Register to Comment
Like Tree8292Likes
  1. #12881
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22,774

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Yes there is significant difference. Yours has confirmation bias written all over to suit the previously fabricated hocket chart. Its not correct. End of.
    What "hockey chart"? Was there a rise in global average temperature in 20th century or not? You only agree there was when it suits you.

    That's the Abstract. Did you read the paper?

    How about this in the conclusion on Page 3090?
    She is saying more research needs to be done, and she is of course correct. It would be unusual for a paper whose text contradicted the abstract to even get sent for peer review.

    Here is a chart from a paper Dr Lean co-authored in 2005, which updates and improves the chart you are relying so much on, even though it disproves the solar-temperature rise connection.



    This more recent chart is much closer to the one I showed, though I am not making a big deal about differences. You are, though it does not matter a whit.

    Note that these are "reconstructions" (as I pointed out) and differences are probably differences in statistical methodology and not significant.

    http://sun.stanford.edu/LWS_Dynamo_2009/61797.web.pdf

    Oh and that paper is from 1999.
    Only 5 years previous to the chart, which is 8 years old. The chart above is more recent.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12882
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,817

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post

    Finally, the chart CS cannot refute:

    Again I quote this and the chart above is to 2009 not 1998. It is inaccurate. Furthermore this is what is written underneath the chart from Sceptical Science

    Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).
    So they took 2 separate time series interpretations of Solar Irradiance and glued them together to suit the needs of their propaganda.

    How many times do I have to refute this fallacy?

    BTW - This is the Solanki Paper, which again doesn't fare too well for the Solar Deniers.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4958v2.pdf
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #12883
    sharper sharper is offline

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,102

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    How many times do I have to refute this fallacy?
    Once would be a good start.

    You can make up whatever reasons you want for disliking the skepticalscience graph but even the one you posted shows flat or declining solar activity since about 1950 with the decline being even more pronounced in recent years. Temperatures have clearly not tracked solar activity since the mid 1970s which is the mainstream scientific position.

    You have not outlined exactly what it is you disagree with from owedtojoy's posting nor have you shown why his sources are wrong. This is hardly surprising since to make solar activity and temperatures match you either have to throw out the temperature data or the solar activity data.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #12884
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22,774

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Again I quote this and the chart above is to 2009 not 1998. It is inaccurate. Furthermore this is what is written underneath the chart from Sceptical Science
    No it isn't. It agrees very well with the Lean & Wang(2005) paper, which I post again.



    But where is the evidence for your claim that solar irradiance ONLY influences climate? That is the fallacy.

    So they took 2 separate time series interpretations of Solar Irradiance and glued them together to suit the needs of their propaganda.

    How many times do I have to refute this fallacy?
    The only fallacy around here is your claim that solar irradiance and solar irradiance ONLY influences climate. Solar irradiance is a part of natural variability, and of course influences climate, but not in the way greenhouse gases have dominated recent warming.


    Solar contribution to global warming according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, blue), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, green), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, purple).

    Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 13th June 2012 at 07:41 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #12885
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22,774

    Incidentally, here is a chart from Dr Lean's paper of 2008 (with Rind, the results are above, they estimate solar irradiance makes only 10% contribution to global warming).


    Lean and Rind reconstructions of the contributions to monthly mean global surface temperatures by individual natural and anthropogenic influences. The right hand axes give the native scales of each influence, and the left hand axes give the corresponding temperature change determined from the multiple regression analysis. The grey lines are trends for the whole interval. The inset in Figure 2d shows the individual greenhouse gases, tropospheric aerosols and the land surface plus snow albedo components that combine to give the net anthropogenic forcing.

    Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming

    Remember, CS, it was you who used Dr Lean's chart to claim "inaccuracy". Why then is she writing papers that say solar irradiance is only responsible for 10% of global warming?

    And she does agree there has been global warming. Do you?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #12886
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    10,655

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Say what? How many times can one say a tautology such as solar variance is the primary cause of climate change?
    Proven wrong. We can call it BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Does not relate to current rapid global warming!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    This thread is not a debate, its a form of displacement for failed control freaks.
    Weird misconception.
    Last edited by SirCharles; 12th June 2012 at 10:29 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #12887
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22,774

    A new round of Arctic Ice predictions.

    Note: Every single prediction (even Anthony Watts') if for an extent less than 5M km^2. The 5M barrier was only broken for the first recorded time 5 years ago, and deniers of global warming (or ice decline) have been talking up a "recovery" ever since.



    In fact, ice extent is being lost at this time faster than 2007, the record minimum extent. June and July (around the solstice) are the biggest declines, and about 0.5M km^2 has been lost in the last 4 days - and average of 0.125M km^2 per day. That may last another week or so, even well into July. If it does, we may be on for a new record. However, much depends on the local weather this summer.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #12888
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    10,655

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    It's a chart of a model, not measured irradiance!

    => http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...irradiance.txt

    NAME OF DATA SET: Solar Irradiance Reconstruction
    LAST UPDATE: 7/2004 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)


    CONTRIBUTOR: Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory
    IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2004-035


    SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Lean, J.. 2004.
    Solar Irradiance Reconstruction.
    IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
    Data Contribution Series # 2004-035.
    NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.


    ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Lean, J. 2000.
    Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum.
    Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428,
    Aug. 15, 2000.


    ADDITIONAL REFERENCE: Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley. 1995.
    Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Since 1610: Implications for Climate Change.
    Geophysical Research Letters, v.22, No. 23, pp 3195-3198, December 1, 1995.


    ABSTRACT (Lean 2000):
    Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,
    reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the
    seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral
    irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to
    spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope
    of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range
    of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675
    are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared
    and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.


    FUNDING SOURCE: NASA, USA.
    GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Global
    PERIOD OF RECORD: 1610 - 2000 AD


    DESCRIPTION:
    Updated solar irradiance reconstruction. (See also Lean et al., 1995).
    Included are time series of annual mean irradiance from 1610 to 2000
    of just the 11 year solar irradiance cycle, plus the 11 year
    cycle with a background component. See Lean (2000) for discussion of
    the amplitude of the background component.


    DATA:

