The new dissent on AGW

[Demigorgon]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?

[Pipirr]

Define 'skeptical look'.

For example, I would find it useful to consider who wrote it, their expertise on the subject and their agenda. Politics is going to be an integral part of that; especially in this instance, because we are talking about an article on the US Senate website.

[David Wong]

I guess we can do the same thing with the similar list from the Heartland Institute, where many of the members either weren't climate scientists, or didn't realize they were on the list until contacted by someone else.

That tactic is getting tiresome.

[mhaze]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?Given the positions of Reid, Boxer, Pelosi...Nope.

[lomiller]

Ok, I’ll bite. The skeptic in me immediately asks why we would discuss a list of names rather then the papers published by the people on that list. Surly any valuable insight these people have is better reflected in the literature then their out of context quotes.

[CapelDodger]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?

Better yet, couldn't we wait until the Minority Report is released? That'll be "this week" apparently.

[CapelDodger]

Ah, what the heck ...

(this should really be on the Politics Forum; posting this so shortly before the report comes out is a very political act.)

The "400 scientists who spoke out in 2007" has been shot away already - weathermen, economists, people who objected to being included when they heard about it, the usual stuff. Another 250 of the same won't change a thing.

The conference at Poznan won't "face a serious challenge" because it's a diplomatic conference, not a scientific one. Nobody gives a toss about a US Senate Committee Minority Report, frankly. Governments in the wider world have their own scientific advisers and institutions to consult, and are well aware of the oddball nature of some US Senators. Inhofe being a prime example.

No doubt this will bounce around the echo-chamber like Gabriel's Last Trump but it signifies nothing.

[kallsop]

How far along is Al Gore's 10 years to save the planet clock? Let me be the first to ask - could Al be wrong? Anything is possible, right?

[DogB]

Probably best to wait for the complete report. There does seem to be some damning statements from some fairly competent individuals but we've seen people like this taken out of context before.

[a_unique_person]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?

Is he sure of those numbers? Because many of the "dissenting" scientists on the first effort he referred to were outraged to be included on his list. The list was created purely on the basis of what the author thought their research or public statements said about global warming.

[TrueSceptic]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?
Sure, we can, and should be, sceptical about anything written by serial liar Marc Morano.

You cite Morano and suggest we separate the politics? Don't you see a problem with that?

[TrueSceptic]

How far along is Al Gore's 10 years to save the planet clock? Let me be the first to ask - could Al be wrong? Anything is possible, right?
What is it with Al Gore? Why are you obsessed with him?

[Zep]

How far along is Al Gore's 10 years to save the planet clock? Let me be the first to ask - could Al be wrong? Anything is possible, right?I would bet that if Al Gore was proven wrong and the planet was NOT on the slippery slope into heat-death, Al Gore would be the first to cheer that circumstance.

However, agree with him or not, he does have an impressive array of stats on his side...

[GreyICE]

How far along is Al Gore's 10 years to save the planet clock? Let me be the first to ask - could Al be wrong? Anything is possible, right?

Look, I am aware that Al Gore's manly voice and full strong beard get many on the right wing worked up. And I am aware that they sublimate their attraction by pretending their focus is on what he's saying, rather than the hypnotic attraction his voice holds.

But can you please take the crush to the appropriate forum? We're discussing science here. I'm sure many in the Forum Community will be happy to help you with your relationship issues.

[GreyICE]

Oh and P.S.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Yeah, half of all warming is due to sun. Yeaaaaah. Because that graph tracks with global temperature. Also, I have a cheap bridge in Brooklyn, limited time offer, just contact me with your bank account number.

[mhaze]

Oh and P.S.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Yeah, half of all warming is due to sun. Yeaaaaah. Because that graph tracks with global temperature. Also, I have a cheap bridge in Brooklyn, limited time offer, just contact me with your bank account number.
Hmm...so little graph and a bit of Warmer innuendo negate the published, peer reviewed work of several serious and well respected solar scientists (Solanksi, for one)? Yeah right.

Would you care to extend that graph of solar activity back 1000 years? Please include magnetic and other solar effects, instead of just irradiance, so we can be sure that the representation is accurate.

Show us a view of solar activity extended both in time and scope, so that any and all skepticism regarding this issue is put to rest. I am certain that your certainty on solar not being a factor in the Earth's warming is so certain that you will certainly have no trouble supporting your position.

Or will you?

[GreyICE]

Hmm...so little graph and a bit of Warmer innuendo negate the published, peer reviewed work of several serious and well respected solar scientists (Solanksi, for one)? Yeah right.

Would you care to extend that graph of solar activity back 1000 years? Please include magnetic and other solar effects, instead of just irradiance, so we can be sure that the representation is accurate.

Show us a view of solar activity extended both in time and scope, so that any and all skepticism regarding this issue is put to rest. I am certain that your certainty on solar not being a factor in the Earth's warming is so certain that you will certainly have no trouble supporting your position.

Or will you?
:rolleyes:
Remember folks, we can't extend global temperature observations back any length of time past direct observation because MHaze doesn't think those are accurate, but he happily thinks our direct solar observations can be extended backwards using similar methods.

Hey MHaze, are you now saying that all temperature observations extended backwards are valid? It would be a 180 on your previous position, so it's amusing that you claim this (and FYI, I haven't bothered to go on your latest wild goose chase, so I have no idea what egg is at the end of it).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_Budget_Review-1.gif


Cause and effect, people. Obviously.

[Megalodon]

I think it's nice to compare the same (roughly) stretch of time.

The orange line is the monthly global temperature anomaly


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28149414795cac06.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14546)

[mhaze]

:rolleyes:
Remember folks, we can't extend global temperature observations back any length of time past direct observation because MHaze doesn't think those are accurate, but he happily thinks our direct solar observations can be extended backwards using similar methods.

Hey MHaze, are you now saying that all temperature observations extended backwards are valid? It would be a 180 on your previous position, so it's amusing that you claim this (and FYI, I haven't bothered to go on your latest wild goose chase, so I have no idea what egg is at the end of it).

Cause and effect, people. Obviously.

Lay off the silliness. I've only pointed out that a graph of solar activity for 30 years is a futile exercise. Solanski: "during the last 1150 years the sun was never as active as during the last 60 years".

Draw your own conclusions, ..... but draw conclusions from 30 years of data at your own risk.

[GreyICE]

Lay off the silliness. I've only pointed out that a graph of solar activity for 30 years is a futile exercise.

Solanski: "during the last 1150 years the sun was never as active as during the last 60 years".

Draw your own conclusions, ..... but draw conclusions from 30 years of data at your own risk.

What's the risk? The risk of making you look totally off-base?

[CapelDodger]

Anything on the newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report "set for release this week"? There's not much of the week left.

[CapelDodger]

This quote is actually insane :

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… ” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

The IPCC only listens to others. It does no research of its own but collates research published by scientists and institutions across the world.

[plumjam]

I would bet that if Al Gore was proven wrong and the planet was NOT on the slippery slope into heat-death, Al Gore would be the first to cheer that circumstance.

However, agree with him or not, he does have an impressive array of stats on his side...

I agree that it's hard not to be impressed by a 64 inch waist and the largest facial surface area in post-war politics.

[TrueSceptic]

I agree that it's hard not to be impressed by a 64 inch waist and the largest facial surface area in post-war politics.
Yep. The albedo affect of that one body must be huge (for kallsop, the libido affect is obviously huge too).

[DogB]

I think this is the full report.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

[TrueSceptic]

This quote is actually insane :



The IPCC only listens to others. It does no research of its own but collates research published by scientists and institutions across the world.
We know that Morano is a serial liar (can you imagine him surviving even in our rubbish system), but it will be fun to examine his claims, one by one, won't it?

[CapelDodger]

We know that Morano is a serial liar (can you imagine him surviving even in our rubbish system), but it will be fun to examine his claims, one by one, won't it?

DogB has kindly provided the link to the "U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report (Inhofe)". Whether Inhofe is the minority will have to wait another day (or later today on this side of the pond).

[mhaze]

Inhofe leads the (current) minority party, Republicans members on the committee.

[a_unique_person]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?

Take "Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia; "

A bigger loony would be harder to find. Eccentric is far too kind. Morano just added up a list of names, with no regard what so ever for actually knowing what he was actually putting in that list.

Google some of the sayings of Louis. He flies in the face of just about every modern piece of science, for him the good old says ended with Newton.

[a_unique_person]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Could we just separate the politics and have an actual skeptical look at it?

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Science teacher, with a Diploma in Biology. What does it take to be an "international scientist"? Just that you live overseas. I would have thought at least a degree in science myself.

[TrueSceptic]

Take "Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia; "

A bigger loony would be harder to find. Eccentric is far too kind. Morano just added up a list of names, with no regard what so ever for actually knowing what he was actually putting in that list.

Google some of the sayings of Louis. He flies in the face of just about every modern piece of science, for him the good old says ended with Newton.

Ah, Louis Hissink. So wacky that he's beyond parody. Honestly, whatever anyone might imagine as absurd beyond belief will have been topped by Louis already.

How does someone like that get an MSc?

[a_unique_person]

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman

His science is so bad, he has to have it published in Lyndon Larouche outlets.

[a_unique_person]

John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist,

He lives overseas, (in the same country I do) so I guess that makes him international. He has no more credentials to claim to be a "Climate Data Analyst" than I have.

[a_unique_person]

There are many Phds who are not scientists, economists, etc. But the IPCC has them too in it's reports? That's right, they report on the things they know about, no political scientists are doing research on the science on AGW, but contributing to such matters as the expected impacts of climate change on society.

[force_redo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_Budget_Review-1.gif

Cause and effect, people. Obviously.

Hmmm, is it just me, or do these two graphs indeed look like cause and effect (without the irony, I mean)? The first looks a lot like a derivative of the second, no?

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

They even seem to have the peaks and dips in the same place (like the peaks in '80 and '90 for example)
Obviously this in itself doesn't mean or proof anything, I just wanted to wisecrack a little. (And I thought the possible correlation of the two was dismissed a little too easily)

Sorry for just "driving by", I've been following these AGW threads for a while (I had a lengthy discussion about modelling climate a while back) but more for the education of myself.

FR

[Suddenly]

Evidences that coal does not contribute to global warming:

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk31/Elbow_Jobertski/coalbillboard2.jpg

[CapelDodger]

Evidences that coal does not contribute to global warming:

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk31/Elbow_Jobertski/coalbillboard2.jpg

Shouldn't that have "FAIL" stamped on it :)?

http://failblog.org/

[CapelDodger]

Page 2, halfway down, "Al Gore".

Search for "Al Gore" : 57 results.

These guys really do have the hots for that hunk.

[Suddenly]

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk31/Elbow_Jobertski/coalbillboard2-2.jpg

[CapelDodger]

Hmmm, is it just me, or do these two graphs indeed look like cause and effect (without the irony, I mean)? The first looks a lot like a derivative of the second, no?

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

Ask yourself why the kettle only got turned on in 1975. Sunspot cycles have looked much like that for a long time.

They even seem to have the peaks and dips in the same place (like the peaks in '80 and '90 for example)

Volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina.

Obviously this in itself doesn't mean or proof anything, I just wanted to wisecrack a little. (And I thought the possible correlation of the two was dismissed a little too easily)

Fair enough. I hope I've improved on that for you :).

[force_redo]

Ask yourself why the kettle only got turned on in 1975. Sunspot cycles have looked much like that for a long time.
Well, I can just talk about these graphs in this thread, I really don't know anything about global warming / sun activity etc. And the "sun graph" starts in 1975, which means it could have been different before (or not). Anyway, can't make any claim about that (and won't)

Volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina.
Volcanoes are correlated to the sun activity?

Fair enough. I hope I've improved on that for you :).
We all do our best...

FR

[lomiller]

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)




You seem to be thinking energy only enters the system but never gets back out which isn’t the case. Energy does exit the system in the form of long wave IR, and how much exits is a function of current surface temperature and greenhouse gas levels.

What those two graphs say, then, is that surface temperature is rising and the rate at which IR is trying to exit the system is increasing yet the rate at which energy is entering the system is staying the same. Clearly this would violate conservation of energy unless there were some mechanism acting to prevent that IR from reaching space, and the only know mechanism that can do that is the greenhouse effect.

[CapelDodger]

Well, I can just talk about these graphs in this thread, I really don't know anything about global warming / sun activity etc. And the "sun graph" starts in 1975, which means it could have been different before (or not). Anyway, can't make any claim about that (and won't)

The ~11 year solar cycle was recognised in the mid-19thCE, as I recall. If they pump energy into the climate system there'd be a heck of a lot of it in there by now.

Volcanoes are correlated to the sun activity?

No, but global temperatures are affected by volcanoes. You have to strip out such known influences before any solar signal can be determined.


We all do our best...

FR

And some things are sent to try us ...

[force_redo]

You seem to be thinking...

Sorry to cut you short, please don't understand it as a way of disrespect, but as little as I do understand, I completely agree with you. Please don't second guess what I might be thinking to make your point.
The only thing I don't agree with is saying these two graphs at hand don't have anything to do with each other, when they - in my layman's eye - clearly look as if they do.

You see, in terms of this whole subject I'm on neither side of the fence. Too much hysteria for my taste. And I'm just for fair play.

FR

[force_redo]

No, but global temperatures are affected by volcanoes. You have to strip out such known influences before any solar signal can be determined.
Really? Ok, I assumed there are different ways of determining solar influence that doesn't include what's going on inside our atmosphere (or at least subtracting them out before you make a graph). So, do you really think the numbers that make this graph are basically "contaminated" with data of volcanic activity?

And some things are sent to try us ...
:) Some posts on this highly emotional subject surely do. All hail the new flesh!

FR

[CapelDodger]

Really? Ok, I assumed there are different ways of determining solar influence that doesn't include what's going on inside our atmosphere (or at least subtracting them out before you make a graph).

If you were looking for a solar influence on global temperatures then you would subtract other known influences before comparing the graphs.

So, do you really think the numbers that make this graph are basically "contaminated" with data of volcanic activity?

The temperature graph does indeed reflect the influence of volcanoes - for instance Mt Pinatubo in 1991. The solar cycle graph doesn't, obviously. That's what makes comparing the two directly somewhat problematic.

[CapelDodger]

Gettingback to the point (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84) we have this gem :

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the
geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

The links provided to confirm this are to Tom Nelson for the 2/3 figure (yes, that Tom Nelson, struggles with arithmetic) and something called "Right Side News : The Right News for Americans". The wrong news for us Brits, then. The RSN headline actually includes "Prominently Featured"; these guys can't even summon up their own phrases.

It's all rather sad, really. Funny because it's sad.

[force_redo]

If you were looking for a solar influence on global temperatures then you would subtract other known influences before comparing the graphs.
Sure. I thought they were something like satellite data or measurements of other planets or so, to actually exclude the climate effects. Guess I need to read up on how to measure the sun properly...


The temperature graph does indeed reflect the influence of volcanoes - for instance Mt Pinatubo in 1991. The solar cycle graph doesn't, obviously. That's what makes comparing the two directly somewhat problematic.

Sure. I got that. But my point is ( I probably didn't make that clear enough) that just mathematically the temperature graph looks like almost exactly the outcome I would actually expect from the sun activity graph. Even if there weren't any other influences.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I'm just stunned that there are so many experts on this around and nobody speaks out about this. This means that they're either too occupied with their agenda or just not paying attention.

Anyways, I spent too many words on this already. It's probably not that important, really. I'm going to take a back seat on this again, I don't think I have any more to offer on this subject matter. Thanks for your time.
(Unless you call me out again) ;)

FR

[a_unique_person]

Sure. I got that. But my point is ( I probably didn't make that clear enough) that just mathematically the temperature graph looks like almost exactly the outcome I would actually expect from the sun activity graph. Even if there weren't any other influences.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I'm just stunned that there are so many experts on this around and nobody speaks out about this. This means that they're either too occupied with their agenda or just not paying attention.

Anyways, I spent too many words on this already. It's probably not that important, really. I'm going to take a back seat on this again, I don't think I have any more to offer on this subject matter. Thanks for your time.
(Unless you call me out again) ;)

FR
There are some geniuses out there at work on this area of science, I doubt they could have missed something so obvious.

What I am missing is how you make the connection between the two graphs. Could you just describe it slowly for someone who hasn't had to do vector caculus for 30 years?

[lomiller]

Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.


I’m at a total loss as to why you would think that, unless, as I suggested in my previous post you are under the impression solar energy continually accumulates in the atmosphere, which clearly can be the case.

