General AGW discussion thread

[Ronald Brak]

That list of 650 disenting international scientists is hilarious. It includes a TV weatherman whose qualification is that he holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University. And it also includes Ray Kurzweil, whose background is in computing and holds a BS in computer science. But the interesting thing is that Ray Kurzweil believes that global warming is occurring, so why on earth is he on the list? This list doesn't appear to be an exercise in honesty.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by tdvance

650 (not 650 random citizens, 650 who presumably know what they're talking about) is certainly a statistically significant dissent.

As I said, I don't necessarily agree. Is the opinion of 650 economists or mechanical engineers particularly significant? On what are they basing this opinion - a careful study of the data or they just can't imagine it?

But ok, maybe it is a carefully weighed, fine opinion. Those 650 disagree with the IPCC. How many scientists agree with the IPCC reports? I have a PhD in chemistry, and I agree, so that's one.

How about a petition of scientists and specialists from the EPA?

We, the undersigned, are Presidents of 22 Local Unions representing over 10,000 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) environmental engineers, environmental scientists, environmental protection specialists and support staff. We are writing to protest the lack of progress in addressing global warming.

How about the science academies of 13 nations:

In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.”

See this wikipedia page for that reference and many more scientific organizations

I believe the status is--there is no proof, certainly not in the sense of General Relativity or Quantum Electrodynamics, that temperature observations are anything more than natural climate cycles. I think the "burden of proof" should be high in science, as it is in physics, chemistry, and even the very complex medicine.

I've written about this before. On general principles I don't disagree with you. But there are two problems. First, unlike an experiment in chemistry or medicine, you can't have a control group; there is no "control" Earth. So you can't conduct the research the exact same way.

Second, the question of global warming is much more than an academic problem. If the models are correct, we have to do something now if we are to prevent the most dramatic changes. We can't wait another 10 or 20 or 30 years collecting more data.

As often is the case when science meets policy, you have to make policy decisions on the best available data, even if that is less than a scientific ideal. I often run up against a similar problem in the business/industrial world.

That can be unsatisifactory from a scientific standpoint, but it is often necessary. Personally, as I see, the best available data supports global warming.

[tdvance]

"Second, the question of global warming is much more than an academic problem. If the models are correct, we have to do something now if we are to prevent the most dramatic changes. "

Unfortunately--you can justify almost anything that way. Better to have a high burden of proof. The reason the burden of proof is so high in, say, physics, is because there have been so many mistakes made when the burden of proof was lower. That huge changes with huge economic consequences are being proposed is all the more reason to have a higher burden of proof (that, and the fact that even those who agree something must be done don't always agree that what is proposed would even be successful).

[George]

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

But the interesting thing is that Ray Kurzweil believes that global warming is occurring, so why on earth is he on the list?

They are opposed to the anthropogenic argument and are not necessarily against the idea that the Earth is warming.

[Ronald Brak]

They are opposed to the anthropogenic argument and are not necessarily against the idea that the Earth is warming.

He is on record as saying it is anthropogenic. When a list of supposedly dissenting scientists contains a TV weatherman and someone who has quite clearly stated that human activity is resulting in global warming, I don't see how anyone could avoid the conclusion that the people who made this list are either incredibly incompetent or just plain dishonest. Personally I tend to think that it is the latter.

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by tdvance

Unfortunately--you can justify almost anything that way. Better to have a high burden of proof. The reason the burden of proof is so high in, say, physics, is because there have been so many mistakes made when the burden of proof was lower. That huge changes with huge economic consequences are being proposed is all the more reason to have a higher burden of proof (that, and the fact that even those who agree something must be done don't always agree that what is proposed would even be successful).

This sounds vaguely like the "Precautionary Principle", but that can be used both ways here. If the situation is that continued action is bad in a certain manner and while we know that cessation is good in a certain manner, then cessation would be precautionary and the detriments of the specified manner would be avoided. However, if the proposal is a counter-plan that is not based on the status quo or previous equilibrium point, then the precautionary principle might argue against instituting the counter-plan.

