Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Haig]

I took a brief look at the Weather Action website, and I don't see any discussion of his method. And I can't find anything about this alleged "special conference".

Yes, there are all sorts of cycles driven by sunspot cycles, ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), etc. How do these explain the last 40 years?

What's your point? Without the Sun, we wouldn't have a climate. There is no significant source of energy for driving weather and climate on the Earth besides the Sun. No one disputes that.

Skeptics like Roger Pielke are able to publish.

I have seen power point explanation of his methods and I'll try to find it or something similar.

Really, it's PC that needs to answer these questions, i'm on here looking for answers too, from you folk..

That claim is in itself suspicious. There are plenty of AGW sceptics who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The censorship excuse is all too often used by people in all fields who have never submitted their papers or who have had them rejected. The fact is that there are journals out there with less stringent (to be charitable) review standards and so it is usually possible to publish a paper somewhere.

I take your point. Time will tell if PC gets to publish in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[BenBurch]

Peer-reviewed journals block things all the time; nonsense is what peer review filters out most effectively.

 

[Wangler]

And really you are nothing like MHaze, I apologize for that.

Accepted.

Thank you for your contributions to the threads here in SMMT.

 

[Reality Check]

Nope. I can only repeat what I said in the last post

"He also claims he has been blocked from publishing papers in peer reviewed publications"

He has hopes that, post climategate, peer to peer reviews will make it easier for scientists, like him, to get published.

I haven't heard his full explanation of the role the magnetic ropes play. I have seen his model of the Sun and Earth connected by ropes and it looks comical.

If all that he has is claims then all we can say is that we will wait until he backs up his claims by publishing his theory, predictions and the matches with observations.

Your next post has "Really, it's PC that needs to answer these questions, i'm on here looking for answers too, from you folk.."
And the answer is that you will get no answer about his claims from us folks.
They look like the cold readings that we see from psychics ... but we could be wrong. All he has to do is publish!

The only answers that we can give about PC & SWT have been given as below.
Perhaps you would like to move onto another topic?

I do have access to this paper at work. I think that my intuition that the author didn't normalize the statistics for climatology was basically correct. The skill scores were vastly inflated by the fact that forecasting non-occurrences of a "rare" event yields a high success rate. In this case, gales are rare in England in the summer so Summertime forecasts of no gales occurring are almost guaranteed to be correct.

Corbyn issues forecasts of events happening in intervals which are between 3 and 6 days long. Even given this amount of leeway, only 23 of the 41 gales during the study period occurred in an interval that Corbyn had forecast a gale for, and there were 21 intervals for which Corbyn forecast a gale but none occurred.

We've certainly discussed those, particularly with respect to the CLOUD experiment going on at CERN.

Corbin may be looking at some other well known aspects of solar influence on long term weather, not sure.

I took a brief look at the Weather Action website, and I don't see any discussion of his method. And I can't find anything about this alleged "special conference".

Yes, there are all sorts of cycles driven by sunspot cycles, ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), etc. How do these explain the last 40 years?

What's your point? Without the Sun, we wouldn't have a climate. There is no significant source of energy for driving weather and climate on the Earth besides the Sun. No one disputes that.

Skeptics like Roger Pielke are able to publish.

 

[GreyICE]

No, but he may have used something nifty that we insiders like to call Google.

Try it.

So, you arrogant little such and such, we're supposed to follow your argument and do your research for you?

You haven't read the papers. You have nothing to contribute. The sole and only reason you believe that Global Warming isn't happening isn't the science. You haven't read it. It isn't the evidence. You haven't checked it out. It isn't any analysis at all.

A convincing abstract? ANYONE can write a convincing abstract. I could write a convincing abstract on necromancy or alchemy, or telekinesis. There is no analysis without data, and you have proven yourself uninterested in data. This is no different than a homeopath, than a truther.

It's that you are too little and too wrapped up in yourself to possibly accept that you might be negatively impacting others lives, that your little world and your little concerns might hurt others, that you might have to make the teensiest, smallest little inconvenience for yourself and give up something. Maybe you have to buy light bulbs that cost a little more. Maybe you don't have a black roof. Maybe you drive a smaller car.

But no. Instead, everyone is a liar, because you don't want to have to worry about any of your choices hurting anyone else. It makes your life easier, and you can go to sleep with less fear and less anguish because you can content yourself with the knowledge that its all stupid environmentalists, and you couldn't possibly be doing anything to hurt anyone. You're a poor innocent victim who is right about everything.