[TrueSceptic]

Sure. I thought they were something like satellite data or measurements of other planets or so, to actually exclude the climate effects. Guess I need to read up on how to measure the sun properly...




Sure. I got that. But my point is ( I probably didn't make that clear enough) that just mathematically the temperature graph looks like almost exactly the outcome I would actually expect from the sun activity graph. Even if there weren't any other influences.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case (and I don't think it is) all I'm saying is that it is probably wrong saying that these two graphs don't imply cause and effect, because that's exactly what they seem to do. They certainly /imply/ just that.

I'm just stunned that there are so many experts on this around and nobody speaks out about this. This means that they're either too occupied with their agenda or just not paying attention.

Anyways, I spent too many words on this already. It's probably not that important, really. I'm going to take a back seat on this again, I don't think I have any more to offer on this subject matter. Thanks for your time.
(Unless you call me out again) ;)

FR
Why not look further? There are loads of graphs out there, or you can make your own from the main datasets at woodfortrees (http://www.woodfortrees.org/) (or download the actual data into a spreadsheet). Choose the same time period and see if you should be stunned or not.

[TrueSceptic]

I’m at a total loss as to why you would think that, unless, as I suggested in my previous post you are under the impression solar energy continually accumulates in the atmosphere, which clearly can be the case.
Regardless of the supposed mechanism, the supposition simply doesn't hold up if you graph the 2 values over the same time scale. The correlation has been very poor over the last few decades.

[dudalb]

Frankly, I hate the way this whole issue has been politicised by both the Left and the Right. If the Right is sticking it's head in the ground about this, then the Left has been using it to push their Anti Free Market Agenda.

[force_redo]

Ok, another try.

There are some geniuses out there at work on this area of science, I doubt they could have missed something so obvious.
Absolutely, there are geniusses at work. But I meant the people here in this threat/forum. Some seem to have a strong mathematical background or at least they claim they do and I have no good reason to doubt that.

What I am missing is how you make the connection between the two graphs. Could you just describe it slowly for someone who hasn't had to do vector caculus for 30 years?

Nothing to do with vector calculus. Go back at my teapot example I made on page 1. I guess we agree about this.

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

If you have a look at the two graphs again, you'll sea that the "sun graph" is roughly a horizontal line (with bumps up and down) and the temperature is an ascending line. (Also with bumps up and down)
Just like putting a /constant/ (i.e. horizontal line) energy into a system (kettle, earth) and observing it's rise in temperature (i.e. ascending line). This works pretty much for everything as long as it absorbs more energy than it let's out.

(Here a nodd to Iomiller: As I stated before, I completely agree with you, I don't get why you think we wouldn't)

Now this effect obviously works with everything, Planets with GH effect, teapots, fillet steaks etc.
Mathematically speaking, the horizontal line /could be/ the derivative of the ascending line, just like f(x)=1 (a horizontal line) is the derivative of f(x)=x (An ascending line) and hereby implying the former could be a (not the only) cause of the latter.

The interesting bit is that the bumps are in the same places which looks like another indication that these lines quite surely show cause and effect to a certain degree. Again: Not the single cause, but quite certainly one of them. Hence, these curves show cause and effect. That's what I've been saying all along. And I was just surprised that GreyICE was of a different opinion and even made it into an ironic remark.

In absolute layman's terms: Just because two curves (that deal with different thinigs - one with temerature over time and one with energy over time) don't point in the same direction or run parallel, doesn't mean they aren't connected. I think we all agree on that.

The unlucky bit is that the sun curve starts roundabout the same area where the steep heating up begins (ca. 1975). If it was only going a bit back it would tell more about the story /how much/ it's influence really is.

FR

[force_redo]

I’m at a total loss as to why you would think that, unless, as I suggested in my previous post you are under the impression solar energy continually accumulates in the atmosphere, which clearly can be the case.
Energy accumulates in pretty much everything that you are able to "heat up", no?

Or, more precisely: Everything that gets more energy in than it releases. I don't understand why you say I would think /no/ energy leaves the earth. We could be talking about a tomato in a grill here and the curves could hypothetically look the same, yet I wouldn't claim that no energy leaves the tomato. ;)

I think my reply to AUP might have cleared some of that misunderstanding up.

As to /why/ there is more energy coming in than out, you could start making all sorts of claims. GH effect sounds most likely to me. Or the sun suddenly got stronger. ;)

FR

[force_redo]

Frankly, I hate the way this whole issue has been politicised by both the Left and the Right. If the Right is sticking it's head in the ground about this, then the Left has been using it to push their Anti Free Market Agenda.
{sorry for the detour}
If only it was so simple. I heard from a top manager at a very large corporation once (the type that makes cars) who said he was delighted with the global warming hysteria. He said, the best thing that could happen to them would be if petrol cars were just banned. Then they would roll out H2 cars or electrical cars (they obviously have the prototypes for those already) or whatever is considered "good" by then and everybody would be just forced to buy a new one.
It's basically used for all sorts of agendas. Even for "pro free market enthusiasts"...
{/end of detour}
FR

[TrueSceptic]

The interesting bit is that the bumps are in the same places which looks like another indication that these lines quite surely show cause and effect to a certain degree. Again: Not the single cause, but quite certainly one of them. Hence, these curves show cause and effect. That's what I've been saying all along. And I was just surprised that GreyICE was of a different opinion and even made it into an ironic remark.

There is nothing wrong with your idea but how can you claim that the bumps are in the same places? Most of them are not. What are you looking at? I'm looking at this (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14546).
BTW most of us have done this comparison before. Every time the "it's the sun" idea gets a rerun we tend to revisit the evidence. :)

And anyway, why do you imagine we aren't aware of a strong 11-year temp cycle, matching the solar cycle?

[mhaze]

Energy accumulates in pretty much everything that you are able to "heat up", no?

Or, more precisely: Everything that gets more energy in than it releases. I don't understand why you say I would think /no/ energy leaves the earth. We could be talking about a tomato in a grill here and the curves could hypothetically look the same, yet I wouldn't claim that no energy leaves the tomato. ;)

I think my reply to AUP might have cleared some of that misunderstanding up.

As to /why/ there is more energy coming in than out, you could start making all sorts of claims. GH effect sounds most likely to me. Or the sun suddenly got stronger. ;)

FR

Here is new research (http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/solar-link-to-50-of-warming-during-the-past-100-years/)showing a 10-30 year lag between solar and atmospheric:...a new paper ‘in press’ in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’ (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL).

The Abstract states: The role of the sun on Earth’s climate variability is still much debated. Here we present an ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai, serving as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 750 years. The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...

Yet another look, in another fashion...a Morlet wavelet transform (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/22/new-cycle-24-sunspot/) of smoothed sunspot numbers (SSN).http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422448db9c7a2e64c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13916)
Another skeptic's point of view (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf )....D'Aleo simply notes correlation of various factors alleged to affect climate with temperatures...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224479a3db13b041.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10381)
What does the solar scientist, Solanki have to say? (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/)According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
Baker (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm) (Solar influence and effect on cloud cover noted)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations
“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”
Do Warmers objectively, honestly, and accurately present solar effects on climate? No. It does not fit with their agenda.

[GreyICE]

Hmmm, is it just me, or do these two graphs indeed look like cause and effect (without the irony, I mean)? The first looks a lot like a derivative of the second, no?

You know like as if you would put these two things in a graph:
1.) The energy you put in a water kettle (which would be a horizontal line)
2.) The temperature in the kettle (which would be the ascending one)

They even seem to have the peaks and dips in the same place (like the peaks in '80 and '90 for example)
Obviously this in itself doesn't mean or proof anything, I just wanted to wisecrack a little. (And I thought the possible correlation of the two was dismissed a little too easily)

Sorry for just "driving by", I've been following these AGW threads for a while (I had a lengthy discussion about modelling climate a while back) but more for the education of myself.

FR
Wow, solar emmissions have short-term effects on temperature? No, really?

Obviously they do. Thing is, they don't even come close to explaining the sudden spike, which is what MHaze is claiming. Also, as you noted, you can see short-term peaks and valleys from the solar.

Yet MHaze is claiming a century-long time lag in the response of the climate to the solar changes.

You do the math.

