The warmers are becoming skeptics

[GreyICE]

Why is it also happening on Mars? Why are the other planets getting warmer?

BAC, we have satellites in space. They can do things like, I dunno... measure the output of the sun.

We do this.

Why the hell would you need to go off of the much, much shakier data we get from other planets on their temperatures, rather than the good, solid data we get from the satellites in orbit?

Oh yeah, because one of them doesn't give you the results you want. One of them seems to.

A few planets in the solar system seem to be warming. A few are stable. A few we can't tell.

We can tell how much of this is due to the sun, by measuring its output.

Lies, BAC. You spread deliberate lies.

 

[BeAChooser]

A few planets in the solar system seem to be warming. A few are stable. A few we can't tell.

Let's see. Which bodies in the solar system are heating up? The Earth. Mars. Pluto. Jupiter. Neptune. Triton. Saturn. And it's just coincidence that solar output is up at the same time? Right? And you claim that a few planets are stable (temperature wise). Which ones? Any solar bodies getting cooler?

 

[BeAChooser]

Lies, BAC. You spread deliberate lies.

I don't like being called a liar, GreyICE, when I can back up every statement I make with credible sources. Just because my interpretation of ALL the facts is different than your interpretation of just SOME of the facts, doesn't make me a liar. But it does make you somewhat close-minded.

 

[GreyICE]

Let's see. Which bodies in the solar system are heating up? The Earth. Mars. Pluto. Jupiter. Neptune. Triton. Saturn. And it's just coincidence that solar output is up at the same time? Right? And you claim that a few planets are stable (temperature wise). Which ones? Any solar bodies getting cooler?

Quick, BAC, how is that evidence that the sun is increasing output when we can measure the sun's output?

I don't like being called a liar, GreyICE, when I can back up every statement I make with credible sources. Just because my interpretation of ALL the facts is different than your interpretation of just SOME of the facts, doesn't make me a liar. But it does make you somewhat close-minded.

No, BAC. Taking a fact, drawing a conclusion, and then deliberately ignoring evidence that proves the conclusion false is a lie of omission. You are deliberately deceiving people.

If you don't like being called a liar... don't lie. Not to hard, neh?

That's what the sun is doing.

Now if you want to pretend its doing something different, if you want to ignore data and choose unrelated bits of information, and weave it together to claim something that most blatantly is not true, well, you may call it what you will. In the English language, we call it lying.

 

[mhaze]

Quick, BAC, how is that evidence that the sun is increasing output when we can measure the sun's output?

No, BAC. Taking a fact, drawing a conclusion, and then deliberately ignoring evidence that proves the conclusion false is a lie of omission. You are deliberately deceiving people. ......

Now if you want to pretend its doing something different, if you want to ignore data and choose unrelated bits of information, and weave it together to claim something that most blatantly is not true, well, you may call it what you will. In the English language, we call it lying.

Yes, GreyIce, that is what we call it and that is what you are doing.

Otherwise you'd address not the last 30 years, which for climate is just one data point on 30 year climatic averages, but one or several more reasonable historical periods of time. And it is in that frame of reference that (likely) Solansky's quote, which BeAChooser used, is accurate.

 

[lomiller]

Let's see. Which bodies in the solar system are heating up? The Earth. Mars. Pluto. Jupiter. Neptune. Triton. Saturn. And it's just coincidence that solar output is up at the same time? Right?

As the saying goes, “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”

Solar output has been going down since satellite measurement began in the 70’s. Proxy evidence suggests solar output hit it’s peak in the 50’s.

Of the 150 or so major objects in the solar system the only one other then the earth that you can make a somewhat convincing case for warming is Mars, and that is generally attributed to orbital causes.

 

[GreyICE]

Yes, GreyIce, that is what we call it and that is what you are doing.

Otherwise you'd address not the last 30 years, which for climate is just one data point on 30 year climatic averages, but one or several more reasonable historical periods of time. And it is in that frame of reference that Solansky's quote, which BeAChooser used, is accurate.

Are you kidding me? You are saying that the modern warming is caused by the sun, but all the sun's warming happened in the past? The accelerating warming trend is being caused by a cause that has stopped changing?

Is this a joke?

