Reply to: Climate change is not caused by solar output

[Old Greg]

I find it interesting how much knowledge these climatologists have. The NASA scientists publish some results after many years of research, and within days with a bit of clicking on the internet, the climatologists have "debunked" it. What particularly amazes me is their expertise in a wide area of fields including Astrophysics, Biology, Geophysics, Physics and so on.

When was this - what clicking on the internet did climatologists do?

[BlasterBates]

I find it interesting how much knowledge these climatologists have. The NASA scientists publish some results after many years of research, and within days with a bit of clicking on the internet, the climatologists have "debunked" it. What particularly amazes me is their expertise in a wide area of fields including Astrophysics, Biology, Geophysics, Physics and so on.

[Old Greg]

The problem I have with this type of input is that although they describe the GGWS as being selective, they seem to say so simply because it has not selected their particular agenda.

Have to disagree - there are very specific criticisms about fabricated data. See below - full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

Now even a climate sceptic whose dissenting views were used by the film- makers to bolster their claims about the "lies" and "swindles" of global warming has accused the documentary of promulgating falsehoods.

Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.

Dr Friiss-Christensen said that a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years had been doctored. The documentary used the graph to pour scorn on the idea that the global warming in recent decades is the result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century.

However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period.

"We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," Dr Friis-Christensen said.

"Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming," he said.

Dr Friis-Christensen, a physicist, believes that solar cycles play an important role in climate change and that not enough effort has gone into addressing the theory. The fabricated data did not, he said, make any difference to the overall view he takes but he is still critical of the way the film handled the scientific evidence. Asked by The Independent whether the documentary was scientifically accurate, Dr Friiss-Christensen said: " No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate."

The C4 programme also used out-of-date solar cycle data relating to the past 30 or 40 years which made it appear as if temperatures and solar activity were rising together when in fact solar activity has levelled off for the past few decades. "After 1985 we don't see any rise or shortening of the solar cycles compared to what we saw in the temperature [record]," Dr Friiss-Christensen said.

[shaunbhoy]

Anyway, here's a nice selection of Australian scientists' reaction to the broacasting in Oz of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which has now been comprehensively debunked.

The problem I have with this type of input is that although they describe the GGWS as being selective, they seem to say so simply because it has not selected their particular agenda. All of the guys assembled in this critique are in positions that would be largely superfluous if man is not the major contributor, so they have a vested interest in pushing that line. Many of these guys would have been involved around 30 years ago when the next big Ice Age was being put forward as inevitable by the "majority of leading scientists", another phenomenon that failed to materialise. I am not saying we should get too complacent but I am just not convinced by their "science" yet.

[Mailman]

There's a lot of disinformation about and it's clear IMO that someone is acting in bad faith. The question is who. The thing that would seem odd to me is that so many leading scientists would go along with this conspiracy

Why not? How hard would it be to fool a few of the willing in to believing global warming is man made? After all, it has morphed in to a religion where those who disagree are being hounded and forced out of their positions.

Then again, if Hitler managed to fool an entire nation a few years ago how hard would it be to fool a few do gooders in to believing the global warming myth is real?

Mailman

[Old Greg]

I am sceptical, not that it is happening, but why it is happening.
From what I have read the IGCC or what ever they are called used existing reports as the basis for their research, they basically sifted through all the stuff they coudl find and tried to organise it into evidence.
They then published their findings.
All they have published is supporting evidence, soem of it with a bias towards to start with, they have yet to publish the stuff they dismissd and why.

There's a lot of disinformation about and it's clear IMO that someone is acting in bad faith. The question is who. The thing that would seem odd to me is that so many leading scientists would go along with this conspiracy (for want of a better word), knowing that actually the evidence is against it, which is what some people are suggesting (not sure if it's your view as well).

Anyway, here's a nice selection of Australian scientists' reaction to the broacasting in Oz of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which has now been comprehensively debunked.
http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php
Badscience.net is good on this as well (although my browser struggles for some reason).