[mhaze]

Logical Fallacies used by Warmers (current contributions by GreyIce to the State of Warmer Logic highlighted):


Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html)
Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
Appeal to Belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html)
Appeal to Common Practice (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html)
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html)
Appeal to Emotion (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html)
Appeal to Fear (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html)
Appeal to Flattery (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-flattery.html)
Appeal to Novelty (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html)
Appeal to Pity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html)
Appeal to Popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html)
Appeal to Ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html)
Appeal to Spite (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html)
Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html)
Bandwagon (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html)
Begging the Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)
Biased Sample (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html)
Burden of Proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)
Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)
Composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)
Confusing Cause and Effect (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html)
Division (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html)
False Dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html)
Gambler's Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.html)
Genetic Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html)
Guilt By Association (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html)
Hasty Generalization (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html)
Ignoring A Common Cause (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html)
Middle Ground (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html)
Misleading Vividness (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html)
Personal Attack (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)
Poisoning the Well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)
Post Hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html)
Questionable Cause (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html)
Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)
Relativist Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html)
Slippery Slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)
Special Pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html)
Spotlight (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html)
Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)
Two Wrongs Make A Right (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html)

Logical fallacy list courtesy of Michael C. Labossiere. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Pipirr]

Logical Fallacies used by Warmers:



Well, my eyes are opened. Thanks for that.

I can certainly see how the IPCC reports, and all those thousands and thousands of peer reviewed climate science publications, are all examples of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. It's an eye-opener to see all this 'citation of sources' and 'previous research' nonsense for what it is.

I'm off to hang out at Inhofe's place. That guy is definitely not an authority on climate science, so he must be more credible.

[mhaze]

Thank you. I have no doubt ruffled some feathers by only suggesting that a couple decades isn't an appropriate period to look at solar influences over. But, rather than acknowledge this and correct the statements, various Warmers soldier on trying to nail the coffin shut on the Sun with a hammer made of jello.

By the way, I have not quoted Inhofe except in respect to his opposition to the "US Ethanol Scam" and his pro nuclear power positions. Inhofe would qualify as an expert on the business, personal and political implications of the ethanol silliness. Anyone with a grain of sense should also support eliminating the ethanol subsidies, and also support expansion of nuclear power. (back to leaving politics out of the discussion).

[TrueSceptic]

Logical Fallacies used by Warmers (current contributions by GreyIce to the State of Warmer Logic highlighted):


Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html)
Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
Appeal to Belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html)
Appeal to Common Practice (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html)
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html)
Appeal to Emotion (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html)
Appeal to Fear (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html)
Appeal to Flattery (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-flattery.html)
Appeal to Novelty (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html)
Appeal to Pity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html)
Appeal to Popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html)
Appeal to Ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html)
Appeal to Spite (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html)
Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html)
Bandwagon (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html)
Begging the Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)
Biased Sample (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html)
Burden of Proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)
Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)
Composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)
Confusing Cause and Effect (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html)
Division (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html)
False Dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html)
Gambler's Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.html)
Genetic Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html)
Guilt By Association (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html)
Hasty Generalization (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html)
Ignoring A Common Cause (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html)
Middle Ground (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html)
Misleading Vividness (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html)
Personal Attack (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)
Poisoning the Well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)
Post Hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html)
Questionable Cause (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html)
Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)
Relativist Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html)
Slippery Slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)
Special Pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html)
Spotlight (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html)
Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)
Two Wrongs Make A Right (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html)

Logical fallacy list courtesy of Michael C. Labossiere. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Wow, and not even your own work. 2 things:-

1. Do you really want us to go through that ludicrously hypocitical list one by one?

2. The denidiots (!) on this list failed to come up with anything intelligent in my HTBAGWS thread (which was, at least my own work).

Oh, and you are getting desperate, aren't you, mhaze?

[TrueSceptic]

Thank you. I have no doubt ruffled some feathers by only suggesting that a couple decades isn't an appropriate period to look at solar influences over. But, rather than acknowledge this and correct the statements, various Warmers soldier on trying to nail the coffin shut on the Sun with a hammer made of jello.

Funny guy. Other than the incessant lying (your lies here are all on record so anyone can check), one of the denialist memes is that warming has stopped, it's cooled over the last year, etc.

Some joke that you would complain about short timescales!

[lomiller]

Energy accumulates in pretty much everything that you are able to "heat up", no?

Which is the model I’ve already explained in physically impossible. Put a teapot on the stove it heats up, sure, but does it continue to heat up *forever* clearly not and it doesn’t take a degree in physics to see that it won’t.

As I said before heat isn’t just flowing in it’s also flowing out. This means it takes an *increase* in energy coming in to get an increase in heat. Do you see such an increase in the solar activity graph?



Or, more precisely: Everything that gets more energy in than it releases.

Eh? If something receives more energy then it emits it heats up. If something emits more energy then it receives it cools down. This is a simple application of conservation of energy.

[varwoche]

Here is new research (http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/solar-link-to-50-of-warming-during-the-past-100-years/)showing a 10-30 year lag between solar and atmospheric:...a new paper ‘in press’ in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’ (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL).

The Abstract states: The role of the sun on Earth’s climate variability is still much debated. Here we present an ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai, serving as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 750 years. The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...You, like Inhofe, are missing the big picture, at least according to the lead author (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/12/115159/13/) of the study: our conclusions were misinterpreted ... We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is not significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.

[GreyICE]

Logical Arguments used by deniers

1.

[a_unique_person]

You, like Inhofe, are missing the big picture, at least according to the lead author (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/12/115159/13/) of the study:

It's a typical action by deniers. Take a paper, and misrepresent what it says.

[CapelDodger]

It's a typical action by deniers. Take a paper, and misrepresent what it says.

And then accuse the authors of lying about it.

These people are shameless.

[TrueSceptic]

And then accuse the authors of lying about it.

These people are shameless.
Yes, like mhaze citing a list of logical fallacies. As if he hasn't committed almost every one in these forums...

Is that an ad hom? ;)

[TrueSceptic]

Logical Arguments used by deniers

1.
I can see a logical problem there. You have implied that there is one (unspecified) argument. Are you winging it? :D

[DogB]

I can see a logical problem there. You have implied that there is one (unspecified) argument. Are you winging it? :D

Agreed, I would have used a zero.

[davefoc]

As something of a moderate on all this, (I suspect that AGW is an important problem but I am not informed enough to have a strongly formed opinion) I am disappointed that somebody thought that report was worth polluting this forum with. Somehow the Republican Party either because of their religious base or their connection to the energy companies has decided it is their job to work as an advertising wing of the global warming skeptics.

I don't think that is the job of people that I would like to see in office. I think it is there job to work to determine as well as possible the best course of action based on an objective analysis of the relevant facts.

You just need to read the first paragraph of that report to know that whoever wrote it had no intention of engaging in a second of objective thought. It was aimed at appealing to an uninformed audience. It might have value as a propaganda piece to promote the agenda they are pushing but it is of no probative value with regards to AGW issues.

It is amazing to me that I spent most of my life voting for Republicans. Were they always ignorant anti=intellectuals and I just didn't notice?

[kallsop]

Here's a priceless AP article:

Obama left with little time to curb global warming (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html)

"Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line"....."While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming."

Now we have a much bigger problem at hand. If the world gets warmer, that's bad because it's Global Warming. If the world cools down, that's even worse because it's due to faster Global Warming.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone made the claim that Global Warming is proven by the world warming or cooling. Congratulations, AP writer Seth Borenstein. Nothing gets by you.

[MattusMaximus]

The OP is just another tactic by the AGW-deniers to cloud the issue.

In fact, this link looks awfully similar to another pseudoscientific rant - the much-ballyhooed "Dissent from Darwinism" (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/) pushed by major creationist groups...

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection (read: anthropogenic global warming) to account for the complexity of life (read: rise in global surface temperatures). Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory (read: human-caused climate change) should be encouraged.

Creationists and AGW-deniers seem to be in good company. More's the pity.

Yawn... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/774747df2e208c4f4.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11313)

[MattusMaximus]

Frankly, I hate the way this whole issue has been politicised by both the Left and the Right. If the Right is sticking it's head in the ground about this, then the Left has been using it to push their Anti Free Market Agenda.

Dubalb, I agree. In fact, this is my biggest beef with the whole AGW issue - it's not the science (which is sound), but the politics involved which drives me into fits of :rolleyes:

Fortunately, we are finally getting to the point where more and more people can no longer reasonably deny the fact of AGW (yes, it's a fact, not "just a theory"). Now the next step is what to do about it?

