Thread: 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

Change in total solar irradiance since 1980 (11-year running mean) according to PMOD data:

-0.21 W/m².

Change in greenhouse gas forcing since 1980, according to NOAA:

+1.05 W/m².

The ¨Sun is causing it¨ story is a flat-out lie. Don´t be so gullible.

That 11 year running mean is not updated to today's date either I don't believe. Why just 1980?

Another thing that should be kept in mind is that cosmic energy is higher during the minimums since it does not force it away as much.

Originally Posted by Windigo

Someone doesn't understand the Svenmark hypothesis.

That would be you, apparently. When the Sun is less active, that should lead to more GCR's (according to Svensmark), leading to more clouds and more cooling. The Svensmark hypothesis is a positive feedback on solar variability. Since the Sun is cooling, if Svensmark is right, clouds should be increasing, resulting in further cooling.

Beyond that, study after study has shown the Svensmark hypothesis to be false: Kazil 2006, Sloan & Wolfendale 2008, Kristjansson 2008, Calogovic 2010, Kumala 2010 to name a few.

In other words, you've got nothing.

Originally Posted by Windigo

You are also playing games with endpoints. Trying to ignore that the present downward trend is because we are in a pronounced minimum.

In the first place, the pronounced minimum ended three years ago. In the second place, I used 11-year running averages to eliminate the Wolf cycle. So you've got nothing again.

Originally Posted by Windigo

It seems that all warmmonger arguments are dependent on either ignoring that we have not warmed over the last decade

Not true. Heat content of the planet continues to rise.

Originally Posted by Windigo

or drawing a trendline far enough back that its still positive and then pretending that the trendline represents present reality which it does not.

So you're saying actual data does not represent reality? And then you accuse us of "playing games"? Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Windigo

I can make a tendline say whatever by choosing my start point. But it has no bearing on present reality.

Climate scientists use 30 years minimum; anything shorter is weather. And if you choose anything shorter, I'm going to call you on it every time.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

That 11 year running mean is not updated to today's date either I don't believe. Why just 1980?

That's January 1980 through December 2011. I chose 1980 because that's about 30 years worth of data, the climatological standard. Also, the satellite record only goes back to 1979. You can go back farther than that using the SATIRE model of Krivova et. al. 2007 (data here), which has been verified to very tight tolerances. I did that to generate the first few terms of the 132-month running mean.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Yes, I already said that but what I said was that over time, sunspots don't just continue to increase as irradiance increase. Look on page 73 where I posted a long term irradiance output. The sun has gotten a little warmer over time.

I just am not understanding you.
Is this the graph?

Long term does not matter. Most climatologists already acknowledge that the climate tracks TSI until the mid 1970s. No one is arguing against the "long term" correlation. t is the correlation since the mid 1970s that does not match up.

Originally Posted by MannieD

I just am not understanding you.
Is this the graph?

Long term does not matter. Most climatologists already acknowledge that the climate tracks TSI until the mid 1970s. No one is arguing against the "long term" correlation. t is the correlation since the mid 1970s that does not match up.

Then you need to take it for solar cycles, not some arbitrary end point.

Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scale

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/27.../1963.abstract

Originally Posted by MannieD

I just am not understanding you.
Is this the graph?

Long term does not matter. Most climatologists already acknowledge that the climate tracks TSI until the mid 1970s. No one is arguing against the "long term" correlation. t is the correlation since the mid 1970s that does not match up.

It matches just fine when you analyze it correctly. Still cant grasp that linear correlation doesn't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) in lagged systems can you?

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

That's January 1980 through December 2011. I chose 1980 because that's about 30 years worth of data, the climatological standard. Also, the satellite record only goes back to 1979. You can go back farther than that using the SATIRE model of Krivova et. al. 2007 (data here), which has been verified to very tight tolerances. I did that to generate the first few terms of the 132-month running mean.

I dont care why you say you chose it its a bad choice. You are taking the average over two and a half cycles. You would get the same result with any random sinusoid.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Then you need to take it for solar cycles, not some arbitrary end point.

Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scale

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/27.../1963.abstract

Hilarious. To prove that you shouldn't use arbitrary end points, Hoosier quotes a source using arbitrary end points: the minima of cycles 21 and 22.

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

Hilarious. To prove that you shouldn't use arbitrary end points, Hoosier quotes a source using arbitrary end points: the minima of cycles 21 and 22.

You still don't understand. You take full cycles not an end point in the middle of one. This is standard, nothing new.

Originally Posted by Windigo

I dont care why you say you chose it its a bad choice. You are taking the average over two and a half cycles. You would get the same result with any random sinusoid.

Wrong. A solar cycle is 11 years. That's exactly why I chose an 11-year moving average: to eliminate the cycle.