Cessation of activities that release global warming gasses is probably not controversial or problematic from an environmental point of view, after all, we might discover that it's not anthropogenic, thus the burden of proof need not be high. However acting in ways to reverse the trend covers up the effects of one action with another, which could be controversial from an environmental point of view, and would require a higher burden of proof.

Of course, this ignores all the social, political, and economic issues with either action because it's irrelevant to a determination of the veracity of either claim. Moreover, the claims of social, political and economic burden are often contradictory, after all, increasing efficiency is often its own reward.

[geonuc]

I'm inclined to urge the next US administration to install Swift as EPA administrator. What he says makes sense.

There are some things we - the US in particular - could be doing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses that are sensible even if the models are not entirely accurate. Doing more to reduce gasoline consumption would help, for example.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by geonuc

I'm inclined to urge the next US administration to install Swift as EPA administrator. What he says makes sense.

There are some things we - the US in particular - could be doing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses that are sensible even if the models are not entirely accurate. Doing more to reduce gasoline consumption would help, for example.

Thanks geonuc, but I don't need the ulcer. But I entirely agree with the second point - many of the things proposed are good things to do for many reasons, other than GW.

[pumpkinpie]

Originally Posted by geonuc

I'm inclined to urge the next US administration to install Swift as EPA administrator. What he says makes sense.

There are some things we - the US in particular - could be doing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses that are sensible even if the models are not entirely accurate. Doing more to reduce gasoline consumption would help, for example.

Seconded.

Both statements.

[geonuc]

Second noted. Any objections (other than from swift)?

Motion carried. swift to be installed as EPA administrator.

[George]

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

He is on record as saying it is anthropogenic. When a list of supposedly dissenting scientists contains a TV weatherman and someone who has quite clearly stated that human activity is resulting in global warming, I don't see how anyone could avoid the conclusion that the people who made this list are either incredibly incompetent or just plain dishonest. Personally I tend to think that it is the latter.

Oh, I see. You're saying they have included in their list someone who disagrees with them. How dumb is that?

[lomiller1]

If these people are truly qualified to comment and have cogent arguments against AGW then they would be publishing papers in peer reviewed journals backing their arguments. Instead of debating whether the people truly qualify as experts, or if they really disagree with AGW we can simply look at what they publish on the subject and the response those publications get. This is how the IPCC works after all, they don’t do an opinion survey, they do a literature review.

It seems obvious to me, however, that these people are not publishing papers that challenge AGW because such papers are all but non-existent.

[ravens_cry]

I don't see what there is to argue.
We are at present releasing a carbon dioxide into the air, from a source that has been 'outside' the carbon cycle for millions of years, it is essentially 'new' carbon. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not as strong as some chemicals, but it is one. This will eventually have an effect. The only thing that could be possibly argued is, are the present changes seen caused by this effect. Maybe so maybe not but I do know this. We are not exactly helping.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by ravens_cry

I don't see what there is to argue.
We are at present releasing a carbon dioxide into the air, from a source that has been 'outside' the carbon cycle for millions of years, it is essentially 'new' carbon. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not as strong as some chemicals, but it is one. This will eventually have an effect. The only thing that could be possibly argued is, are the present changes seen caused by this effect. Maybe so maybe not but I do know this. We are not exactly helping.

Throw in we are directly measuring a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and have for 50 years) and have not measured significant other things (like solar output) to account for the temperatures seen.

Yep, it seems pretty clear to me. I really don't understand the doubters doubts.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Swift

Throw in we are directly measuring a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and have for 50 years) and have not measured significant other things (like solar output) to account for the temperatures seen.

Yep, it seems pretty clear to me. I really don't understand the doubters doubts.

If I could share some thoughts from the AGW "doubters" camp, there is some worthwhile evidence to look at: Scafetta&West (2006) found that ~50% of the 20th century climate record could be explained by solar activity. It is possible to get the full text of this article on-line free if you search the article title in google. In the paragraph 15 of this paper they discuss other research that might explain the rest of the warming without the need for CO2.