There is a segment of this country that needs to grow the hell up. I think there's some people who need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves "Am I an adult? Can my actions effect others? Can anything I do cause harm to someone else? Or am I a kid, a person who cannot even be responsible for my own self?"

 

[Malerin]

So, you arrogant little such and such, we're supposed to follow your argument and do your research for you?

You haven't read the papers. You have nothing to contribute. The sole and only reason you believe that Global Warming isn't happening isn't the science. You haven't read it. It isn't the evidence. You haven't checked it out. It isn't any analysis at all.

A convincing abstract? ANYONE can write a convincing abstract. I could write a convincing abstract on necromancy or alchemy, or telekinesis. There is no analysis without data, and you have proven yourself uninterested in data. This is no different than a homeopath, than a truther.

It's that you are too little and too wrapped up in yourself to possibly accept that you might be negatively impacting others lives, that your little world and your little concerns might hurt others, that you might have to make the teensiest, smallest little inconvenience for yourself and give up something. Maybe you have to buy light bulbs that cost a little more. Maybe you don't have a black roof. Maybe you drive a smaller car.

But no. Instead, everyone is a liar, because you don't want to have to worry about any of your choices hurting anyone else. It makes your life easier, and you can go to sleep with less fear and less anguish because you can content yourself with the knowledge that its all stupid environmentalists, and you couldn't possibly be doing anything to hurt anyone. You're a poor innocent victim who is right about everything.

There is a segment of this country that needs to grow the hell up. I think there's some people who need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves "Am I an adult? Can my actions effect others? Can anything I do cause harm to someone else? Or am I a kid, a person who cannot even be responsible for my own self?"

Taking this a little personally, aren't you? Anyway, unless Wangler wants to shell out hundreds, he can't read the papers. The abstracts are the best he can do, but I doubt this abstract is going to differ much from the paper its based on (which costs you $30 to read). People might get a little upset over a completely dishonest abstract, don't you think?

Abstract
A data set of 180 radiocarbon, tree-ring and archaeological dates obtained from sediment sequences of 26 lakes in the Jura mountains, the northern French Pre-Alps and the Swiss Plateau was used to construct a Holocene mid-European lake-level record. The dates do not indicate a random distribution over the Holocene, but form clusters suggesting an alternation of lower and higher, climatically driven lake-level phases. They provide evidence of a rather unstable Holocene climate punctuated by 15 phases of higher lake-level: 11 250–11 050, 10 300–10 000, 9550–9150, 8300–8050, 7550–7250, 6350–5900, 5650–5200, 4850–4800, 4150–3950, 3500–3100, 2750–2350, 1800–1700, 1300–1100, 750–650 cal. BP and after 1394 AD. A comparison of this mid-European lake-level record with the GISP2-Polar Circulation Index (PCI) record, the North Atlantic ice-rafting debris (IRD) events and the 14C record suggests teleconnections in a complex cryosphere-ocean-atmosphere system. Correlations between the GISP2-PCI, the mid-European lake-level, the North Atlantic IRD, and the residual 14C records, suggest that changes in the solar activity played a major role in Holocene climate oscillations over the North Atlantic area.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=aa56399f2cf00f56d472cf6950b91c17

ETA: Another intersting abstract:

Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038777.shtml

 

[GreyICE]

Oh wow, another one. From the first paper on your little list:

The observed global mean surface temperature change
since 1880 has a combination of causes including increasing
greenhouse gases, variations in tropospheric anthropogenic
aerosol optical depth, natural and anthropogenic surface
albedo changes, variations of solar radiation, volcanic activity
[Hansen et al., 1996; Stott et al., 2000; Pielke et al., 2000;
North and Wu, 2001; Mishchenko et al., 2007; Chylek et al.,
2007; Pielke et al., 2007; Lean and Rind, 2008], and
variability of atmosphere-ocean circulation [Folland et al.,
1986; Knight et al., 2006; Baines and Folland, 2007]. One of
the robust features of the AOGCMs is the finding that the
temperature increase in the Arctic is larger than the global
average, which is attributed in part to the ice/snow-albedo
temperature feedback. Specifically the surface air temperature
change in the Arctic is predicted to be about two to three times
the global mean [IPCC, 2007]. This robust feature of the
AOGCMs has been challenged in the past [Przybylak, 2000;
Polyakov et al., 2002] as well as by a recent analysis [Lean and
Rind, 2008] of the observed surface temperature records
suggesting that the recent anthropogenic warming has been
more pronounced at the lower and middle latitudes (from 45!S
to 50!N) than in polar regions. Finally a recent attribution study
[Gillett et al., 2008] showed that the climate models reproduced
well the observed Arctic warming since about 1970.
However, they could not reproduce the large warming during
the early part of the 20th century and the strong Arctic cooling
during 1940 –1970 [e.g.,Parker et al., 1994]. The objective of
this work is to use the surface air temperature time series to
investigate observational evidence of Arctic temperature
change amplification and influences of natural variability.

