EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:36 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:54 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

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

I think I know enough about your argument to explain it in laymans terms though and it's incorrect to say that you believe the sun is brightening. What you are claiming is that changes in the magnetic field are effecting cloud formation and in turn is affecting temperature not the TSI or total solar iridescence or the heat output of the sun which would be easy to measure. Your theory sounds plausible although it might not necessarily be true, my understanding is nobody has found a smoking gun, spectography is the smoking gun with CO2.

Mainstream opinion and my opinion is that while changes in the sun may possibly cause changes in climate therefore its worth studying the changes due to changes in CO2 concentrations are far greater. so manmade climate change is a real and pressing concern.

I thought the link was a sloppy webpage and explicitly has a agenda.


TSI has an impact, it is just a weak impact compared to the indirect effects of the sun.

Spectography is the smoking gun that CO2 has an impact. It does not tell us how large this impact is. I will bring up the cell phone example again.

Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!

So saying that CO2 has an effect does not mean that it has a large effect or a dominant effect.

The smoking gun that Cosmic Rays have an impact come from the CERN experiment, measurements, and other experiments like this one.

"However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

So it is known that they both have an impact. The question is, how much have each of these contributed to the recent waming trend?

I would argue otherwise that changes in the sun are greater than CO2 just by looking at past history and over the last 150 years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
We "know" this has to be wrong as it uses temperature reconstructions of Micheal Mann as evidence of the correllation between temperature and sunspot activity. Right?

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30].

[28] M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
[29] P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, Science 292, 662 (2001).


In the paper they should have cited a reconstruction like Esper et. al instead of Mann et. al.

It does not really impact their conclusions though.


It does not? If the Mann reconstruction temperatures are so "wrong" and they cite those reconstructions as evidence of the correlation between temperature and solar activity, that correlation must also be just as "wrong" and the conclusions drawn from that evidence also just as "wrong". That is if the view of science used was applied equally and without bias.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:18 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events ... skydaekke/

Facts about the experiment

A chamber contains air with precisely balanced amounts of sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour irradiated with electrons. Sunlight is a necessary ingredient for aerosol formation in the natural atmosphere, and it is imitated in the climate chamber by a lamp that emits ultraviolet light. Natural atmospheric processes such as the formation of sulphuric acid are thus imitated, and these are an important ingredient in the aerosols. When electrons from the accelerator irradiate the air mixture, an increase takes place in the production of aerosols, which act as nuclei for the production of cloud droplets. In previous SKY experiments conducted by DTU Space in Copenhagen, cosmic radiation was simulated by gamma radiation, and the scientists saw here that the gamma rays could also form aerosols. In the new experiment with the energy-rich electrons from the ASTRID accelerator, there is much more resemblance to the cosmic rays that occur in nature.


They proved that the particles produced by GCRs were too small, but that doesn't mean that the particles can't grow to form CCNs. They also proved that Sulphuric Acid concentrations were too small to explain nucleation, which means that another substance must be responsible. It does not prove that the impact from Cosmic Rays is small by any means.


It does not? The cosmic rays do not have sufficient impact to explain the observed effect. The cosmic rays do not have sufficient impact when coupled with H2SO4 and the multiplication factor that entails, to explain the observed effect. The cosmic rays do not have sufficient impact when coupled with NH3 and the multiplication factor that entials, to explain the observed effect. That is evidence the cosmic rays do not have the effect observed in the atmosphere without another variable added to increase the multiplication factor even further. There are fewer variables available now than before and the probability is much lower.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Interesting, thanks.

"You learn something new every day" is the old saying...

Have you published any papers? I found this paper on Google Scholar:

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord. ... cookie=yes


This brings about some interesting observations about science, but it takes a bit of a story to get to them.

In the early 1990s when the U.S. EPA was first discussing the monitoring of landfill gas (LFG), I was approached by one of the researchers at State to help them monitor their model landiflls in some economical fashion. They were taking core samples of landfills and comparing them to average percentage based compositions. Both sets were placed in chemical digesters to mimic an accelerated life cycle of a landfill. They needed to monitor CH4, CO2, and organics, which was one of out specialties. I came up with a procedure that seemed to work and we generated data with them for a few years. One day the local EPA facility released their proposed methods for monitoring LFG. It was the same procedure we had been using with State's model landfills. The problem was the emissions of organic compounds from LFG in the later portions of the lifecycle were not condusive to this process. So, eventhough I was immediately one of the foremost experts on this method as it was what I had developed, I was also the foremost opponent to the sampling method for the same reason. There just needed to be some minor tweaking and the method would have worked beautifully. The problem was it would have increased the cost significantly, so the industry opposed it, and all of the data State had generated for the industry was based on the inaccurate method. Since the emission of organic compounds was also treated as a simple average, the changes would not have made that much of a real difference and there were other errors in the procedures that could be easily changed and better results would be attained. I choose to focus on those changes and win the more important battles rather than waste my efforts on the technical victories.

