Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

On 17 Jul, 00:42, abelard <abela...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:53:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>
>
>
> <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On 16 Jul, 00:23, abelard <abela...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
> >> <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> still keep it up and eventually you could be unique....
> >> >> >> a bit like the last person on earth to still believe in
phlogiston...
>
> >> >> >Slight warming is unequivocal. The pro****tion, or lack thereof,
caused
> >> >> >by man is very much equivocal.
>
> >> >> >How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
>
> >> >> 1)there is no evidence of serious variation in sun input...
>
> >> >Output, and no, we do:
>
> >> i said input...i meant input....
>
> >> >Recent:
>
> >> >http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif
>
> >> >Time scale of hundreds of years, for sunspots:
>
> >> and what is that meant to indicate or what does it indicate to you...
>
> >> lower scale unclear....
>
> >What you mean by "lower scale" is unclear.
>
> from memory....it was all labelled with 2008 and you were on about
>      hundreds of years
>
> ps i responded at speed and only caught a rough understanding of
>      your drift as i rushed through

OK, because I did label that graph "recent". Over 5% solar flux
variation in a few months. Just to show how non-static it is.

> >The graph, OTOH, is straight forward - x-axis is time, and the traces
> >are solar flux, sunspot number, and planetary A index (degree of
> >disturbance of Earth's magnetic field).
>
> > >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
> >Sunspot_Numbers.png
>
> >> >...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
>
> >> why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
>
> >There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
> >Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
> >wasn't the case.
>
> kepler 18th century...

Kepler was alive in the 16th and 17th centuries. Brahe, whose
observations he used, lived one year into the 17th century.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794....
> "****ndell noted that the effects of this period of a dimmer Sun were
> concentrated more regionally than globally. "Global average
> temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees
> Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite
> large." ****ndell said that his climate model simulation shows the
> temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic
> Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO)."
>
> >> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif
>
> >> ah, right...a claimed difference of ~2 watts per meter2 with a cycle
> >>      of around 10 years...
> >> at the top of the atmosphere?
> >> without much correlation with the long term upward trend....
>
> >> why do you imagine these differences aren't smoothed by the planet
> >>      over a ten year period...
>
> >It shows that solar output and sunspot number are intimately linked.
> >Now look at the 2nd graph again.
>
> op cit
> ""The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to
> atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age.
> However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have
> had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions,"
> ****ndell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are
> greenhouse gases," he added."

And I'm not convinced. Things like the infamous and much-hyped "hockey
stick" graph, beloved of the IPCC, being shown to be garbage, have
sown a lot of doubt in my mind.

From where does this highly cyclical temperature variation originate:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg

Massive correlation with C02, no doubt. But which drives which, given
that man isn't responsible for any of that. No industry for 99.9% of
that time axis.