Further analyses of long coupled model runs will be critical
to resolve the influence of the ocean thermohaline circulation
and other natural climate variations on Arctic climate
and to determine whether natural climate variability will
make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic
global warming.

Glad you made the least little effort to read these things. Aren't those interesting abstracts? Maybe try reading the paper next time.

P.S. Thanks for bringing a little honesty to the discussion by pretending a paper that is publicly available for free cost $30 to view. That was classy.

 

[GreyICE]

Can any one of the deniers on here think of any single reason we should talk to you? You won't read our words. You won't read our explanations. The evidence is that you don't even read the things that your denier friends write. Nevermind us.

I cannot think of one single way that the deniers have not demonstrated that their position is the purest woo-woo, a conclusion drawn independent of evidence with all 'evidence' and 'arguments' presented the sheerest form of copypasta, links to unread documents copied from a few seconds spent with google.

Your intent is not to understand - if you wished understanding, you would read at least the arguments of your own side. The intent is not to debate - debate requires one to understand ones opponents' points, and interact with them.

As far as I can tell, this is political posturing put on for the lurkers (the majority in any forum), something for them to skim over and believe that there is a real debate.

That is the only possibility. It's propaganda, as vile and detestable as anything Pravda ever put out. Otherwise, one would not link to papers it is impossible for one to have read. One would not claim that a freely available paper costs $30.

Propaganda for lurkers. Attempt to create a debate where none exist. Lies, one might say.

 

[Malerin]

Oh wow, another one. From the first paper on your little list:





Glad you made the least little effort to read these things. Aren't those interesting abstracts? Maybe try reading the paper next time.

P.S. Thanks for bringing a little honesty to the discussion by pretending a paper that is publicly available for free cost $30 to view. That was classy.

Where did you find "Holocene climate variability as reflected by mid-European lake-level fluctuations and its probable impact on prehistoric human settlements" for free?

 

[GreyICE]

Where did you find "Holocene climate variability as reflected by mid-European lake-level fluctuations and its probable impact on prehistoric human settlements" for free?

Oh I'm sorry, the first one isn't available to you for free. It also is a tad irrelevant (as we can nowadays directly measure the output of the sun, instead of relying on things like secondary indicators. See, we have these things in outer space orbiting our planet, they can directly measure the output...)

The second one is here. I found it on this highly advanced seach engine, designed for academic scholars. It's called 'google,' and it is available to the general public as a new service at www.google.com. The name is a tad odd, but I assure you it is very good.

http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

See? It found that as the first link. I hope I have unlocked a valuable resource for you to explore the scholarly world. Additionally, I hear they may soon branch out to other services that may be more generally useful to you and other similarly confused peoples.

 

[Malerin]

Oh I'm sorry, the first one isn't available to you for free. It also is a tad irrelevant (as we can nowadays directly measure the output of the sun, instead of relying on things like secondary indicators. See, we have these things in outer space orbiting our planet, they can directly measure the output...)

I didn't think it was avilable..

The second one is here. I found it on this highly advanced seach engine, designed for academic scholars. It's called 'google,' and it is available to the general public as a new service at www.google.com. The name is a tad odd, but I assure you it is very good.

So snide! You probably shoulnd't be condescending when you couldn't keep the two papers straight. I saw the first one was avilable for a fee, hunted around for it for awhile, saw the second also had a fee and didn't look further. This is not to avoid reading the article. I made a wrong assumption that I would have to pay to read it.

The article itself is interesting:

"the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded
at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008
warming" (the abstract quoted this directly)

"The sudden changes in the Arctic temperature trends around 1940 and 1970 suggest that other factors besides slowly varying
concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or solar
changes, could have played a significant role."


