EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:34 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:

Not according to the evidence we have it is not.



And what evidence might this be?

Quote:
There is no evidence to support the dominant mechanism, as you have already admitted. Without such evidence it cannot be deemed probable any more than the inverse pirate numbers can be deemed probable.


There is no evidence to support such a dominant mechanism for CO2, there is evidence that the sun has had a large impact on the climate in the past, and is having a large impact on the climate now.

See for example, Labitzke et. al 2006, Mayewski et. al 2005, Palus and Novotna 2011, and Ponyavin 2004.

The way we are warming is also inconsistent with the CO2 theory with the warming not being uniform in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Quote:
Given the massive lack of citation of the works on geomagnetic flux theory and the apparantly small number of authors involved in writing on the subject, I doubt that very much.


That is not correct, as Cliver et. al 1998 has gotten over 100 citations.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:35 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:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Why would they make the reference to the use of sunspot data like that in their abstract? I quoted form the abstract for the paper. Also if you look at the chart you see the diverging lines are pretty far apart and continuing at very differetn slopes. This started in about the 1951-1960 range too.


As an introduction to the point they are trying to prove, since many people use the SSN to quantify the solar forcing.

Does the trend over the last decades in their paper with the AA Index look "constant" to you?


No, it looks very inconsistant when compared to the temperature graph with which it is supposed to be connected so strongly.


There is definitely a strong correlation between geomagnetic activity and temperatures. The slight divergence towards the end of the timeframe, might be simply due to natural variability in the climate system, as many advocates claim is the case with CO2 increasing, and temperatures flatlining over the last 10 years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
So there is no point posting on a forum about environmental issues, I suspect your here to annoy people not to test your theory.


No, I am here to participate in the discussion, just like yourself.

Quote:
You need me to explain that again? firstly the sun did not do anything for 2000+ years and just when the industrial revolution kicks in the geomagnetic flux or whatever goes haywire.


This does not sound very scientific.

It has been observed that the geomagnetic flux has increased at a rapid rate compared to the last 1000 years, and that there was a MWP and LIA.

See Usoksin et. al 2004 for example (even advocates like Usoskin and Solanki who are authors of this paper agree that there has been a sharp increase in solar activity over the 20th Century).

Quote:

Robert Northrop is a scientist Wayne Stollings is a scientist a few others that you have crossed swords with are scientists. and butting in on a thread to tell everyone how your pet theory makes all our concerns irrelevant is rude.


Saying that I shouldn't participate in a discussion is the definition of rude.

Disagreeing with scientists is not rude... you sir are also disagreeing with many solar scientists.

BTW I did not know Wayne was a scientist. What degrees do you have, Wayne?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:03 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:
No, I am here to participate in the discussion, just like yourself.


A discussion is an interchange of ideas we aren't having that

Snowy123 wrote:
This does not sound very scientific.

It has been observed that the geomagnetic flux has increased at a rapid rate compared to the last 1000 years, and that there was a MWP and LIA.

See Usoksin et. al 2004 for example (even advocates like Usoskin and Solanki who are authors of this paper agree that there has been a sharp increase in solar activity over the 20th Century).


It may not sound scientific to you but I assure you that it is. You use the word observe when its imposible for something to be observed over the time period in question, I think you know what I am driving at. You put so much faith in proxy reconstructions as long as they tell you what you want to hear. Wayne has already pointed out your sources have the medieval warm period in a variety of different time periods. So as far as I'm concerned you don't know what your talking about, all the cut and paste is not going to advance the discussion.

Snowy123 wrote:
Saying that I shouldn't participate in a discussion is the definition of rude.

Disagreeing with scientists is not rude... you sir are also disagreeing with many solar scientists.

BTW I did not know Wayne was a scientist. What degrees do you have, Wayne?


I'm not disagreeing with many solar scientists they aren't here for a start and your solar scientists are only a small minority anyway. Claiming to be something your not so your opinions should be given more weight then they deserve may not be rude but it certainly makes you look like a buffoon, if it's rude to point that out then guilty as charged.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:

It may not sound scientific to you but I assure you that it is. You use the word observe when its imposible for something to be observed over the time period in question, I think you know what I am driving at. You put so much faith in proxy reconstructions as long as they tell you what you want to hear. Wayne has already pointed out your sources have the medieval warm period in a variety of different time periods. So as far as I'm concerned you don't know what your talking about, all the cut and paste is not going to advance the discussion.



