Replies

For some idiotic reason deluded minds like cogitator don’t want to believe that when the sun has increased in output by 0.3% over the last 200 years or so that it is NO surprise that the earth has warmed by about 0.3% during that same period of time.

For some idiotic reason, some people don't realize I'm aware of the Maunder Minimum. Some of the early 20th century warming is also attributable to increasing solar output, maybe the last "gasp" of recovery from the Maunder Minimum.

The warming since the 1970s -- now approaching 0.8 C -- cannot be explained by any correlation with any solar output/solar variability parameter.

The CO2 rise is quite likely the result, not the cause, of the temperature rise - at least ice core data suggests that strongly since it lags the temperature by about a millenium.

Totally and utterly wrong, particularly with regard to the modern era. See point #5 in my profile. With respect to the modern era, the temperature increase is not nearly enough to significantly affect air-sea CO2 fluxes -- and there are multiple ways of establishing that the atmospheric increase is due to fossil fuel combustion. You may be a physicist but you're clearly not a geochemist.

There may simply be a lag of several decades in the Earth’s temperature in response to the Sun’s radiation.

Or, more likely (as the climate scientists indicate), it's due to the lag of climate sensitivity in response to additional CO2 radiative forcing and ocean thermal inertia.

Your profile #BS has been refuted by many posts and by greater minds than yours, which serves simply as an alarmist’s website by now, rather than a scientific presentation of the facts.

“The warming since the 1970s — now approaching 0.8 C — cannot be explained by any correlation with any solar output/solar variability parameter.”

Wrong. There clearly are parameters left out of the fool “models” that may EASILY serve to amplify the raw solar influence: for example, suppose that the additional solar activity translates to less cloud cover and lower albedo instead of ASSuming a constant albedo. That can EASILY account for the temperature rise of the last century.

Again WRONG: There certainly are time lags we know about, and there may easily be lag mechanisms we DON’T yet know about that explain the temperature rise of the last 30 years and are a result of solar influence. In addition, the very recent NASA release of aerosol data suggests the apparent “lag” in temperature of the last 30 years may well simply be aerosols masking the additional solar irradiance, just as suggested by this graph years ago:

Of course there global temperature changes that the models can’t explain. They can’t even be nearly as smart as the people who program them, and they’re not even close to being able to predict El Nino a few years from now! Yet you and other alarmists want to count on them to predict temperatures a century from now? Gimme a break!

As far as that link, I’ve seen that before and consider it a good site to get data (but not necessarily good interpretation), and the thing that stands out is that the cosmic measurements they show are ALL during a period of historically high solar activity, of course. Also they imply that the temperature increase “must be due” something other than the sun by the way they scale the data of fig.4, rather than the most likely explanation: aerosols masking the “natural temperature” increase during the 40s-70s, as was suggested by scientists, not alarmists, many years ago.

Of course you’re not going to bother trying to refute the rest of that post: it’s irrefutable. Even the statement that “Kyoto... [was]... based on... INCORRECT temperature data to begin” is irrefutable. Now, the alarmists are simply trying to save face by saying, “well, we see that after appropriate corrections the temperature is not rising as sharply as we thought to begin with, but it’s still due to greenhouse effect more than anything else” - something that is only clear in their fool models that are capable to demonstrate anything and where “runs” are thrown out if they predict the earth cooling... so of course they are biased to show it warming (imagine that!) They can just as well design next years high fashion dress as the temperatures of the next century. Oh, and by the way, you still haven't 'splained how they show the

Garbage in, Garbage out... probably the first computer maxim I ever learned, and still just as true - but climate models produce garbage faster and even more difficult to sort out the truth.

Of course, you don’t want to attempt to point out the enormous cost and utter pointlessness of draconian measures to lower “greenhouse gasses” (except for the most important one: water vapor) People might not want to join your religious cult if they found out about that. Again, it’s irrefutable. And, you KNOW the cost is going to be FAR HIGHER than the alarmists minimalist quotes suggest.

It's very, very telling as to what you choose to refute and the way you try to take it out to some authoritative area, and what you choose not to. Your arguments are weak, and you don't address reality.

And, I'm still wondering why you haven't come up with a 'splanation of how the IPCC published models have Earth's temperatures going down despite increased irradiance during the 20th century. Apparently the alarmist web sites haven't realized that yet, and haven't given you your marching orders. Or perhaps, they haven't been able to make a new "model run" that can "correct" some oversight? Perhaps they might have to admit they don't understand something? Perhaps aerosols and the SUN!!! have more to do with the weather than they care to admit?

Garbage in, Garbage out - very, very fast...