"However, the fact that this ratio was much different during
the early 20th century warming and especially during the
1940–1970 cooling suggests that there are physical processes
that are not yet fully understood or properly described
by the current AOGCMs."

Why did the Arctic warm up faster during 1910-1940? GHG concentrations were much less back then. Was it a variation in Atlantic ocean currents of a "physical process not yet fully understood or properly described"?

ETA: I'm admittedly a layman in all this. But I get the impression this paper raises more questions than it answers. Maybe it's just me.

 

[David Wong]

Why are all of the denialist trolls so similar?

 

[Malerin]

Why are all of the denialist trolls so similar?

Check the join date. Don't you think I would have started trolling a bit earlier than this? Say, back in 2008?


Is it possible for a person to realize something they thought very much was true might not be true? Do you know how many times I've used the "overwhelming consensus" line against deniers on other boards?

I'm honestly puzzled by the hostile reactions I'm seeing. I thought this was a skeptical forum. I don't have a science background, there are some things that don't seem to fit with AGW, and I'm trying to sort it out. I'm a troll for doing that?

 

[GreyICE]

ETA: I'm admittedly a layman in all this. But I get the impression this paper raises more questions than it answers. Maybe it's just me.

If arctic warming was the only evidence, you'd have a point. As it is, it isn't, and you do not. Is your hypothesis truly that there's an arctic-only natural cycle that is occurring at the same time as a greenland only natural cycle at the same time only as a worldwide natural cycle? If the answer is yes, well that answer would be insane. If the answer is no, it raises no important questions in the sense that you mean, and you are not thinking things through.

The more important thing is that you're not 'just asking questions.' You're not interested at all in the answers, or you'd have sought out the relevant information. You're not thinking about the article at all, or you'd realize the chances of an arctic-only natural cycle occurring at the same time as everything else hits a natural cycle is impossible.

This is not the least bit tough to understand. You are not thinking critically at all. One does not have to be an 'expert' to realize that the questions you are asking are only important in as much as they might convince a lurker skimming the thread that there are questions.

Propaganda, pure and simple.

The solar variability should show anyone this. Your first response to an abstract about warming that might have been caused by solar variability was to post it here to try and convince people that there's legitimate questions. You never even bothered to check if, y'know, any of the thousands of satellites we have in orbit documents anything resembling 'solar output,' and if they do if it was increasing (it's not).

One does not have to be an expert to realize that if the cause is 'solar variability' then the sun's output must vary. Any person merely 'asking questions' would have checked this. Propaganda.

ETA: If your response on other boards was to dismiss out of hand people's claims without reading any science, then you read some posts and now you still don't 'read any science' your major failing is not that you do not believe in global warming. It's that you buy whatever people say convincingly hook, line, and sinker. Anti-vaxxers can make good-sounding arguments, and link to graphs, and post abstracts. It's all bull.

 

[macdoc]

Malerin
I'm not sure what the "somethings" are that don't fit.

AGW overlays natural variations, NAO, ENSO etc.

Aerosols, also a function of "anthro" offset AGW by way of global dimming..( up until the 70s there was little or no controls )..until SO2 abatement was in full swing the rising S02 and particulate load over the period in question easily offset the C02....so of that continues with our current aerosol output against our C02.

it's not a solution - it's a delay in dealing with the worst consequences.We could after all as a society pump enough S02 into the stratosphere to lower temps.....any advanced nation could do that independently.

If you pull back and look at the larger picture and accept the role of C02 and it's magnifying partner, water vapour, in magnifying trends ( in both directions ) historically of the global climate then you must answer this question.....

Can lifting the C02 to levels unseen in 15 million years be without serious consequence to the climate regime, the Holocene which featured a narrow range of temperature upon which humans built their civilization.?

If, as rational people around the world have determined, the answer is an absolute NO...then the rest of the pieces fall into place and it is a question of timing and what if anything can be done to address the problem.

The science community got there about 15 years ago and even the fossil fuel company scientists drew the same conclusion at the time but were muzzled by their management.

The world has got there in Copenhagen as to the risk, a few flat earthers haven't got the memo.

The political effort regarding a solution is a quagmire...

Aerosols of our making are difficult to assess as sometimes they are negative drivers and at other times positive but all are short lived in comparison with carbon which is inexorable in it's cumulative energy gain.