You are rejecting anything that supports the solar hypothesis with no physical basis, and now that the data shows that there has been a rapid increase in solar activity, as indicated by the stark decline in the Carbon 14 isotope values over the last 100 years, you are accusing the data of being unreliable, because the solar activity could not POSSIBLY have increased during the industrial revolution.

You are a denier.

Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with many solar scientists they aren't here for a start and your solar scientists are only a small minority anyway.


You are embarrasing yourself.

You have shown time and time again that you do not know what an amateur climatologist is, and you are simply flat out wrong in the quote above.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:
You are rejecting anything that supports the solar hypothesis with no physical basis, and now that the data shows that there has been a rapid increase in solar activity, as indicated by the stark decline in the Carbon 14 isotope values over the last 100 years, you are accusing the data of being unreliable, because the solar activity could not POSSIBLY have increased during the industrial revolution.

You are a denier.



What do you expect to happen to carbon 14 levels when people start burning fossil fuels you idiot?


Snowy123 wrote:
You are embarrasing yourself.

You have shown time and time again that you do not know what an amateur climatologist is, and you are simply flat out wrong in the quote above
I am flat out wrong am I? How would you go about proving that? So if I look at the IPCC report I would not find any input by solar scientists? If I asked 10 random solar scientists what would they say? And an amateur climatologist is someone totally unfamiliar with the work of Svante Arrherius? right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Not according to the evidence we have it is not.



And what evidence might this be?


The evidence of the temperature nor the CO2 concentration never rising this quickly in the known history is a start.

Quote:
Quote:
There is no evidence to support the dominant mechanism, as you have already admitted. Without such evidence it cannot be deemed probable any more than the inverse pirate numbers can be deemed probable.


There is no evidence to support such a dominant mechanism for CO2, there is evidence that the sun has had a large impact on the climate in the past, and is having a large impact on the climate now.


Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence correlating temperature and CO2 increases throughout history. The fact we can increase the CO2 concentration to create a forcing is another bit of evidence to the unnatural nature of the situation.

Quote:
See for example, Labitzke et. al 2006, Mayewski et. al 2005, Palus and Novotna 2011, and Ponyavin 2004.

The way we are warming is also inconsistent with the CO2 theory with the warming not being uniform in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.


And there is even less evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable?

Quote:
Quote:
Given the massive lack of citation of the works on geomagnetic flux theory and the apparantly small number of authors involved in writing on the subject, I doubt that very much.


That is not correct, as Cliver et. al 1998 has gotten over 100 citations.


Yes and their focus was on irradiance correlation not cause and effect, which is not the same hypothesis.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Why would they make the reference to the use of sunspot data like that in their abstract? I quoted form the abstract for the paper. Also if you look at the chart you see the diverging lines are pretty far apart and continuing at very differetn slopes. This started in about the 1951-1960 range too.


As an introduction to the point they are trying to prove, since many people use the SSN to quantify the solar forcing.

Does the trend over the last decades in their paper with the AA Index look "constant" to you?


No, it looks very inconsistant when compared to the temperature graph with which it is supposed to be connected so strongly.


Snowy123 wrote:
There is definitely a strong correlation between geomagnetic activity and temperatures. The slight divergence towards the end of the timeframe, might be simply due to natural variability in the climate system, as many advocates claim is the case with CO2 increasing, and temperatures flatlining over the last 10 years.


In other words the "strong correlation" goes to hell in a handbasket once you get into the range where the human induced impacts are the greatest because the human induced impacts overshadow the natural variation at that time.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:

Saying that I shouldn't participate in a discussion is the definition of rude.

Disagreeing with scientists is not rude... you sir are also disagreeing with many solar scientists.

BTW I did not know Wayne was a scientist. What degrees do you have, Wayne?


My field of study was Chemical Engineering, but I have operated environmental laboratories monitoring air emissions for over twnety years.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:

What do you expect to happen to carbon 14 levels when people start burning fossil fuels you idiot?



Carbon 14 levels have been DECLINING in the 20th Century, so you are being hypocritical when you call me an idiot.

In addition, we have Beryllium 10 isotopes that pretty much confirm what the decline in Carbon 14 isotopes tell us, that solar activity ramped up strongly during the 20th Century. Read the Usoskin et. al paper I posted.

