New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

Guardian (England) ^ | July 11, 2007 | James Randerson

[drlevy88]

Doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo doo doo doo (cue swami music)

Correlation isn’t causation. Coincidental correlations CAN be turned into superstition.

[true_blue_texican]

The ultimate truth lies in the facts unearthed by experiment

And, pray tell, just what kind of "experiment" can be performed on Mother Earth and Father Sun to get to the "truth"?

[liberallarry]

No peer review

Is that really true? I find it unlikely given that is was the Royal Society which published it. It's not as if it was published in "Astounding Science Fiction".

[liberallarry]

And, pray tell, just what kind of "experiment" can be performed on Mother Earth and Father Sun to get to the "truth"?

You seem to have zero understanding of science. Zip. Zilch.

[Moonman62]

I wouldn’t attempt it. Ask those who study climate.

People who study climate seem to be about as trustworthy as Senators who support illegal immigration.

[Buckhead]

You gents will be interested in this, The Acquittal of CO2, http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html, which fits the CO2 lag in the paleoclimate data to the curve of the solubulity of CO2 in water. There is other discussion on this website of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (not what the Consensus says) and on the extent of the contribution of the sun to temperature anomalies.

Regards,

[drlevy88]

Bad experimental design is obvious here. Insolation theorists make claims about the trend of the average over many centuries, not about glitches of a few decades. Why worry about the ripples in the pond when the whole pond is draining or filling?

[an amused spectator]

You seem to have zero understanding of science. Zip. Zilch.

And you seem to have zero understanding of sarcasm, ll. :-)

[liberallarry]

LL’s argument boils down to “Whom Do You Trust” and he’s in the temple of what for all we know are blind guides.

Another distortion.

What I've said is that trust is a big factor for laymen who are unable to follow the intricacies of argument or interpret the results of experiment in real time. Ultimately, however, the truth will out for almost everyone.

While most still cannot follow the arguments of Copernicus, or Einstein, or Heisenberg the consequences of their theories in everyday life have led the public to overwhelmingly accept them.

[an amused spectator]

You gents will be interested in this, The Acquittal of CO2, http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html, which fits the CO2 lag in the paleoclimate data to the curve of the solubulity of CO2 in water. There is other discussion on this website of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (not what the Consensus says) and on the extent of the contribution of the sun to temperature anomalies.

Don't you have a website with just an abstract and then a main article that you can't actually read, Buckhead? ;-)

[Moonman62]

The paper was just published. Nobody has had time to challenge it yet.

[liberallarry]

And you seem to have zero understanding of sarcasm, ll. :-)

Possibly, but I think the man was being serious. He doesn't believe that man-made global warming can be verified or disproved by experiment...or at least that anything that's been done to date has any meaning.

[drlevy88]

But the short time period doesn’t matter, remember. Superstition Of The Week.

[liberallarry]

Yes, but the Royal Society didn’t publish it without a critical look by peers.

[agere_contra]

I don’t trust that article in your link. Something about the font doesn’t ring true ... :0)

[drlevy88]

The “peers” being themselves, for all we can see. We decline to name them the curiate of our Rome, thank you very much.

[agere_contra]

Yes, but the Royal Society didn’t publish it without a critical look by peers.

And the world-famed peer-reviewed Lancet, in the worst piece of medical statistics ever, reported the deaths of 655,000 dead Iraquis. Peer-review isn't quite the infallible safety net you imagine it to be.

[Thermalseeker]

The temp data from satellites is more accurate.?

Not necessarily. Just the temperature difference between the satellite and the ground station creates a huge amount of error that must be "adjusted" through computer algorithm. (no pun intended) Satellite temperature data isn't as accurate as you might have been lead to believe.

[an amused spectator]

You know, THAT'S the mistake that the Mary & Dan Show made: Perhaps they should have hidden "the memos" behind a pay wall, and then trotted out a bunch of "professionals" to tell us that they were "valid".

But, NO!!! They let the ignorant commoners actually handle the goods...

[agere_contra]

CO2 is not well-modeled as a slug of gas inserted as a forcing, but instead is overwhelmingly a temperature related feedback from the ocean.

Thank you Buckhead: awesome link!