|
Post by principled on Feb 25, 2012 13:59:05 GMT 1
Mak2 You make a couple of valid points. P
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Feb 25, 2012 15:37:58 GMT 1
Mak2 You make a couple of valid points. P I'm afraid not. It's just a lack of awareness driven by denial. A rational debate about AGW is just not possible on this MB because some here have an agenda to push, come hell or high water. Myths and half-facts seem to rule here.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 25, 2012 16:44:55 GMT 1
Mak2 You make a couple of valid points. P I'm afraid not. It's just a lack of awareness driven by denial. A rational debate about AGW is just not possible on this MB because some here have an agenda to push, come hell or high water. Myths and half-facts seem to rule here. "Half facts" like spliced data and cherry picked start points on graphs? If you want a mutual appreciation forum on CAGW, might I suggest "the Guardian".
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Feb 25, 2012 17:50:08 GMT 1
I'm afraid not. It's just a lack of awareness driven by denial. A rational debate about AGW is just not possible on this MB because some here have an agenda to push, come hell or high water. Myths and half-facts seem to rule here. "Half facts" like spliced data and cherry picked start points on graphs? If you want a mutual appreciation forum on CAGW, might I suggest "the Guardian". If you're going to make outrageous accusations please have the good manners to provide proper references for them, and I don't mean bogus propaganda from prejudiced websites that are terrified of the threat to big business the AGW challenge presents. Hmmm...you run a business, don't you? Might have guessed. BTW, newspapers have a political bias - that's why they exist so stop being childish.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 25, 2012 17:51:01 GMT 1
Well Striker fourteen out of ten for loyalty. The Union of Concerned Scientists have moved on. The site is dated for 'climate'. They [UCS] are discussing use/misuse of drugs. Probably a good move. The skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprecedented-in-last-1450-years.htmlpost uses data from a Nature "Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years" www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html but note in the text it states ... "Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years." The graph starts at AD 550. From then to the 1400's they state they are really uncertain about the figures. They earlier state that they are using "high-resolution terrestrial proxies" as they then stated they were unsure, ergo they can't be very 'high resolution'? The 'Maunder Minimum' portion is shown with a large uncertainty on the graph [above the 'ex' of 'extent'], well one thing is for sure it was cold then. The 'pink' on the graph is so large that no real credibility can be attached to it.
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Feb 25, 2012 18:18:09 GMT 1
StuartG, just ask yourself this simle question:
If there had been global warming in the past on the scale we are witnessing today don't you think it would be bloody obvious? The answer, of course, is that there could never have been such an event because modern industrialisation has never existed before hence the alarming increase in greenhouse gases. There would have been records, both written and ecological, that an event such as is happening today occurred, even hundreds or thousands of years back. No such records exist, I'm afraid. Gradual warming has occurred before many times in earth's history but natural warming due to volcanic activity and weather patterns, etc., NOT a very sudden warming we have at present. A further point that uninformed people don't seem to grasp is that, yes, we are in a natural warming phase now, however, it is human activity that is tipping the balance to extreme warming. Why don't you people trust scientists? Now come on!