Usoskin et al 2003 in fact did find that the Sun has been unusually active during the last 60 years:

Originally Posted by Usoskin et al Abstract

The extension of the sunspot number series backward in time is of considerable interest for dynamo theory, solar, stellar, and climate research. We have used records of the 10Be concentration in polar ice to reconstruct the average sunspot activity level for the period between the year 850 to the present. Our method uses physical models for processes connecting the 10Be concentration with the sunspot number. The reconstruction shows reliably that the period of high solar activity during the last 60years is unique throughout the past 1150years. This nearly triples the time interval for which such a statement could be made previously.

In fact if you look at figure 2 of their paper you'll see a figure that looks very much like the famous hockey stick graph except that unlike the hockey stick, the Medieval Maximum and Maunder Minimum actually show up in the reconstruction - along with the other periods of solar variation.

There is plenty more that could be cited - published in journals such as Geophysical Research letters, Physical Review letters, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Journal of Geophysical Research, The Astrophysical Journal, ...

The research supporting an important solar influence on climate both on long time scales and within the 20th century is significant and comes from many lines of evidence. It is completely justifiable to be wary of accepting the notion that humans are causing a catastrophic climate change by introducing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This notion that those of us that are "AGW doubters" are ignorant and lacking evidence to back up their "doubt" is nonsense.

And regarding the seemingly poor choice of the 650 scientists argument - there is a lot of research cited on the website linked to in the OP. Furthermore - as people that are pointing out that there is published research out there that challenges AGW, it is a bit unfair to blame them for feeling they need to point out that there are scientists with relevant knowledge that doubt global warming. Scientific American, Discover, and Science News, the mainstream news media, the IPCC constantly portray AGW as a fact for which there are no scientific reasons to doubt. So what choice do they have but to point out that there are actually scientific researchers publishing research in respected journals that raises important relevant questions as to how serious a threat greenhouses represent?

And I haven't looked at their full list of researchers and cited articles, but I did note quite a few articles on the website that are in my files.

[Ronald Brak]

More hilarity. The paper by Anja Eichler that Inhofe claims shows that half of warming is due to the sun actually says human emissions are the driving force behind global warming. It would be nice if he or his staff could actually bother to read the papers they say support their position. More evidence of either massive incompetence or dishonesty or both.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

More hilarity. The paper by Anja Eichler that Inhofe claims shows that half of warming is due to the sun actually says human emissions are the driving force behind global warming. It would be nice if he or his staff could actually bother to read the papers they say support their position. More evidence of either massive incompetence or dishonesty or both.

Unfortunately, I don't have free access to Geophysical Research Letters, so I can't look at the full paper in this instance, but I don't think they were unaware of the conclusions of the paper. Their point is that the IPCC claims 90% of the warming is from AGW (or so Inhofe claims in the quote below from the website of the OP). Therefore, research that shows 50% of the warming of the last century can be attributed to the Sun would be an important alteration to the IPCC claims

Originally Posted by Inhofe

Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too.

You can see in the bold that they are well aware that Eichler et al claimed that CO2 is responsible for the difference.

The correlations between solar activity and the Earth's climate are now established ranging back as far as 200,000 years and as recently as the 20th century. The correlations appear on both short and long time scales. When I first commented on this years ago on BABB, the question at that time was how much of the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun. The studies that have investigated this question over the last 5 years consistently provide an answer of ~50-67% for the Sun.

That means that CO2 must contribute less than 50% because there are other potential anthropogenic forcings besides greenhouse gases.

With roughly 50% of the recent warming attributed to the Sun we might also ask new questions:

If we just assume that the other 50% is due to CO2, then how much would the planet warm in the next 100 years if we assumed a constant solar influence during that time?

Since the Sun contributes ~50%, what will happen if the Sun enters another cooling cycle? A cooling cycle may be due since Usoskin et al found that the Sun is at its most active in the last 1150 years.

