Give me your opinions about global warming

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

We're not even sure how much we're putting out today, so how do you expect us to predict accurately how much we're going to put out in the future?

 

OK. So we both agree that climate models are not too accurate, although we use different rationales to explain that fact. I can live with that.

[1veedo]

A theory -- eg climate change -- is nothing but a model. That's all a theory ever is. A climate model then is just an interpretation of how different factors in the climate interact with each other. Climate models are proven accurate in this regard because we can take known data and predict output, which is in line with observations (read: the scientific method). This is usually done with historical data and has nothing to do with predicting the future.

 

Projecting future climate change should be as simple as taking the same models and feeding them new data but the problem here is predicting what humans are going to do in the future. Nobody is saying that climate models know for a fact temperatures are going to rise 4C this century. What we do know, however, is that if we keep doing what we're doing, temperatures will rise 4C. The models (and hence the theory of anthropogenic global warming) in and of themselves are accurate (+/- a couple tenths of a degree, of course). But nobody ever said we could predict the future -- this is just a misinterpretation of the science involved.

 

I have heard it stated, repeatedly, by Rush that precipitation is not factored in these models. Is that true? I'm sure that's twisted logic on some level, but wanted to ask.

 

Also, they were talking about this article yesterday. This is an attack on media, not science. Although, it does expose the tendency of humans to be obsessed with doomsday scenarios with climate change.

 

Why was the science wrong then, but correct now?

 

This is what I was getting at many moons ago when I was told to read this and read that. It doesn't matter what I read, because it's written by scientists doing work that I only partially understand on a very elementary level - so it still comes down to "believing" one side or the other.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

 

And if SkepticLance wants to feel special here's another link: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649

[Reaper]

Keep in mind that the models usually project several different scenarios based on current data.

 

The predictions we make assume that our CO2 emissions, solar irradiance, etc remain constant, and that there isn't anything that would significantly change the variables involved, such as volcanic eruptions.

 

We change them every now and again because the variables involved in making the predictions are not constant. As has been pointed out, we really don't know how CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will change in the future.

 

But at the same time our models clearly show that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and is backed strongly by observations.

 

On clouds:

Those are usually driven by oceanic currents and evaporation, and the precipitation falls out in high altitude mountains and areas. This is why the Atacama Desert, for sake of example, is the driest desert in the world, because it is surrounded by both the Andes and the coastal mountains, which effectively prevent any precipitation from getting through. There is virtually no cloud cover over the Atacama Desert.

 

Though it may help play a significant role in the local climate of a particular area, it is not clear how significant a role they play in determining average temperature and global warming, albeit not very significant. At very high altitudes, clouds contribute to warming. Greenhouse gases are the ones primarily responsible for retaining heat.

 

The types of "clouds" currently under scrutiny are ones that have sulfates, such as sulfur dioxide, in them since they act as aerosols. These are largely due to pollution though. link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_02/

[SkepticLance]

Lockheed said :

 

it is not clear how significant a role they play in determining average temperature and global warming, albeit not very significant. At very high altitudes, clouds contribute to warming.

 

If we do not know how much clouds affect global temperature change, how can you say they are not significant? Reality check. We just do not know.

 

At very high altitudes clouds contribute to warming, and at relatively low altitudes they contribute to cooling. Most clouds are at relatively low altitudes. If the world warms and more water vapour enters the air, does this mean more clouds? Thus more cooling? Thus a negative feed-back? Maybe.

 

When you read what is written by global warming catastrophists, you get lots of information about positive feed-back mechanisms. Generally nothing on negative. Yet negative feed-back mechanisms exist, and may be very potent.

[1veedo]

If we do not know how much clouds affect global temperature change, how can you say they are not significant? Reality check. We just do not know.

You're trying to cover old ground again. Climate models have had the big things factored in for a very long time. Sense greenhouse gases at the moment have the overwhelmingly largest effect on the climate, modeling the increase in ghgs in and of itself yeilds very accurate models. Now we're dealing with smaller things like cloud albedo, contrails (which recent research seems to indicate have a warming effect of +.1W/m^2, instead of what was once believed to be slightly negative), etc, which combined have a close to 0 net influence on the temperature. This doesn't mean previous models are inherently inaccurate because we're talking about minute changes here. The first computer climate model in 1988 only factored CO2 increase, a steady irradiance from the sun, and predicted one volcanic eruption around 1990 but 20 years latter, according to NASA, the model is "right on the money." This model then only measured CO2, solar irradiance, and particulates/sulfurs. Today we're accounting for a whole range of factors, all of which are orders of magnitude less important then the above three.