[mhaze]

You, like Inhofe, are missing the big picture, at least according to the lead author (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/12/115159/13/) of the study:No. I wasn't even aware this was in Inhofe's list. See below.


Oh and P.S.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Yeah, half of all warming is due to sun. Yeaaaaah. Because that graph tracks with global temperature.......


Thank you. I have no doubt ruffled some feathers by only suggesting that a couple decades isn't an appropriate period to look at solar influences over. But, rather than acknowledge this and correct the statements, various Warmers soldier on trying to nail the coffin shut on the Sun with a hammer made of jello.

Spelling it out, then:Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’ (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL)......The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...The above chart of 30 years of solar influence would have at the most, 20 years of lagging data, and at worst, 0 years. GreyIce's chart makes no point whatsoever.

[David Rodale]

It would be nice if climate change deniers could be consistent. Does the sun directly influence climate or does it not? Are you now conceding the sun does influence climate? Even IPCC left the door open for it, and now with a dormant sun, what will you say when the globe continues to refuse to cooperate with AGW? Whatever happened to 'correlation is not causation'? And what direct evidence is there that CO2 is actually the cause of the warming? ZERO.

Of interest is Gristmill's skillful use of the words "up to" and exactly 50%.

What is the actual number then? .1%? 49.9%? As Eichler specifically cites agreement with Scafetta and West (http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf), what do they say?
We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.But there are also other unresolved issues with the sun other than TSI. Or do we know everything there is to know about the sun?

This has apparently escaped the AGW warmoshpere.
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming (http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf)
Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.What warms the oceans? What mitigating factor affects how much of whatever it is that warms the oceans?
Coincidence?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234945d46b57f9e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14587)

Now we have entered the cool phase of the PDO (http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest), and according to NASA in April (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703)and now December (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231)it is no longer a matter of an anomalous La Nina, but the beginnings of a long term climate shift. What do you think, does CO2 also cause that?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234945d51e44ba5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14588)


So, keep drinking the RealClimate kool-aid struggling to prove the earth actually hasn't stopped warming. That's fine, all sheep need a shepherd. On the other hand, in your own words, where in the data does it show global temperatures have done anything but stalled and dropped.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234945d795d19ee.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14591)

You could rely on GISS (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/08/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-79-would-you-could-you-with-a-boat/#more-4455). I don't know, Hansen's high tech adjustment procedures don't appeal to the 'Quality' side of me.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234945da7be2b1d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14592)
http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo38/davidrodale/santarosagiss.gif
(http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14593)

[GreyICE]

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo38/davidrodale/santarosagiss.gif
[/URL]

Kudos if you can spot the deception in this little animated slideshow. Here, I'll post it again.

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo38/davidrodale/santarosagiss.gif

Rodale, you are truly an expert liar. The quality of this deception and the trick it plays is very subtle, yet supremely elegant.

(watch the left side, see if you spot what he did in Excel)

(truly, it's amazing what people will cobble together to support their ideas, but I guess we have an entire forum devoted to that)

[a_unique_person]

As something of a moderate on all this, (I suspect that AGW is an important problem but I am not informed enough to have a strongly formed opinion) I am disappointed that somebody thought that report was worth polluting this forum with. Somehow the Republican Party either because of their religious base or their connection to the energy companies has decided it is their job to work as an advertising wing of the global warming skeptics.

I don't think that is the job of people that I would like to see in office. I think it is there job to work to determine as well as possible the best course of action based on an objective analysis of the relevant facts.

You just need to read the first paragraph of that report to know that whoever wrote it had no intention of engaging in a second of objective thought. It was aimed at appealing to an uninformed audience. It might have value as a propaganda piece to promote the agenda they are pushing but it is of no probative value with regards to AGW issues.

It is amazing to me that I spent most of my life voting for Republicans. Were they always ignorant anti=intellectuals and I just didn't notice?

Was it all downhill after Abe?

[CapelDodger]

Spelling it out, then:
Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’ (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL)......The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...
The above chart of 30 years of solar influence would have at the most, 20 years of lagging data, and at worst, 0 years. GreyIce's chart makes no point whatsoever.

Spelling it out to you yet again (varwoche already did; see above)

"... our conclusions were misinterpreted ... We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is not significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature."


(My emphasis.)

Given that the last thirty years is within the last 150 years (do the math) the 10-30 year lag found by Eichler et al does not apply. The misrepresentaion applies again, of course; no surprises there. These people are shameless.

[CapelDodger]

You just need to read the first paragraph of that report to know that whoever wrote it had no intention of engaging in a second of objective thought. It was aimed at appealing to an uninformed audience. It might have value as a propaganda piece to promote the agenda they are pushing but it is of no probative value with regards to AGW issues.

I've already seen it cropping up in comments elsewhere, so as propaganda and bias-confirmation it's working.

It is amazing to me that I spent most of my life voting for Republicans. Were they always ignorant anti=intellectuals and I just didn't notice?

They've captured the GOP relatively recently. The rot set in when the Southern Democrats jumped ship in the 60's, but it took a while to spread right to the top. Bush Sr's failure confirmed the anti-intellectuals in their ascendency. That's how I saw it, anyway, as a long-term observer of the US political scene.

It's worth noting that science has never threatened the GOP-preferred economic status quo in the way AGW does. They weren't happy about acid rain or CFC's, but those were minor issues in comparison. Only now do they feel the need to turn against science in a big way.

[CapelDodger]

Here's a priceless AP article:

Obama left with little time to curb global warming (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html)

"Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line"....."While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming."

Let's look at that in its entirety :

"Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

(My emphasis, of the bit you left out.)

Also :

"The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year."

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Now we have a much bigger problem at hand. If the world gets warmer, that's bad because it's Global Warming. If the world cools down, that's even worse because it's due to faster Global Warming.

Where do you find the suggestion that global warming is accelerating?

I was wondering how long it would be before someone made the claim that Global Warming is proven by the world warming or cooling. Congratulations, AP writer Seth Borenstein. Nothing gets by you.

Make the most of 2008. If one cool year signifies so much for you you're going to hate the warmer years to come. 2009, for instance, has not started with a La Nina in place (note that for historical reasons the climate year runs from December to November) so it's more than likely to be warmer than 2008.

The next El Nino year is really going to depress you.

[TrueSceptic]

As something of a moderate on all this, (I suspect that AGW is an important problem but I am not informed enough to have a strongly formed opinion) I am disappointed that somebody thought that report was worth polluting this forum with. Somehow the Republican Party either because of their religious base or their connection to the energy companies has decided it is their job to work as an advertising wing of the global warming skeptics.

I don't think that is the job of people that I would like to see in office. I think it is there job to work to determine as well as possible the best course of action based on an objective analysis of the relevant facts.

You just need to read the first paragraph of that report to know that whoever wrote it had no intention of engaging in a second of objective thought. It was aimed at appealing to an uninformed audience. It might have value as a propaganda piece to promote the agenda they are pushing but it is of no probative value with regards to AGW issues.

It is amazing to me that I spent most of my life voting for Republicans. Were they always ignorant anti=intellectuals and I just didn't notice?
It is common in Europe to think that many Americans are anti-science and excessively religious. Further to that, it seems that most of these are on the Right and, if they have a political allegiance, it is to the GOP.

Having said that, I'm sure that this is an overgeneralistion and that there are many exceptions. In particular, I'm sure many mainstream Republicans must be embarrassed by the antics of such dishonest propagandists as Inhofe and Morano. I can't imagine a similar thing happening here (the UK).

[varwoche]

No. I wasn't even aware this was in Inhofe's list. See below. Originality of thought notwithstanding, you're still off kilter by about 180 degrees.

In short, you've cited a study that, according to the author, identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit, to make your argument that it's the sun and not CO2.

[mhaze]

Originality of thought notwithstanding, you're still off kilter by about 180 degrees.

In short, you've cited a study that, according to the author, identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit, to make your argument that it's the sun and not CO2.

No. You have referenced exerpts of a supposed email by paid Democratic operative Romm with the scientist.

Please support your (Romm's) claim that the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit. Does the research done by Eichler led to this conclusion? Did Eichler research CO2 concentrations?

I'm not interested in your quoting a propagandist who in turn supposedly quotes a scientist, accurately, or inaccurately, said scientist having certain general opinions about these matters.

So either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't.

Which is it?