You may make up whatever claims you wish, but when you post lies on this forum, I shall call them lies. That goes for 0.25 too.

 

[lomiller]

I don't like being called a liar, GreyICE, when I can back up every statement I make with credible sources.

I highly doubt you can. I have already linked you to it once, have you even bothered to read the debunking astronomer and outgoing James Randi Educational Foundation president Phil Plait gave your claim?

 

[Dancing David]

Let's see. Which bodies in the solar system are heating up? The Earth. Mars. Pluto. Jupiter. Neptune. Triton. Saturn. And it's just coincidence that solar output is up at the same time? Right? And you claim that a few planets are stable (temperature wise). Which ones? Any solar bodies getting cooler?

And your sources are?

 

[BeAChooser]

Quick, BAC, how is that evidence that the sun is increasing output when we can measure the sun's output?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

That quick enough?

And notice there's a study by Dr Sallie Baliunas and Dr Willie Soon mentioned in the above linked article, along with a figure relating temperature to sunspot cycle length from 1700 to about 1990 from that study. It's captioned "A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data".

And here's a peer reviewed scientific paper by them:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/472/2/891

Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880-1993: An Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection … snip … The simulation implies that the solar part of the forcing alone would account for 71% of the global mean temperature variance, compared to 51% for the greenhouse gases' part alone. It also suggests a solar total irradiance variation of 0.5% during the interval 1880-1993.

Here's another article:

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/...ying Sun & Climate Change Soon & Baliunas.pdf

And here's the work of another group of scientists on this subject, which ties the recent cooling to solar cooling:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FORECASTING_SOLAR_CYCLE.pdf

Let me post an excerpt from it:

We took the solar irradiance of Hoyt and Schatten and correlated it with the US HCN annual mean temperatures climate data for 1221 stations. We chose this data set because it is the most stable (the global data set had a dropout from 6000 to 2000 stations (many of them rural) after 1990 and a rapid increase in missing months, making it less trustworthy. We found a correlation strength (r-squared) of 0.64 for temperatures lagging solar by 3 years (most suggest lags of 3-6 years).

Here's another article by yet two more scientists that is relevant to this debate:

http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

Nicola Scafetta, an associate research scientist working at Duke's physics department, and Bruce West, a Duke adjunct physics professor, published their findings online Sept. 28, 2005, in the research journal Geophysical Research Letters.

West is also chief scientist in the mathematical and information sciences directorate of the Army Research Office in Research Triangle Park.

Scafetta's and West's study follows a Columbia University researcher's report of previous errors in the interpretation of data on solar brightness collected by sun-observing satellites.

… snip ...

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However, only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gathered by satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientifically reliable, he said.

… snip ...

Nevertheless, several research groups used the combined satellite data to conclude that that there was no increased heating from the Sun to contribute to the global surface warming observed between 1980 and 2002, the authors wrote in their paper.

… snip ...

But a 2003 study by a group headed by Columbia's Richard Willson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, challenged the previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and his colleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the period.

Using the Columbia findings as the starting point for their study, Scafetta and West then statistically analyzed how Earth's atmosphere would respond to slightly stronger solar heating. Importantly, they used an analytical method that could detect the subtle, complex relationships between solar output and terrestrial temperature patterns.

… snip ...

Applying their analytical method to the solar output estimates by the Columbia group, Scafetta's and West's paper concludes that "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming."

That's what the sun is doing.

I can post images, too. I especially like this one from the NOAA (http://www.climate.gov/climate_dashboard/Sun.html):

because it shows that over the last hundred years, solar irradiance has increased ... during the exact period of time when the globe was warming. And isn't it interesting that according to global walarmist Phil Jones, global warming stopped about 1995. And what do you know. That's covers about two of those solar cycles you show in your image … when solar output hasn't (apparently) been increasing.

So I'll ask you again, not to call me a liar … before I complain.

 

[BeAChooser]

Solar output has been going down since satellite measurement began in the 70’s. Proxy evidence suggests solar output hit it’s peak in the 50’s.

Funny, that's not what any of the sources I just posted seem to indicate. You care to provide your sources to back up this claim.