 

What we're talking about here are specifics in climate science. In much the same way there are debates within evolution, there are debates in climate science. But just like evolution you can't say "see, scientists aren't sure that evolution/global warming is real" because we're talking about specific debates in the science, not debates over whether or not it's real.

[ParanoiA]

What we're talking about here are specifics in climate science. In much the same way there are debates within evolution, there are debates in climate science. But just like evolution you can't say "see, scientists aren't sure that evolution/global warming is real" because we're talking about specific debates in the science, not debates over whether or not it's real.

 

Actually, it would be like scientists saying that computer models of evolution indicate man will receed and die out in a few centuries.

 

We're not talking about whether the earth really warms and cools, no one would deny that. We're talking about the fact that earth's climate history includes massive shifts in temperatures, mini ice ages and warming trends that happened inside of a decade - before industrialized man was even a thought, much less in operation.

 

I'm not convinced you all understand the science well enough to predict, yet another doomsday scenario that man is, yet again, responsible for. Climate science is extremely complicated, and after all of these decades of technology and human advancement, you're only just now getting a real grip on it. The fact you all are still arguing specifics, and not arguing with corporate paid hacks, helps to solidify this view.

 

I've read reports and looked at the graphs and all the pretty colors and pie charts, everyone has a graph or fact sheet to support their claims. Until you can refute the skeptics and the skeptics can refut you, none of us laymen have any business choosing one side or the other. The onus is on you to prove your case and that hasn't happened.

 

No there's not a consensus. And no it's not like saying there isn't a consensus on whether the earth is round or flat. There a but a handful of flat earthers, but there's thousands of skeptics. I'm also not convinced every scientist, signature, that's included in the "consensus" has challenged GW in the slightest, or even looked at it, let alone critically thought it out.

[1veedo]

Actually, it would be like scientists saying that computer models of evolution indicate man will receed and die out in a few centuries.

I was referring to cloud albedo. That would be an issue comparable in evolution of less significance then punctuated vs gradual evolution. Older thought in climate science was that the direct aerosol effect was much greater and models simply didn't include could albedo. Today we know particulates also cause clouds to reflect light back into space and the direct influence is much less.

We're not talking about whether the earth really warms and cools, no one would deny that.

Scienitsts also don't deny that the reason the Earth is warming right now is because of humans. They also don't deny that this is a bad thing on several different levels, though the exact extent and how quickly warming will start effecting ecosystems is still being researched (although recent research indicates local ecosystems have already changed due to global warming).

We're talking about the fact that earth's climate history includes massive shifts in temperatures, mini ice ages and warming trends that happened inside of a decade - before industrialized man was even a thought, much less in operation.

Current warming is about .2C (.19 on the surface, .24 in the troposphere)* per decade. The fasted warming event within the previous 65 million years is known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. During this time temperatures rose between 5 and 8C within the period of a couple thousand years. So we're talking about a range that is an entire 2 orders of magnitude slower than current warming. This event nevertheless caused massive extinctions and changes in ecosystems across the planet, including deep water fish [click]. I'm not sure what kind of relation you could draw -- be it linear or positive/negatively exponential to PETM but today we're talking about a shift in climate 100 times greater. So we know that if this continues another thousand or so years we'll see another episode that is at the very least comparable to PETM, if not 100 times worse. This does not spell doomsday to the human race but I do not think anybody in their right mind can claim that it is necessarily a good thing. Along with extinctions and changes in ecosystems, which would directly effect the global economy, we're also talking about increased precipitation in some areas, droughts in others, increased hurricane activity, and of course a rise in sea levels [Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis]. None of this is inherently spelling doomsday, however -- you're just putting words into the mouths of climate scientists. It's the media that's making a big deal about all of this.

 

*Jones and Moberg. (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001." Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

The fact you all are still arguing specifics, and not arguing with corporate paid hacks, helps to solidify this view.

This is how all of science is. Read up on your basic science 101 material.

No there's not a consensus.

