout the
Holocene. Nevertheless, opposite trends in solar radiation and temperatures have been
empirically identified in the last few decades. Here, by means of an inferential method—the
Granger causality analysis—we analyze this situation and, for the first time, show that an
evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature has appeared
since the 1960s.
Keywords: sun–temperature relationship, Granger causality, causes of recent global warming

 

[Old Rocks]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scales—see,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)—we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:
 HadCRUT3 combined global land and marine surface
temperature anomalies (Brohan et al 2006): data available
at Data available from CRU (since 1850);
 TSI (Lean and Rind 2008), with background from Wang
et al (2005): data available at www.geo-fu.berlin.de (since
1850);
 CO2, CH4 and N2O concentrations (Hansen et al 2007):
data available at Data.GISS: Data and Images (since 1850);
greenhouses gases total (CO2 C CH4 C N2O) radiative
forcing (GHG) has been calculated as in Ramaswamy et al
(2001);
 Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), related to ENSO
(Ropelewski and Jones 1987, Allan et al 1991, K¨onnen
et al 1998): data available at Data available from CRU
soi/soi.dat (since 1866);
 Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Smith and Reynolds
2004): data available at ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ersstv2/
pdo.1854.latest.st (since 1854);
 Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Enfield et al
2001): data available at Climate Research Data
timeseries/AMO (since 1856).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!

What caused the Northern US and Canada to deglaciate?

Any thoughts?

 

[flacaltenn]

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.. I'll take Franks comment over your investment in understanding the issue anyday...

One seeks their own peer level

I'm PROUD of the level of investment MY SIDE has made in this topic.. I find them a LOT less arrogant, less panicked, and more open-minded.

Seems like the same folks who were arguing that the Soc Sec LockBox had $Trills of dollars in REAL CASH --- are much the same gullible creatures who toe the official baggage of AGW.. Don't you find that correlation a little strange???

 

[flacaltenn]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scales—see,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)—we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:

Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..

There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.

So -----

A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior

BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..

I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.

How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...

The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..

Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

(It's a subtle way of calling the Warmers total douchebags)

 

[daveman]

No. Your theory fails hard in accounting for the observed data. The AGW theory does account for all observed data, and is the simplest theory that does, therefore Occams supports it.

Sure, when the observed data is cherry-picked and massaged and altered and invented.

 

[daveman]

Dave, Frank -

Can you either post something other than spam, or comment on the topic sensibly?

I did. You pretended it doesn't exist.

Saigon, you claim to want to debate -- then you ignore parts of posts or posts in their entirety.

Just say you want people to agree with you. That would be honest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No. Your theory fails hard in accounting for the observed data. The AGW theory does account for all observed data, and is the simplest theory that does, therefore Occams supports it.

Sure, when the observed data is cherry-picked and massaged and altered and invented.

Floods = manmade global warming
droughts = mamade global warming
forest fires = manmade global warming
mudslides = manmade global warming

see how it accounts for every event reported on the Weather Channel?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scales—see,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)—we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:

Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..

There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.

So -----

A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior

BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..

I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.

How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...

The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..

Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????

In other words, "I don't care what no stinkin' pointy headed librul scientists says".

 

[IanC]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scales—see,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)—we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:

Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..

There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.

So -----

A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior

BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..

I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.

How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...

The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..

Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????

In other words, "I don't care what no stinkin' pointy headed librul scientists says".

I think a more realistic interpretation of flacaltenn's word would be-

"the solar conditions that brought the globe out of the LIA have not noticeably decreased therefore we have reason to believe a significant portion of the warming both in the past and recently have a solar component, unlike what we have been told by many climate alarmists who claim that solar activity has no impact on the imbalance that is causing an increase in temperature".

sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning flac

 

[flacaltenn]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scales—see,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)—we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:

Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..

There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.

So -----

A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior

BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..

I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.

How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...

The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..

Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????

In other words, "I don't care what no stinkin' pointy headed librul scientists says".

C'mon OldieRocks.. Describe for me the "tipping point" argument of AGW.. Doesn't it say that non-linearities in the Climate sensitivity will kick in and ACCELERATE the temp curve BEYOND a direct correlation with CO2?

So why do these jackasses get off and DEMAND that temperatures HAVE TO FOLLOW a directly correlated natural forcing variable? Discuss your own damn article.. Defend it. Don't just mock me. If you did a great job of mocking me -- I wouldn't mind. But your mocking is just mediocre and boring.

And no --- I really don't care about nitpicking a 20 or 30 year period. I'm looking at a genuine 300 year climatic trend in TSI..

Not only that -- but with our satellite real-time experience limited to just about ONE solar cycle -- we've RECENTLY noticed a considerable SPECTRAL shift in solar output.. Seems like the UV/IR bands CHANGE relative power over the cycle --- just as I suggested a while back could be a natural cause. This is exciting insight into atmospheric science. But if it doesn't promote AGW theory -- it never makes USA Today...

Can you imagine the difference this makes to basic GreenHouse theory?? That the "window" effect might be varying due to spectral shifts in solar output?

 

[Saigon]

And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.

And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.. I'll take Franks comment over your investment in understanding the issue anyday...

No, I answered that in #97.

I answer every ontopic and coherent comment I see - unfortunately thus far neither Daveman nor Frank have made one.

You have posted a few - I've responded to them all.

 

[Saigon]

EVERYTIME anyone posts a historical chart of TSI --- YOUR gurus pull a sunspot chart out their ass and tell you nothing's happened.. To understand the TRUE story -- you first have to realize that you've PURPOSELY been deceived.... So the myth of CO2 induced warming can survive....

Yes...and the CIA blew up the Twin Towers, the Jews faked the Holocaust...

This makes no sense at all. Scientiists all over the world, in perhap a thousands univerities and reearch labs in a hundred countries and a doen disciplines - all part of some massive evil conspiracy.

It simply is not a creidible argument - anymore so than Dave's idea that the UN is bent on installing a gobal socialist government led by German conservatives.