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Feb 25, 2012 18:29:00 GMT 1
The graph starts at AD 550. From then to the 1400's they state they are really uncertain about the figures. They earlier state that they are using "high-resolution terrestrial proxies" as they then stated they were unsure, ergo they can't be very 'high resolution'? The 'Maunder Minimum' portion is shown with a large uncertainty on the graph [above the 'ex' of 'extent'], well one thing is for sure it was cold then. You are just selecting bits of evidence in isolation that are not as accurate as we would like, however, what you should be doing is examining all the independent sources of evidence in support of AGW which, when taken as a whole, strongly supports the man-made warming hypothesis. This is a nitpicking approach and basically dishonest. If you were a barrister in a criminal court defending a client would you just examine one or two pieces of evidence or consider the whole raft of evidence in order to argue your case? I think you know the answer to this question Stuart.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 25, 2012 21:09:52 GMT 1
Striker, you haven't defended either post. You put them up for review. The various articles have to be believable, big error bars do not a convincing argument make. Skeptical Science uses the Sun to defend against the Medieval Warm Period on one page ... www.skepticalscience.com/Medieval-Warm-Period-rhetoric-vs-science.htmlon that page and to the left is a title 'It's the Sun', if that is taken this is presented ... www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmon the graph they state that the data for "Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 " and then compare it to the satellite observations onwards. How did they do that in 1880? They then state [correctly] that the TSI is ~1366. That is the Sun's radiation at the top of the atmosphere, that is the beginning of Solar space. They then compare it to temperature on the Earth's surface. Ignoring the attenuation of the atmosphere to the Sun's energy. Contrast that with the MWP where it was caused by the Sun. "Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times." We ought to be slipping on the excess grapes rather than icy paths.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 25, 2012 22:18:13 GMT 1
"Half facts" like spliced data and cherry picked start points on graphs? If you want a mutual appreciation forum on CAGW, might I suggest "the Guardian". If you're going to make outrageous accusations please have the good manners to provide proper references for them, and I don't mean bogus propaganda from prejudiced websites that are terrified of the threat to big business the AGW challenge presents. Hmmm...you run a business, don't you? Might have guessed. BTW, newspapers have a political bias - that's why they exist so stop being childish. Umm, have a look at the graphs I linked to. They expose your silly 1970 - 2000 graph for the propaganda it is. I run a business and I'm doing quite well so I can afford the ludicrous taxes levied in the name of CAGW. I just have some empathy for the poor bastards that can't. Don't you?
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Feb 25, 2012 22:22:42 GMT 1
"Direct irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites. However, the correlation between irradiance measurements and other proxies of solar activity make it reasonable to estimate past solar activity. Most important among these proxies is the record of sunspot observations that has been recorded since ~1610." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Solar_activity_and_irradiance_measurementWhy don't you look these things up yourself Stuart instead of automatically assuming they are wrong? Do you honestly think scientists haven't considered all this? Stuart, if you are looking for perfect data you won't get it but you will get strong evidence, nevertheless, that the sun has little to do with AGW. Naturally, we are in a much better position today to gather more accurate data. Stop wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Feb 26, 2012 3:51:22 GMT 1
...and the Wiki quote goes on to say ... "Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period)." so it is the Sun wot dunnit, then. or is it? from that Wiki it states ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Solar_irradiance_of_Earth_and_its_surface"There is some evidence that sunshine at the Earth's surface has been decreasing in the last 50 years (see global dimming) possibly caused by increased atmospheric pollution, whilst over roughly the same timespan solar output has been nearly constant." so the Sun dunnit not. On the 'Arctic sea ice extent over the last 1,450 years' as already pointed out, is based on the Nature Letter ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html#/ref2at the bottom of the abstract it states ... "Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming." appears to be at odds with the Skeptical Science article, Mediaeval Warm Period, where it states ... www.skepticalscience.com/Medieval-Warm-Period-rhetoric-vs-science.html"New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms." As you state "the sun has little to do with AGW" is a truism, the Sun has a lot to do with GW, however, is also a truism.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 26, 2012 9:17:06 GMT 1
Apart from the fact that it's not true.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Feb 26, 2012 9:22:52 GMT 1
And here we get to the nub of the problem with deniers - you are driven by politics, not science.
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Feb 26, 2012 10:22:40 GMT 1
You keep presenting data that is out of context, Stuart: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Solar_Variation_and_ClimateIn other words, while there is a marginal effect on climate from solar activity, the evidence to date indicates a much greater impact on climate by greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. Please stop distorting information Stuart. Are you that desperate to deny AGW? Ultimately, AGW deniers simply accuse climatologists and the IPCC of lying anyway so what's the point of debating this issue further?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 26, 2012 19:15:45 GMT 1
And here we get to the nub of the problem with deniers - you are driven by politics, not science. Boring.
|
|