General endorsement statements of the IPCC:

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

 

Further organizations unaffiliated with the IPCC, but yet have indipendently came to the same conclusions.

http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://eo.ucar.edu/

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

And there's more where that came from. (btw please take a look at each of these, if briefly. I know there's like 10 links but at least read the first two)

 

In 2001 Donald Kennedy, editor-in-cheif of Science said "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science." [Kennedy, Donald. (2001). An unfortunate U-turn on carbon. Science, 291, 2515.]

 

I don't think you realize how huge of a consensus we're talking about here. There is not only a consensus, but this consensus happens to be one of the strongest scientific positions that has ever been taken. We know more about climate change then we do many other areas of science.

[Fred56]

evolution indicate man will receed and die out in a few centuries

 

Maybe not a few centuries, but we can't say not after a few million years. We are already a million years "down the track" in the evolution stakes, and the evidence is that most "runners" only stay a few laps of the million year racecourse. Most (large) species only live for a few million years before going extinct. Especially "specialised" ones like us. We happen to be sort of "multi-special" in that we can adapt to a lot of different kinds of places, but that doesn't mean our evolutionary clock isn't ticking.

[SkepticLance]

To Fred

 

The average life time of a species has been estimated to be about a million years. That does not mean they become extinct after that time. Many evolve into new species. Some evolve into many new species. The original cichlid fish in Lake Victoria (Africa) is now hundreds of species.

 

Homo sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years as a species. What is our future? Here is my speculation.

 

In an article in Scientific America, a couple of NASA scientists suggested that humans will travel to another star system within 1000 years. There is also a group working on a space elevator, which potentially can lift millions of people and millions of tonnes of goods, very cheaply, into space. This may take a while, but should be available well before the 1000 years is up.

 

One outcome of this is the inevitable development of space habitats (space cities) which rotate for gravity. With cheap launching via the space elevator, we can expect a lot of these. For pure reasons of economics, they will be designed to be largely independent of Earth supply. Collecting ice from Saturn's moons or from asteroids etc will supply not only water, but also oxygen. Rock and dust can be mined for minerals.

 

It will probably be one of these space cities that first goes to another star system. They will be the largest and most self-sufficient space vehicles. When they get there, they will probably find no habitable planets. Instead they will continue to mine asteroidal ice etc, and thrive on that diet.

 

Eventually, humanity will spread throughout the galaxy in this way. It will take one million plus years. Since the distances and times are so immense, there will be little or no genetic contact between groups. Even communication, at light speed, will be massively delayed.

 

Inevitably, all those groups will diverge genetically, and form into new species. Given a few million years, humanity will be a million new species scattered around the galaxy.

[pioneer]

In my humble opinion:

 

1) Global warming and cooling is part of the natural cycle of the earth. This has happened many times before and will happen many times again. If this warm-up cycle is part of the earth's nature cycle, then it will not matter what human do, anymore that it did a million years ago.

 

2) When weathermen (women) bat 90%, locally, I will have about 50% confidence in global models. How does one expect a more complex model to be more accurate then the simpler, small scale models? It comes down to faith. I am just using common sense and rational proportion.

 

3) In my opinion nature is better off during global warming than cooling. Ask the prehumans during the last ice age, whether that was fun. The cool down leads to the need to readapt, which can be progressive. While the warm-up is for nature to multiple, all the new and improved lifeforms.

 

4) Most of the doom and gloom is sci-fi, with no direct proof. It works on the emotions, like any good form of entertainment, but lacks solid data. If they could at least, show all these things occurring during to the last major global warm-up, then it would have some credibility. There should be evidence of NY city (Manhattan) having flooded during the last warm-up. Instead it is done with sci-fi and emotional drama.

 

5) The affect of the CO2 is probably overblown, just like the latest data indicates the CFC's are no longer responsible for the majority of the ozone layer problems. That both follow the doom gloom text book, so I would have to assume, the same type of eventual judgment will also occur.

 

6) CO2 is not a hazardous material like it has been classified, since it is an output of all animals and an input of all plants, so it is natural gold. The sci-fi turned it into something that it wasn't, so the sci-fi looks real. It is like saying ice cream can spontaneously combust and can cause burns. That way we can sell them cake, since this is not subject to spontaneous combustion.

 

7) The green footprint movement became a joke, as soon as they came out with carbon offsets. That addendum meant only the little feet have to get greener. The big feet are allowed to trample the earth. The greenfoot movement is suppose to be a kingdom, where the royalty gets to trample the earth, with the masses willing to sacrifice and bear the burden.

