The cites do show how wrong FX is, BTW he has not admitted how wrong he was by confusing solar spot numbers with solar irridiance.
Nobody claimed that. Stick to the subject at hand.
Nobody claimed that. Stick to the playing field.
Assuming no other factors, of course, It’s PHYSICS! However Plass noted in his work on the greenhouse theory, that increased CO2 should warm the cloud tops, leading to more heat being radiated from clouds, along with less precipitation. (A key part of his theory stated that low CO2 leads to glacier and ice cap formation, as it would increase precipitation at the same time the atmosphere cooled.) Warming from CO2 has to increase total water vapor to lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect, and the predicted warming from it. A cold ocean would over ride such a mechanism, as we may be seeing. Of course I also consider the cooling trend for the NH boreal winters to be a factor as well. Unexpected feedbacks from increased and early snowfall causing the cold pole in Siberia to dominate the winters.
The fact that the globe has cooled, rather than warmed, is a factual issue. Explaining it is a much larger one, and we can be sure there are a lot of people working on it right now.
Except for the ones who think it isn’t happening. They aren’t doing any research, because why should they? Warming is still going on, just as they predicted.
:smack:
No, and I never said what you are saying. The sun is the major factor in climate, everything else modifies it’s influence. The cooling of the LIA, as well as the warming since, is due to the sun. Recent temperature changes, both the cold spell from 45 to 78, as well as the warming from 1980 to 2002, are the SUBJECT of intense debate, over the causes, as well as the amount of each influence. That is the really BIG subject of course. Like the decline, which starts in either 1997, 1998, 2000 or 2002, depending on who you believe, whioch data set you use, but there is no doubt since 2002 ALL of them agree, it’s not getting warmer. In fact, the NH winters are obviously trending down. So much that the global mean is effected. These are facts, evident in the OP.
You are stating the obvious.
But I am not claiming that, or saying what you said.
If you think I did, quote me. Point to exactly what you think I said that is wrong.
:smack: Oh dear. You’re still missing the point. Let’s look at your statements about this article again:
Now let’s look at that quoted article, the one that you accuse of containing a “false claim”, in more detail:
Let me explain this to you slowly:
The AIP article you quoted is a historical account of how climate science changed over time. (See the word “history” in the URL? That’s a clue.)
In the mid-20th century, effects of solar variation on climate cycles were not yet successfully demonstrated by scientific theory and evidence.
That’s what the quoted AIP article meant by saying that pre-1976 attempts to demonstrate them “gave results that were ambiguous at best”.
That statement is not false.
Here’s an analogy that might make it easier to understand. If somebody was writing a history of the heliocentric theory of the solar system, they might say “A few ancient astronomers such as Aristarchus and Aryabhata believed in the motion of the earth, but their arguments in favor of it were not convincingly supported by evidence”.
That statement is not false either. Even though we now know that the earth is not stationary, science in the ancient world was not advanced enough to make a convincing case for that fact.
Likewise, climate science in the mid-20th century was not yet advanced enough to make a convincing case for a connection between solar variability and climate cycles. That is a historical statement about the development of a scientific hypothesis, and has nothing to do with the objective validity of the hypothesis itself.
The climate models, all of them, got the winter cooling trend wrong as well. How ironic.
I have no idea.
But you can see how hard it is to get the warring factions to agree on simple things, facts and figures that you might think would be the least contentious items.
Instead, you have people not only claiming the warming hasn’t stopped, but has increased.
And they aren’t doing comedy, they really believe what they say.
No, I got the point, in fact, I made the point. When people said the sun didn’t effect the climate, they were wrong. The ones who still say it, they are wrong now. How much it does the sun influence the world, hotly disputed. Pun intended.
But to say “nobody says the sun doesn’t effect the climate” is just not true. I just quoted a “study” that claims the sun has had no influence since 1900! Did you miss it?
Not only that, they claim
Got that? This isn’t some old paper.
. See that? That is bullshit.
It’s why I challenged his claim about solar influence.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind in post #81]
Nobody claimed that.
[/quote]
:dubious:
Is this what you consider an alternative scientific hypothesis to the mainstream climate science hypothesis of anthropogenic climate forcing to explain long-term global warming?
No, the fact that some temperature indicators have shown a short-term decrease in recent years is a factual issue.
That doesn’t necessarily imply that “the globe has cooled” overall, or that there isn’t still a long-term trend of global warming.
You seem to have mixed up “denying that some temperature indicators have shown a short-term decrease in recent years” (which AFAIK is not what any climate scientist thinks) with “disagreeing that a short-term decrease in some temperature indicators contradicts or discredits the hypothesis of long-term global warming” (which AFAIK is what pretty much all climate scientists think).
[Quote=Kimstu]
Just because there’s some short-term cooling doesn’t mean that the earth is “obviously not” warming in the long term.
[/quote]
…
Beside the clear contradictions, there were already reports that scientists expected that there would be periods of “pauses” and slowdowns"
Bottom line, if you were correct then we could see cooling now to reach the average levels seen in the 60’s, as it is, the heat in the surface of the land keeps up over the last decade and once the oceans are taking into account the warming has not stopped.