Scafetta and West also point out that the temperature records could be contaminated by some Urban Heat Island and other land use effects. NASA found a few years back that jet contrails potentially could explain a significant portion of the warming.

So there are plenty of areas for further investigation before it can be concluded that CO2 and other GHG are driving a catastrophic climate change. Speaking of which, what evidence is there that catastrophy is on the way? I'm serious about that. How do we know that (1) significant warming will occur in the 21st century and (2) that the results of said warming will be catastrophic?

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Swift

I've noticed a lot of people who disagree on global warming seem to like to attack Gore...

I took the time to read through the intro/full report combo thoroughly, and do not agree that they're attacking Gore.

Rather, I found that the report is doing precisely what it said in it's intro: "...challenged man-made global warming claims..."

Who made those claims is irrelevant. What's relevant is the answer to the question: How reliable/accurate are those claims?

I heard someone throw out a few non-climatology degrees in an attempt to dissuade opinion. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of the 650 scientists are key experts in various climatology and related/supporting fields.

This is a government website, not a woo-woo site. It's the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

But they're not the sponsors. The event didn't happen in the U.S. They had no control over it. It's a global phenomenon from scientists around the world who're growing increasingly discontent with the GW rhetoric that continues to be slung around by some scientists, but mostly the scare-tactic-sells-programming media.

The fact that "many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC" is huge. One, two, or even a handful is common - pockets of discontent are inevitable. But for such a large contingent to go on record, to counter the claims of their parent organization, isn't just telling. Rather, it holds very substantial meaning.

This rather large group of individuals is saying, "time out, folks - let's stop the insanity, get a grip, and find out what's really going on," and having made inroads into just that, they're reporting that much of the previously-released information is hogwash, either over-state, or unsubstantiable.

This isn't a time to mindless cling to and recite the GW mantras. Rather, it's a time to step back and listen to what is being said, and to examine why.

Reading through the quotes in the report makes it clear that there is very good reason for these dissenting opinions, and I, for one, am very glad the calmer, cooler, more methodical heads have stood up against many of the claims of anthropogenic GW.

And since someone else had the bad taste to attempt to undermine the impact by mentioning a few irrelevant degrees, let me share with you all the degrees and credentials of those who were quoted:

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics

Atmospheric Scientist, PhD Meterology, of NASA

UN IPCC scientist, PhD environmental physical chemist

Geologist, board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

Chemical Engineer, former Greenpeace member

Solar Physicist, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Center, published more than 40 peer-reviewe scientific articles on the sun and solar interactions with the Earth.

Researcher at the Institute of Geophysics

U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA

Climate statistician specializing in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serving on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review

Geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher

Physicist and environmental researcher who reversed his previously-held opinion.

Chairman of the scient committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, authored 130+ peer-reviewed papers

Former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, himself authored more than 150 publications

Astronautical engineer, NASA astronaut, a staff physicist with MIT

Environmental Scientist, > 150 published articles

Vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research in Japan

Paleontologist, of the Committee for Scientific Research, head of a Paleontology Department

Atmospheric scientist, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department, author of numerous peer-reviewed publications

Chemist, > 50 peer-reviewed publications

NASA astronaut/geologist/moonwalker, formerly of the U.S. Geological Survey

Climatologist, member of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences

This list is merely a small sample of all 650 dissenting international scientists.

[Pippin]

Ok so solar activity is driving 50% of warming(+or-) and then CO2 and other greenhouse gases add to the rest. And them amplify the warming caused by solar...... It's all the same to me, less green house gases, less global warming. I don't see how an honest scientist could argue against that logic. I can see how a dishonest congressman from an Oil State could argue against it, by reading his blog reports

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Pippin

Ok so solar activity is driving 50% of warming(+or-) and then CO2 and other greenhouse gases add to the rest. And them amplify the warming caused by solar...... It's all the same to me, less green house gases, less global warming. I don't see how an honest scientist could argue against that logic. I can see how a dishonest congressman from an Oil State could argue against it, by reading his blog reports

Two things. First, we don't know that CO2 increases are having any significant effect. It could be as high as 50% of the warming, but the other non-solar 50% of the warming could be additional natural influences, or anthropogenic sources such as urban heat island effects, jet contrails ...