That paper was one of the ones whereI pointed out ALL of the problems of the methodologies and I bleive the last one in which that was done. Since then I have made more corrections with less investment of time and effort on my part.

It paid off when the auditor for our accreditation pointed out that I had misunderstood the calibration requirements for one of the methods. I quesitoned his interpretation and checked with the Emission Measurement Center of the U.S. EPA for clarification. They confirmed the auditors interpretation was correct and informed me the alternative I had been using was so much better in application they would be making a change to allow it withint the week so as to not cause us a problem with the accreditation renewal.

That was not even a battle, just a very good explanation of how one way was much better and more economical than the others. It also was better science as it went from a single point claibration to 3 point calibration that connected all of the samples within the set to each other via the same calibration instead of possibly several calibrations.

I strill would love to see the methods corrected, but probably not in my lifetime, unless I can get a low voltage instrumentation method that runs off battery power to work to my specifications. I have higher standards than some and that has caused me to refuse to preform some methods. That has been enough for some to also refuse to use them because they know my requirements are not for perfection, but not just anything will do either.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:

I think I know enough about your argument to explain it in laymans terms though and it's incorrect to say that you believe the sun is brightening. What you are claiming is that changes in the magnetic field are effecting cloud formation and in turn is affecting temperature not the TSI or total solar iridescence or the heat output of the sun which would be easy to measure. Your theory sounds plausible although it might not necessarily be true, my understanding is nobody has found a smoking gun, spectography is the smoking gun with CO2.

Mainstream opinion and my opinion is that while changes in the sun may possibly cause changes in climate therefore its worth studying the changes due to changes in CO2 concentrations are far greater. so manmade climate change is a real and pressing concern.

I thought the link was a sloppy webpage and explicitly has a agenda.


TSI has an impact, it is just a weak impact compared to the indirect effects of the sun.

Spectography is the smoking gun that CO2 has an impact. It does not tell us how large this impact is. I will bring up the cell phone example again.

Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!

So saying that CO2 has an effect does not mean that it has a large effect or a dominant effect.

The smoking gun that Cosmic Rays have an impact come from the CERN experiment, measurements, and other experiments like this one.

"However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

So it is known that they both have an impact. The question is, how much have each of these contributed to the recent waming trend?

I would argue otherwise that changes in the sun are greater than CO2 just by looking at past history and over the last 150 years.


And ignoring the correlation between increasing temperatures and CO2 levels for as far back as we can find data? The acceptacne criteria for the TSI impact is far less stringent than the acceptance criteria used for the CO2 impact.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:54 am 
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:
spot1234 wrote:

I think I know enough about your argument to explain it in laymans terms though and it's incorrect to say that you believe the sun is brightening. What you are claiming is that changes in the magnetic field are effecting cloud formation and in turn is affecting temperature not the TSI or total solar iridescence or the heat output of the sun which would be easy to measure. Your theory sounds plausible although it might not necessarily be true, my understanding is nobody has found a smoking gun, spectography is the smoking gun with CO2.

Mainstream opinion and my opinion is that while changes in the sun may possibly cause changes in climate therefore its worth studying the changes due to changes in CO2 concentrations are far greater. so manmade climate change is a real and pressing concern.

I thought the link was a sloppy webpage and explicitly has a agenda.


TSI has an impact, it is just a weak impact compared to the indirect effects of the sun.

Spectography is the smoking gun that CO2 has an impact. It does not tell us how large this impact is. I will bring up the cell phone example again.

Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!

So saying that CO2 has an effect does not mean that it has a large effect or a dominant effect.

The smoking gun that Cosmic Rays have an impact come from the CERN experiment, measurements, and other experiments like this one.

"However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

So it is known that they both have an impact. The question is, how much have each of these contributed to the recent waming trend?

I would argue otherwise that changes in the sun are greater than CO2 just by looking at past history and over the last 150 years.




Well you're free to have that opinion, I don't think you understand the evidence. Waynes already taken the trouble of responding to your claims about CERN do you have the courtesy to read his posts?

If you have enough cell phones or a small enough room or more practically and familiar to me say a small test chamber it will heat up. What's more you could calculate what the effect would be. A faulty mobile phone would give out more heat, if say the fault was a filter it would show up on a spectograph connected to the output of the phone that power that should be converted to RF is not, chances are the faulty component is so hot it will take the skin off your finger. you could if you wanted use the information at your disposal to work out the effect on the temperature of the test chamber.

Spectography tells us exactly how much power is being converted into heat. Why does the atmosphere have different rules to the test chamber?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:12 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!


