[Truth To Power]

No, see here is the thing, climate in overall is infact easier to predict because its connected to much more steadier factors.

You present no evidence for your claims, which are false. Climate is affected by factors which are as yet unpredictable: volcanoes, shifts in wind and ocean circulation, solar changes, etc.

Weather on the other hand can fluctuate based on any event in any specific area.

Weather is mostly determined by local atmospheric conditions. Climate isn't.

That means you can study the climate, and since its long term you can use historical data to get results, like the ones used in proving global warming.

Historical records are not predictions, sorry.

Weather on the other hand is extremely hard to predict because any event could change it thats why its never 100% accurate the weather forcast.

And you think climate forecasts are???

Incorrect. Weather is daily. Climate is set over an extended periods of time mostly decades and not based on per year cycle.

No, I am correct. The dominant climate cycle is annual.

The cycles that the global climate goes through are usually measured in thousands of years.

No, that's false. Dominant global climate variations such as El Nino typically occur over a year or so.

Really ? thats the best argument you can give ?

It's sufficient.

But regardless, yes they're entirely different concepts.

Already proved false.

They're related but they're by far not the same concept.

Not the same, but similar in pretty much everything but time scale, as already proved.

So you're saying, that decades of data and tests and scientific research proving the global warming is happening, along with all the predictions based on those tests coming true, is not an evidence nor proves anything ?

No, the global climate record showing the recovery from the Little Ice Age over the last 200 years is certainly evidence that climate has returned to more normal temperature conditions associated with resumed and above-normal solar activity; and all the predictions of ACC models NOT coming true is certainly evidence that effectively proves those models are incorrect.

@Truth To Power,
You seem to think that your unsupported opinion is fact.

No, the facts I identify which support those opinions are facts.

And if there was evidence that contradicted ACC theories, you would link to it.

I have, as you know very well.

You don't,

I have, as you know. I don't believe it is useful to link multiple times to evidence that you choose to simply ignore or dismiss.

so you make these posts about how you already disproved it or how smart you are or incredible mental gymnastics to support a point.

You believe that providing a link to evidence that proves you wrong supports your argument purely because it is "a link to evidence," while explaining how that evidence proves you wrong without adding a link to any other sort of evidence does not constitute evidence against the argument purely because it is not "a link to evidence." I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could lead one to subscribe to such a belief.

[anasawad]

You present no evidence for your claims, which are false. Climate is affected by factors which are as yet unpredictable: volcanoes, shifts in wind and ocean circulation, solar changes, etc.

You fucken kidding me. The main factors in the global climate in overall are astronomical cycles which we already calculated and know. They don't change. The cycles don't fucken change, it stays the same.
Thats why when scientists say whats happening is not normal is because while the climate should be getting warmer gradually, it got too warm too fast at rates never seen in history and beyond the natural cycles limits.

Climate does NOT have an annual cycle, its far longer periods and it goes through specific cycles that we have been studying for over a 100 years so far.
The seasons =/= climate.

Historical records are not predictions, sorry.

Historical records can help us see global warming happening.
When in a 100 years it keeps getting hotter and hotter. And you get periods like now where every months is the hottest of its kind in history. That is global warming happening.
And its getting worse and worse.

And you think climate forecasts are???

In the past few decades and until now its still fully accurate. surprise.

No, I am correct. The dominant climate cycle is annual.

Seassons =/= climate.
The nature and specifics of the seassons is part of the climate, not the seassons themselves.

No, that's false. Dominant global climate variations such as El Nino typically occur over a year or so.

Short term events don't change the overall climate cycle. only minor effects that lasts for small periods of time (years maximum unless major catastrophe).

It's sufficient.

Just like every argument ever presented against global warming and climate change. It bleeds of stupidity.

Already proved false.

You proved nothing other than that you know nothing of the topic.

No, the global climate record showing the recovery from the Little Ice Age over the last 200 years is certainly evidence that climate has returned to more normal temperature conditions associated with resumed and above-normal solar activity; and all the predictions of ACC models NOT coming true is certainly evidence that effectively proves those models are incorrect.