 

8) Liberal movements try to fix one problem and end up with two. It is like taking your car to have the battery cables checked. In the process of fixing the battery cable, the mechanic slips with the screw driver and puts a hole in the radiator. Then he says, you're going to need a new radiator.

 

9) Finally, humans give themselves more credit that they deserve when it comes to thinking we are destroying the earth. One can not destroy the earth. It is like saying if I drop a grain of salt on the rug, I will destroy the rug. The best we can do is alter the earth; nature will adapt. Destroy the world is sort of like ice cream spontaneously combusting. It is there for emotional impact and is not suppose to be looked at rationally.

[Fred56]

The average life time of a species has been estimated to be about a million years

That's actually a pretty big generalisation, and I shouldn't really have made it in the first place. It depends which part of the species kingdom you look at. Insect species can go extinct a lot sooner. Then there's the bacterial world. The million year yardstick is only applicable, mostly, to large animals (like us).

[SkepticLance]

To Fred

 

The million year life span is not my idea. It comes from evolutionary biologists who have studied the rate of change of many species. It is, of course, just an average. Some species survive for a very long period of time. eg Lingula appears to be virtually unchanged over several hundred million years. Some change very quickly.

[1veedo]

Politics have very little to do with the actual science involved. You can argue about green peace kyoto political nonsense but the science on this issue is very clear that global warming is real and that it is primarily caused by humans. How politicians decide to abuse these facts has nothing to do with the actual science behind it.

1) Global warming and cooling is part of the natural cycle of the earth. This has happened many times before and will happen many times again. If this warm-up cycle is part of the earth's nature cycle, then it will not matter what human do, anymore that it did a million years ago.

Except that it's not and Earth's natural cycles indicate the Earth should be getting cooler right now, not warmer, just as it has been for roughly 8k years.

2) When weathermen (women) bat 90%, locally, I will have about 50% confidence in global models. How does one expect a more complex model to be more accurate then the simpler, small scale models? It comes down to faith. I am just using common sense and rational proportion.

Global warming is not bassed on any handful of computer models but is in fact supported by various forms of evidence beyond what our climate simulations have already proven.

4) Most of the doom and gloom is sci-fi, with no direct proof. It works on the emotions, like any good form of entertainment, but lacks solid data. If they could at least, show all these things occurring during to the last major global warm-up, then it would have some credibility. There should be evidence of NY city (Manhattan) having flooded during the last warm-up. Instead it is done with sci-fi and emotional drama.

You are coming off on a good point but over-extending it. Global warming does seem to be getting "sci-fi" news exagerations but this does not cover up what science does know.

 

Furthermore the current location of New York city was in fact underwater some 100 or so thousand years ago when the Earth's temperature was higher than it is today (interesting enough CO2 levels were lower back then).

6) CO2 is not a hazardous material like it has been classified, since it is an output of all animals and an input of all plants, so it is natural gold. The sci-fi turned it into something that it wasn't, so the sci-fi looks real. It is like saying ice cream can spontaneously combust and can cause burns. That way we can sell them cake, since this is not subject to spontaneous combustion.

The Co2 we are releasing into the atmosphere is causing global warming. This is for the most part a bad thing.

9) Finally, humans give themselves more credit that they deserve when it comes to thinking we are destroying the earth. One can not destroy the earth. It is like saying if I drop a grain of salt on the rug, I will destroy the rug. The best we can do is alter the earth; nature will adapt. Destroy the world is sort of like ice cream spontaneously combusting. It is there for emotional impact and is not suppose to be looked at rationally.

The Earth and its ecosystems is not going to blow up and disappear because of global warming. Many species will (are) go(ing) extinct and many ecosystems will (have already) be(en) disrupted but nature will adapt and the Earth will still be here orbiting the sun millions of years from now. Anyobody who's had any sort of biology 101 / high school class should know that any sort of climate change -- be it up or down, if fast enough, is generally bad.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said

 

the science on this issue is very clear that global warming is real and that it is primarily caused by humans.

 

We have discussed this before. Yes, global warming is real. Yes, the last 30 years, it may well be that it is primarily caused by humans.

 

However, the empirical evidence before that 30 year period does not point primarily to human activity. In fact, as I have argued before, it correlates very nicely, thank you, with sunspot activity, and not at all with human activity. Otherwise you have to explain why, from 1880 to 1910, and for the perio of 1941 to 1976, there was an average cooling of the world.