In a superinsulated building, yes this level of heat source can determine the temperature of a building. The CO2 aspect is similar to adding insulation to the building, which makes it a fairly good comparison in this case.

The added CO2 "insulation" makes the smaller changes in additional heat more significant because there is less loss of that heat.

That does not mean there are no other variables, but all things equal the added CO2 will have this type of effect. This is supported by experimental data as well as observations of correlations over time as opposed to your observations of correlation over time without the experimental data support.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:

Quote:
TSI has an impact, it is just a weak impact compared to the indirect effects of the sun.

Spectography is the smoking gun that CO2 has an impact. It does not tell us how large this impact is. I will bring up the cell phone example again.

Actually it does allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the direct effect of CO2 and as you are probably aware this figure is 0.8 to 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2.

Quote:
Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!

You are a bit confused here cell phones generate heat due to potential energy being released in to the cell phone circuits. All objects that are above 0 Deg K radiate and absorb radiation, an equilibrium is reached with its neighbours, when the radiation in is in balance with the radiation out. This is the fundamental problem with GHGs they alter the radiation flows through the atmosphere causing an increase in near surface temperatures.


Quote:
So saying that CO2 has an effect does not mean that it has a large effect or a dominant effect.

This is quite correct but unfortunately the minor effect of CO2 causing 3 or 4 deg C increase in temperature is going to be a major problem for nearly all life on earth.

Quote:
The smoking gun that Cosmic Rays have an impact come from the CERN experiment, measurements, and other experiments like this one.

"However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

So it is known that they both have an impact. The question is, how much have each of these contributed to the recent waming trend?

I would argue otherwise that changes in the sun are greater than CO2 just by looking at past history and over the last 150 years.

You can argue as much as you like but the people who thoroughly understand the science say you are wrong.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
It does a reasonable estimate of the direct effect of CO2 and as you are probably aware this figure is 0.8 to 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2.



Yes, I am aware that this is the temperature change that a doubling of CO2 would have in a scenario with no feedbacks- a blackbody.

It is likely that there are negative feedbacks that act to supress the warming even further.

Quote:
You are a bit confused here cell phones generate heat due to potential energy being released in to the cell phone circuits. All objects that are above 0 Deg K radiate and absorb radiation, an equilibrium is reached with its neighbours, when the radiation in is in balance with the radiation out.


You missed my point.

The point is, just because that we know something impacts the surroundings, does not mean it is a large factor by any means.

Quote:
This is quite correct but unfortunately the minor effect of CO2 causing 3 or 4 deg C increase in temperature is going to be a major problem for nearly all life on earth.


I still can not believe how some people can believe sensitivities that high.

In order to believe a 4 Degree sensitivity, you would have to believe that the increase in CO2 has caused a 1.6 Degree C temperature change over the 20th Century, which we haven't even come close to.

You would then need to prove that something is so strong that it would create a cooling of 0.8-0.9 Degrees C to give us the 0.7-0.8 Degrees C of warming we have observed during the 20th Century.

If it were aerosoles, we would see the Northern Hemisphere warming the slowest, and the cities would be seeing enormous temperature drops to get the global value of nearly 1 Degree C cooling, since the impacts of aerosoles are short lived and very local.

We don't see either of these.

Quote:
You can argue as much as you like but the people who thoroughly understand the science say you are wrong.


There are many people who are skeptical who would argue that you were mistaken yourself.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:01 am 
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:
We "know" this has to be wrong as it uses temperature reconstructions of Micheal Mann as evidence of the correllation between temperature and sunspot activity. Right?

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30].

[28] M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
[29] P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, Science 292, 662 (2001).


In the paper they should have cited a reconstruction like Esper et. al instead of Mann et. al.

It does not really impact their conclusions though.


It does not? If the Mann reconstruction temperatures are so "wrong" and they cite those reconstructions as evidence of the correlation between temperature and solar activity, that correlation must also be just as "wrong" and the conclusions drawn from that evidence also just as "wrong". That is if the view of science used was applied equally and without bias.


They mention that higher solar activity in the 1000s correlates to a timeframe where temperatures were warmer, and lower solar activity in the 1600s correlates to a period of cool temperatures, which I think pretty much all non-Mann et. al reconstructions show.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:09 am 
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:
spot1234 wrote:

I think I know enough about your argument to explain it in laymans terms though and it's incorrect to say that you believe the sun is brightening. What you are claiming is that changes in the magnetic field are effecting cloud formation and in turn is affecting temperature not the TSI or total solar iridescence or the heat output of the sun which would be easy to measure. Your theory sounds plausible although it might not necessarily be true, my understanding is nobody has found a smoking gun, spectography is the smoking gun with CO2.