As the National Research Council from the National Academy of science reports:
“The picture that emerges from all these data sets is clear and consistent, the earth is warming.”
People who said that back before 1976 do not qualify as a counterexample to wolfpup’s statement that nobody nowadays is claiming that “solar variations don’t exist or have no effect of any kind on climate”.
But nobody does still say that “solar variations don’t exist or have no effect of any kind on climate”.
Scientists still disagree about how much effect of what kind solar variations have on climate, but you have not shown any example of current climate science that actually claims they have no effect whatsoever.
In the context of contemporary climate science research, yes, it is true.
No. That is “scientists still disagreeing about how much effect of what kind solar variations have on climate”.
Lets start over.
I debunked the evidence, not that it will matter.
No, the high energy UV varies far more than you think. The effects are unknown, but evidence show they are much larger than just TSI
We are discussing a possible effect on the Pacific ocean, which is a climate driver, not weather.
And in the past, a lot of scientists rejected the very idea the sun controls climate. Then the consensus was it did. Now some scientists are trying to say it has little effect.
The issue will not be settled in this topic.
That’s the wrong paper, The graph at Skeptical Science was lifted from S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Figure 2b. I guess that was published in 2003, my bad.
That paper doesn’t back Skeptical Science’s claims … do we have another citation at hand that does?
:dubious:
Besides continuing to support dubious positions, do you think FX was ok to compare charts of the sun spot numbers with sun irradiance?
Woot … tornadoes in Alabama and Mississippi … the weather’s back to normal.
Okeydoke.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
And in the past, a lot of scientists rejected the very idea the sun controls climate. Then the consensus was it did. Now some scientists are trying to say it has little effect.
[/QUOTE]
But AFAIK, no mainstream climate science research supports the hypothesis that solar variation is sufficient to drive all or even most of the observed warming of recent decades. It’s too small.
If you have a cite of detailed quantitative “evidence, research and data” that supports the position that solar variability can account for the majority of temperature rise in the last few decades, then by all means let’s discuss it.
But I repeat, what you need to support that position is detailed, quantitative evidence, research and data. Not just vague assertions along the lines of:
None of the actual scientific research you have cited so far contradicts the mainstream climate science position that solar variability in itself does not plausibly account for the observed amount of recent warming.
If you are trying to contest that position in an evidence-based way, then you need to cite some actual scientific research that supports a contrary position. Not just keep repeating “OMG everything’s so complicated”.
I’d conclude the current interglacial period has been milder than previous ones - in other words, that this is a relatively cool interglacial period. Also, that it appears to have lasted longer than the prior two. Finally, that when an interglacial period ends, temperatures drop quickly and dramatically.
Just going by the chart, it looks like we ought to be dumping as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible, just to save our Canandian friends from the glaciers.
100 million years ago, average global temperatures were 15ºC to 20ºC higher than today. It’s fair to say we’re uncommonly cold now.
That’s an interesting definition of “uncommonly.”
Once more, I never said that. What I pointed out was that the lack of solar energy could be driving the cooling. The CO2 effect isn’t nearly strong enough at present to control the world.
This is obvious, be it solar, wind, oceans, air pollution, or unexpected feedbacks, the “climate”, which is usually the global mean, which is absurd of course, is not being run by CO2. It’s being influenced, which is physics. Ozone, methane, deforestation, CO2 and CfCs, albedo changes, irrigation, dams, even the inbalance of nitrogen from fertilizer run off, volcanoes, or laying waste to tropical forests, it’s all influences. The official story has been that CO2 dominates everything else. Everything.
Obviously, at present, CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm. This does NOT MEAN anything else. it does not mean we should keep burning fuel and forests like crazy people, trashing the planet, blanketing the arctic with black soot, filling the stratosphere over the poles with water vapor and fuel additives, and on and on and on.
There’s a big part of the communication problem, any “data” that seems to challenge the idea that we have to stop, like now, all fossil fuels, is fought against. The data is the enemy. I understand that, but it’s not the question we are debating. (I agree with reducing fuel use, as well as many other very green things, but that isn’t the issue)
The very idea, that obviously “other factors” right now have actually reversed the warming trend, seems horrific to some people. Rather than experiencing joy, relief, more time to fix the big problem, more time to build and use solar and wind, and other options, rather than any goodness, it’s viewed as some sort of attack, some challenge to the very idea of human caused climate change.
Wrong again.
Only that the “cool down” of the70’s tell us that claiming that we have more time or that warming was reversed is really reckless. And once again, scientists acknowledged that variations where expected, more warming is coming. And the sooner we do control emissions the less damage will be in store.
We don’t actually know that. It’s that sort of sweeping pronouncement, with surety, that rankles the scientific and the logical mind. You actually can’t know that, it’s not scientific, it’s not how science works.
If the “cooldown” , which was actually a 30 year phase, was caused by air pollution, if that is actually true, then the claim is pretty much that man was controlling the climate since 1945. Then, and this is actually a story people tell, the clean air act and reduced pollution, along with rising emissions and drastic deforestation, we caused it to warm up. But now, the story becomes very complicated, with many different stories all being told at once.
The stories all conflict in some way.
Which is evident in this topic already.