• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

DanishDynamite said:
No, one can't assume that something is valid or the best answer. One needs to check if there are perhaps other, simpler answers. This is science. And this is what Svensmark is doing.
Click to expand...
What he is doing and what others claim for it are 2 different things.
 
DanishDynamite said:
I have shown that you are. There is in fact an increasing solar activity and has been for decades. And there is a corresponding decrease in cosmic rays, also across the decades. You claimed this wasn't the case. Ergo, you were misinformed.
Click to expand...
Can you show me some figures for that? Which best represents solar activity: insolation, for which we have only recent direct measurements, sunspot frequency, or something else? I looked at sunspot counts recently and they don't show a recent (late 20th century) increase.

I used these figures. They are easily put in a spreadsheet to produce graphs.
 
Last edited:
The Sun is one of my interests. And I can confirm that other than the usual cycles there does appear to be no trend in the last 60 years or so. If there is, I've not seen the paper proving it. And knowing the Sun has become vital to certain commercial interests and so it has been an object of intense scrutiny for about that period of time.
 
Last edited:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-211545

The link is to the third group of discussion hosted by Svelgaard, a noted solar exert, on Climateaudit. The post count is upwards of 1500, and Svelgaard tries to answer every question asked.

A brief summary of his attitude is that total solar variability is likely low, which means that climate sensitivity to solar may be high (obviously it is at least 2x the sensitivity to greenhosue gas forcing). But for various reasons, sensitivity to solar might be considerably higher.

I'm not sure (haven't looked into it) to what extent the interaction between cosmic rays and the solar wind etc are discussed in these threads. They should be. Svelgaard comes across as conservative, but open minded.

But that does not do the subject justice, so let me again suggest reading the thread.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
The Sun is one of my interests. And I can confirm that other than the usual cycles there does appear to be no trend in the last 60 years or so. If there is, I've not seen the paper proving it. And knowing the Sun has become vital to certain commercial interests and so it has been an object of intense scrutiny for about that period of time.
Click to expand...
Monthly sunspot counts and monthly average temps 1850-2007. Recent trends and any correlation can be clearly seen but I can add trends if anyone wants.
vbimghost.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
BenBurch said:
The Sun is one of my interests. And I can confirm that other than the usual cycles there does appear to be no trend in the last 60 years or so. If there is, I've not seen the paper proving it. And knowing the Sun has become vital to certain commercial interests and so it has been an object of intense scrutiny for about that period of time.
Click to expand...

There are satellites up there looking at nothing else. All day, every day.

What we get from the other end is argumentum ad proxy. Sunspots are their brittlecone pines. I bet, though, that as things warm up over the next two-to-seven years the positive phase of the Solar Cycle will be trotted out in explanation. By at least one of the usual suspects, and by at least two newcomers.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat brittle cone and admit it. If I'm right - well, that's reward enough in itself. I may make mention of it from time to time, of course ...
 
CapelDodger said:
There are satellites up there looking at nothing else. All day, every day.

What we get from the other end is argumentum ad proxy. Sunspots are their brittlecone pines. I bet, though, that as things warm up over the next two-to-seven years the positive phase of the Solar Cycle will be trotted out in explanation. By at least one of the usual suspects, and by at least two newcomers.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat brittle cone and admit it. If I'm right - well, that's reward enough in itself. I may make mention of it from time to time, of course ...
Click to expand...
See the sunspots graph in the previous post. Some upward trend there, eh, especially since 1990?
 
mhaze said:
The link is to the third group of discussion hosted by Svelgaard, a noted solar exert, on Climateaudit. The post count is upwards of 1500, and Svelgaard tries to answer every question asked.
Click to expand...

Doesn't he have work to do?

A brief summary of his attitude is that total solar variability is likely low ...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, we can see that. Satellites, yadda-yadda.

... which means that climate sensitivity to solar may be high ...
Click to expand...

"Means" given what assumptions? The ones that come with the "may"?

... (obviously it is at least 2x the sensitivity to greenhosue gas forcing).
Click to expand...

You perhaps mean that for the hypothesis to stand it would obviously have to be at least twice the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing. Does he given any reason why climate should be so selective in its responses? Down here it's all about fluids and energy accounting. It strikes me that rather more is being loaded on clouds than they can support.

But for various reasons, sensitivity to solar might be considerably higher.
Click to expand...

Various reasons, and they "might". What are these reasons again? I think we've strayed into mystic physics territory.

I'm not sure (haven't looked into it) to what extent the interaction between cosmic rays and the solar wind etc are discussed in these threads. They should be. Svelgaard comes across as conservative, but open minded.
Click to expand...

He comes across as someone reveling in the attention he's getting. I don't see him dropping his hypothesis any time soon.

But that does not do the subject justice, so let me again suggest reading the thread.
Click to expand...

How does he answer the argument that global warming is an artefact of bad measurement practices? UHI and all that stuff? This guy's trying to explain why problematic warming is being caused by the Sun. What do you like, a random Dane's argument or McIntyre's? I reckon McIntyre will outlast the Dane.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Monthly sunspot counts and monthly average temps 1850-2007. Recent trends and any correlation can be clearly seen but I can add trends if anyone wants.
Click to expand...

Are there links you can provide to the two datasets you used?
 
TrueSceptic said:
See the sunspots graph in the previous post. Some upward trend there, eh, especially since 1990?
Click to expand...

That doesn't work, of course, so the solar thing du jour is about the length of the cycles, which is supposed to reveal some aspect of mystic physics. It takes data-mining to desperately dangerous depths.

There are those who have made predictions based on what that data-mining has "revealed". Enough of them that at least some can claim to have called it, given the variety. Not many will be able to claim three in a row. Before that the subject was a backwater with a somewhat nutty reputation. From the moment solar cycles were identified people went looking for a climate signal and an odd sub-culture emerged, one side finding signals, the other knocking them down.

It never entirely went away, and suddenly it's thrust into the limelight because climate is centre-stage, and anything related is fair game.
 
varwoche said:
If I recall correctly, you made this same comment before in a different thread. As before, without a cite your feedback isn't useful.

In fact, in general, when you don't include a (meritorious) cite along with your challenges, by default I assume the truth is the opposite of what you post. (It's been a reliable system so far.)
Click to expand...

I think we can take it as read that Lockwood has been discredited in the minds of those that were gagging for it to be so. And lo, they have been fed pap and have eagerly sucked it up. Brother has said unto brother, "Sounds good to me", and so it has become established fact in their minds. Details evade them; hearing what they want to hear and carrying away an impression (a validating impression, of course) is more their thing.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Monthly sunspot counts and monthly average temps 1850-2007. Recent trends and any correlation can be clearly seen but I can add trends if anyone wants.
[qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2289847b4d1f6aac5a.png[/qimg][/qimg]
Click to expand...

And this invalidates my statement how? I see the main sunspot cycle and its well known long term variability.

600px-Sunspot-bfly.gif


Shows up in the butterfly diagram best, in my opinion.

But there is no long term trend in the late 20th century there. Just the 11-14 year solar half cycle.
 
mhaze said:
So thoroughly discredited that there is no point to even a discussion as to whether it is discredited. How about that?
Click to expand...

Discredited how, where, by whom? Or are you just making things up again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom