The science of global warming is complex and it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the scores of arguments used to question the legitimacy of the scientific and data basis for the Anthropogenic Global Warming “Consensus.”
Here is a web page that is a perfect first stage research tool.
At SkepticalScience.com John Cook has put together a must see webpage: “Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says”
In a simple two column format he runs down the list of 115 (and growing) arguments, explains them and gives links for further research.
Give it a visit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Your hero is doomed to the ignominy of being considered a whacko.
His first argument begins:
“In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.”
He demonstrates his clear BIAS and ZEALOTRY in a single sentence.
He has nothing to offer a TRUE skeptic and will be held by me, as so many charlatans in appropriate contempt.
WOW! He cites facts and YOU call it bias and zealotry! You declare that YOU’RE the ‘one true’ skeptic?? Where are your refutations? You can’t fight the facts, so you dredge up your old friends vitriol and ad hominum!
I recall a few years ago, talking with a research psychologist friend. He mentioned that for people familiar with the meaning and determination of IQ, that they could estimate the actual IQ of those significantly below theirs relatively accurately. So, I’m guessing that some Big 10 college would be surprised to find that one of their “professors” had an IQ of about 70.
I recall a few years ago, talking with a research psychologist friend. He mentioned that for people familiar with the meaning and determination of IQ, that they could estimate the actual IQ of those significantly below theirs relatively accurately. So, I’m guessing that some Big 10 college would be surprised to find that one of their “professors” had an IQ of about 70.
Now, if he’d only tell me both where he got his doctorate, and where he teaches, I’ll make sure none of my grandchildren, and none of the children of my friends ever attend those ‘colleges’ or ‘universities’!
Your hero is doomed to the ignominy of being considered a whacko.
His first argument begins:
“In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.”
He demonstrates his clear BIAS and ZEALOTRY in a single sentence.
Did you bother to continue reading that post?
Analytic - 19 June 2010 09:45 AM
He has nothing to offer a TRUE skeptic and will be held by me, as so many charlatans in appropriate contempt.
He doesn’t ?
Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:
* Erlykin 2009: “We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming.”
* Benestad 2009: “Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.”
* Lockwood 2008: “It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%.”
* Lean 2008: “According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years…”
* Lockwood 2008: “The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.”
* Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”
* Lockwood 2007: “The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”
* Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.”
* Scafetta 2006 says “since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.”
* Usoskin 2005 conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
* Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding “solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”.
* Haigh 2003 says “Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects.”
* Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found “most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases.”
* Solanki 2003 concludes “the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970.”
* Lean 1999 concludes “it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970.”
* Waple 1999 finds “little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend.”
* Frolich 1998 concludes “solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade.”
So, big A, what are the hallmarks of a “TRUE skeptic” ???
“True skeptic” - one who does not accept ANY information, like your list, without detailed citation of the peer reviewed scientific literature that supposedly supports it.
A “true skeptic” does not have to be a climatologist to discard MERE CLAIMS.
He merely needs know what the “scientific method” proscribes: such as MERE CLAIMS, OR SUGGESTIONS OF CLAIMS.
“True skeptic” - one who does not accept ANY information, like your list, without detailed citation of the peer reviewed scientific literature that supposedly supports it?
A “true skeptic” does not have to be a climatologist to discard MERE CLAIMS.
He merely needs know what the “scientific method” proscribes: such as MERE CLAIMS, OR SUGGESTIONS OF CLAIMS.
That’s truly amazing.
Don’t you realize that everyone of those names was a hot button link to the study being mentioned.
Maybe you should consider starting to question your own information bank.
Once again I’m reminded of the proud, but irritated, mother watching the marching band go by. She’s irritated because she just can’t figure out why the whole band is marching out of step with her son. cheers
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ps.
Analytic - 20 June 2010 07:30 AM
“True skeptic” - one who does not accept ANY information
I recall a few years ago, talking with a research psychologist friend. He mentioned that for people familiar with the meaning and determination of IQ, that they could estimate the actual IQ of those significantly below theirs relatively accurately. So, I’m guessing that some Big 10 college would be surprised to find that one of their “professors” had an IQ of about 70.
Occam
That’s quite enough of that. IQ is a deeply flawed concept, anyway.
Analytic, perhaps you can go into some better detail on why you think that the statement:
“In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.”
has clear bias and zealotry? Is this statement false? Or is it true but misleading in some way?
Your List cited NOTHING beyond those guys’ conclusions.
I stand by my criticism.
So now you are saying that a summation, or Abstract, that a scientist makes about his study is worthless, though their full study is also available for those with the knowledge to make sense of the nitty gritty math details and such.
Sounds like you’re one of those guys who can debate for hours on end around the “conundrum” that “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it - does it still make a noise?”
And you don’t see any irony or weakness in your blanket rejects? What informs your power to reject out of hand whatever disagrees with your mind set?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Hey asante this ones for you: “If a man says something in a forest and no woman is there to hear him - is he still wrong?”
