EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Blog sources again?



No, I uploaded the image onto my blog by taking a screen capture of the image from the peer reviewed paper.

Another red herring.


An overused meme especially when used in response to a question.

Quote:
Quote:
They may not be usre how they got an increase too ..... you quote a source that you have questions concerning the accuracy to support your belief.


The data shows a decrease in the early to mid 1990s, while Solanki and Krivova show an increase.

One of them has to be wrong.


and you will quote both where it suits you?


Snowy123 wrote:
So no comment on Dorman 2012 that shows that Cosmic Rays have decreased which highly correspond to temperature changes?


Yes, the correlation without a mechanism is not evidence of causation. The missing link is the mechanism by which the impact occurs. CERN's data shows insufficient mechanisms, which leaves only a correlation between the two. I could show a similar correlation between pirates and temperatue, but without a mechanism to show causation it is only a correlation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:26 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Like of a mechanism? Wait, the CERN experiments showed there was insufficient production even with the compound multipiers.



They also said that GCRs enhance the nucleation rate by up to ten times that of normal rates in the troposphere, which is a significant rate, and changes in the GCRs can impact climate, though how significant this impact is, is still up the air.

Quote:
What? Where is the evidence of the mechanism causing that cloud decrease? Not a correlation, but evidence of the specific mechanism.


See for example:

http://ftp.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty ... 202009.pdf

http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/hellab/Obridko/dorman.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2 ... 2536.shtml

http://seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5156v1.pdf

Quote:
Except for the recent period where there has been a decrease in solar activity and no corresdponding decrease in temperature. Unless there is some other factor for positive temperature gain, such as GHGs you have a problem.



The GCR Flux, ACRIM TSI, the AA Index, the Solar Flux, and the Solar Cycle length all point to increasing solar activity since the 1970s.

Quote:
Note the temperature starts to diverge after the start of the 20th century and is mainly above the scale at the end decade or so.


The authors of the study found that up to 70% of the warming can be attributed to the sun over the 20th Century. That is an extremely large portion for the 20th Century. The rest could be due to various other things, like the PDO/AMO, land use changes, and CO2.

Quote:
The problem is the recent period.


There is no problem with 'the recent period.' Look at the charts from Scafetta and West 07 and Dorman 12.

Quote:
A correlation with an evidenced mechanism is evidence of causation in such a case.


No it is not.

Quote:
Not in areas which are not coastal, not immediately impacted by coastal weather patterns, or are not urban.


Then can you explain Fall et. al 2011's discovery that in the best sited stations, there is no significant DTR trend, while in the worst quality (urban contaminated) stations, there was a trend downwards?

Fall et. al 2011 finds that in the CRN 5 weather stations, there is a significant decrease in the DTR range. Keep in mind that the CRN 5 stations are the worst quality stations, with many of them being impacted by urbanization.

Image

The graph above shows the trends in the diurnal temperature range for each type of weather station. There is no statistically significant trend in the diurnal temperature range for the best quality stations, wheras in the urbanized stations there is a statistically significant decrease in the DTR. What does this mean? It means that urbanization could account for most or all of the decrease in the DTR for most of the weather stations, since the highest quality weather stations do not display a trend in the DTR.

This also means that CO2 is not the driver of climate change in the best quality weather stations, or else we still would have observed a statistically significant decrease in the DTR in these non-urbanized weather stations, since there is no urban effect to contaminate the trends in the DTR in the best quality weather stations.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2240
Location: Central Colorado
http://climatecrocks.com/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Like of a mechanism? Wait, the CERN experiments showed there was insufficient production even with the compound multipiers.



They also said that GCRs enhance the nucleation rate by up to ten times that of normal rates in the troposphere, which is a significant rate, and changes in the GCRs can impact climate, though how significant this impact is, is still up the air.


The key statement was INSUFFICIENT, especially if we remove the subjective claim aspects of what MAY be found in the future. The evidence we have now is against this hypothesis.

Quote:
Quote:
What? Where is the evidence of the mechanism causing that cloud decrease? Not a correlation, but evidence of the specific mechanism.


See for example:

http://ftp.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty ... 202009.pdf

http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/hellab/Obridko/dorman.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2 ... 2536.shtml

http://seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf


You do understand what "evidence for a mechanism" is do you not? Statements of correlation are not evidence of a mechanism.

Quote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5156v1.pdf


Evidence which has been contradicted by two other studies, including CERN,which is not very promising.

Quote:
Quote:
Except for the recent period where there has been a decrease in solar activity and no corresdponding decrease in temperature. Unless there is some other factor for positive temperature gain, such as GHGs you have a problem.



The GCR Flux, ACRIM TSI, the AA Index, the Solar Flux, and the Solar Cycle length all point to increasing solar activity since the 1970s.


Since the 1970s to today? Really? Maybe if you ignore some of the data ... errr a lot of the data.

Quote:
Quote:
Note the temperature starts to diverge after the start of the 20th century and is mainly above the scale at the end decade or so.


The authors of the study found that up to 70% of the warming can be attributed to the sun over the 20th Century. That is an extremely large portion for the 20th Century. The rest could be due to various other things, like the PDO/AMO, land use changes, and CO2.


Up to 70% which means nothing concrete, correct? It could b2 70%, or 50%, or 25%, or even less and the statement would be just a valid. Now, if it is a cause and effect why does the temperature diverge ONLY in the most recent period?

Quote:
Quote:
The problem is the recent period.


There is no problem with 'the recent period.' Look at the charts from Scafetta and West 07 and Dorman 12.


There is a problem with the graph you used, and now you wish to play switch to another set? That smacks of cherry picking to me.

Quote:
Quote:
A correlation with an evidenced mechanism is evidence of causation in such a case.


No it is not.


But you will claim an unevidenced mechanism is evidence of causation when I asked for it in this thread? Yes, the correlation with an evidenced mechanism is evidence of causation especially if there is no way to do a control.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Quote:
Quote:
Not in areas which are not coastal, not immediately impacted by coastal weather patterns, or are not urban.


Then can you explain Fall et. al 2011's discovery that in the best sited stations, there is no significant DTR trend, while in the worst quality (urban contaminated) stations, there was a trend downwards?
Fall et. al 2011 finds that in the CRN 5 weather stations, there is a significant decrease in the DTR range. Keep in mind that the CRN 5 stations are the worst quality stations, with many of them being impacted by urbanization.
Image
The graph above shows the trends in the diurnal temperature range for each type of weather station. There is no statistically significant trend in the diurnal temperature range for the best quality stations, wheras in the urbanized stations there is a statistically significant decrease in the DTR. What does this mean? It means that urbanization could account for most or all of the decrease in the DTR for most of the weather stations, since the highest quality weather stations do not display a trend in the DTR.
This also means that CO2 is not the driver of climate change in the best quality weather stations, or else we still would have observed a statistically significant decrease in the DTR in these non-urbanized weather stations, since there is no urban effect to contaminate the trends in the DTR in the best quality weather stations.


Huh? Did you start on an entirely new discussion in the middle or what? Are the best quality stations supposed to be coastal to disprove the coastal aspect, or is it just support for my non-urban statement?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group