Is global warming even real?

[iceaura]

Using a new technique to measure the sun's magnetic waves, Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, told the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting last week that sunspot activity could drop as much as 60 percent to 70 percent between 2030 and 2040 from the current cycle.

That guy you posted before,

- the one who proved the Maunder Minimum never existed

he's no longer operational?

That's the nature of science. A theory/an hypothesis is proposed, and then refined and then refined and then refined..........
Questions should lead to more questions.
And precious few absolutes.

Half the stuff you've been posting contradicts the other half. Is that what you mean by no absolutes - no evidence of anything in particular? Everything contradicted by everything else and we agree to know nothing?

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

Sure. Although the reference to relativity theory is a symptom of whack status, and the similarity is obviously distant, it's pretty well accepted that there is an upper bound to greenhouse heating via the gases at issue so far. So?

That's almost irrelevant, unless he can show the upper bound is within some range of interest for human civilization - which he can't - or that the inability to run away to infinity means the warming rate cannot be accelerated by positive feedback over a temperature range of great significance to human life on this planet, which it doesn't.

And so forth. As always: what is the argument?

 

[iceaura]

50 Heritics:
Scientists all:

Damn, I wish I had saved a link to the page on this forum where I predicted this - every couple of years the sewage fountain emits another one of these lists of scientists supposedly in conflict with AGW. What is this, the sixth or seventh? And every single frigging time their target audience of amnesiacs takes up the list and waves it around like it's a work of great significance and proves something, and somebody has to wade through the damn thing and toss out the garbage and lies and misrepresentations and misappropriations and invalid attributions and quotes taken out of context and paid shills and dishonest credentials and it takes too long - I did it once, here, paid my dues, I'm not doing it any more.

 

[sculptor]

Perspective matters!

 

[zgmc]

Damn, I wish I had saved a link to the page on this forum where I predicted this - every couple of years the sewage fountain emits another one of these lists of scientists supposedly in conflict with AGW. What is this, the sixth or seventh? And every single frigging time their target audience of amnesiacs takes up the list and waves it around like it's a work of great significance and proves something, and somebody has to wade through the damn thing and toss out the garbage and lies and misrepresentations and misappropriations and invalid attributions and quotes taken out of context and paid shills and dishonest credentials and it takes too long - I did it once, here, paid my dues, I'm not doing it any more.

It's probably pointless anyway. I looked up one of them. Maybe he is a physicist? But his last job was assistant professor of philosophy. Now he works for heartland institute, and bases his denial on the work of a guy who couldn't hack it at NASA.

 

[zgmc]

Perspective matters!

You have the proper perspective I presume?

 

[sculptor]

One down
49 to go
don't stop now

 

[sculptor]

You have the proper perspective I presume?

that's momentary

the goal is objectivity

 

[iceaura]

Perspective matters!

Mine is of someone who actually went through a couple of those lists, and paid my dues, and did not forget the lesson learned.

It's full of shit. So were the last half dozen. Furthermore, it is impossible that such a list can have been compiled by accident or in ignorance. Find your source, note it for future reference, and cease spamming science forums with anything from that source. It has proven itself a worthless purveyor of the lowest of unethical and cynically exploitative propaganda, and the penalty should be banishment.

 

[Ophiolite]

One down
49 to go
don't stop now

If you had any integrity you would examine the names on the list critically, not clasp it to your bosom as vindication of your distorted beliefs. A cursory glance at two or three of them reveals that iceaura's characterisation of them is likely sound. And even if the list was valid - shock horror! Fifty individuals don't agree with thousands of their peers. Who would have thunk it?

 

[sculptor]

No one who was/is in the agw camp would compose such an anti ipcc list.
I had thought that so obvious as to not be worthy of mention.

Meanwhile zgmc has a problem with one of them = 2% objectionable= 98% are ok?
and Ophiolite has a problem with another 2 or 3 of them = 4%-6% objectionable = 94% to 96% are ok?

meanwhile, let us consider:
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Just how much do you trust(or distrust) this guy? Is/was he lying? Is/was he accurate in that assessment?

 

[sculptor]

The question at hand is roughly: Do opposing viewpoints enrich the science?
My answer would be an obvious "YES".
Yours?

 

[Ophiolite]

Meanwhile zgmc has a problem with one of them = 2% objectionable= 98% are ok?
and Ophiolite has a problem with another 2 or 3 of them = 4%-6% objectionable = 94% to 96% are ok?

Once again you are either being deliberately obtuse, or ....... I stated that a cursory glance at 2 or 3 had the same kind of problem noted for the one that was analysed. That's 100% of the instances examined. It does not mean that 94% or 96% are OK. That only works if you are trying to delude yourself or others.

 

[sculptor]

"cursory glance"
hmm......................
Does that represent a different branch of science:
Wherein cursory glances set the tone and nature of the discipline?

