Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[cynic]

By the way knobby,
I am still eagerly awaiting that "evidence stating the opposite".

At this point, I am more than happy to deem the continued absence, of that evidence, as your tacit retraction of your criticisms of Dr Soon's integrity, credentials and research findings.

 

[wayneL]

By the way knobby,
I am still eagerly awaiting that "evidence stating the opposite".

At this point, I am more than happy to deem the continued absence, of that evidence, as your tacit retraction of your criticisms of Dr Soon's integrity, credentials and research findings.

It's their standard MO cynic, attack credibility by any means (usually innuendo), rather than conducting a sensible scientific debate.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's their standard MO cynic, attack credibility by any means (usually innuendo), rather than conducting a sensible scientific debate.

That's already been done by 97% of climate scientists.

 

[wayneL]

Well you should do some due diligence, Horace. Because that's about as fallacious a comment ive seen for a very long time

 

[Knobby22]

You guys may find this surprising but I lead a busy life.
Soons argument that the Sun is causing global warming is obviously incorrect as per the graph above.

And cynic, you had better change your name if you have no doubts on his credibility, and I did tell you what his qualifications were previously. The guy has a phd in aerospace engineering, I don't think his qualifications cut it but you obviously differ in this judgement.

He's on the crooks and liars website because he is a corrupt lying weasel. $1mil goes a long way in Malaysia.

 

[explod]

It's their standard MO cynic, attack credibility by any means (usually innuendo), rather than conducting a sensible scientific debate.

"by any means"rubbish. The 97% of science agreement is pretty conclusive when earnestly sifted.

Climate and its change is a difficult and unpredictive pathway. Initially the prime focus was on heat and a lack of water. However the displacement of moisture from the warming poles has created increased rainstorms and the cooling out from the poles. This has created a sense that all may be ok.

Anyway, hottest day ever recorded in NSW for this time of the year on mainstream news overnight. However I am not suggesting anything is conclusive but for some of you DENIERS on here to say we have not got a looming problem because of our polluting coal and oil is real head in the sand knumscole stuff in my view.

Sure the changes required are difficult and initially costly to our big business but in the proven efficient alternatives (like horses to cars) there are some great opportunities.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well you should do some due diligence, Horace. Because that's about as fallacious a comment ive seen for a very long time

No good arguing with you wanyebow, it's all been said before.

 

[wayneL]

Yes, the 97% had been debunked countless times Horace. It existence remains only in the echo chamber of the Hansenite faithful.

 

[basilio]

"Last word Wayne" Always has to insist on repeating his deluded mantras. That's dedication to a cause...

 

[cynic]

View attachment 72712 You guys may find this surprising but I lead a busy life.
Soons argument that the Sun is causing global warming is obviously incorrect as per the graph above.

And cynic, you had better change your name if you have no doubts on his credibility, and I did tell you what his qualifications were previously. The guy has a phd in aerospace engineering, I don't think his qualifications cut it but you obviously differ in this judgement.

He's on the crooks and liars website because he is a corrupt lying weasel. $1mil goes a long way in Malaysia.

Mr "I prefer the contents of the 'crookandliars.com', political news blog website, to peer reviewed scientific publications" has spoken!

And furthermore, he has even presented a chart!
Can you believe that ladies, gentlemen (and others)!
An actual chart! Yipppeeee! (I keep falling out of my chair in all of this excitement!!)

Anyway, now that I have had a chance to regain my breath, after splitting my sides with laughter, I shall endeavour to respond to the absurd with a more serious demeanour.

Knobby, following your excitement at discovering this chart, did you take the time to check the academic and experiential credentials of the author/s behind its composition? If so, how do those credentials compare to those uncovered by your "investigation" of Dr Soon's?

And what of the data source/s?

Was this chart constructed from raw (i.e. unadjusted data)?

Were any models involved, if so which ones? (Hint: the semantically appropriate acronym SATIRE springs to mind!)

And even more importantly, did you take the time to...

...
Once again, follow the money...

And by the way let's not forget that...

... When you believe in something with no proof it must be faith.
You can't fool all the people all the time but you can fool some of the people some of the time...

Which is so very good to know!

Now, bearing those expressed sentiments in mind, please explain to me again, why it is that you have come to have so much "faith" in a political news blog website entitled:"crooksandliars.com"?

 

[basilio]

God your dim Cynic.. Really and truly. Of all the pieces of cold hard facts you want to argue with you choose the clearest refutation of Willie Soons disproven hypothesis that global warming is driven by the Sun.

For your information this is the providence of that graph
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.

There is a clear case for saying that increases and decreases in the brightness of the Sun will affect temperatures on Earth. However the past 50 years has seen the overriding effect of human generated increases in greenhouse gases as the driver in increases in global temperatures. If you want to see the breakdown of how the Sun, Volcanos and human activity affect global temperature check out the graphs and explanation at the url below. You'll note that since 1980 the BIG impact on global temoperatures has been us.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

You also question what relevance a "political" blog like Crooks and Liars has in determining Willie Soons credentials as a credible climate scientist. Would it help you if we can source the article from another website ? Perhaps call it Polluter Watch ? (Actually that is where it originally came from..)
But the source is irrelevant. The meat and potatoes of the article is the pulling together of the myriad scientists who have analysed Willies work and found it wanting. A sample from the article.

Telford isn't the only scientist baffled by Soon's awkward presentations. University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank details his "depressing" encounter with Willie Soon, at an event and a personal encounter, from NPR (link is external):

When it was announced that Soon was giving a talk at the University of Rochester, I knew it would be interesting. I was more than willing to hear what the man had to say. The whole point of being a scientist is, after all, to try to leave your preconceptions at the door and let the work speak for itself. I also wanted to understand Soon's own thinking about the role he was playing as a public skeptic.

On all counts I was disappointed.

Taken as nothing more than a scientific talk, Dr. Soon's presentation was, in my opinion, pretty bad. I watch a lot of these things. It's part of my job. If Soon had been giving a Ph.D defense, he would have been skewered. I was left without a clear line of argument or clear justifications for his claims. More importantly, for a topic this contentious there was insufficient discussion of the voluminous and highly detailed response critics have offered to his claims that solar activity accounts for most observed climate variability. Many of my colleagues listening to the talk said they felt the same way. I came away thinking, "Is that the best they have?"

The presentation that Prof. Adam Frank found depressing was focused on Soon's long-since-discredited thesis that the Sun, not industrial pollution, is responsible for climate change. Citing peer-reviewed material on Skeptical Science (link is external), science reporter Chris Mooney re-examines how Soon's primary argument is debunked, for the Washington Post (link is external):

[T]he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found (link is external) in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”

The IPCC “basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,” says Gerald Meehl (link is external), a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.” [...]

A recent scientific review article (link is external) on climate and the sun similarly notes “the lack of detection of an underlying irradiance trend in the past three decades,” and concludes, in rather strong terms, that:

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming … presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.

So in sum: It’s not that the sun can’t influence climate. It can, and it does. And climate scientists have accordingly been studying the influence of the sun for many years.

http://polluterwatch.org/blog/clima...nded-fakexpert-willie-soon-was-never-credible

 

[Knobby22]

been Hi Cynic.

Its up to you to show flaws in the chart, not me. in truth the figures before 1970 aren't accurate enough for me. You can check the information on the sun strength in many ways but essentially it has been flat and slightly dropping off lately. Interestingly you can see the sunspot cycle in the chart.

Dr Soon is pretty active. He brought out a paper earlier this year saying the arctic has been melting for centuries so the present melt is just a continuation of the existing pattern. That solves that problem. Now when I show the arctic melting you can say Dr Willie Soon says it was always going to happen.

 

[cynic]

"by any means"rubbish. The 97% of science agreement is pretty conclusive when earnestly sifted.

Climate and its change is a difficult and unpredictive pathway. Initially the prime focus was on heat and a lack of water. However the displacement of moisture from the warming poles has created increased rainstorms and the cooling out from the poles. This has created a sense that all may be ok.

Anyway, hottest day ever recorded in NSW for this time of the year on mainstream news overnight. However I am not suggesting anything is conclusive but for some of you DENIERS on here to say we have not got a looming problem because of our polluting coal and oil is real head in the sand knumscole stuff in my view.

Sure the changes required are difficult and initially costly to our big business but in the proven efficient alternatives (like horses to cars) there are some great opportunities.

It appears that you yourself have plunged your head deeply into the 97% consensus sandpit!

So it is little wonder that you have failed to notice the level of mathematical illiteracy, one would require in order to mistakenly conclude that the actual 35ish% can somehow equate to 97%.

The question of size, and whether or not a consensus even exists, isn't really the true problem! It sBy all means plunge your head firmly into that sandpit

The real problem is that consensus opinions have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the true practice of the physical sciences!

A far more important consideration, when assessing the merits of any unproven theory, is the question of falsifiability! (i.e. what would need to happen in order for the theory to be disproven in one, some, or all respects?)

 

[cynic]

God your dim Cynic.. Really and truly. Of all the pieces of cold hard facts you want to argue with you choose the clearest refutation of Willie Soons disproven hypothesis that global warming is driven by the Sun.

For your information this is the providence of that graph
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.

There is a clear case for saying that increases and decreases in the brightness of the Sun will affect temperatures on Earth. However the past 50 years has seen the overriding effect of human generated increases in greenhouse gases as the driver in increases in global temperatures. If you want to see the breakdown of how the Sun, Volcanos and human activity affect global temperature check out the graphs and explanation at the url below. You'll note that since 1980 the BIG impact on global temoperatures has been us.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

You also question what relevance a "political" blog like Crooks and Liars has in determining Willie Soons credentials as a credible climate scientist. Would it help you if we can source the article from another website ? Perhaps call it Polluter Watch ? (Actually that is where it originally came from..)
But the source is irrelevant. The meat and potatoes of the article is the pulling together of the myriad scientists who have analysed Willies work and found it wanting. A sample from the article.

Telford isn't the only scientist baffled by Soon's awkward presentations. University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank details his "depressing" encounter with Willie Soon, at an event and a personal encounter, from NPR (link is external):

When it was announced that Soon was giving a talk at the University of Rochester, I knew it would be interesting. I was more than willing to hear what the man had to say. The whole point of being a scientist is, after all, to try to leave your preconceptions at the door and let the work speak for itself. I also wanted to understand Soon's own thinking about the role he was playing as a public skeptic.

On all counts I was disappointed.

Taken as nothing more than a scientific talk, Dr. Soon's presentation was, in my opinion, pretty bad. I watch a lot of these things. It's part of my job. If Soon had been giving a Ph.D defense, he would have been skewered. I was left without a clear line of argument or clear justifications for his claims. More importantly, for a topic this contentious there was insufficient discussion of the voluminous and highly detailed response critics have offered to his claims that solar activity accounts for most observed climate variability. Many of my colleagues listening to the talk said they felt the same way. I came away thinking, "Is that the best they have?"

The presentation that Prof. Adam Frank found depressing was focused on Soon's long-since-discredited thesis that the Sun, not industrial pollution, is responsible for climate change. Citing peer-reviewed material on Skeptical Science (link is external), science reporter Chris Mooney re-examines how Soon's primary argument is debunked, for the Washington Post (link is external):

[T]he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found (link is external) in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”

The IPCC “basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,” says Gerald Meehl (link is external), a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.” [...]

A recent scientific review article (link is external) on climate and the sun similarly notes “the lack of detection of an underlying irradiance trend in the past three decades,” and concludes, in rather strong terms, that:

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming … presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.

So in sum: It’s not that the sun can’t influence climate. It can, and it does. And climate scientists have accordingly been studying the influence of the sun for many years.

http://polluterwatch.org/blog/clima...nded-fakexpert-willie-soon-was-never-credible

Oh dear!
Carbon Cardinal bas. You've done it again!

In your (somewhat lengthy) sermon, you have somehow neglected to mention "the pause" and how it's existence undermines the integrity of this "clearest refutation" of Dr. Soon's research findings.

But then, that was to be expected really!

After all you've never shown any respect for any "cold hard facts" challenging your climate religion, so there's no reason for me to expect that to change any time soon.

 

[cynic]

been Hi Cynic.

Its up to you to show flaws in the chart, not me. in truth the figures before 1970 aren't accurate enough for me. You can check the information on the sun strength in many ways but essentially it has been flat and slightly dropping off lately. Interestingly you can see the sunspot cycle in the chart.

Dr Soon is pretty active. He brought out a paper earlier this year saying the arctic has been melting for centuries so the present melt is just a continuation of the existing pattern. That solves that problem. Now when I show the arctic melting you can say Dr Willie Soon says it was always going to happen.

What Arctic?!

Years back, one of the acclaimed climate scientists assured us that it would be all gone by September 2016! And it has to be true because a "qualified climate scientist" said so!!!

You do remember that don't you!

 

[wayneL]

"Last word Wayne" Always has to insist on repeating his deluded mantras. That's dedication to a cause...

Were you intentionally being ironic, because that just gave me the best belly laugh I've had in weeks.

I never knew you had a penchant for comedy.

 

[cynic]

...Its up to you to show flaws in the chart, not me...

Given that you were the one boldly accusing Dr. Soon of being

...a corrupt lying weasel...

I believe the burden of proof remains squarely upon your shoulders!

 

[basilio]

"In your (somewhat lengthy) sermon, you have somehow neglected to mention "the pause" and how it's existence undermines the integrity of this "clearest refutation" of Dr. Soon's research findings." Cynic

Pause ? What xxxxing pause Cynic? Have you noticed that 2014/2015/ 2016 were the warmest years on record? That we have seen the steepest successive increases in average world temperatures ever recorded ? Is that you idea of a pause? Have a look again again at the graph Knobby posted. Where is your "pause "

As for debunking Willie Soon. The graphs comparing changes in solar irridance and increases in world temperature over the last 35 years demonstrate the fact that there is another factor in increasing global temperatures.

Given your incapable/unwilling to read what many scientists have have explained as the flaws in Willies paper there is no point in doing more than pointing you (and others) in the right direction.

 

[cynic]

"In your (somewhat lengthy) sermon, you have somehow neglected to mention "the pause" and how it's existence undermines the integrity of this "clearest refutation" of Dr. Soon's research findings." Cynic

Pause ? What xxxxing pause Cynic? Have you noticed that 2014/2015/ 2016 were the warmest years on record? That we have seen the steepest successive increases in average world temperatures ever recorded ? Is that you idea of a pause? Have a look again again at the graph Knobby posted. Where is your "pause "
...

Oh ye of climate faith:

 

[basilio]

And Senator Cruz is your go to man for information on climate change ?????

Couldn't you even find a pretend scientist as a reference point ?