 

Here in New Zealand, global warming has been under way since 1750. That is shown by carbon dating of the terminal moraine of the Franz Josef Gacier. In some of the world, the warming began around 1810, as shown by glacier studies. Greenhouse gas increase over that period, until well into the 20th Century has been trivial. However, sunspot activity has increased substantially, in line with warming.

 

The period in which global warming correlates with anthropogenic greenhouse gases is 1976 to the present. Over that time, the world has warmed, on average, by about 0.6 Celsius. Admittedly, the warming in certain places (such as Alaska, Canada, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsular) have been much faster. However, this is balanced by much slower warming in the tropics, and warm temperate regions, and in most of Antarctica, where it has actually cooled.

[1veedo]

We have discussed this before.

Indeed. And the same points you're trying to bring up now have already been refuted before, by several different people on several different occasions. Repeating yourself (and/or yelling/writing in caps) does not make you any more correct now than the first time you said it.

 

Most of the human effects started to become noticeable around 1900 (when if I remember correctly it was about 50% vs 50& anthropogenic vs natural). The reason that the Earth cooled after 1941 is very much the fault of humans as well. If we hadn't been releasing so many particulates into the atmosphere then the Earth would actually be a lot warmer today than it actually is. Natural variability tends to shift the Earth's temperature up or down short term but the cumulative effect of anthropogenic activity has been adding up to a degrees or so sense ~1750, and possibly even before (rice farmers in china etc).

 

You can look at it and say that yes the Earth was warming before 1900 and that it was mostly natural but you cannot equivocate this by saying that humans have only started effecting the temperature sense 1976. Back around 1860 for instance the temperature droped a few degrees but had there been no human influence the temperature would have been even lower.

 

If you look at just the natural factors in the climate from ~1850 the Earth's temperature would be about the same now as it was in 1850. But when you add anthropogenic influences over this period you can see how it's about a degree © warmer now than it was in 1850. This degree is the result of human activities over the entire period, not just from 1976. The rise in temperature however is exponential so where it took 150 years to rise 1 degree it might only take 50 years (or less) to rise another degree. So as the effects are becoming more noticeable you can more easily point at the last 30 years and say "hey, this rapid warming is caused by humans" but we've done a lot more than just the recent .2C/decade increase in temperature.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said

 

If you look at just the natural factors in the climate from ~1850 the Earth's temperature would be about the same now as it was in 1850.

 

This statement of yours appears to be pretty much at the core of our disagreement. In fact it is plain untrue. If you look at sunspot activity, it is very much higher today than in 1850. Had there been no anthropogenic influence at all, global temperatures today would still be substantially higher than in 1850.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

 

I accept that the evidence for the past 30 years shows a strong correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse gases and temperature rise; and that overall, sunspot activity has not risen over that period. However, the bulk of evidence for the period of 1750 to 1976 shows that sunspot activity correlates with temperature change much more clsely than AGGs do.

[1veedo]

I'm sure you've seen this graph before. I just drug this one off google image results -- same data.

 

http://www.cypenv.org/images/forcing.jpg

 

You can see that w/o the anthorpogenic forcing factored in temperatures just bounce up and down a little, staying within what you'd consider natural deviation. 2000 is slightly cooler than in 1850 (see first graph).

 

Sunspots btw are not a direct indicator of solar irradiance. We already discussed why the sun cant be causing global warming here (it certainly has contributed to the total effect, but overall anthropogenic factors are much larger),

 

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27453

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28554

 

I'm pretty sure what the sun is doing falls under "natural deviation" and isn't anything special whereas human activities are moving the climate beyond what it would normally be doing.

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo

 

Half of your graphs are not science. Science comes from empirical studies. Half of what you show is deduction, which is a form of logic, and hence is part of philosophy or mathematics, not science. The graphs which show actual observations are science. The calculated part is not.

 

If, on the other hand, you check sunspot activity versus global temperature over the past 1000 years, using empirical data, you will see that the two correlate beautifully, with the notable exception of the past 30 years. This is science, being based on empirical data, not deduction.