Is that the best I should expect from you?

.............................................
meanwhile, let us consider "Unrest on the sun - storms on the Earth. The magnetic connection" by Friis-Christensen
Who in opposition to a video stated:

The audience is told that the L+FC results demonstrate (a) the sun drove temperature changes over the past 400 years, and (b) no other agents were involved in changing the climate in that time. This is an overstatement that is not supported by the graph, interview statements by Friis-Christensen in the program, nor any related scientific literature. Although solar variations seem to be a major cause of climate variations on centennial and millennial time scales in the pre-industrial era (see for example Bond et al.,2001 [Science, 294: 2130-6]), there are certainly other natural sources of climate change. For the industrialised period, the L+FC (and other) results do not exclude an effect from man-made greenhouse gases.

"Do not exclude"
yes--------------broaden that out to the entirety of the sciences.

 

[zgmc]

No one who was/is in the agw camp would compose such an anti ipcc list.
I had thought that so obvious as to not be worthy of mention.

Meanwhile zgmc has a problem with one of them = 2% objectionable= 98% are ok?
and Ophiolite has a problem with another 2 or 3 of them = 4%-6% objectionable = 94% to 96% are ok?

meanwhile, let us consider:
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Just how much do you trust(or distrust) this guy? Is/was he lying? Is/was he accurate in that assessment?

Let's have a link to where you found that statement.

 

[zgmc]

http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=8355

Is this it? From 2011.

 

[iceaura]

meanwhile, let us consider "Unrest on the sun - storms on the Earth. The magnetic connection" by Friis-Christensen

Yet another link that conflicts with earlier links, yet another rabbit hole to chase the bunny down. I suppose if it's only going to take a few seconds:

- While the correlation established by Dr. Friis-Christensen and Dr. Lassen falls short of definite proof, a number of scientists nevertheless called it remarkable in its close fit between the solar and temperature trends."[9] Subsequent work with updated data has found that the correlation has not stood up. - -
- -
Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, - - -

The "Gish Gallop" was named for a creationist, but it's not patented - anyone can employ it. Why would they?

 

[sculptor]

copy and paste and search the heading:
Voici 50 citations d’experts qui ont travaillé pour le GIEC. Le GIEC utilise des experts pour reviser leur documents, mais souvent ingnorent les recommandations de ces experts quand ça ne correspond pas à ce qu’ils veulent entendre.

or
here's a shortcut:
https://crioux.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/citations-dexperts-du-giec/

Most likely a reprint -----? Of a reprint? of a reprint?
Your: http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=8355 is also most likely a reprint?

as/re:

Let's have a link to where you found that statement.

What statement?

 

[iceaura]

https://crioux.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/citations-dexperts-du-giec/

Wingnut spam cannot be converted into high class posting by translating it into French.

post 1116 involved a retraction by one of those 50, btw.

Here's the info on another of them, chosen at random from the first dozen or so, who informs us that ocean acidification is not a problem from the CO2 boost: http://www.oceanassoc.com/Bio_Dr_John_T_Everett_Resume_All/_resumeJohn_T_Everett2012.pdf

No comment.

 

[sculptor]

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen wrote: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
see post 1091
"out the other end pops agw and only agw"

When science gets in bed with politics, they create bastard children.

Unless, of course Eigil Friis-Christensen is wrong.
Is he?

 

[Ophiolite]

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen wrote: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
see post 1091
"out the other end pops agw and only agw"

When science gets in bed with politics, they create bastard children.

Unless, of course Eigil Friis-Christensen is wrong.
Is he?

Well all I can say is that if you search for "Solar Forcing" among the IPCC publications you get 787 results. This was the first one I picked:

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; Whiteet al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002)

Here is a portion of result 70ish.

TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions
>
Continuous monitoring of total solar irradiance now covers the last 28 years. The data show a well-established 11-year cycle in irradiance that varies by 0.08% from solar cycle minima to maxima, with no significant long-term trend. New data have more accurately quantified changes in solar spectral fluxes over a broad range of wavelengths in association with changing solar activity. Improved calibrations using high-quality overlapping measurements have also contributed to a better understanding. Current understanding of solar physics and the known sources of irradiance variability suggest comparable irradiance levels during the past two solar cycles, including at solar minima. The primary known cause of contemporary irradiance variability is the presence on the Sun’s disk of sunspots (compact, dark features where radiation is locally depleted) and faculae (extended bright features where radiation is locally enhanced). {2.7}

The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum) based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of recent solar variations and their relationship to physical processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sun-like stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales. {2.7, 6.6}


Given that they devote so much attention to sun's effect on climate it looks as if the good doctor may be overstating the case. When you've worked your way through the other 785 items perhaps you can report back.