Second, what evidence is there that warming is bad? Would we prefer another little ice age? If CO2 has any significant effect at all perhaps then increases in CO2 will help offset future decreases in solar activity. Studies are showing increased growth of plants with increased CO2 levels. Is that bad?

The problem here is that for over 2 decades the presumption has been that CO2 increases will definitely drive significant warming and that any such warming will be bad (glaciers melting, sea level rising, more severe storms, shifts in precipitation patterns, extinction of species ...) It has become so ingrained in people's thinking that people rarely stop to question those assumptions/predictions.

Where is the evidence that even if 50% of the warming is from CO2, we are destined for bad consequences. If the next few solar cycles downturn and 50% is solar and 50% of the influence is CO2, then the climatic effects of CO2 and the Sun would essentially cancel out.

Of course the 20th century climate record doesn't prove that CO2 is that important. The 1940-1970 cooling trend which occured even as CO2 was increasing correlated with a period of decreased solar activity. If the Sun can so easily overwhelm the CO2 influence, then it is not clear that we have a major problem.

[Ronald Brak]

Unfortunately, I don't have free access to Geophysical Research Letters, so I can't look at the full paper in this instance, but I don't think they were unaware of the conclusions of the paper. Their point is that the IPCC claims 90% of the warming is from AGW (or so Inhofe claims in the quote below from the website of the OP). Therefore, research that shows 50% of the warming of the last century can be attributed to the Sun would be an important alteration to the IPCC claims

No, they were either unaware of what the paper said or blatently misrepresented the conclusions. I will let the author of the paper, Anja Eichler, speak for herself. Here is an email exchange between her and Joseph Romm, authour of Hell and High Water:

EICHLER: Thank you for informing us about the controversial discussion of our paper in your country. You are totally right that our conclusions were misinterpreted and we are a bit concerned about that.

ROMM: Am I correct that your study was NOT saying human-caused emissions were NOT the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century?

EICHLER: Yes, this is correct. We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.

ROMM: Am I correct that your final sentence [in the paper] was merely saying that your results suggest the Sun was responsible for under 50% of the warming since 1900, but you were NOT saying your results shows that the Sun was in fact responsible for half the warming.

EICHLER: This is also absolutely correct.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Ronald Brak

No, they were either unaware of what the paper said or blatently misrepresented the conclusions. I will let the author of the paper, Anja Eichler, speak for herself. Here is an email exchange between her and Joseph Romm, authour of Hell and High Water:

EICHLER: Thank you for informing us about the controversial discussion of our paper in your country. You are totally right that our conclusions were misinterpreted and we are a bit concerned about that.

ROMM: Am I correct that your study was NOT saying human-caused emissions were NOT the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century?

EICHLER: Yes, this is correct. We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.

ROMM: Am I correct that your final sentence [in the paper] was merely saying that your results suggest the Sun was responsible for under 50% of the warming since 1900, but you were NOT saying your results shows that the Sun was in fact responsible for half the warming.

EICHLER: This is also absolutely correct.

1. What is the source for this e-mail exchange?

2. Again, I would like to see the entire paper, which will require a trip to the local university's science library because I can't get the article on-line.

3. However, I do have the Scafetta et al paper about which Eichler et al say:

Originally Posted by Eichler et al

"Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun."

So if Eichler et al was saying their results were in agreement with those of Scafetta and Scafetta consistently finds that the Sun likely contributes 50 to 69% of the warming (see here as another example, then perhaps Eichler needed to have a little bit more clarity in defining what is meant by "in agreement". Eichler says "only up to approximately 50%" where as Scafetta's papers consistently indicate 50% or more. If Eichler disagrees with 50%, then Eichler should not be saying that the results are in agreement with Scafetta's.