Given that the last thirty years is within the last 150 years (do the math) the 10-30 year lag found by Eichler et al does not apply. The misrepresentaion applies again, of course; no surprises there. These people are shameless.

Spelling it out for you, again.

What is the question? (Reference GreyIce's ridiculous 30 year chart of solar activity and ignoring the lame Warmer struggles to refining it to one that holds a defensible position)
Originally posted by mhaze:
I've only pointed out that a graph of solar activity for 30 years is a futile exercise. Solanski: "during the last 1150 years the sun was never as active as during the last 60 years".

Draw your own conclusions, ..... but draw conclusions from 30 years of data at your own risk.
If as you say "the 10-30 year lag found by Eichler et al does not apply"...

Does that support, or not support, GreyIce's position, that a 30 year look at solar activity vs temperature is meaningful?

[CapelDodger]

No. You have referenced exerpts of a supposed email by paid Democratic operative Romm with the scientist.

Please support your (Romm's) claim that the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit. Does the research done by Eilcher led to this conclusion? Did Eilcher research CO2 concentrations?

I'm not interested in your quoting a propagandist who in turn supposedly quotes a scientist, accurately, or inaccurately, said scientist having certain general opinions about these matters.

So either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't.

Which is it?

Support your contention that Romm may have made up this interview with Eichler. I find the idea incredible. Eichler for one would have complained - and you haven't the slightest shred of evidence that that has happened.

Marc Morano is the lying propagandist in this case.

[Undesired Walrus]

What strikes me as bizzare is how members here who deny AGW, members who have presumably been exposed to a vast amount of examples of pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, cannot spot the clear similarities between the presentation, style and arguments of the AGW-denial movement and, say, the Moon Hoax Movement.

[CapelDodger]

No. You have referenced exerpts of a supposed email by paid Democratic operative Romm with the scientist.

I've looked up Romm and he doesn't seem to be a "paid Democratic operative". Marc Morano is definitely a paid Republican operative and propagandist. And proven liar, of course.

[CapelDodger]

Spelling it out for you, again.

What is the question?

There is no question. You posted :

Spelling it out, then:
Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’......The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...
The above chart of 30 years of solar influence would have at the most, 20 years of lagging data, and at worst, 0 years. GreyIce's chart makes no point whatsoever.

That "precisely dated record" does not apply to the last 150 years. So any lag you're referring to is simply something you've made up yourself. It has nothing to with Eichler, however often you bring the name up.

The chart GreyICE presents shows that there has been no increase in solar activity over the last thirty years while global temperature has increased. That's the point.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4272684#post4272684)
No. You have referenced exerpts of a supposed email by paid Democratic operative Romm with the scientist.

Please support your (Romm's) claim that the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit. Does the research done by Eilcher led to this conclusion? Did Eilcher research CO2 concentrations?

I'm not interested in your quoting a propagandist who in turn supposedly quotes a scientist, accurately, or inaccurately, said scientist having certain general opinions about these matters.

So either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't.

Which is it?


Support your contention that Romm may have made up this interview with Eichler. I find the idea incredible. Eichler for one would have complained - and you haven't the slightest shred of evidence...

There is no need for me to "support" the "inaccurately" part of the phrase "accurately, or inaccurately". True to your nature you distort my comment into "Romm may have made up this interview with Eichler".

You misdirect, in inflammatory fashion, from my simple question relating to the written content of the article:
"Either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't. "
Romm quotes Eichler (allegedly):"In this time (1850 onward) the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature."
Distorted by Varwoche:"the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit"
The R2 is, depending on the term chosen, anywhere from 0.22 to 0.44 - a quite weak correlation. Go back to my post where I listed five references on solar (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4268027&postcount=58), the third link quotes 0.43 R2 for CO2 to temperature, 0.57 R2 for solar to temperature, 0.82 for the PDO relation, etc.

[Zeuzzz]

This is fun :)

[mhaze]

There is no question. ......The chart GreyICE presents shows that there has been no increase in solar activity over the last thirty years while global temperature has increased. That's the point.

The point is that GreyIce's 30 year chart has no point.

30 years = about 1.5 22 year solar cycles.

Climate = weather over 30 year periods, hence GreyIce triumphantly produces....

1 data point of temperature, and 1.5 data points for solar.

:)

[MattusMaximus]

What strikes me as bizzare is how members here who deny AGW, members who have presumably been exposed to a vast amount of examples of pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, cannot spot the clear similarities between the presentation, style and arguments of the AGW-denial movement and, say, the Moon Hoax Movement.

Or modern-day intelligent design creationism.

[TrueSceptic]

Support your contention that Romm may have made up this interview with Eichler. I find the idea incredible. Eichler for one would have complained - and you haven't the slightest shred of evidence that that has happened.

Hmmm, who to believe?


Marc Morano is the serial lying propagandist in this case.
(My bolded addition.)

How does this shyster get away with it?

[TrueSceptic]

What strikes me as bizzare is how members here who deny AGW, members who have presumably been exposed to a vast amount of examples of pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, cannot spot the clear similarities between the presentation, style and arguments of the AGW-denial movement and, say, the Moon Hoax Movement.
...and the ID/Creationist crowd.

[TrueSceptic]

I've looked up Romm and he doesn't seem to be a "paid Democratic operative". Marc Morano is definitely a paid Republican operative and propagandist. And proven liar, of course.
It is actually Morano citing Lubos Motl, but considering that Morano uses it as part of his "650" piece he clearly endorses it.

[mhaze]

I've looked up Romm and he doesn't seem to be a "paid Democratic operative". Marc Morano is definitely a paid Republican operative and propagandist. And proven liar, of course.How so? Romm is staff at the "Center for American Progress" (501(c)(3) non profit), pivotal to the Obama transition team (sheer coincidence of course). Romm does his little climate bloggy advocacy thingy under the 501(c)(4) associated "Center for American Progress Action Fund", to which George Soros donated $3M. These two non profits share personnel, office space, etc...

This may be not clear because you are British, in the US we have these different non profit entities because a non profit is not supposed to engage in political fund raising, advocacy of candidates, lobbying, etc. So they just set up an "affiliated entity" with a slightly different name.

CAP Action Fund (Romm): the lobbying arm...

Perhaps Romm is just not your desired flavor of paid political operative, propagandist, and proven liar?

[TrueSceptic]

How so? Romm is staff at the "Center for American Progress" (501(c)(3) non profit), pivotal to the Obama transition team (sheer coincidence of course). Romm does his little climate bloggy advocacy thingy under the 501(c)(4) associated "Center for American Progress Action Fund", to which George Soros donated $3M. These two non profits share personnel, office space, etc...

This may be not clear because you are British, in the US we have these different non profit entities because a non profit is not supposed to engage in political fund raising, advocacy of candidates, lobbying, etc. So they just set up an "affiliated entity" with a slightly different name.

CAP Action Fund (Romm): the lobbying arm...

Perhaps Romm is just not your desired flavor of paid political operative, propagandist, and proven liar?
So, are you claiming that Romm is lying when quoting Eichler? Yes or no?

[CapelDodger]

How so? Romm is staff at the "Center for American Progress" (501(c)(3) non profit), pivotal to the Obama transition team (sheer coincidence of course). Romm does his little climate bloggy advocacy thingy under the 501(c)(4) associated "Center for American Progress Action Fund", to which George Soros donated $3M. These two non profits share personnel, office space, etc...

This may be not clear because you are British, in the US we have these different non profit entities because a non profit is not supposed to engage in political fund raising, advocacy of candidates, lobbying, etc. So they just set up an "affiliated entity" with a slightly different name.

CAP Action Fund (Romm): the lobbying arm...

Your judgement that the CAP is "pivotal" to Obama cuts no ice with me, frankly. (You do understand what pivotal means, I hope.) I'm seeing a transition team of old, experienced, break-your-leg political operators; the idea that they pivot around the CAP is laughable.

If Romm is a Democractic operative he wouldn't be lobbying, would he? He'd be part of the lobbied.

Perhaps Romm is just not your desired flavor of paid political operative, propagandist, and proven liar?

Romm's not a proven liar, and not a paid Democratic operative, which is what you started with. I don't doubt he's political, he's paid, and he operates out in the open as a journalist.

Marc Morano is a paid Republican propagandist and a proven liar. Heck, that's his job - can he help it if he loves it?

[CapelDodger]

So, are you claiming that Romm is lying when quoting Eichler? Yes or no?