Quote:
I am flat out wrong am I? How would you go about proving that? So if I look at the IPCC report I would not find any input by solar scientists?


http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judit ... solar.html

There are plenty of solar physicists who disagree with the IPCC.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:48 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:

Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence correlating temperature and CO2 increases throughout history. The fact we can increase the CO2 concentration to create a forcing is another bit of evidence to the unnatural nature of the situation.



Didn't we just go over that assuming that this is a causation is not correct?

Solar Activity had also increased substantially to levels that are unusual during the Holocene, perhaps even unprecedented.

Quote:
The evidence of the temperature nor the CO2 concentration never rising this quickly in the known history is a start.


Solar Activity had also increased substantially to levels that are unusual during the Holocene, perhaps even unprecedented.

Quote:
And there is even less evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable?


I posted those papers to show that there are many other ways that the sun can indirectly influence the Earth's atmospheric dynamics besides just through the GCR.

There is also a lot of papers documenting a GCR-climate link as well:

See for example Rusov et. al 2005, Tinsley et. al 2009,and Christl et. al 2004, and Ogurtsov et. al 2002

Quote:
Yes and their focus was on irradiance correlation not cause and effect, which is not the same hypothesis.


Please admit that you were mistaken about this claim:

Given the massive lack of citation of the works on geomagnetic flux theory

They focused on the changes in Geomagnetic activity and not solar irradiance.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:50 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:
...


That's an exaggeration. The gap is only slightly larger than the early 20th Century gap.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:51 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:
Snowy123 wrote:

Saying that I shouldn't participate in a discussion is the definition of rude.

Disagreeing with scientists is not rude... you sir are also disagreeing with many solar scientists.

BTW I did not know Wayne was a scientist. What degrees do you have, Wayne?


My field of study was Chemical Engineering, but I have operated environmental laboratories monitoring air emissions for over twnety years.


Would you consider yourself to be a climate scientist?

Just curious.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence correlating temperature and CO2 increases throughout history. The fact we can increase the CO2 concentration to create a forcing is another bit of evidence to the unnatural nature of the situation.



Didn't we just go over that assuming that this is a causation is not correct?


No, there is a proven mechanism connected to the cause and effect.

Quote:
Solar Activity had also increased substantially to levels that are unusual during the Holocene, perhaps even unprecedented.


Solar activity as in solar output? References?

Quote:
Quote:
The evidence of the temperature nor the CO2 concentration never rising this quickly in the known history is a start.


Solar Activity had also increased substantially to levels that are unusual during the Holocene, perhaps even unprecedented.


References?

Quote:
Quote:
And there is even less evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable?


I posted those papers to show that there are many other ways that the sun can indirectly influence the Earth's atmospheric dynamics besides just through the GCR.

There is also a lot of papers documenting a GCR-climate link as well:

See for example Rusov et. al 2005, Tinsley et. al 2009,and Christl et. al 2004, and Ogurtsov et. al 2002


As I stated, there is LESS evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes and their focus was on irradiance correlation not cause and effect, which is not the same hypothesis.


Please admit that you were mistaken about this claim:

Given the massive lack of citation of the works on geomagnetic flux theory


Why? The geomagnetic flux theory does not claim increased radiance as the effect does it?

Quote:
They focused on the changes in Geomagnetic activity and not solar irradiance.


In connection to levels of radiance. If the theory is that the activity causes the increased radiance to warm and thus cause cloud cover, then it would be connected. If the theory is not reliant on radiance, then the paper is not connected. Just the mention of the flux does not make it part of the theory.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:26 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:

Saying that I shouldn't participate in a discussion is the definition of rude.

Disagreeing with scientists is not rude... you sir are also disagreeing with many solar scientists.

BTW I did not know Wayne was a scientist. What degrees do you have, Wayne?


My field of study was Chemical Engineering, but I have operated environmental laboratories monitoring air emissions for over twnety years.


Would you consider yourself to be a climate scientist?

Just curious.



No, climate is not my field of study, but the basic science is the same and some of my experience is also directly useful in the understanding. I am better versed than many of the other non-climate scientists I have had the opportunity to speak with on the subject.

I first became aware of the increasing CO2 levels when I helped my son with a school science project. He wasnted to see if the concentration was different in the city and country where there was more vegetation. The levels did not match my CRC Handbooks for concentrations in ambient air by a large amount. I was worried our analysis was somehoe skewed and did some research. I then found the increasing levels were documented but the proportion charts had not been corrected. That was in the mid 1990s and I have studied the situation ever since.

_________________
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  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group