Objective global warming

[swansont]

I can't take you seriously

arrogant and elitist

thinking you're not competent

 

OK, folks, enough of this. If you're not going to hold someone in high regard, you don't have to, but there's no reason to announce it.

 

Post the science, criticize the science. If the science has problems, tearing it down needs to be reward enough.

[bascule]

My main attempt was to imply nothing. Hence why my original post has a note that it proves nothing. As I've explained, this was supposed to be a learning exercise. I posted this on a forum for that purpose. To receive corrections and get a better understanding of what I was doing.

 

To quote your OP:

 

My above calculations [...] prove that, up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes.

 

This is not the case. Furthermore, understanding the effect of sunspots on solar irradiance requires, at the very least, an understanding of how solar irradiance is measured. You've seemed to skip directly from the sunspot cycle to an assumed impact upon solar irradiance and thus global climate change without understanding solar irradiance. SkepticLance has done the same. Implying the former has an effect on global climate change without understanding the latter is nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The former is irrelevant, except as an explanation for the latter. The latter is what actually has an impact on Earth's climate system.

 

Post the science, criticize the science.

 

I suggest you follow swansont's advice. For starters, if you're contradicting established science, you might first start by pointing out flaws therein, rather than starting by stating your own hypothesis then failing to substantiate it.

[iNow]

Unfortunately all of the free graph software proved inadequate. So I'll need a bit of time to purchase Microsoft Office (for Excel). Unless someone can provide a free/nonfree alternative that's better. In PM's, preferably.

 

I may be arrogant and elitist (you would be too, if you were me), but I'm also a fairly nice guy. Have you tried google spreadsheets?

 

http://docs.google.com/

 

 

I still hold to my position that you might spend your time more wisely by reading what has already been done, but if your heart's set on it, graph away and let us know what you see. Just try not to be too upset when we all poke holes through it. Fair enough?

 

 

If I wasn't so humble, I'd be perfect.

[jeremyhfht]

Cute. The entire point of this IS to learn. I am also well versed in what is said about global warming, which is why I found it highly insulting for someone to give me a link on it.

 

The reason I've not posted the graphs yet, is because I've ended up needing to create custom graphs in excel (also because I just started using excel two days ago). Kind of annoying, really.

[iNow]

Okay... whatever. Let us know when you'd like to continue. If you have any general Excel questions, you may consider opening a thread, as there are number of users on this site very well versed in .xls usage.

[jeremyhfht]

To quote your OP:

My above calculations [...] prove that' date=' up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes.

[/quote']

 

Logical Fallacy 101: Misquoting. I conceded that I had made a statistical error after I was corrected. Quoting a post after I conceded it was incorrect is somewhat in bad taste.

 

Also, what I did was not imply something before the statistics. What I did was say what the statistics implied. They did do that, which is also why they were incorrect.

 

This is not the case. Furthermore, understanding the effect of sunspots on solar irradiance requires, at the very least, an understanding of how solar irradiance is measured.

 

Solar irradiance is very closely tied with Sunspot activity. This is a proven fact.

 

Since all I am now doing is attempting to make two graphs that show sunspot activity and earth temperature in better detail, I don't need a degree in solar physics.

 

You've seemed to skip directly from the sunspot cycle to an assumed impact upon solar irradiance and thus global climate change without understanding solar irradiance. SkepticLance has done the same. Implying the former has an effect on global climate change without understanding the latter is nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The former is irrelevant, except as an explanation for the latter. The latter is what actually has an impact on Earth's climate system.

 

Which is why it's a good idea to use the former to gauge the effects on earths climate system. Since the latter is still a very complex issue that is difficult to measure.

 

I knew there was a loose correlation between sunspots and earths climate anyway. Not a direct one. Which is why, as I explained, sometimes the climate does the opposite of what the sunspots do (pre-industrial).

 

I suggest you follow swansont's advice. For starters, if you're contradicting established science, you might first start by pointing out flaws therein, rather than starting by stating your own hypothesis then failing to substantiate it.

 

Logical Fallacy: Straw man. I did not set out to contradict established science. My initial post probably did, but it was from a flaw I corrected immediately. Currently what I'm doing is simply making a graph that allows for better detail than ones in circulation. I wish to do this myself for the experience.

 

Which is why, finally, the thread can live up to its name of objectivity.

[bascule]

Solar irradiance is very closely tied with Sunspot activity. This is a proven fact.

 

It's clear you're trying to make an argument about the latter with no knowledge of the former. The graph I linked shows the reconstructed radiative forcing of solar irradiance relative to CO₂, and it does not demonstrate the trend you hypothesize.

 

Since all I am now doing is attempting to make two graphs that show sunspot activity and earth temperature in better detail, I don't need a degree in solar physics.

 

No, but it'd still be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. As solar radiation is the actual radiative forcing impacting the climate system, that's what you should be graphing.

 

Which is why it's a good idea to use [sunspot activity] to gauge the effects on earths climate system. Since [solar radiation] is still a very complex issue that is difficult to measure.

 

Solar radiation can be monitored directly by tens of thousands of climate monitoring stations worldwide with a high degree of accuracy and precision. The same cannot be said with sunspot activity. Furthermore, solar radiation directly affects the climate system, whereas sunspots do not. They indirectly affect the climate system... through solar radiation.

[SkepticLance]

To bascule

 

You still have not got it!!

 

If you look at your 'favourite' graph, and compare the calculated solar forcings on that graph to a graph of sunspot activity, you will find little or no correlation.

 

Solar forcings from your graph are largely unrelated to sunspot activity. When we talk about sunspot activity, we are talking about something quite different to your calculated solar forcings. Now do you get it?

 

Solar irradiance, by the way, is now measured using satellites, not ground based stations which are affected by atmospheric conditions, making such measurements inaccurate and misleading. As I have said before, increases in irradiance, meaning electro-magnetic radiation, is only one small consequence of increased sunspot activity. Sunspots have lots of other effects that are not EMR.

[jeremyhfht]

No, but it'd still be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. As solar radiation is the actual radiative forcing impacting the climate system, that's what you should be graphing.

 

Incorrect. I'm not implying that A occurred then B occurred, therefore A caused B. Since it's a fact that sunspots are directly correlated to temperature. And that solar radiation is just one of the many things sunspots cause.

 

If you have the audacity to claim I make that fallacy, then why does that fallacy not apply to CO2 and warming trends? "CO2 increased, then temperature increased, therefore CO2 caused the temperature increase" (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy)

 

One need merely look at sunspot activity during the little ice age or the medieval warm period. Since the graphs show such a strong correlation between sunspots and temperature, it doesn't matter exactly what about the sun is causing it. Since sunspots seem to be an accurate gauge of it.

 

Although it is a good idea, nonetheless, to try and graph all the sun activities. Perhaps I'll make a few other graphs dealing with solar radiation and temperature.

[bascule]

solar radiation is just one of the many things sunspots cause.

 

Can you name some non-electromagnetic force emitted by sunspot activity that's a radiative forcing or impacts one?

 

If you have the audacity to claim I make that fallacy, then why does that fallacy not apply to CO2 and warming trends?

 

Because present estimates of the radiative forcing caused by CO₂ (as well as all of the other major radiative forcings), when used as input for General Circulaton Models, have been used to reconstruct the historical record for the global mean surface temperature with a high degree of accuracy.

[jeremyhfht]

Nevermind. I misunderstood the post. Stupid me. Ignore me. Jesus.

[HannonRJ]

The question I always ask of those who believe that "global Warming" results from human activity is: "How much does Earth's atmosphere weigh?"

[swansont]

It has a mass of about 5 x 10^18 kg. Why?

[ralfy]

You can probably look at the reports released by the NAS at "America's Climate Choices".

[iNow]

I'm sure he's quite glad to receive that helpful response five and a half years after asking the question.

 

 

[EdEarl]

I may be arrogant and elitist (you would be too, if you were me), but I'm also a fairly nice guy. Have you tried google spreadsheets?