We know where that goes - nowhere.

This 650-list is an absolute gift; people are having so much fun with it out there. Eli Rabett, for instance http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/he-has-another-list.html

You know what it's all about, don't you? Warming-up for next year's Manhatten Project, that's what, due in a few months I think. Expect a lot of overlap :). (Is Lord Munchkin on the 650-list? I haven't looked, but it wouldn't surprise me.)

[CapelDodger]

How does this shyster get away with it?

Easy. He's paid by order of Republicans, and he's a piper that plays their tune. Whether he believes any of it is anybody's guess. What he doesn't care about is being known as a blatant liar, otherwise he wouldn't have repeated the Famous Four Hundred, let alone with an extension. And if he did care he wouldn't do that kind of job.

[TrueSceptic]

Your judgement that the CAP is "pivotal" to Obama cuts no ice with me, frankly. (You do understand what pivotal means, I hope.) I'm seeing a transition team of old, experienced, break-your-leg political operatives; the idea that they pivot around the CAP is laughable.

If Romm is a Democractic operative he wouldn't be lobbying, would he? He'd be part of the lobbied.

Romm's not a proven liar, and not a paid Democratic operative, which is what you started with. I don't doubt he's political, he's paid, and he operates out in the open as a journalist.

Marc Morano is a paid Republican propagandist and a proven liar. Heck, that's his job - can he help it if he loves it?
Quite. We have someone here who appears to do the same. He shamelessly latches onto anything, no matter how absurd or in contradiction to other claims he latches onto, as long as it is anti-GW, anti-IPCC, anti-Green, anti-Left. His sheer persistance and stamina shame us all.

[TrueSceptic]

We know where that goes - nowhere.

That is what I expect, but any lack of response will be telling also.


This 650-list is an absolute gift; people are having so much fun with it out there. Eli Rabett, for instance http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/he-has-another-list.html

Haven't looked there yet but apparently "over 650" is 604.


You know what it's all about, don't you? Warming-up for next year's Manhatten Project, that's what, due in a few months I think. Expect a lot of overlap :). (Is Lord Munchkin on the 650-list? I haven't looked, but it wouldn't surprise me.)
Is it time for another already?

[CapelDodger]

Quite. We have someone here who appears to do the same. He shamelessly latches onto anything, no matter how absurd or in contradiction to other claims he latches onto, as long as it is anti-GW, anti-IPCC, anti-Green, anti-Left. His sheer persistance and stamina shame us all.

As does the Duracell Bunny :). Even he will unlatch from GMB PDQ, mark my words.

So anyhoo, this is what the weirdsphere has been reduced to. The 650-list which isn't, and the Manhatten Munchkin Project. Meanwhile in Poznan the real players ... stake out diplomatic ground against the future (aka Copenhagen 2009). Sad, but not unexpected.

Sauve qui peut and get the last laugh, that's my philosophy.

[mhaze]

Your judgement that the CAP is "pivotal" to Obama cuts no ice with me, frankly. (You do understand what pivotal means, I hope.) I'm seeing a transition team of old, experienced, break-your-leg political operators; the idea that they pivot around the CAP is laughable.

If Romm is a Democractic operative he wouldn't be lobbying, would he? He'd be part of the lobbied.

Romm's not a proven liar, and not a paid Democratic operative, which is what you started with. I don't doubt he's political, he's paid, and he operates out in the open as a journalist.

Marc Morano is a paid Republican propagandist and a proven liar. Heck, that's his job - can he help it if he loves it?

Gee, if you want to argue that Romm isn't a Democratic operative because he doesn't get his paychecks from the Democratic party, be my guest - neither does Morano get his paycheck from the Republican Party, but from a Republican. I've explained "the way it works" here, and the 501c4 that Romm works for is and was one of the primary Obama supporters. Nothing could be more of a propaganda mill than CAP and/or CAP Action Fund. Not Greenpeace, Environ Defense League, etc.

CAP for example proudly states it is a counterpart to the Heritage Foundation. And yes, Romm's a proven liar (to parlay the cute phrases of Warmers). He credited Morano said things that were actually said by Motl. (No dancing around, and no applying differing standards to Morano than Romm.)

So no, we are not dealing with an objective journalist in the case of Romm. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the subject, since it's easy to find all this out on Google. But if you want any more clarification on these weird creatures called 501c3 and 501c4, be my guest to ask.

Now are you ready to answer my question that was dodged?

So either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't.

Which is it?

[TrueSceptic]

Gee, if you want to argue that Romm isn't a Democratic operative because he doesn't get his paychecks from the Democratic party, be my guest - neither does Morano get his paycheck from the Republican Party, but from a Republican. I've explained "the way it works" here, and the 501c4 that Romm works for is and was one of the primary Obama supporters. Nothing could be more of a propaganda mill than CAP and/or CAP Action Fund. Not Greenpeace, Environ Defense League, etc.

CAP for example proudly states it is a counterpart to the Heritage Foundation. And yes, Romm's a proven liar (to parlay the cute phrases of Warmers). He credited Morano said things that were actually said by Motl. (No dancing around, and no applying differing standards to Morano than Romm.)

Hardly a liar. He cited Morano citing Motl and using this in his (Morano's) title.

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'


So no, we are not dealing with an objective journalist in the case of Romm. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the subject, since it's easy to find all this out on Google. But if you want any more clarification on these weird creatures called 501c3 and 501c4, be my guest to ask.

Now are you ready to answer my question that was dodged?

So either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't.

Which is it?
Until we hear from Eichler direct (reading the paper requires payment), we cannot be sure, but given Motl's record, I know who I'd bet on.

As for Morano...proven serial liar.

[mhaze]

So you think the chance that Romm understood Motl's argument is non zero?

[varwoche]

So you think the chance that Romm understood Motl's argument is non zero? Despite how blatant and inane your evasions are (constantly), a little bit of skepticism is warranted here seeing as it would be preferable to have a quote of Eichler that doesn't pass through a middleman who is an unknown. Also, we don't have the text of Romm's questions that Eichler replied to.

I'll attempt to contact Eichler for clarification, and if/when I hear back I'll post the full text of the exchange. First I'll vet the questions here. But before that, you need to agree not to challenge my veracity as a reporter otherwise we're right back where we started.

What do you say?

[CapelDodger]

Gee, if you want to argue that Romm isn't a Democratic operative because he doesn't get his paychecks from the Democratic party, be my guest ...

You claimed he was a paid Democratic operative. Now you concede he's not, and make like it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, why make up the claim in the first place?

... - neither does Morano get his paycheck from the Republican Party, but from a Republican.

Inhofe pays him out of his own pocket? Are you quite sure of that?


I've explained "the way it works" here, and the 501c4 that Romm works for is and was one of the primary Obama supporters.

Primary now, no longer pivotal. How the mighty are fallen.

Your opinion on how primary Romm was to Obama cuts no ice with me. Romm may loom large in your world, but in the normal world, not so much.

Nothing could be more of a propaganda mill than CAP and/or CAP Action Fund. Not Greenpeace, Environ Defense League, etc.

Again, your peculiar opinion. Save your breath.

CAP for example proudly states it is a counterpart to the Heritage Foundation.

What does that say about the Heritage Foundation? And I thought you loved those guys ...

[CapelDodger]

And yes, Romm's a proven liar (to parlay the cute phrases of Warmers). He credited Morano said things that were actually said by Motl. (No dancing around, and no applying differing standards to Morano than Romm.)

Here's what Romm said :

"The lead author of a new study ($ub. req'd) says Inhofe's office mischaracterized her work with its blaring headline, "Study: Half of warming due to Sun!"

Who wrote the blaring headline? Well, it was posted by Marc Morano, and had no quotes around it, so it was his own work. So no lie by Romm. Lies by Morano, obviously, but that's his job.


So no, we are not dealing with an objective journalist in the case of Romm.

What's not objective about his journalism? He has his opinions and is quite open about them.

There's nothing objective about Morano's propaganda, but objectivity is not in his job-description. Far from it, in fact.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the subject, since it's easy to find all this out on Google. But if you want any more clarification on these weird creatures called 501c3 and 501c4, be my guest to ask.

They're not that weird. For weird check out British charity legislation.

Now are you ready to answer my question that was dodged?

So either the article identifies CO2 and not the sun as the post-industrial culprit or it doesn't.

Which is it?