[EternalOptimist]

I am sceptical, not that it is happening, but why it is happening.
From what I have read the IGCC or what ever they are called used existing reports as the basis for their research, they basically sifted through all the stuff they coudl find and tried to organise it into evidence.
They then published their findings.
All they have published is supporting evidence, soem of it with a bias towards to start with, they have yet to publish the stuff they dismissd and why.

just about sums up my position - do a poll

[The Lone Gunman]

Mrs OG is a research scientist (in a discipline unrelated to climate change) and I've got plent of friends who are research scientists (again in unrelated disciplines) so I've got a healthy respect for science and scientists. If they are overwhelmingly saying that human nature is very likely causing climate change, I accept that. It could be wrong, because science doesn't always deal in certainties. But it's a pretty big gamble to assume it's wrong. The problem is that because it's not certain, there is something to cling to for those that would rather ignore it.

I am sceptical, not that it is happening, but why it is happening.
From what I have read the IGCC or what ever they are called used existing reports as the basis for their research, they basically sifted through all the stuff they coudl find and tried to organise it into evidence.
They then published their findings.
All they have published is supporting evidence, soem of it with a bias towards to start with, they have yet to publish the stuff they dismissd and why.

[Old Greg]

Sorry chief. (Have to apologise, you're about my only ally on here, far as I can tell.)

Mrs OG is a research scientist (in a discipline unrelated to climate change) and I've got plent of friends who are research scientists (again in unrelated disciplines) so I've got a healthy respect for science and scientists. If they are overwhelmingly saying that human nature is very likely causing climate change, I accept that. It could be wrong, because science doesn't always deal in certainties. But it's a pretty big gamble to assume it's wrong. The problem is that because it's not certain, there is something to cling to for those that would rather ignore it.

[dang65]

Aw - you've spoiled my fun now.

Sorry chief. (Have to apologise, you're about my only ally on here, far as I can tell.)

[shaunbhoy]

Can anyone explain the global warming on Mars ?

(Apparently Mars is warming up as well).

Not to mention Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Now what do THEY all have in common with the Earth (apart from the sun and vast swathes of belching bovines driving 4x4s?)

[dang65]

Can anyone explain the global warming on Mars ?

(Apparently Mars is warming up as well).

Yes. Basically, Mars is not Earth and it acts differently to Earth. Details here. Same applies to Pluto.

[Old Greg]

It's Wiki again, I know, but this article points out interesting parallels with climate change when it says, "It is difficult to tell what the wider population may have thought of the shape of the Earth – if they considered the question at all. It may have been as irrelevant to them as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is to most of our contemporaries."

Scientists and astronomers sussed out the world was round ages ago (300BC is one date on there) and no one with any education disputed it. The rest, as it says there... well, who knows? Seems similar to now. Most people just don't even think about it. How to make people think about it seems to be beyond even Al Gore and Madonna.

Aw - you've spoiled my fun now.

[EternalOptimist]

Can anyone explain the global warming on Mars ?

(Apparently Mars is warming up as well).

I read an article in farmers weekly about the methane produced by red 'mars cows'. These heifers live on red mars rocks and 'uhhlaaa - tripod' red weed.









bored

[dang65]

Do that. It is very enlightening. I expect that it was all the rage back in the days when the overwhelming scientific evidence "proved" the world was flat.

It's Wiki again, I know, but this article points out interesting parallels with climate change when it says, "It is difficult to tell what the wider population may have thought of the shape of the Earth – if they considered the question at all. It may have been as irrelevant to them as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is to most of our contemporaries."

Scientists and astronomers sussed out the world was round ages ago (300BC is one date on there) and no one with any education disputed it. The rest, as it says there... well, who knows? Seems similar to now. Most people just don't even think about it. How to make people think about it seems to be beyond even Al Gore and Madonna.