Did you even see the researches ?

[Pants-of-dog]

Talk to TTP about solar variations long enough and he will link to a study that disproves his claim. I have been able to do this at least twice.

[Truth To Power]

Talk to TTP about solar variations long enough and he will link to a study that disproves his claim. I have been able to do this at least twice.

No, you just did not understand the study. That is common among scientifically naive proponents of AGW theory.

The main factors in the global climate in overall are astronomical cycles which we already calculated and know.

False. Some astronomical cycles -- orbital ones -- are known and predictable, others -- solar variation -- are not well understood.

They don't change. The cycles don't fucken change, it stays the same.

False. Just as the most obvious examples, the Pleistocene cycle of large-scale glaciation (ice ages) began less than 3Mya. Before that, the orbital cycles did not have those effects. It is not clear why.

Thats why when scientists say whats happening is not normal is because while the climate should be getting warmer gradually, it got too warm too fast at rates never seen in history and beyond the natural cycles limits.

That's nothing but fantasy. It warmed much faster at the end of the last Ice Age, and we are not close to the natural limits.

Climate does NOT have an annual cycle,

False. The nature of the annual cycle in a given location defines its climate.

its far longer periods and it goes through specific cycles that we have been studying for over a 100 years so far.

We are learning about long-term variations, but that is a recent discovery. Until a few hundred years ago, climate was defined ENTIRELY by annual variation, because no one suspected that there were long-term climate cycles: there were few good records, and no one lived long enough to observe the cycles directly.

The seasons =/= climate.

A location's climate is defined by its seasonal cycle.

Historical records can help us see global warming happening.

And altering them after the fact can make it seem like global warming is happening when it isn't. That is why earlier temperature records are always altered downward, later ones upward.

When in a 100 years it keeps getting hotter and hotter.

It's not. There was a downtrend in temperature from the 1940s to the 1970s in the face of rapidly rising CO2.

And you get periods like now where every months is the hottest of its kind in history.

No it's not. The thermometer readings are simply adjusted upward to accord with AGW theory.

That is global warming happening.

No, it is alteration of data happening.

And its getting worse and worse.

I'd tell you to open your eyes and look around, but I know it would do no good.

In the past few decades and until now its still fully accurate. surprise.

It's wildly wrong. No surprise.

Seassons =/= climate.

The nature and specifics of the seassons is part of the climate, not the seassons themselves.

I don't know what you mean by, "the seasons themselves." The annual cycle of temperature, precipitation, etc. is what defines a given location's climate. I don't know any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

Short term events don't change the overall climate cycle. only minor effects that lasts for small periods of time (years maximum unless major catastrophe).

You're just wrong. As one example, volcanic activity can change climate on a scale of a few months.

Just like every argument ever presented against global warming and climate change. It bleeds of stupidity.

You proved nothing other than that you know nothing of the topic.

I know more than you, anyway.

Did you even see the researches ?

Of course.

[blackjack21]

I don't see anything in particular to take issue with in your post, although I think objecting to use of widely understood terms like "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas" and "renewable energy" on grounds of their scientific inaccuracy is a bit over-fastidious. We know greenhouses work by blocking convection, not radiation. Fine. We know renewable energy does not actually defy entropy, and might more accurately be called, "ambient source" energy. Fine.

I wasn't really implying you when calling these people liars. I just find it amazing that these people have any credibility at all when they use terms like "greenhouse gas." I don't think it's over-fastidious at all to object to these terms, precisely because they would never have come from a scientist in the first place. It's very obviously a scheme cooked up by people who are not scientifically literate. However, they rely very heavily on credentials or titles from universities (PhD, Doctor, professor, etc.) or government labs to assume the role of an authority figure.

The problem is that we're teaching kids this stuff. For example, look at this from the EPA: The Greenhouse Effect

If it were not for greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere, the Earth would be a very cold place. Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm through a process called the greenhouse effect.

Of course, that's also bullshit, because the Earth is a black body (grey really, but planets are typically modelled as black bodies). The land and the oceans absorb most of the heat, and radiate back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation.