    Calculation of TSI from calc_tsi_ann.pro
    Mon Apr 2 15:18:18 2001

    YEAR 11yrCYCLE 11yrCYCLE+BKGRND

    1610.5 1365.8477 1364.7338
    1611.5 1365.8342 1364.7075
    1612.5 1366.2461 1365.0675
    1613.5 1366.3650 1365.1611
    1614.5 1366.4451 1365.2197
    1615.5 1366.1591 1364.9456
    1616.5 1365.7358 1364.5469
    1617.5 1365.6107 1364.4189
    1618.5 1365.6038 1364.3983
    1619.5 1365.7001 1364.4717
    1620.5 1365.7001 1364.4574
    ...
    1910.5 1365.7173 1364.6566
    1911.5 1365.6285 1364.5870
    1912.5 1365.5706 1364.5724
    1913.5 1365.5739 1364.6243
    1914.5 1365.6302 1364.7195
    1915.5 1365.9285 1365.0414
    1916.5 1366.1349 1365.2614
    1917.5 1366.2821 1365.4149
    1918.5 1366.2454 1365.3726
    1919.5 1366.0179 1365.1373
    1920.5 1365.8523 1364.9840
    1921.5 1365.7351 1364.9114
    1922.5 1365.6019 1364.8347
    1923.5 1365.6211 1364.9006
    1924.5 1365.6436 1364.9569
    1925.5 1365.8406 1365.1799
    1926.5 1365.9348 1365.2997
    1927.5 1366.1135 1365.4958
    1928.5 1365.9885 1365.3811
    1929.5 1365.9429 1365.3519
    1930.5 1365.9159 1365.3588
    1931.5 1365.7780 1365.2800
    1932.5 1365.6583 1365.2067
    1933.5 1365.5300 1365.1062
    1934.5 1365.6361 1365.2339
    1935.5 1365.8500 1365.4572
    1936.5 1366.2373 1365.8521
    1937.5 1366.1718 1365.7859
    1938.5 1366.1079 1365.7197
    1939.5 1366.0894 1365.7096
    1940.5 1366.0143 1365.6804
    1941.5 1365.9130 1365.6616
    1942.5 1365.7847 1365.6266
    1943.5 1365.6052 1365.5270
    1944.5 1365.6224 1365.5911
    1945.5 1365.8850 1365.8702
    1946.5 1365.9818 1365.9720
    1947.5 1366.2190 1366.2172
    1948.5 1366.3475 1366.3531
    1949.5 1366.2528 1366.2626
    1950.5 1366.0098 1366.0220
    1951.5 1365.7721 1365.7882
    1952.5 1365.7653 1365.7739
    1953.5 1365.6313 1365.6204
    1954.5 1365.6599 1365.6467
    1955.5 1365.7793 1365.7719
    1956.5 1366.3097 1366.3141
    1957.5 1366.6632 1366.6812
    1958.5 1366.6246 1366.6552
    1959.5 1366.3717 1366.4130
    1960.5 1366.2682 1366.2997
    1961.5 1365.9230 1365.9115
    1962.5 1365.7656 1365.7020
    1963.5 1365.7152 1365.6451
    1964.5 1365.7114 1365.6605
    1965.5 1365.7378 1365.7242
    1966.5 1365.9058 1365.9506
    1967.5 1366.0889 1366.1831
    1968.5 1366.1295 1366.2590
    1969.5 1366.2069 1366.3573
    1970.5 1366.2036 1366.3480
    1971.5 1365.9354 1366.0192
    1972.5 1366.0519 1366.0541
    1973.5 1365.8131 1365.7612
    1974.5 1365.7448 1365.6792
    1975.5 1365.5466 1365.5020
    1976.5 1365.6458 1365.6442
    1977.5 1365.8248 1365.8557
    1978.5 1366.2616 1366.3101
    1979.5 1366.6193 1366.6769
    1980.5 1366.6323 1366.6913
    1981.5 1366.6829 1366.7280
    1982.5 1366.2808 1366.2999
    1983.5 1366.1989 1366.2001
    1984.5 1365.8088 1365.8145
    1985.5 1365.6382 1365.6506
    1986.5 1365.6345 1365.6470
    1987.5 1365.7865 1365.7990
    1988.5 1366.0792 1366.0918
    1989.5 1366.6445 1366.6570
    1990.5 1366.5499 1366.5624
    1991.5 1366.4423 1366.4547
    1992.5 1366.2987 1366.3112
    1993.5 1366.0251 1366.0377
    1994.5 1365.7937 1365.8063
    1995.5 1365.6962 1365.7087
    1996.5 1365.6086 1365.6211
    1997.5 1365.7365 1365.7489
    1998.5 1366.0986 1366.1111
    1999.5 1366.3817 1366.3942
    2000.5 1366.6620 1366.6744

    The chart obviously shows the 11yrCYCLE+BKGRND data.

    But the data are going down again



    Now let's take a look at the temperatures during that time:



    And for the last 100 years



    So the lose relationship between sun activity and global temperature has totally vanished for the last 40 years.

    The main driver nowadays are greenhouse gases.



    CO2 and temperature have been correlating for the last 500,000 years!



    Guess what's happening despite decreasing solar activity?
    Last edited by SirCharles; 13th June 2012 at 12:10 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #12889
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,817

    Quote Originally Posted by sharper View Post
    Once would be a good start.

    You can make up whatever reasons you want for disliking the skepticalscience graph but even the one you posted shows flat or declining solar activity since about 1950 with the decline being even more pronounced in recent years. Temperatures have clearly not tracked solar activity since the mid 1970s which is the mainstream scientific position.

    You have not outlined exactly what it is you disagree with from owedtojoy's posting nor have you shown why his sources are wrong. This is hardly surprising since to make solar activity and temperatures match you either have to throw out the temperature data or the solar activity data.
    What like this?




    Again I refer to this post which it was claimed that the chart could not be refuted. It was debunked and exposed as a lie.

    The Climate Change Debate Thread

    Furthermore, that graph that I refuted is a fantasy of the Skeptical Science website, which is a blog run by a cartoonist.

    About Skeptical Science

    This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think.
    The graph owedtojoy illustrated and claimed I couldn't refute is a fallacy. Deal with it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #12890
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,817

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    But where is the evidence for your claim that solar irradiance ONLY influences climate? That is the fallacy.


    I said Primary, not "only"

    How many times can one say a tautology such as solar variance is the primary cause of climate change?
    The Climate Change Debate Thread


    Again you are twisting what I said and ignoring the exposure of the lie. Remember this?

    Finally, the chart CS cannot refute:



    That chart is a LIE.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment