State of the Climate 2012

Sorry my fault if you go to introduction you will find the following statement.

Since you have failed to point out where they are getting thier opinions about the most recent warming, i have done it for you, but you will notice that they are saying the sun is the dominant factor up until the middle of the 20th century, meaning that its nothing else but the sun.

They also say that the sun produces a hockey stick, is this the same hockey stick that Al Gore has been presenting to us as effects of CO2?

 

As opposed to the well funded disinformation and slander campaign waged by the denialists?

One person stating an opinion is to be reviled and held up to be the archetype of an entire group but meanwhile it is acceptable to perform illegal hacks on networks??

 

LOL. Man are you slow. I knew this on the first page of this thread. That's how I knew you didn't read anything and why you need to retract moronic statements such as:

Clearly you haven't read the study. That is why you still think it says something about CO2. You are simply assuming things you don't know. You are an idiot.

 

Your arguement is flawed how do you know that i wasn't testing to see if you had read it, why didn't your direct me to it.

Thats why i kept saying that you didn't undrstand what you were reading because you could'y point it out.

And i still maitain that you dont know what you are reading, since its under your nose in the previous post and you sill dont know what says.

OK you win champ, i'm heading for some RR, just do me a favour and learn to comprehend what you are reading before you act like Mr. Knowit all.

 

No that is not what they mean. Scientists are usually very precise in their statements and if they had found that it was "nothing but the sun" THAT is what they would have written instead they are saying it is a "dominant factor"

And they also say that there is no correlation over the last 30 years

BTW note they are using Mann's much derided hockey stick graphs?

 

Bower is correct. Dominant factor doesn't mean "nothing but". The statement requires other factors to be present... and yes, it says it was the dominant factor up to the mid twentieth century. We are past that now. What is your point?

 

Hey bowergirl step back for a minute and see the forrest, i think you are focusing on too much detail without seeing the whole picture.

They have used Mann's hockey stick curve to fit their sunspot data into his graph and guess what they correlate???????

Mann's hockey stick graph and sunspot correlations are very simmilar i thin they say with a 98% certainty.

Do i have to spell it out for you, the sun drives global warming NOT CO2 emmissions.

Actually i dont think anyone has ever scientifically proven that CO2 actually drives global warming.

Mann's temperature graphs and his famous hockey stick graph are derived from

Measuring the amount of Co2 in all specimens and is one of the major papers the IPCC uses to scare us about global warming and how CO2 increases are responsible for global warming.

Now this research Mann has presented is controversial not because he measures the amount of CO2 present in the specimens but because of some of his assumptions at the begining of his paper.

We all know that when the sun is active and gives of more heat (irradiance, flux, magnetic) etc etc this stires up the ecosystems on Earth to give of more CO2 into the atmosphere and we all know that the ecosystems are responsible for 97% of CO2 emmissions.

On the other hand when the sun is more active and gives of more energy to the Earth the ecosystems which are responsible for 97% of CO2 emmisions respond and send up more CO2 into the atmosphere.

BUT

The 3% Manmade Co2 emmissions donot increase or decrease with suns activities but rather remain steady, production as usual.

 

I hadn't read it at the time. What's your point? You were the one making wrong assumptions about the authenticity of the statements in the study when you hadn't even read it, not me. Do you now accept that the study cannot be used to say the sun is responsible for recent warming as they clearly state?

I know enough to understand it says absolutely nothing about CO2 and cannot be used in your argument. Have you understood that yet?

 

I suppose from 1970 onwards these guys haven't done any studies to prove that the sun is responsible. so in a way i guess you are right.

The only thing this study proves is the sun is responsible for global warming for the period of 1150 years that they cover and not CO2.

If you would like to know about these missing years here knock youself out (links to scientific papers).

BTW can you produce a scientific paper that attributes global warming to the 3% manmade CO2 emmissions?

But i'll be fair and just say all CO2 emmissions that includes the 97% CO2 from ecosystems and the 3% manmade, the whole 0.00039 in our atmosphere.

Sceintific papers

that claim the global mean average temperature is directly related to the effects of the sun and not the effects of CO2.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~dougla...ress_final.pdf

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...use_Effect.htm

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...hylek_etal.pdf

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/


Articles about the fraudulant IPCC claims

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...odel-evidence/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...ntence-in-ar5/

http://westernfrontonline.net/news/1...global-warming

Sorry Lep you still haven't understood the overall point of this paper, its back to the drawing board for you.

 

They cited studies that have already looked at that time period. If you got beef take it up with them as that is where your argument falls flat.

Yes, it shows the sun to be the dominant forcing. What this does not prove is your argument that CO2 cannot be directly related to temperature. You simply cannot reach that conclusion from this study. Insisting you can is dishonest.

You must be in tears at the irony now that we've established you are extrapolating the evidence in the study.

 

I have also cited sites that show that once again the sun is responsiblr for global warming from 1970 onwards, yet you have ignored them.

Well dude Manns famous hockey stick graph you must know the one that Al Gore has been show boating all over the place scaring the sh!t out of everyone about CO2 and global warming, shows how the Earth has warmed sharply from 1900 onwards right.

The IPCC and generally alarmists attribute this warming to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, yet here is a paper that shows until the middle of the 20th century sunspot data attained from isotopes shows the same general warming pattern including a hockey stick curve.

Now what does that tell ya or do i have to spell that one out to you too.

No tears buddy just heaps of laughter LOL.

 

Honestly I haven't even seen them. Feel free to put up some links.

Yes, what is your point? You are still drawing a completely unsupported conclusion from that study. Will you remove it from your list?

 

Sceintific papers

that claim the global mean average temperature is directly related to the effects of the sun and not the effects of CO2.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~dougla...ress_final.pdf

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...use_Effect.htm

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...hylek_etal.pdf

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/


Articles about the fraudulant IPCC claims

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...odel-evidence/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...ntence-in-ar5/

http://westernfrontonline.net/news/1...global-warming

My point all along is that the IPCC attribute global warming to the effects of CO2 or the increase in CO2 from 250 to 390 ppm, this is what the IPCC and alarmists say causes global warming.

Where as the papers above say that global warming is directly linked to the suns activities.

Now with respect to the hockey stick curve, like i said previously the IPCC and alarmists say this hockey stick shape effect on the global mean average temperature of the Earth is due to the effects of CO2, well that paper says that the effects of the sun are responsible for that hockey stick shape and not because CO2 increased from 250 to 390 ppm in the last centrury.

This has been my arguement from the begining.

 

Here is a few studies that disagree with your claims:

http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress....red-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf - "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

http://www.acrim.com/Reference Files/Sun & Global Warming_GRL_2006.pdf - "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf - "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B - "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf - "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf - increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14604941 - "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf - reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

 

One more time - we have shown over and over that that list does NOT support your claims

We have detailed why it does not support your claims

Your response has been "yes it does" without any actual analysis of why it does

Please match our analysis with one of your own

 

....The mods on this forum suck. My last post barely contained any insults except when I pointed out dumb's last post was filled with spin, deflection and ad homs. The rest of the post was on topic and pertinent and they still deleted it. What a way to stifle debate.

EDIT: And wtf is flamebait? I wasn't trying to bait anybody ffs.

 

One more time you have failed to come up with anything other than your personal perception of what the paper syas.

You have detailed jack sh!t, i bet you couidn;t even string together a few bullet forms of your detail, maybe two.

I think i have far surpassed your own as you like to put it but you can't see the truth.

I sure wouldn't be picking you to be on my side for a debate.

 

Will check it out bugs when i get the chance.



.

 

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Just checked this one out, these guys mainly talk about the amount of sunspot numbers going all the way back 11000 years.

They suggest that the Earth's temperature and sun spot numbers of the sun correlate.

They also suggest that in the last 65 - 70 years the sun has had unsual high solar activity.

And yes just like the other paper they aresaying that the sun cannot be solely responsible for the last 30 years of warming, but it does contribute.

Now thats only 30 years here, what about the last 11000 years??????????

Again i say here are some guys who have delivered a paper that shows that sunspots going back 11000 years correlate with what the temperature has been doing on Earth, but for some reason or another they say that the sun cannot be solely responsible for the last 30 years of warming from 1970.

But nowhere do they say that CO2 is responsible for the last 30 years of the global warming.

This paper doesn't atribute the pultry 3% manmade CO2 emmissions to global warming, its main purpose was to find out the correlation between sunspot activity and the earth's temperature.

I dont think they can ever prove that 3% manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming, hell lets be generous or even the whole lotta of CO2 ecosystems included.

Why - there just aint enough of the stuff to cause any considerable damage, too little.

FAIL.

 

http://www.acrim.com/Reference Fil...g_GRL_2006.pdf -

Here's another FAIL bugs.

This paper proves and talks about Earth temperature and TSI correlate, hey bugs i can add both this one and the one above to my list do you actually read what you post? it also goes on to say that computer models dont take into account all the effects possible.

It also talks about how the sun's effects in the last 30 years may have been neglected?!

Thank you once again for more amo.

Look on a serious note, there are so many scientists that claim global warming is due to the sun's energyand not the effects of CO2 its not funny anymore.

When we first started looking at these scientific papers i wasn't sure what we would get.

But now i know that we are definetly been taken for a ride FFS when it comes to AGW which means the carbon tax is a SCAM.

So farking wake to yourselves, take the political party blinkers of whether, green, blue or red.

When financial slavery is involved it has to go deeper than party politics.

Is that what you want, you want your children and grand children paying of some ponzy scheme scam that does nothing to clean the environment.

 

What about them? Humans weren't removing huge chunks of forest, mining natural resources or polluting the air for most of that time.

Of course not. That wasn't what the study was about.

Correct.

 

We all know they correlate. Nobody is denying that...And yes, it seems like a very fair study.

Seriously dude, get over it. Everyone knows you don't know any of that for sure. It is painfully obvious. I gotta stop coming to these boards...some of you guys are seriously wackjobs.

 

What do you mean "what about them" they have just shown that for the last 11000 years the sun's activities are responsible for the temperature here on Earth and that the sunspot data match temperature graphs.

What do i mean well its not due to CO2 my dear.

Yes but dont you think in all of those papers that deal wit proving and matching sunspot to Earth's temperature graphs that if it was something other than the sun like for example CO2 te would have pointed it out.

 

Hey Lep

I must say its been educational, and according to most of the papers we have talked about, non of them attrbute global warming to CO2.

Except for the IPCC work ofcourse which are based on computer models of the climate.

 

Stop lying. They clearly state: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Which is the crux of the argument. You are so confused you are still pointing at temp and CO2 levels 11000 years ago and jumping up and down shouting 'NO CO2 WARMING THEN SO NO CO2 WARMING NOW LOLOLOL'...A highly illogical statement.

Dude, just THINK for one second. If you are looking at sunspots and how they correlate with Earth temp it stands to reason that you ARE NOT looking for CO2 and if it is responsible for current warming. This answer won't magically appear when you AREN'T LOOKING FOR IT. My 8 year old cousin even understands this.