The Earth gets energy from the sun in the form of sunlight. The Earth's surface absorbs some of this energy and heats up. That's why the surface of a road can feel hot even after the sun has gone down—because it has absorbed a lot of energy from the sun.

Some? The oceans are a massive heat sink.

The Earth cools down by giving off a different form of energy, called infrared radiation. But before all this radiation can escape to outer space, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of it, which makes the atmosphere warmer.

This is technically accurate, except for the term "greenhouse gasses," which is obviously semantic rubbish.

As the atmosphere gets warmer, it makes the Earth's surface warmer, too.

Really? The second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes this much of the time. The oceans will absorb heat from the atmosphere, but that's because the ocean is often cooler than the air around it. Phenomena like a spring snow melt will have air heating and melting the snow. You also get tropical rains--like late afternoon in Costa Rica, as the sun goes down, it almost always starts pissing down rain for awhile as the air in the upper atmosphere cools, water vapor condenses and then precipitates. It's a warm rain. However, generally heat only goes from a warmer place to a colder place. The air has to be warmer than the Earth's surface in order for this to happen, which generally means the end of winter and the beginning of spring. In the summer, the atmosphere generally doesn't make the surface warmer except for water bodies and for phenomena like a tropical rain, and that's water not air. A warmer atmosphere that is at its maximum heat capacity cannot absorb more heat from the hotter surface of the Earth. I mean, we're talking basic thermodynamics. We're not getting overly technical yet. But our government puts shit like this out and kids will start thinking that the air is what's heating everything, when it is mostly solar irradiance hitting ground or water.

These are government agencies actively propagandizing children. Why would you tell a child that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" or that converting radiation to heat is a "green house effect" when clearly it is not? We understand there are some sweet lies told to kids like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but they generally find out that it's bullshit. This is different. These are people scheming to make money, impose regulations, etc. using terminology that is clearly unscientific.

Ok. So this is just a little bit of bullshit for kids. When we're talking about the UN IPCC reports, they are using these terms too and they're publishing guides with "The scientific basis..." and so forth. At what point do they stop it with the bullshit? We know CO2 absorbs radiation at frequencies not covered by water vapor and that has nothing whatsoever to do with green houses.

No, it can't, because it is affected by exogenous factors that cannot be predicted. Weather, which is also bound by several cycles and major factors, is actually easier to predict than climate because there is less time for such factors to come into play.

There are some factors that can be shown to affect climate, like the tilt of the Earth's axis. The Sahara has gone from grass land to desert many times, and the poles have expanded and contracted ice sheets many times too. However, humans have had absolutely nothing to do with it. Solar irradiance also plays a significant role.

I find it useful to point out that in the vast majority of climate change debates, it is the proponents of ACC theories that link to evidence they claim supports their arguments but actually doesn't, and may even disprove them. And when this fact is identified and explained to them, they typically expostulate that the other side has not provided a link to evidence, ignoring the fact that THEY THEMSELVES ALREADY PROVIDED the link to the evidence that proves them wrong.

Well, yes... they tend to link to UN reports and then blather on about "scientific consensus," while publishing reports with "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gasses" and so forth. When you are publishing a scientific paper, you typically wouldn't come up with semantics that describe a physical phenomena (blocking convection) that has nothing to do with the phenomena you are trying to describe and then conflate it with a misleading term. You would call them something like "solar and infrared radiation absorbing gasses" and note that Nitrogen doesn't absorb it, but water vapor, CO2 and methane do. You most certainly wouldn't call them "greenhouse gasses" if you wanted to be taken seriously as a scientist. So clearly, what we're seeing is political in nature and not scientific.

Climate is affected by factors which are as yet unpredictable: volcanoes, shifts in wind and ocean circulation, solar changes, etc.

Well some of them are cyclical, and therefore reasonably predictable. We're not too good at predicting some of these phenomena yet. Large meteors or small asteroids striking the Earth have also been known to disrupt the climate.

No, that's false. Dominant global climate variations such as El Nino typically occur over a year or so.

