[Besoeker]

Another link.....

http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/tackling_climate_change/?pc=APP004002&ds_medium=cpc&gclid=COvUlPe81MsCFYcp0wodLLEGLg&gclsrc=aw.ds

Another load of AGW nonscience, you mean...

What a consructive comment......
Care to expound on where it is flawed?

[Truth To Power]

Another load of AGW nonscience, you mean...

What a consructive comment......
Care to expound on where it is flawed?

It's just Chicken Little nonscience. Climate has been changing for billions of years, and organisms just move or die. It's evolution. There's nothing about the current mix of species that is somehow "better" than the mix last year or next year, except that the one next year consists of species a little better able to survive than the one last year.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

How does any change introduced in 1947, 1981, or 1993 justify drastically raising sunspot counts from the 18th century, hmmmmmm?

That was what you wanted to know - about the 18th century count. The removal of the 0.6 factor explains that.

Raising the scale of the entire series by a given factor couldn't change the ratio between the 18th century counts and the 20th century counts, and would thus have left the modern solar maximum intact.

Now you try to move the goalposts, having failed to read the article, or my posts. The difference in 18th and 20th century ratios is explained by the "lowering by about 18% of all numbers after 1947, to remove the bias produced by a new counting method started in 1947 in Zürich. A large variable drift affecting the "Brussels-Locarno" Sunspot Number since 1981 has also been eliminated. " As I had already quoted.

I think your apparent inability to understand any argument that shows evidence of man-made climate change is intentional. Your only purpose on any global warming thread is to insert bogus "it's not man-made" bullshit. As an example, you joined this with 3 laughable denials of the basic reality of the science. You're clinging on to one of them with feigned stupidity. But you started with the "throw enough shit and see if anything sticks" approach.

[Truth To Power]

How does any change introduced in 1947, 1981, or 1993 justify drastically raising sunspot counts from the 18th century, hmmmmmm?

That was what you wanted to know - about the 18th century count. The removal of the 0.6 factor explains that.

No, it merely explains what was done. It doesn't justify it.

Raising the scale of the entire series by a given factor couldn't change the ratio between the 18th century counts and the 20th century counts, and would thus have left the modern solar maximum intact.

Now you try to move the goalposts, having failed to read the article, or my posts.

I read both, and it is you who are moving the goalposts. You wrote:

"the 0.6 conventional Zürich factor is not used anymore, which raises significantly the scale of the entire series"

Remember? But look what you are saying now:

The difference in 18th and 20th century ratios is explained by the "lowering by about 18% of all numbers after 1947, to remove the bias produced by a new counting method started in 1947 in Zürich.

So contrary to your claim, it was NOT the entire series, and numbers after 1947 were treated differently.

A large variable drift affecting the "Brussels-Locarno" Sunspot Number since 1981 has also been eliminated. " As I had already quoted.

Which is also merely an account of what was done, not a justification.

I think your apparent inability to understand any argument that shows evidence of man-made climate change is intentional.

I understand them all too well.

Your only purpose on any global warming thread is to insert bogus "it's not man-made" bullshit. As an example, you joined this with 3 laughable denials of the basic reality of the science.

Which "laughable denials" and "basic reality" would those be?

You're clinging on to one of them with feigned stupidity.

You are makin' $#!+ up again.

But you started with the "throw enough shit and see if anything sticks" approach.

I stated the relevant facts and their logical implications.

[Pants-of-dog]

Truth To Power,

Why don't you cite "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" Solanki et al, Nature, 2004 again?

----------------

More seriously, I wonder what the models will say when the properly calibrated solar activity is put into place.

[Besoeker]

Another load of AGW nonscience, you mean...

What a consructive comment......
Care to expound on where it is flawed?

It's just Chicken Little nonscience. Climate has been changing for billions of years, and organisms just move or die. It's evolution. There's nothing about the current mix of species that is somehow "better" than the mix last year or next year, except that the one next year consists of species a little better able to survive than the one last year.

Care to point out specifically where the article I posted is flawed?

[Truth To Power]

Why don't you cite "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" Solanki et al, Nature, 2004 again?

Good idea. Solanki used radiocarbon as a proxy for solar activity, not sunspot number, and the radiocarbon record shows the sun WAS more active in the last several decades than in the previous several thousand years. So the Solanki paper also refutes the alteration of sunspot records to agree with AGW theory.

More seriously, I wonder what the models will say when the properly calibrated solar activity is put into place.

The properly calibrated solar activity is given by radiocarbon, which is not subject to such easy revision as sunspot counts. Mind you, I'm sure AGW liars can also come up with some sort of "recalibration" of C14 production in the upper atmosphere that eliminates the modern high in solar activity.

Care to point out specifically where the article I posted is flawed?

It's whole premise -- that we have some reason to be concerned that evolution could happen, and should try to stop it -- is not only flawed but idiotic.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that the cited paper explicitly says that sunspot activity does not correlate with the warming of the last thirty years, so it contradicts any causative claim between solar activity and recent global warming.