The paper makes a clear distinction between before 1850 and after 1850, and states that after 1850 warming correlates strongly with CO2, without reference to solar variation.

Myself, I don't rate the paper particularly highly. A lag of "ten to thirty years"? Not terribly impressive data-mining, frankly. Actually worse than 1450 +/- 500 years - that's only a factor of two, not three.

What the paper definitely says is that the Sun didn't do it. No surprises there, then.

[CapelDodger]

So you think the chance that Romm understood Motl's argument is non zero?

Motl doesn't have an argument. If he did he'd present it.

What do you understand to be Motl's argument? Your public wants to know.

[CapelDodger]

Hardly a liar. He cited Morano citing Motl and using this in his (Morano's) title.

Quite. You got there before me :o.

It's not as if Morano is at the mercy of sub-editors for his headline. He's Chief Editor, lead author, and his proprieter's mouthpiece, all rolled into one. No wonder he sounds drunk with power.

[TrueSceptic]

Quite. You got there before me :o.

It's not as if Morano is at the mercy of sub-editors for his headline. He's Chief Editor, lead author, and his proprieter's mouthpiece, all rolled into one. No wonder he sounds drunk with power.
This whole EPW/Inhofe/Morano thing beggars belief, doesn't it? Can you imagine something equivalent over here? (Well, I can imagine it but it would be laughed/shamed out of existence in no time!)

[a_unique_person]

From Deltoid, another misrepresentation and fabrication from Morano.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_inhofes_list_compared.php



I see Inhofe's "Gang of 650" also includes Erich Roeckner, a renowned climate modeler at Germany's Max Planck Institute, who's quoted as saying there are still kinks in current climate models. But that's not controversial; all climatologists recognize (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/) that their models can't account for every last physical process. Inhofe's report then cites Roeckner telling Nature in 2006, "It is possible that all of them are wrong"--implying that he's casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change. But he's not! Roeckner was referring to the IPCC's emissions scenarios, which involve assumptions about the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. (Scroll down here (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2006/01/which-climate-change-consensus-part-4/) for the full quote.) We already know that emissions are growing faster than the IPCC's worst-case scenario, and that's bad news, not good.
Anwyay, Roeckner's as far as you get from a "dissenter": See this 2004 paper (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/%7Eliepert/pdf/feichter_etal_JCL2004.pdf), which yet again establishes the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and temperature increases. Or see this link (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:QLn2_QnnWssJ:www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/Brief2005Oct03.doc+Erich+Roeckner+carbon-dioxide&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a), where Roeckner is qutoed in multiple news stories sounding downright alarmist about the consequences of man-made warming. "Humans have had a large one-of-a-kind influence on the climate... Weather situations in which extreme floods occur will increase," he informed Deutsche Welle in 2004. "Our research pointed to rapid global warming and the shifting of climate zones," he told ABC News in 2005. Quite the heretic, that one.

[TrueSceptic]

From Deltoid, another misrepresentation and fabrication from Morano.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_inhofes_list_compared.php

I suppose the debunking has to be done, but the rule should simply be: anything emanating from Morano is 100% lies until shown otherwise.

This is how these liars* work. Make an outrageous claim, or a list of people who support your claim, then wait for it to be destroyed. By then, it doesn't matter. The willing foot-soldiers have passed it on as fact and all the debunking is simply ignored as establishment (lefty/greeny/fascist/consensus, take your pick) propaganda. If the debunking is not ignored, it is simply inverted to "prove" the CT!

After a year or so, repeat. Add a few more names and pretend that the previous piece wasn't picked to pieces.

Note the work that is done/wasted on this tripe each time.

*Many are delusional wingnuts but some actually know full well what they are doing.

[mhaze]

Despite how blatant and inane your evasions are (constantly), a little bit of skepticism is warranted here seeing as it would be preferable to have a quote of Eichler that doesn't pass through a middleman who is an unknown. Also, we don't have the text of Romm's questions that Eichler replied to.

I'll attempt to contact Eichler for clarification, and if/when I hear back I'll post the full text of the exchange. First I'll vet the questions here. But before that, you need to agree not to challenge my veracity as a reporter otherwise we're right back where we started.

What do you say?I don't doubt that you are honest and would do as you have stated. But keep in mind that the interesting thing here is not whether Eichler has a personal opinion that CO2 (yada yada yada) or whether he has a qualification in the article such as "Results are not incongruent with CO2 blah blah blah", etc, but whether in the actual work he did in the study he somehow found a correlation between CO2 and temperatures > 0.22 to 0.44 R2 for 1850+.

Although JREF warmers lunge toward propagandists instead of the science (RC, Sourcewatch, Media Matters, Rabbit, Tamino, Romm) it's more of interest to actually look at what the article says than to try to dissect the propagandists misrepresentation of it.

Motl's analysis: (http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/eichler-et-al-half-of-recent-warming.html) Apparently Motl started this brewha.

[TrueSceptic]

I don't doubt that you are honest and would do as you have stated. But keep in mind that the interesting thing here is not whether Eichler has a personal opinion that CO2 (yada yada yada) or whether he has a qualification in the article such as "Results are not incongruent with CO2 blah blah blah", etc, but whether in the actual work he did in the study he somehow found a correlation between CO2 and temperatures > 0.22 to 0.44 R2 for 1850+.

Although JREF warmers lunge toward propagandists instead of the science (RC, Sourcewatch, Media Matters, Rabbit, Tamino, Romm) it's more of interest to actually look at what the article says than to try to dissect the propagandists misrepresentation of it.

Motl's analysis: (http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/eichler-et-al-half-of-recent-warming.html) Apparently Motl started this brewha.
The point is whether Motl and Morano are mistaken or dishonest about what Eichler herself believes the paper says, not the worth of the paper itself.

Of course, you are now trying to change the subject. No change there, then!

Again, you accuse others of propaganda but simply ignore the proven repeated lying of Morano.

[varwoche]

I don't doubt that you are honest and would do as you have stated. But keep in mind that the interesting thing here is not whether Eichler has a personal opinion If Romm represented Eichler accurately, clearly Eichler is not presenting a personal opinion; she is discussing the study: We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is not significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature. Frankly, I don't see what there is to confirm other than these are in fact Eichler's words and that they pertain to the study you cited.

And if/when Eichler confirms, I'll expect you to concede that you cited a study that contradicts your argument. (Given that the actual study hasn't been placed in evidence here).

Although JREF warmers lunge toward propagandists instead of the science (RC, Sourcewatch, Media Matters, Rabbit, Tamino, Romm) Are you a masochist? Surely you must know by now that when you post this sort of rank bs that I'm going to remind readers of the garbage you've posted to this forum wholesale (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3877185#post3877185).

[mhaze]

If Romm represented Eichler accurately, clearly Eichler is not presenting a personal opinion; she is discussing the study: Frankly, I don't see what there is to confirm other than these are in fact Eichler's words and that they pertain to the study you cited.

And if/when Eichler confirms, I'll expect you to concede that you cited a study that contradicts your argument.....

You want a concession on what? Certainly not the bottom line statement in green. That GreyIce's chart of 30 years of solar has meaning? It does not, irrespective of Eichler.

By the way, note that Eichler's regional study is tangent to a puzzle: not that CO2 overwhelmed the effects of solar in the last 150 years - it did not and could not, since any GHG effect would be a steady background level...to me this indicates a part of the solar effects not understood from cause through to effect. Take any 2 waveforms A and B for which their superimposition shows 10-30 year periodicity for some periods yet zero correlation for other time frames.

Here is new research (http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/solar-link-to-50-of-warming-during-the-past-100-years/)showing a 10-30 year lag between solar and atmospheric:...a new paper ‘in press’ in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, ‘Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing’ (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL).

The Abstract states: The role of the sun on Earth’s climate variability is still much debated. Here we present an ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai, serving as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 750 years. The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response...

Yet another look, in another fashion...a Morlet wavelet transform (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/22/new-cycle-24-sunspot/) of smoothed sunspot numbers (SSN).http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422448db9c7a2e64c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13916)
Another skeptic's point of view (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf )....D'Aleo simply notes correlation of various factors alleged to affect climate with temperatures...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224479a3db13b041.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10381)
What does the solar scientist, Solanki have to say? (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/)According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
Baker (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm) (Solar influence and effect on cloud cover noted)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations “The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”
Do Warmers objectively, honestly, and accurately present solar effects on climate? No. It does not fit with their agenda.