The phenomena itself, but the cyclical nature of the El Nino/La Nina phenomena is decadal, as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And note that you will see a technical term like Pacific Decadal Oscillation in these UN-based "scientific" papers right along with non-technical horseshit terms like "greenhouse gasses," which they'll abbreviate to GhG.

Thats why when scientists say whats happening is not normal is because while the climate should be getting warmer gradually, it got too warm too fast at rates never seen in history and beyond the natural cycles limits.

Climate changes can be abrupt. The Sahara goes from grassland to desert or from desert back to grassland over about 200 years. It will stay in the same state for thousands of years, but the transition can be that fast. Similarly, volcanism and so forth can make warming seem abrupt when the Earth cools due to an albedo effect. The after effects of the Krakatoa eruption led to the "year without a summer" in Great Britain, for example.

Just like every argument ever presented against global warming and climate change. It bleeds of stupidity.

No. There are very solid arguments against the UN IPCC reports and their sky-is-falling scare tactics. I've just outlined some of them for you already. For example, "greenhouse effect" is semantically inaccurate and misleading on its face.

Did you even see the researches ?

Yep. Right down to the source code.

It's not. There was a downtrend in temperature from the 1940s to the 1970s in the face of rapidly rising CO2.

That's correct. It's a linear assertion to state that an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature. One of the interesting things that the UN IPCC reports state is that their results are "non-linear."

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you just did not understand the study. That is common among scientifically naive proponents of AGW theory.

It does not matter if I understand it. I just bold the text that says that solar variation is not responsible for climate change.

False. Some astronomical cycles -- orbital ones -- are known and predictable, others -- solar variation -- are not well understood.

Ask TTP to define solar variation. I have never understood what he means, as he is decidedly unclear.

[Truth To Power]

The problem is that we're teaching kids this stuff. For example, look at this from the EPA: The Greenhouse Effect

Agreed. The one-sided, unscientific AGW BS my kids were subjected to in high school and even elementary school disgusted me.

Of course, that's also bullshit, because the Earth is a black body (grey really, but planets are typically modelled as black bodies).
...
This is technically accurate, except for the term "greenhouse gasses," which is obviously semantic rubbish.

More to the point, such claims ignore the crucial relationship between the equilibrium black body temperature of a planet and its surface temperature based on the Combined Gas Law. Most of the temperature differential is due to simple atmospheric density, not the effects "greenhouse gases." That's why Venus is roasting hot at the surface and Mars freezing cold, even though both have CO2 atmospheres, and why here on earth, temperature falls as altitude rises (the lapse rate).

Why would you tell a child that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" or that converting radiation to heat is a "green house effect" when clearly it is not.

Hehe. It's a "greenhouse gas" in the sense that farmers add it to their greenhouses because it makes plants grow better!

Solar irradiance also plays a significant role.

It's not actually clear if irradiance is the main factor. Other variations in solar activity that are not as easy to observe or measure may also have a significant influence.

Well some of them are cyclical, and therefore reasonably predictable.

Yes, you mentioned the PDO, which is pretty predictable; but unlike orbital mechanics, we don't understand the mechanism well enough to predict it accurately, especially its timing.

Similarly, volcanism and so forth can make warming seem abrupt when the Earth cools due to an albedo effect. The after effects of the Krakatoa eruption led to the "year without a summer" in Great Britain, for example.

That was Tambora, 1815. Krakatoa erupted in 1883.

It does not matter if I understand it.

Yes, it does. Watch:

I just bold the text that says that solar variation is not responsible for climate change.

That's not what it said. If you understood it, you wouldn't make such mistakes.

Ask TTP to define solar variation. I have never understood what he means, as he is decidedly unclear.

You can accuse me of many things, but being unclear is not one of them. Solar variation is ANY significant variation in the sun's activity: radiant output, magnetic activity, sunspots, flares and prominences, solar wind, etc. The sun and its influence on global climate are very complicated. Claiming to know it didn't or couldn't have a particular effect on global climate is just an absurd, empty boast.

[anasawad]

@Truth To Power
Solar activity changes over the courses of decades and centuries not annually.

Anyways, i just got back to Belarus yesterday night, so we'll continue the debate tonight.

[Pants-of-dog]

TTP, if you feel I misunderstood when I bolded the text that said that solar variation is not responsible for recent climate change, go ahead and link to the evidence and show me I am wrong.

This will be fun.

[Truth To Power]

TTP, if you feel I misunderstood when I bolded the text that said that solar variation is not responsible for recent climate change,

THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAID, AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU, AND PROVED TO YOU, MULTIPLE TIMES.

go ahead and link to the evidence and show me I am wrong.

THE BOLDED TEXT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED YOU ARE WRONG.

This will be fun.

If you think being proved wrong and disingenuous again is fun....

@Truth To Power
Solar activity changes over the courses of decades and centuries not annually.

Wrong. The principal solar activity cycle is the 11-year sunspot cycle. Sunspot activity can therefore change significantly in the course of one year. However, it does seem that such short-term solar variations are difficult to detect in the climate record, while changes like the Maunder Minimum and Late Twentieth Century Maximum that are sustained over decades are clearly associated with changes in climate.

[anasawad]

The sun is going into a cooling phase.
The earth is still warming up.

And anther thing you seem not to notice.

The sun does go through an 11 year cycle which in turn is a part of an even longer cycle.
Regardless.
Since the 20th century first started, while the sun did keep going through this cycle, the temparature of the earth surprisingly kept going up on average.
You mentioned a small cooling period in the past few decades.
Yet that "cooling" period was merely the average temparature stabalizing on the same average for a period right before it went back to its upward trend.

The solar cycle can be seen in effect on temparature, there is a constant fluctuation of temparature between decades.
But the average is moving up, its not on the same level nor is it normally fluctuating.


And it seems your favourite line is to keep saying ; wrong wrong wrong, no no no , etc.
And how you understand it more than others, yet you're yet incapable of just reading a chart.
Weird right.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, Truth To Power, I did not think you would actually link to any evidence.

[Truth To Power]

Yeah, Truth To Power, I did not think you would actually link to any evidence.

Yeah, PoD, I was correct in my observation that you cannot tell the difference between evidence and links. You apparently believe (incorrectly, as it happens) that when historical or statistical facts are identified for you, or logical and/or causal relationships -- or just the meanings of ordinary English words -- are explained to you, that is not evidence. You apparently even hold the view that before the Worldwide Web was developed, no one ever provided any evidence for anything, because there were no links.

You also believe that any link whatever constitutes evidence, even if it does not logically support your claims, even if it is irrelevant to your claims, and even if it directly contradicts your claims. To you, simply providing a link, any link, is all that matters. Even when I explain to you why the link you provided as evidence for your claims actually proves you wrong, you insist that because you provided a link and I didn't, you have provided evidence and I haven't.

I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could lead to adoption of such bizarre beliefs.

The sun is going into a cooling phase.

Apparently.

The earth is still warming up.

Nope. There has been no significant warming for 18 years. Recent claims of record warmth are all based on upward revision of the latest temperature readings.

And anther thing you seem not to notice.

I notice much more than you, apparently.

The sun does go through an 11 year cycle which in turn is a part of an even longer cycle.

True: there is its 22-year magnetic polarity cycle, consisting of two 11-year sunspot cycles of opposite polarity. There are also century-and millennium-scale cycles, but they do not appear to be strongly related to the 11- and 22-year cycles.

Since the 20th century first started, while the sun did keep going through this cycle, the temparature of the earth surprisingly kept going up on average.

That's just factually incorrect. The century-scale solar cycle clearly intensified through the 20th century, and solar activity was at a multi-millennium high over the 150-odd years ending in the late 20th century.

You mentioned a small cooling period in the past few decades.

It was a prolonged cooling trend which disproved the theory that CO2 has a major influence on global temperature.

Yet that "cooling" period was merely the average temparature stabalizing on the same average for a period right before it went back to its upward trend.

Meaningless, ungrammatical, and unscientific gibberish.

The solar cycle can be seen in effect on temparature, there is a constant fluctuation of temparature between decades.
But the average is moving up, its not on the same level nor is it normally fluctuating.

It moved up when the sun was abnormally active.

And it seems your favourite line is to keep saying ; wrong wrong wrong, no no no , etc.

Correct.

And how you understand it more than others, yet you're yet incapable of just reading a chart.

I am the one who has shown myself to be capable of reading charts correctly.

[GlobalBuddy]

Human-caused climate change is denied by republican politicians here in the U.S. for their own political reasons. The denial has never been about the science. If it was, they would all accept it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, PoD, I was correct in my observation that you cannot tell the difference between evidence and links. You apparently believe (incorrectly, as it happens) that when historical or statistical facts are identified for you, or logical and/or causal relationships -- or just the meanings of ordinary English words -- are explained to you, that is not evidence. You apparently even hold the view that before the Worldwide Web was developed, no one ever provided any evidence for anything, because there were no links.

You also believe that any link whatever constitutes evidence, even if it does not logically support your claims, even if it is irrelevant to your claims, and even if it directly contradicts your claims. To you, simply providing a link, any link, is all that matters. Even when I explain to you why the link you provided as evidence for your claims actually proves you wrong, you insist that because you provided a link and I didn't, you have provided evidence and I haven't.

I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could lead to adoption of such bizarre beliefs.

Apparently.

Nope. There has been no significant warming for 18 years. Recent claims of record warmth are all based on upward revision of the latest temperature readings.

I notice much more than you, apparently.

True: there is its 22-year magnetic polarity cycle, consisting of two 11-year sunspot cycles of opposite polarity. There are also century-and millennium-scale cycles, but they do not appear to be strongly related to the 11- and 22-year cycles.

That's just factually incorrect. The century-scale solar cycle clearly intensified through the 20th century, and solar activity was at a multi-millennium high over the 150-odd years ending in the late 20th century.

It was a prolonged cooling trend which disproved the theory that CO2 has a major influence on global temperature.

Meaningless, ungrammatical, and unscientific gibberish.

It moved up when the sun was abnormally active.

Correct.

I am the one who has shown myself to be capable of reading charts correctly.

That is a lot of talking with no evidence.

Too bad. I find it hilarious when you cite that one solar variation study, and edit out the phrase that directly contradicts your claim.

[Truth To Power]

Human-caused climate change is denied by republican politicians here in the U.S. for their own political reasons.

That is probably true of some.

The denial has never been about the science. If it was, they would all accept it.

That is false. Many respected scientists do not accept the alarmist view. The vaunted "scientific consensus" is on a different and much weaker proposition that no informed person could disagree with: that human CO2 emissions have contributed significantly to a measurable increase in global temperatures over the last century. What are conspicuously missing from that consensus view are the alarmist claims that:
1. the temperature increase is unprecedented and beyond the limits of natural variation;
2. that human CO2 emissions are its primary cause;
3. that future global temperatures will be related to atmospheric CO2 concentration more or less as in the period 1970-1998;
4. that this temperature increase will cause disastrous consequences that far exceed any potential benefits, especially a rise in sea level much more rapid than the ~1-2mm/y characteristic of the post-Little Ice Age period; and perhaps most importantly,
5. that atmospheric CO2 concentration is such a dominant influence on global temperatures and climate that there is essentially no downside temperature risk from natural climate variation if we reduce human CO2 emissions.

That is a lot of talking with no evidence.

False. I have identified relevant facts that support my statements. That is what it means to provide evidence, which, contrary to your claims, need not consist exclusively of links.

Too bad. I find it hilarious when you cite that one solar variation study, and edit out the phrase that directly contradicts your claim.

It does not contradict my claim, either directly or any other way, as I have already proved to you multiple times, and you simply ignore. I did not include it because it was not relevant.

[Pants-of-dog]

TTP,

You often cite a specific paper to defned your claim that solar variation is responsible for climate change, and you often omit the final sentence of the abstract that says your claim is wrong.

You can talk about it as much as you want, but this won't magically change things.

[GlobalBuddy]

That is false.

It is true. Republicans in the U.S. deny human caused climate change for political reasons, not scientific.

Many respected scientists do not accept the alarmist view. The vaunted "scientific consensus" is on a different and much weaker proposition that no informed person could disagree with: that human CO2 emissions have contributed significantly to a measurable increase in global temperatures over the last century. What are conspicuously missing from that consensus view are the alarmist claims that:
1. the temperature increase is unprecedented and beyond the limits of natural variation;
2. that human CO2 emissions are its primary cause;
3. that future global temperatures will be related to atmospheric CO2 concentration more or less as in the period 1970-1998;
4. that this temperature increase will cause disastrous consequences that far exceed any potential benefits, especially a rise in sea level much more rapid than the ~1-2mm/y characteristic of the post-Little Ice Age period; and perhaps most importantly,
5. that atmospheric CO2 concentration is such a dominant influence on global temperatures and climate that there is essentially no downside temperature risk from natural climate variation if we reduce human CO2 emissions.

Your point? Do you deny human caused Global warming?

[Truth To Power]

You often cite a specific paper to defned your claim that solar variation is responsible for climate change,

As usual, you are making false claims about what I said, and declining to support those claims with direct, verbatim, in-context quotes. Readers should bear in mind that whenever PoD makes a claim about what I have said, and declines to provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I said it, it means that I did not say it.

Many factors contribute to different kinds of climate change, and what you claim is my claim is not my claim. My claim is the much more scientific statement that solar variation is the principal cause of the century-scale global temperature increase observed in the ~200y since the Little Ice Age ended.

and you often omit the final sentence of the abstract that says your claim is wrong.

Why don't you QUOTE, directly, verbatim, and in-context, the sentence that you incorrectly claim says my claim is wrong, hmmmmmm?

Could it be because you know that sentence says no such thing?

You can talk about it as much as you want, but this won't magically change things.

For a clown who yammers incessantly that only links are evidence, you have conspicuously declined to provide any links to support any of your claims in this exchange. And speaking of magically changing things with talk, how much talk do you think it will take for you to change the hiatus I predicted into the rapid, CO2-tracking temperature increase all the AGW climate models predicted?

It is true. Republicans in the U.S. deny human caused climate change for political reasons, not scientific.

But it is false that if they based their views on science, they would necessarily agree with the AGW alarmist position.

Your point? Do you deny human caused Global warming?

Human activities, including but not limited to fossil fuel use, are certainly contributing to global warming. What I deny is each of the five specific AGW alarmist claims

[Pants-of-dog]

As usual, you are making false claims about what I said, and declining to support those claims with direct, verbatim, in-context quotes. Readers should bear in mind that whenever PoD makes a claim about what I have said, and declines to provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I said it, it means that I did not say it.

Many factors contribute to different kinds of climate change, and what you claim is my claim is not my claim. My claim is the much more scientific statement that solar variation is the principal cause of the century-scale global temperature increase observed in the ~200y since the Little Ice Age ended.

Why don't you QUOTE, directly, verbatim, and in-context, the sentence that you incorrectly claim says my claim is wrong, hmmmmmm?

Could it be because you know that sentence says no such thing?

For a clown who yammers incessantly that only links are evidence, you have conspicuously declined to provide any links to support any of your claims in this exchange. And speaking of magically changing things with talk, how much talk do you think it will take for you to change the hiatus I predicted into the rapid, CO2-tracking temperature increase all the AGW climate models predicted?

But it is false that if they based their views on science, they would necessarily agree with the AGW alarmist position.

Human activities, including but not limited to fossil fuel use, are certainly contributing to global warming. What I deny is each of the five specific AGW alarmist claims

TTP sure writes a lot without saying much.

Anyway, here is a link to one of his posts ( viewtopic.php?f=6&t=163387&start=280#p14645310 ) where he claims that a particular study corroborates the claim that most of the temperature increase since 1800 is from natural forcings.

This is the study he mentions:
"Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" Solanki et al, Nature, 2004

Here is the text he usually quotes:
“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.”

The abstract does contain those words, but here it is in full:
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.

I have italicised TTP's quoted text.

Please note that the last sentence directly contradicts TTP's claim.