Instead of trying to sort natural cycles which can magnify ( 1998 El Nino ) the AGW or ameliorate it ( back to back La Nina's ) from the main AGW driver which is fossil carbon and secondarily land use which also impacts the carbon cycle......look at the larger picture of the 15 million year carbon load and ask yourself about consequences.

The consequences are everywhere visible even now and we're not even close to what's in the pipeline.

Don't bog in the local picture - look at the larger one.

 

[Malerin]

If arctic warming was the only evidence, you'd have a point. As it is, it isn't, and you do not. Is your hypothesis truly that there's an arctic-only natural cycle that is occurring at the same time as a greenland only natural cycle at the same time only as a worldwide natural cycle? If the answer is yes, well that answer would be insane. If the answer is no, it raises no important questions in the sense that you mean, and you are not thinking things through.

I was very clear in what I wanted to know:

MALERIN: Why did the Arctic warm up faster during 1910-1940? GHG concentrations were much less back then. Was it a variation in Atlantic ocean currents of a "physical process not yet fully understood or properly described"?

If AGW is true, why did the Arctic warm up faster during a period of low GHG concentration? This is NOT what I would expect from a hypothesis that claims Earth is getting hotter and hotter as GHG emissions rise. The fastest Arctic warming should have started recently, not a CENTURY ago.

The article was also useful in admitting poorly understood physical processes
may be at work, and that non-AGW factors could have played a significant role in the Arctic.

The more important thing is that you're not 'just asking questions.' You're not interested at all in the answers, or you'd have sought out the relevant information. You're not thinking about the article at all, or you'd realize the chances of an arctic-only natural cycle occurring at the same time as everything else hits a natural cycle is impossible.

I don't understand what this means.

This is not the least bit tough to understand. You are not thinking critically at all. One does not have to be an 'expert' to realize that the questions you are asking are only important in as much as they might convince a lurker skimming the thread that there are questions.

They are important to me. I was a lurker for a long time. People like Dog-B and MHaze were making some valid points. I began to pay more attention. Now I'm trying to sort things out.

Propaganda, pure and simple.

Which is why I waited years to start posting on this

The solar variability should show anyone this. Your first response to an abstract about warming that might have been caused by solar variability was to post it here to try and convince people that there's legitimate questions. You never even bothered to check if, y'know, any of the thousands of satellites we have in orbit documents anything resembling 'solar output,' and if they do if it was increasing (it's not).

I wasn't aware there was a protocal for asking what factor solar variability plays in global warming. The science is settled on this as well?

One does not have to be an expert to realize that if the cause is 'solar variability' then the sun's output must vary.

Or Earth's albedo increases due to more clouds, resulting in less solar radiation getting through.

Any person merely 'asking questions' would have checked this.

I did. I then checked whether high albedo rates due to warming could function as a negative feedback loop, thus giving the effect of less solar radiation getting through. The science on that is FAR from settled.

Propaganda.

ETA: If your response on other boards was to dismiss out of hand people's claims without reading any science, then you read some posts and now you still don't 'read any science' your major failing is not that you do not believe in global warming. It's that you buy whatever people say convincingly hook, line, and sinker. Anti-vaxxers can make good-sounding arguments, and link to graphs, and post abstracts. It's all bull.

I think you have serious issues, and should probably take a break from posting for a bit.

 

[Malerin]

Malerin
I'm not sure what the "somethings" are that don't fit.

AGW overlays natural variations, NAO, ENSO etc.

Aerosols, also a function of "anthro" offset AGW by way of global dimming..( up until the 70s there was little or no controls )..until SO2 abatement was in full swing the rising S02 and particulate load over the period in question easily offset the C02....so of that continues with our current aerosol output against our C02.

it's not a solution - it's a delay in dealing with the worst consequences.We could after all as a society pump enough S02 into the stratosphere to lower temps.....any advanced nation could do that independently.

If you pull back and look at the larger picture and accept the role of C02 and it's magnifying partner, water vapour, in magnifying trends ( in both directions ) historically of the global climate then you must answer this question.....

Can lifting the C02 to levels unseen in 15 million years be without serious consequence to the climate regime, the Holocene which featured a narrow range of temperature upon which humans built their civilization.?

If, as rational people around the world have determined, the answer is an absolute NO...then the rest of the pieces fall into place and it is a question of timing and what if anything can be done to address the problem.

