Let's see
Crick ... you were told here...
The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. dead plants produce carbon dioxide. Now what?
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
Apparently nothing you're interested in learning. Or you’re willing to highlight as fact
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
Sure. Don't let the Sky fall on you. Oooohh... you're a deep one.
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
Repeating your quote won't help you here Todd. My quote? It's from your link. That does NOT say that the research was in any way based on anyone's feelings. personal and tangible experiences of the weather. Doesn't sound very objective or scientific. And I gave you seven other links. I...
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
You know, the fellow routinely identified as "one of the scummiest humans on the planet". That fella. He's no Nobel Prize winner, like Michael Mann, that's for sure. Did Michael Mann pay those court ordered legal fees yet? What a scummy human.........
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
First, as I have had to explain to dozens of AGW-deniers, there ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences. What we have is evidence. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the primary cause of the observed warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is human GHG emissions. See...
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
Yes, the climate changes. And, recently, it has been changing due to human GHG emissions. We have to blame the humans because they're responsible. Inept species will do what inept species do.
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
Ban him, ban him, ban him, ban him.....
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
I would likely agree with him on everything but his conclusion of man made climate change. That's a conclusion based upon emotion. The data overwhelmingly shows that the earth has been cooling for over 50 million years and that that cooling took a step change 2.7 million years ago when the...
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
From the polar caps to the glaciers of Europe, Asia and South America, global warming is melting the planet’s ice faster than ever and speeding the inundation of the world’s coastlines. New research shows the annual melt rate grew from 0.8 trillion tons in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons by...
www.usmessageboard.com
and here
The number of scientists publishing papers over the past 5 years, which conclude that "natural forces" are the primary cause of the warming observed over the past 150 years is, for all practical purposes, ZERO. There is not fucking debate. And Todd, YOU sound desperate. This paper concludes...
www.usmessageboard.com
I'm curious why you've obsessively linked to a 69 page paper with dozens of data graphics but only present one of those graphics and speak as if the entire work is contained in two paragraphs. Your endlessly repeated assertion, that climate scientists come to different conclusions based on which dataset they are shown, is not the conclusion of this paper but part of its premise. The paper's title is "How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate".
Among its list of authors may be found a 'veritable who's who' of AGW deniers: Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. John Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Luning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, Laszlo Szarka, Harry van Loon, Vıctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang. The inclusion of Legates, who has no climatological, astronomical or statistical background at all and whose most famous paper should have gotten him thrown out of whatever professional or academic institutions were blind enough to have admitted him, is simply an insult to the reader. Legates and Connolly have worked together on several other papers
Abstract In order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities. Sixteen different estimates of the changes in TSI since at least the 19th century were compiled from the literature. Half of these estimates are “low variability” and half are “high variability”. Meanwhile, five largely-independent methods for estimating Northern Hemisphere temperature trends were evaluated using: 1) only rural weather stations; 2) all available stations whether urban or rural (the standard approach); 3) only sea surface temperatures; 4) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies; 5) glacier length records as temperature proxies. The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets – despite the conclusions of some earlier studies. Nonetheless, all five estimates confirm that it is currently warmer than the late 19th century, i.e., there has been some “global warming” since the 19th century. For each of the five estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the contribution from direct solar forcing for all sixteen estimates of TSI was evaluated using simple linear least-squares fitting. The role of human activity on recent warming was then calculated by fitting the residuals to the UN IPCC’s recommended “anthropogenic forcings” time series. For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.
I'm no climate scientist, but drawing the potential conclusion that ubanization bias might still be present because rural and urban weather stations show more warming than SST, glacier length and tree-ring widths seems a clear case of apples and oranges. The instantaneous nature of the former vs the severe lags of the latter are a blatant conflict they don't mention. Several of these authors: Connolly, Soon, Bailunas (who have put out numerous papers together) and others have argued for years that global warming is not anthropogenic but due to increases in TSI not reflected in its most widely accepted measures. Soon and Bailunas, in particular, are famous for the oil industry funding for their work. I'm not foolish enough to think that any scientist begins a study tabula rasa, but most of this crew had formed these conclusions long before this study was even imagined. A strong majority of climate scientists disagree with this contention that previous studies and the IPCC had "prematurely concluded" that global warming is mostly human-caused.
I would guess that this paper is where your preference for Northern Hemisphere temperature data begins. If so, you failed to note that what drove the author's choice was simply the relative paucity of data from the Southern Hemisphere, not any superiority in representation. I also failed to see any comments supporting your claim that it was best to restrict your analysis to temperature outliers.
This paper finshes by concluding it has no conclusion at all and that its authors could not agree on a singular answer to the title's question. Your contention all along, has been that "climate scientists" come to different conclusions about global warming when looking at different datasets. What this paper actually shows is that the authors of
this paper, with differing preferences for TSI and temperature data, come to different conclusions. You have no survey of climate scientists looking at different datasets. And since you never seem to venture beyond that initial claim but have linked to this study at least eleven times, I will have to state what it appears to me that you are attempting to say: that the resolution of TSI centered on Matthes 2017 is unwarranted, that distinct possibilities exist that TSI has been far greater than commonly held, particularly during the ACRIM gap, that actual global warming trends have not been accurately determined, that urbanization bias may still be present in commonly used temperature data and thus that common conclusions about the reality of AGW are unjustified. If you disagree, please explain what it is you are actually attempting to take from this paper.
From the study
Conclusion. In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies R. Connolly et al.: How Much has the Sun Influenced Northern Hemisphere Temperature Trends? 131–59 claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.
Acknowledgements The main analysis and first draft of the manuscript were carried out by the first three authors (RC, WS and MC). All other co-authors are listed in alphabetical order. As explained in the Introduction, the approach we have taken in this review is to explicitly acknowledge the many dissenting scientific perspectives on a lot of the issues reviewed. As a result, the co-authors have not reached a mutual consensus on all issues. Rather, we have endeavored to present all competing scientific perspectives as fairly and open-mindedly as possible. With that in mind, all co-authors have approved of the text, even though most of us have definite opinions on many of the debates which have been described, and those opinions vary between co-authors.
www.hpcwire.com
www.reuters.com