[lomiller1]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

If I could share some thoughts from the AGW "doubters" camp, there is some worthwhile evidence to look at: Scafetta&West (2006) found that ~50% of the 20th century climate record could be explained by solar activity.

What you aren’t mentioning is that for this paper to be correct climate sensitivity need to be much higher meaning we will get far more CO2 warming then anyone is currently predicting. Essentially they are saying small forcing create enormous warming but that it takes so long we’ve felt very little of the CO2 induced warming and are still working on the 0.1% increases in solar intensity from 80 years ago.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Usoskin et al 2003 in fact did find that the Sun has been unusually active during the last 60 years:

By that they mean it increase in the early part of the 20th century then stayed about the same for the last 60 years.

Their point is that the IPCC claims 90% of the warming is from AGW (or so Inhofe claims in the quote below from the website of the OP). Therefore, research that shows 50% of the warming of the last century can be attributed to the Sun would be an important alteration to the IPCC claims

The bulk of the research shoes 80% - 90% of 20th century warming is manmade, the IPCC is simply quoting the current research. Scaffette is generally rejected by climate scientists because it implies much higher levels of greenhouse warming.

The correlations between solar activity and the Earth's climate are now established ranging back as far as 200,000 years and as recently as the 20th century.

Incorrect. The correlation on that scale is almost entirely orbital effects that redistribute but don’t significantly change the amount of solar energy the earth receives.

[princemyheart]

I've noticed tha 'Global Warming' is not the term used as much as 'Climate Change' nowadays. We have had a prolonged dry period [maybe drought] here for the last 7 years.... over the last week, things have become very wet and cold.... and it's Summer! I can't wait to look back in 30 years and see what happened :-]]

[lomiller1]

Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming

Solar induced warming warms the upper atmosphere, greenhouse warming cools it. The upper atmosphere is cooling.

Solar induced warming causes a stronger daytime signal, greenhouse warming is stronger at night. Nighttime temperatures are currently warming more then daytime temperatures

Solar warming is more prominent at lower latitudes, greenhouse warming more prominent at higher latitudes. Current warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes.

Solar warming creates more summertime highs, greenhouse warming creates fewer wintertime lows. We are experiencing a marked decrease in wintertime los worldwide, but no increase in summertime highs.

[Ronald Brak]

So if Eichler et al was saying their results were in agreement with those of Scafetta and Scafetta consistently finds that the Sun likely contributes 50 to 69% of the warming (see here as another example, then perhaps Eichler needed to have a little bit more clarity in defining what is meant by "in agreement". Eichler says "only up to approximately 50%" where as Scafetta's papers consistently indicate 50% or more. If Eichler disagrees with 50%, then Eichler should not be saying that the results are in agreement with Scafetta's.

If you read that paper you would see that Scafetta and West attribute 25-35% of the warming from 1980-2004 to the sun, so there is no disagreement. But even that conclusion is not supported by direct measurements of solar activity which indicate no trend in solar activity over that period.

1. What is the source for this e-mail exchange?

It's right here:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/1...850/#more-4423

[Kebsis]

I just wanted to interject this; I've never heard of a Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, but why is it so rediculous that an economist would be a part of this? In a discussion about what we should be doing in the future about global warming, which would undoubtedly effect the economy, isn't an economists opinion warranted?

[princemyheart]

"Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming"

I need some help here. Surely the source of both is solar? Isn't the 'greenhouse' effect radiated heat from the Earth's surface trapped by the atmosphere?

Looks like I've got some learning to do.

[Ronald Brak]

I just wanted to interject this; I've never heard of a Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, but why is it so rediculous that an economist would be a part of this? In a discussion about what we should be doing in the future about global warming, which would undoubtedly effect the economy, isn't an economists opinion warranted?

If the question is what should we do about global warming, then yes, economics definitely comes into that. But if the question is is global warming occuring and if so what is the cause, then not so much. In fact, not at all. And the headline on Inhofe's minority page is:

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

[mugaliens]

I see a lot of debate concerning direct radiation, but little to nothing about secondary effects, which may be more of a multiplier of radiation than having any direct effects.