The science community got there about 15 years ago and even the fossil fuel company scientists drew the same conclusion at the time but were muzzled by their management.

The world has got there in Copenhagen as to the risk, a few flat earthers haven't got the memo.

The political effort regarding a solution is a quagmire...

Aerosols of our making are difficult to assess as sometimes they are negative drivers and at other times positive but all are short lived in comparison with carbon which is inexorable in it's cumulative energy gain.

Instead of trying to sort natural cycles which can magnify ( 1998 El Nino ) the AGW or ameliorate it ( back to back La Nina's ) from the main AGW driver which is fossil carbon and secondarily land use which also impacts the carbon cycle......look at the larger picture of the 15 million year carbon load and ask yourself about consequences.

The consequences are everywhere visible even now and we're not even close to what's in the pipeline.

Don't bog in the local picture - look at the larger one.

I'm in an Ambien stupor right now. Will reply tomorrow! I've enjoyed reading your posts.

 

[Reality Check]

If AGW is true, why did the Arctic warm up faster during a period of low GHG concentration? This is NOT what I would expect from a hypothesis that claims Earth is getting hotter and hotter as GHG emissions rise. The fastest Arctic warming should have started recently, not a CENTURY ago.

At last something I can answer - sort of !

AGW is not that "Earth is getting hotter and hotter as GHG emissions rise". The AGW hypothesis is that on top of the other reasons for temperature fluctuations, there is an additional component of warming that is due to GHGs (much of which were added to the atmosphere by us).

So during that period there were other causes of the rapid warming. I do not know what they were.

 

[GreyICE]

I was very clear in what I wanted to know:



If AGW is true, why did the Arctic warm up faster during a period of low GHG concentration? This is NOT what I would expect from a hypothesis that claims Earth is getting hotter and hotter as GHG emissions rise. The fastest Arctic warming should have started recently, not a CENTURY ago.

The article was also useful in admitting poorly understood physical processes
may be at work, and that non-AGW factors could have played a significant role in the Arctic.

A common fallacy is to attribute to one event one single possible cause, and then to evaluate that cause as if it caused every instance of that event.

For instance, one way that you can break a glass is to drop it on the floor. This does not mean that every glass that breaks dropped on the floor.

The arctic is not the sole piece of evidence that the globe is warming. On average, the entire globe is warming. Many individual places are also heating up - the Arctic, Greenland, etc. Moreover, the mechanism for CO2 caused warming is well understood.

This hardly means that every instance of a specifical geographical area warming up is due to global warming. El Nino/La Nina are two examples of things that effect climate locally and globally unrelated to CO2.

They are important to me. I was a lurker for a long time. People like Dog-B and MHaze were making some valid points. I began to pay more attention. Now I'm trying to sort things out.

I cannot believe that you think MHaze in particular makes any valid points. No reading of the evidence or his ongoing posts suggests that he has done anything of the sort.

God, I'm going to start keeping a list like RC does of all the particular points hazy has run away from.

I wasn't aware there was a protocal for asking what factor solar variability plays in global warming. The science is settled on this as well?

Yes, there is. The factor is 'is the sun actually undergoing significant variability at the moment.' The answer is that first, it is not, and second, what cycles it is undergoing are both small and do not line up with observed warming.

You could not miss this, I assume you are playing dumb.

Or Earth's albedo increases due to more clouds, resulting in less solar radiation getting through.

I missed it, clouds are on the sun?

I did. I then checked whether high albedo rates due to warming could function as a negative feedback loop, thus giving the effect of less solar radiation getting through. The science on that is FAR from settled.

What exactly is your question?

 

[GreyICE]

Besides noting that I have 'serious issues' your entire response seems evasive and overall indicative of poor thought process. For instance, in a question about whether the solar output has varied, you responded by asking if the earth's cloud cover had varied, implying that the clouds are on the sun. In response to a question on whether you even bothered to check if the sun's output has varied, you responded by discussing negative feedbacks on the CO2 warming process. In response to a query on how anyone intelligent could possibly be seeking discussion when they have not even bothered to read the evidence, you link me to more 'evidence' you have manifestly not even read.

I suggest that your own issues are not particularly deep, and while a break from posting would barely benefit you at all, given that you have pondered this question for (according to you) years without having bothered to read anything much, I assure you the benefit to us would be rather more obvious.