You may also use Open Office, which has tools compatible with Microsoft Office files that includes a word processor and spreadsheet.

[swansont]

 

I'm sure he's quite glad to receive that helpful response five and a half years after asking the question.

Just FYI; the thread was resurrected by a spammer, so it was in the "New Content" queue. You're seeing it after the application of spammer-be-gone.

[ralfy]

FWIW, the issue is on-going:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/

[swansont]

FWIW, the issue is on-going:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/

 

That's purely political, which has little to do with the science.

[ralfy]

 

That's purely political, which has little to do with the science.

 

Exactly, which is why the issue is on-going.

[jduff]

I dont really believe in man made climate change other than erosion caused by populace and farming. Centers of high population will have a greater temperature than those areas which are less populated. Too much farmland is a major threat to ecology. Two big historical instances of manmade erosion is Egypt(Around the time of Cleopatra, 30 B.C) During earths natural warming cycle Egypt encountered heavy erosion due to farming and highly populated areas. The other instance is the Dustbowlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl . The dustbowl caused irreversable damage to the area effected. As well as caused what was once fertile farmland to become desert,

 

 

Currently we have three major spots in the world which will dramatically change the enviroment. A link for desertificationhttp://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1179&subcatid=331 All of which is manmade. As our populace grows so will the amount of erosion and destruction of our enviroment. In return we get barren deserts that have pocketed increases in temperature. Anthropogenic global warming in my view is false. As well as agenda driven. Notice politicians and bought scientists do not talk about the real issue. Which is population density and farming. Decreasing CO2. passing carbon taxes, as well as restrictions will not have any significant impact on this planets trajectory. As well as ours. As the pocketed warming on this planet is due to population more than anything else. While I do believe in climatechange. It is a natural process globally. Every single climate model that has been given by a global climatologist that supports global warming has been wrong. In my view it is junk science. Minus of course erosion and population.

 

There is a answer, it is not a good subject. But Eugenics could solve humanities dilemna. Something I personally dont want to really think about. As I tend to like every person I meet. And would not want someone to be a participant in such a device. Unless of course we can get the entire world to give up money and the scarcity theory. We will be forced into eugenics eventually.

 

As far as the planet is concerned. Be ready for a big cooldown. Antarctic Ice last month hit its highest level of ice growth in recorded history. Winter in South America was really bad. We can expect a bad winter in many places of the Northern Hemisphere. But really our global temperature has more to do with our Sun than human influence. Also geomagnetic forces play a big role in what our planet will do.

 

Now dont take this the wrong way. Our planet corrects itself as it has done throughout its lifetime. In fact about every 25 million years there are mass extinctions. As well as minor extinctions in-between. As far as humanity goes. We are just a grain of rice in a 50 pound bag filled.

 

Thank you for reading my input. If you have any questions, feel free to message me. Or ask here in this post. I will do my best to answer in a timely fashion(when im able).

Edited September 24, 2013 by jduff

[iNow]

Mother nature and reality don't care what you believe, though. And, really... eugenics in a climate change thread?

[jduff]

Heh, talk about a twist of fate. You should find this interesting.http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-fails-clean-global-temperature-standstill/

 

Going to follow this subject! Seems like the issue is serously divided among the science community.

Edited September 27, 2013 by jduff

[iNow]

Seems like the issue is serously divided among the science community.

If that's truly what you think, then you are not paying attention. Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

 

More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

[jduff]

If that's truly what you think, then you are not paying attention. Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

 

More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

You are making me laugh now Excerpt from your link." A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003". Now here is a excerpt from the link im about to provide. “oth poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing, wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity. "

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/u-n-climate-report-glosses-over-15-years-without-global-warming/#ixzz2g9vztyCu

 

Are these anomolies? I think not! Really we could use some global warming. Lots of growth, water, food, warm temperatures, can keep a tan. Sounds much better than the"reality" and emprical evidence showing otherwise to your consensus. I will stick to observable recorded evidence than Global Warming Theory. As actual is observable. While some scientists agreeing to a view based off of faulty computer models is definitely debatable!

 

Good Luck trying to get some believers!