I'll add another … just for fun.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html

July 18, 2004
Sun Energy Output At Over 1,000 Year Peak

Sami Solanki, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Switzerland, says the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years than over the previous 1090 years.

“We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.

The sun's brightness hasn't changed much over the last 20 years. But it has been brighter for the last 60 years than it has been at any time in the last 1,150 years.

According to scientists, the Sun’s radiance has changed little during this period. But looking back over 1,150 years, Solanki found the Sun had never been as bright as in the past 60 years.

Of the 150 or so major objects in the solar system the only one other then the earth that you can make a somewhat convincing case for warming is Mars, and that is generally attributed to orbital causes.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

And gee … this chart (from http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/#more-241 ) sure looks like it shows a relationship between solar radiation, Neptune's temperature and earth's temperature:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS Essay/neptune_temps.JPG

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-Earth-warming-unexpectedly-low-012110.aspx

Global Warming Lower Than Expected

January 21, 2010


Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity"--the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.



In a study published in the Journal of Climate, Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory, Robert Charlson of the Univ. of Washington and colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.

According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8 F. That is well more than the 1.4 F increase that has been observed for this time span.

Yet, Dr Karl is *still* 95% confident? And I imagine so are my critics on this thread?

 

[Shadowdweller]

And notice there's a study by Dr Sallie Baliunas and Dr Willie Soon mentioned in the above linked article, along with a figure relating temperature to sunspot cycle length from 1700 to about 1990 from that study. It's captioned "A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data".

That would be the discredited and disproven Soon and Baliunas article? Yeah, brilliant work as always BaC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ate-change-dives/story-e6frg6so-1225834031901

PUBLIC conviction in Britain about the threat of climate change has plummeted after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading poll has found.
Reports yesterday said the proportion of adults who believed climate change was "definitely" a reality dropped by 30 per cent over the past year, from 44 per cent to 31 per cent, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.

Just saying

 

[GreyICE]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html



That quick enough?

And notice there's a study by Dr Sallie Baliunas and Dr Willie Soon mentioned in the above linked article, along with a figure relating temperature to sunspot cycle length from 1700 to about 1990 from that study. It's captioned "A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data".

And here's a peer reviewed scientific paper by them:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/472/2/891



Here's another article:

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/...ying Sun & Climate Change Soon & Baliunas.pdf

And here's the work of another group of scientists on this subject, which ties the recent cooling to solar cooling:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FORECASTING_SOLAR_CYCLE.pdf

Let me post an excerpt from it:




Here's another article by yet two more scientists that is relevant to this debate:

http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html







I can post images, too. I especially like this one from the NOAA (http://www.climate.gov/climate_dashboard/Sun.html):

[qimg]http://www.climate.gov/climate_dashboard/images/Solar_Irradiance_Graph.gif[/qimg]

because it shows that over the last hundred years, solar irradiance has increased ... during the exact period of time when the globe was warming. And isn't it interesting that according to global walarmist Phil Jones, global warming stopped about 1995. And what do you know. That's covers about two of those solar cycles you show in your image … when solar output hasn't (apparently) been increasing.

So I'll ask you again, not to call me a liar … before I complain.

Wait, that graph lines up with this graph?

Not really. When that graph is increasing, this one is flat. When that one is flat, this is increasing.

Interesting idea of lining up. And by interesting, I mean another lie.

 

[Carefulplease]

Not really. When that graph is increasing, this one is flat. When that one is flat, this is increasing.

Indeed. What comparison of the graphs suggests is that increased mean (multi-decadal) solar output can account for some of the warming until 1950 and not at all for the even faster warming thereafter.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-ended-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

 

[lomiller]

Funny, that's not what any of the sources I just posted seem to indicate.

Funny, did you actually read your sources? Your source is an out of date study that says there was a negligible 0.04% increase and a plot of solar proxies that has it’s peak value in the 1950’s.

Here is a newer study

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.full

Abstract There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

And don’t forget the deniers have been yelling and screaming about us having entered some sort of “new maunder minimum” that is about to bring cooling.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ate-change-dives/story-e6frg6so-1225834031901



Just saying

Nothing about the science?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This isn't a science thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

This isn't a science thread.

Quite. You seem to be one of the few people who can address a science topic without ever addressing the science itself. Strange.