Mainstream opinion and my opinion is that while changes in the sun may possibly cause changes in climate therefore its worth studying the changes due to changes in CO2 concentrations are far greater. so manmade climate change is a real and pressing concern.

I thought the link was a sloppy webpage and explicitly has a agenda.


TSI has an impact, it is just a weak impact compared to the indirect effects of the sun.

Spectography is the smoking gun that CO2 has an impact. It does not tell us how large this impact is. I will bring up the cell phone example again.

Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!

So saying that CO2 has an effect does not mean that it has a large effect or a dominant effect.

The smoking gun that Cosmic Rays have an impact come from the CERN experiment, measurements, and other experiments like this one.

"However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

So it is known that they both have an impact. The question is, how much have each of these contributed to the recent waming trend?

I would argue otherwise that changes in the sun are greater than CO2 just by looking at past history and over the last 150 years.


And ignoring the correlation between increasing temperatures and CO2 levels for as far back as we can find data?


The sun also correlates highly with temperature as I have posted many times.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
They confirmed the auditors interpretation was correct and informed me the alternative I had been using was so much better in application they would be making a change to allow it withint the week so as to not cause us a problem with the accreditation renewal.


:clap:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:04 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:

They mention that higher solar activity in the 1000s correlates to a timeframe where temperatures were warmer, and lower solar activity in the 1600s correlates to a period of cool temperatures, which I think pretty much all non-Mann et. al reconstructions show.


I'm sorry snowy that statement isn't even close to true, examples;

Wahl2007, Huang2000, Smith2006, Oerlemans 2005.

The fact is that it has gotten warmer quicker then anytime in the last 1000 years probably far longer then that. The change from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was slower, to suggest that it's all due to almost impossible to detect changes in the suns magnetic field is ridiculous. especially when we have a well understood mechanism for that change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
We "know" this has to be wrong as it uses temperature reconstructions of Micheal Mann as evidence of the correllation between temperature and sunspot activity. Right?

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30].

[28] M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
[29] P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, Science 292, 662 (2001).


In the paper they should have cited a reconstruction like Esper et. al instead of Mann et. al.

It does not really impact their conclusions though.


It does not? If the Mann reconstruction temperatures are so "wrong" and they cite those reconstructions as evidence of the correlation between temperature and solar activity, that correlation must also be just as "wrong" and the conclusions drawn from that evidence also just as "wrong". That is if the view of science used was applied equally and without bias.


Snowy123 wrote:
They mention that higher solar activity in the 1000s correlates to a timeframe where temperatures were warmer, and lower solar activity in the 1600s correlates to a period of cool temperatures, which I think pretty much all non-Mann et. al reconstructions show.


If data is "wrong" to the degree the Mann reconstructions have been claimed by those like yourself, why would ANYTHING using the so badly flawed data EVER be considered accurate enough t to use? It seems more than a bit odd to me, but then again I am not grasping at straws nor ranting about Mann being so wrong when other reconstructions show the similar trends.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:

I think I know enough about your argument to explain it in laymans terms though and it's incorrect to say that you believe the sun is brightening. What you are claiming is that changes in the magnetic field are effecting cloud formation and in turn is affecting temperature not the TSI or total solar iridescence or the heat output of the sun which would be easy to measure. Your theory sounds plausible although it might not necessarily be true, my understanding is nobody has found a smoking gun, spectography is the smoking gun with CO2.

Mainstream opinion and my opinion is that while changes in the sun may possibly cause changes in climate therefore its worth studying the changes due to changes in CO2 concentrations are far greater. so manmade climate change is a real and pressing concern.

I thought the link was a sloppy webpage and explicitly has a agenda.


TSI has an impact, it is just a weak impact compared to the indirect effects of the sun.

Spectography is the smoking gun that CO2 has an impact. It does not tell us how large this impact is. I will bring up the cell phone example again.

Cell phones are known to radiate heat, since anything above 0 Kelvin radiates. Does that mean that the temperature of a building is determined by the number of people on their cell phones? No!

So saying that CO2 has an effect does not mean that it has a large effect or a dominant effect.

The smoking gun that Cosmic Rays have an impact come from the CERN experiment, measurements, and other experiments like this one.

"However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

So it is known that they both have an impact. The question is, how much have each of these contributed to the recent waming trend?

I would argue otherwise that changes in the sun are greater than CO2 just by looking at past history and over the last 150 years.


And ignoring the correlation between increasing temperatures and CO2 levels for as far back as we can find data?


Snowy123 wrote:
The sun also correlates highly with temperature as I have posted many times.


So why does the correlation with only a possible mechanism that is yet to be evidenced gain more support from you than the similar correlation with a highly evidenced mechanism if you are a truly skpetical person?

_________________
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, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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