[Truth To Power]

Please note that the cited paper explicitly says that sunspot activity does not correlate with the warming of the last thirty years,

It says no such thing. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. What it actually says is that SOLAR activity (not SUNSPOT activity, you are factually wrong about that, too) doesn't account for ALL of the warming seen in the thirty years up to the time of the paper's publication in 2004 (not "the last" thirty years, you are factually wrong about that, too).

You like to make a lot of factually wrong claims, don't you?

so it contradicts any causative claim between solar activity and recent global warming.

That is just flat false, as proved above (aside from the fact that there is no recent global warming, despite continued exponential increase in CO2). The fact that genetics cannot account for all of the gain in a child's height between age 13 and 14 does not mean there is no causative link between genetics and height.

See what it's like to demonstrate some understanding of scientific inference?

So again, you are just factually -- as well as logically, scientifically, and morally -- wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02995.html

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1, 2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

The bold text, along with the previous evidence concerning sunspot activity, effectively disproves any claim that global warming is due to whatever solar activity for which sunspots are a proxy.

[Truth To Power]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/full/nature02995.html

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1, 2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

The bold text, along with the previous evidence concerning sunspot activity, effectively disproves any claim that global warming is due to whatever solar activity for which sunspots are a proxy.

You mean the global warming that stopped 18 years ago? That global warming?

No, PoD, it most certainly does not. That is just another factually and logically incorrect claim on your part, as I have already proved to you multiple times. By your "logic," the fact that global warming is unlikely to be the dominant cause of the increase in local sea level between low tide and high tide effectively disproves any claim that the increase in average sea level in the 20th century is due to global warming.

See how that works? The trendless 60-year global temperature cycle -- which YOUR OWN SOURCE agreed was real and robust, remember -- works much faster than increased solar activity, just as the tide works much faster than global warming. So in both cases, on the short time-scale of the trendless cycle, the up-phase of the cycle overwhelms the effects of the slow cause of the long-term change.

See how easily I prove your scientific "reasoning" is laughably wrong and self-refuting? Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You know I am only going to prove your lack of science ability again.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as we agree that solar variation is not responsible for global warming.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

You mean the global warming that stopped 18 years ago? That global warming?

That statement is a lie.

[Truth To Power]

As long as we agree that solar variation is not responsible for global warming.

I've demonstrated to you that it is, and supported that statement with peer-reviewed research. It's just not responsible for the up-phase of the ~60-year trendless global temperature cycle in 1970-1998, which you for some reason persist in mistaking for global warming.

You mean the global warming that stopped 18 years ago? That global warming?

You lie.

Speaking of warming, HADCRUT4 surface temperature data have been cooked. The UAH satellite data show that Feb 2016 -- with the help of a huge El Nino -- was the first month when temperature exceeded the four top 1998 monthly highs:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 016_v6.png

And that's only one month, so it's a bit early to say global warming has resumed.

[Pants-of-dog]

And now you are citing Creationists.

You are actually citing people who specifically seek to prove a foregone conclusion and have turned their back on being objective.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Speaking of warming, HADCRUT4 surface temperature data have been cooked.

So we're back to this:

Shorter Truth To Power:
All the scientists are lying! Only I know the true history of global climate! You'll all be sorry when something proves me right!

Your next move is to refer to them, again, as "lying AGW scumbags". Would you rather we picture you foaming at the mouth as you say this, going purple in the face, or doing a Peter Lorre impression? You are trying to put across the impression of someone genuinely fooled by denier propaganda, so you may as well get to choose which type of mental incompetent we see you as. If you want to pretend to be that dumb, we'll have to play along with you.

[Besoeker]

Care to point out specifically where the article I posted is flawed?

It's whole premise -- that we have some reason to be concerned that evolution could happen, and should try to stop it -- is not only flawed but idiotic.

OK. Point out specifically where it is flawed.

[Truth To Power]

And now you are citing Creationists.

No, I cited the UAH satellite temperature record. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

You are actually citing people who specifically seek to prove a foregone conclusion and have turned their back on being objective.

Disgraceful.

Do you or do you not understand that the satellite temperature record is what it is, no matter where it is presented? Here is the same information, direct from the UAH site, though in a slightly less clear form:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/febru ... _graph.png

Capisci?

OK. Point out specifically where it is flawed.

I don't know what kind of information you are asking for. I told you exactly how it is flawed. I don't know how I could be more specific.

[Pants-of-dog]

Roy Spencer is a Creationist.

Your link is to his website.

[Truth To Power]

Roy Spencer is a Creationist.

Your link is to his website.

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I just gave you the link to the SAME DATA on the UAH website.

Anyway, I believe that there are probably people in this world, somewhere, who are so stupid they think that if "Water is wet," is posted on a creationist's website, then water can't be wet. Not that you could be one of them, of course.

Could you?