 

For example, the Medieval Climate Optimum from 900 AD to 1400 AD 'coincided' with the most intense sunspot activity of the era dating before 1900 AD and back to Roman times. The Little Ice Age 'coincided' with the Maunder Minimum, which was a period of little to no sunspot activity. The warming after 1800AD 'coincided' with the increase in sunspot activity which culminated in the current situation, with the highest sunspot activity for 8,000 years.

 

In addition, the fluctuations of 1880 to 1976 'coincided' with sunspot activity. 1880 to 1910 was a cooling period, 'coinciding' with a lessening of sunspot activity. 1910 to 1940 was a warming period 'coinciding' with an increase in sunspot activity. 1941 to 1976 was, overall, a cooling period, 'coinciding' with a lessening of sunspot activity. The relationship only breaks down after 1976.

 

Incidentally, you seem to be labouring under a misconception in relation to sunspot activity versus global temperature. I did not suggest that solar heat output increased in any significant way during times of greater sunspot activity. In fact, there are several hypotheses as to why high sunspot activity results in higher global temperatures. One involves greater solar magnetic activity, and one involves greater ultra violet output. Both factors are part of higher sunspot activity.

 

The reality of sunspot activity versus global temperature is not one for you to deny. It is a simple, empirical (hence scientific) fact that times of high sunspot activity and high global temperature go together. Whether we fully understand the mechanism is irrelevent.

 

This is something the IPCC seems to get wrong. When they calculate solar forcings, they come up with results that do not match actual historical records. This is probably due to a lack of understanding of the mechanism of sunspot driven warming. Your graphs illustrate this perfectly.

[Fred56]

Antarctica, where it has actually cooled.

 

Do you have any theories about why Antarctica has done this? Or are you aware of any scientific ones? This is often put forward by some people as supporting the argument that it's all natural variation ("some places warm, others cool", the Earth "does this all the time", and so on).

[SkepticLance]

To Fred

 

I have seen several theories about Antarctica cooling. One is that it is the ozone hole. Less ozone means less greenhouse effect.

 

Another theory is that it is due to circum-Antarctica wind flow. This has apparently strengthened, and it has been suggested that this cuts Antarctica off from outside influence, and carries warmer air away.

 

I am not sure that anyone knows, though there are always plenty of 'experts' who will claim to know.

[Fred56]

Right. There are plenty of experts who claim to know all about what makes the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, and others who claim to be able to build very fast computers, and others who claim to be able to make wondrous devices constructed of extremely small wires and connections (I think they call these things "chips"). Even others who claim all kinds of strange things like being able to store a pulse of laser light in a small cloud of super-cold atoms. Maybe they are all just kidding though.

[1veedo]

Half of your graphs are not science. Science comes from empirical studies. Half of what you show is deduction, which is a form of logic, and hence is part of philosophy or mathematics, not science. The graphs which show actual observations are science. The calculated part is not.

It comes from the 2001 IPCC report Climate Change: The Scientific Basis; one of the largest peer-reviewed publications in the entire history of science. If you wont accept peer-review as evidence then there's no use talking.

If, on the other hand, you check sunspot activity versus global temperature over the past 1000 years, using empirical data, you will see that the two correlate beautifully, with the notable exception of the past 30 years. This is science, being based on empirical data, not deduction.

Nobody is denying that the sun has historically been the primary factor for global warming. What people are denying is that sun has caused this apparent 1C degree change in the past 150 years, .7~.8 degree change in the last hundred, and .6C degree change in the past thirty. It is especially the last 100 years where the sun stops correlating as well with temperatures as it has been historically (it still correlates to an extent, especially before 1950, but not nearly as closely at it has historically).

Incidentally, you seem to be labouring under a misconception in relation to sunspot activity versus global temperature. I did not suggest that solar heat output increased in any significant way during times of greater sunspot activity. In fact, there are several hypotheses as to why high sunspot activity results in higher global temperatures. One involves greater solar magnetic activity, and one involves greater ultra violet output. Both factors are part of higher sunspot activity.

Solar irradiance correlates with global temperatures much better than sunspots. Sunspots just happen to correlate very closely with solar irradiance. More sunspots=hotter sun. This is basic astronomy.

The reality of sunspot activity versus global temperature is not one for you to deny. It is a simple, empirical (hence scientific) fact that times of high sunspot activity and high global temperature go together. Whether we fully understand the mechanism is irrelevent.

Just because it has been that way for millions (billions) of years does not mean that the sun is responsible for the current temperature deviation. All you can correctly deduce from this premise is that current temperatures might be caused by solar influences, not that they absolutely are.

This is something the IPCC seems to get wrong. When they calculate solar forcings, they come up with results that do not match actual historical records. This is probably due to a lack of understanding of the mechanism of sunspot driven warming. Your graphs illustrate this perfectly.

You have a published source for this statement I assume? It's not the IPCC that has "made this stuff up;" they only republished what other scientists had figured out.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said

 

It comes from the 2001 IPCC report Climate Change: The Scientific Basis; one of the largest peer-reviewed publications in the entire history of science. If you wont accept peer-review as evidence then there's no use talking.

 

You seem to have a problem with the distinction between deduction and empirical data. You can publish all the deductions in the world and get those papers peer reviewed and published. it does not mean the results are correct - just that the peer reviewers agree with your method.

 

Solar irradiance correlates with global temperatures much better than sunspots.

 

With all the respect in the world, this is just not true. Solar irradiance, for a start, has only been measured accurately this last decade, using proper satellite based technology. Before that, there were too many variables affecting apparent solar intensity..

 

However, sunspots have been counted and had their apparent size measured since the invention of the telescope. The correlation goes back that far. In fact, due to the known relationship between sunspots and cosmic rays, and the microscopic traces left by cosmic rays on ice, sunspot activity has been indirectly measured for many thousands of years. Solar irradiance measurements are too recent to correlate with most of the global temperature changes over the past few hundred years.

 

Just because it has been that way for millions (billions) of years does not mean that the sun is responsible for the current temperature deviation.

 

If by current, you mean the last 30 years, I agree with you. However, as I have pointed out to you with tiresome repitition, before that global temperature changes correlate much more closely with sunspots than with AGGs.

[Reaper]

You seem to have a problem with the distinction between deduction and empirical data. You can publish all the deductions in the world and get those papers peer reviewed and published. it does not mean the results are correct - just that the peer reviewers agree with your method.

 

I think it has been made clear that the various reports, data tables, deductions, etc are based on empirical data and observations. What we have here is that you are denying the data itself.

 

 

 

With all the respect in the world, this is just not true. Solar irradiance, for a start, has only been measured accurately this last decade, using proper satellite based technology. Before that, there were too many variables affecting apparent solar intensity..

 

However, sunspots have been counted and had their apparent size measured since the invention of the telescope. The correlation goes back that far. In fact, due to the known relationship between sunspots and cosmic rays, and the microscopic traces left by cosmic rays on ice, sunspot activity has been indirectly measured for many thousands of years. Solar irradiance measurements are too recent to correlate with most of the global temperature changes over the past few hundred years.

 

Do you have a (peer-reviewed) report that confirms this, because 1veedo has already proven that this just isn't the case. We have a very large amount of data that seems to confirm that the recent rise in global temperatures are directly due to humans.

 

Its more than just recent sunspot activities, we also have large amounts of data from ice cores, ancient trees, etc.

[SkepticLance]

Lockheed said

 

I think it has been made clear that the various reports, data tables, deductions, etc are based on empirical data and observations. What we have here is that you are denying the data itself.

 

That is a load of hogwash, and if you spent two seconds thinking about it, you would realise that. What 1veedo presented was graphs that came from a series of deductions and computer model results. They came from empirical data only via a very indirect route. As I said, the results of deductions and computer models are NOT, NOT, NOT empirical data.

 

Yet I see this error repeated time and time again. Science is based on empirical data. It was the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle who claimed we could obtain the truth about reality through deduction and logic. Francis Bacon heralded modern science by rejecting Aristotle's methods and insisting that only empirical data carried true significance. I would hate to see us turning the clock back to the bad old days where logic and deduction replaced what we know actually works.

 

Deduction and logic, and computer modelling are tools. Nothing more. They may be useful tools, but their results must be verified by empirical data. If I point to a microscope, I am pointing to a tool of microbiology. The microscope is not microbiology itself. And if I use a microscope, I can end up making all sorts of errors. To ensure that those errors are not promulgated, I need to test the results in more ways than one. Computer model results must also be tested empirically. Without that, they are useless.

 

We have a very large amount of data that seems to confirm that the recent rise in global temperatures are directly due to humans.

 

Over the past 30 years that is true, as I have said repeatedly. However, before that, temperature rise and fall correlates much more closely with rise and fall of sunspot activity.