Investigating the Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers?

[h=1]Big Brother Wants a Quiet Word With You[/h]Posted on 02 Oct 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 1 Comment
The Guardian’s scientific watchdogs on matters climatical, Stan Abrahams and Oliver Nuccitelli, have recruited a team of high fliers for their latest piece, including Yale’s Anthony Leiserowitz and Cambridge psychologist Sander van der Linden. When a team calling itself “the 97%” writes an article entitled “Why the 97% climate consensus is important” you know what … C

code1211 said:

GREATER THAN THE SUN??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're delusional.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why the idea that CO2 is playing a greater effect on climate change now than the sun is so surprising to you. The sun has a role, but it turns out that if you only look at the effect of the sun on climate change, you would be predicting cooling right now, not heating as we are seeing.

ataraxia said:

I am not sure why the idea that CO2 is playing a greater effect on climate change now than the sun is so surprising to you. The sun has a role, but it turns out that if you only look at the effect of the sun on climate change, you would be predicting cooling right now, not heating as we are seeing.

Click to expand...

We would have warmer temperatures if CO2 was as strong of a forcing agent as claimed, and having a "pause" means negative forcing was near equal to CO2 forcing.

[h=1]Lewandowsky’s Favourite Conspiracy Theory[/h]Posted on 04 Oct 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 3 Comments
The Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Climate has a new article on Climate Change Conspiracy Theories by Joseph E. Uscinski, Karen Douglas, and Stephan Lewandowsky. I’ll be writing about it later in depth, but first a digression on its first author Joseph E. Uscinski, author of a standard textbook on conspiracy theories. He has 6 sources …

ataraxia said:

I am not sure why the idea that CO2 is playing a greater effect on climate change now than the sun is so surprising to you. The sun has a role, but it turns out that if you only look at the effect of the sun on climate change, you would be predicting cooling right now, not heating as we are seeing.

Click to expand...

On what do you base your assertion?

Are you attempting to eliminate the impact of the Sun on albedo, ocean temperature and weather patterns?

Regardless of level of CO2, which is always at it's Interglacial peak concentration at the end of Interglacials, Ice Ages start.

IF CO2 can overpower the Sun, please explain that obvious flaw in your assertion.

Funny it is when even Watts is showing a graph with record high temps.

Warmest September in satellite temperature record

Boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in September, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Not only was it the warmest September on record, it was also the warmest month (compared to seasonal norms) in the 38-year satellite temperature record that wasn’t associated with an “officially recognized” El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.



Of the 20 warmest monthly global average temperatures in the satellite record, only September 2017 was not during an El Niño. Compared to seasonal norms, the global average temperature in September made it the ninth warmest month in the satellite record.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

ataraxia said:

I am not sure why the idea that CO2 is playing a greater effect on climate change now than the sun is so surprising to you. The sun has a role, but it turns out that if you only look at the effect of the sun on climate change, you would be predicting cooling right now, not heating as we are seeing.

Click to expand...

On what do you base your assertion?

Are you attempting to eliminate the impact of the Sun on albedo, ocean temperature and weather patterns?

Regardless of level of CO2, which is always at it's Interglacial peak concentration at the end of Interglacials, Ice Ages start.

IF CO2 can overpower the Sun, please explain that obvious flaw in your assertion.

Click to expand...

Maybe he is basing it on the data

Will the sun put the brakes on global warming?

The sun is like a teenager that cycles through mood swings – from dramatic to chill and back again – roughly every eleven years. But this time it’s different. It now appears the sun is heading for a rare, super-chill period that threatens to add some unexpected drama to today’s climate change discussion.
For most of its history, science believed the sun’s output was constant. It was wrong. Today, we realize that lots of things about the sun wax and wane every eleven years, most notably its brightness and the number of explosive disturbances on its surface called sunspots and faculae.

That’s not all. The eleven-year cycle itself snakes up and down like a roller coaster, reaching “grand maxima” and “grand minima” every 100-200 years. The last grand maximum peaked circa 1958, after which the sun has been steadily quieting down. Today, the drop in activity is at its steepest in 9,300 years.

Click to expand...

Yet, global temps are rising.

for example: BOM: Australia's hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average

Somerville said:

Maybe he is basing it on the data
Yet, global temps are rising.

for example: BOM: Australia's hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average

Click to expand...

The sun has natural multi-cyclical patterns that on a predictable basis, have the highs come together, and have the lows come together. "Rare" is the wrong word to use in my opinion, because it is not random. It is just natural and cyclical.

As for the Australian highs, are you aware that it was discovered many or all of the meteorological sites in Australia could not record below -10 C? Their data acquisition equipment was tuned such that it simply didn't register that low. This alone will give a false record reading, and can be significant, invalidating them from the global warning change picture.

Lord of Planar said:

The sun has natural multi-cyclical patterns that on a predictable basis, have the highs come together, and have the lows come together. "Rare" is the wrong word to use in my opinion, because it is not random. It is just natural and cyclical.

As for the Australian highs, are you aware that it was discovered many or all of the meteorological sites in Australia could not record below -10 C? Their data acquisition equipment was tuned such that it simply didn't register that low. This alone will give a false record reading, and can be significant, invalidating them from the global warning change picture.

Click to expand...

You may wish to do a bit more checking in regards to your statement, "... many or all of the meteorological sites in Australia could not record below -10 C". I believe the problem was found in fewer than 10 stations, all of which were in mountainous terrain. Australia's Bureau of Meterorology has more than 800 stations across the country.

The lowest temps recorded for West Australia, Northern Territories, and South Australia were in Aug 2008 for WA (-7.2C) and July 1976 for the other two states (-7.5C and -8.2C) The coldest recorded temp was at Charlotte Pass, NSW (-23C in 1994)

Charlotte Pass Village (elev. 1,760 metres (5,770 ft)) is located at the base of Kangaroo Ridge to the south east of the pass. It is the highest permanent settlement in Australia and the location of one of Australia's oldest snow resorts. It is the coldest location in Australia, with a record low of −23.0 °C (−9.4 °F) and winter temperatures which regularly drop below −10 °C (14 °F)

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Maybe he is basing it on the data
Yet, global temps are rising.

for example: BOM: Australia's hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average

Click to expand...

The Sun's natural cycles are well documented. You need not rely on those that talk about the documentation. You can actually review the documentation. Pictures work best for me because I'm not a candidate for the STEM disciplines.

Interestingly, the documentation is not always in strict agreement from one study to the next. Temperature data, the basis of all of this panic, is not consistent. The major data gatherers do no agree even on what the Global temperature is. Beyond that they don't agree on what it was and what the rate of change currently under way might be. This is disagreement includes the actual, recorded data, AS ADJUSTED by the experts all working according to what they have determined are the best practices. Obviously, the experts disagree. Obviously, again, there is room for disagreement.

That aside, though, Solar irradiance over time seems to have a fairly close correlation to the number of Sun Spots and these have been tracked for centuries. Total Solar Irradiance is a big driver of Global temperature. According to this study which is from real live scientists, the Globe's burner has been stuck on 10 from about the Early 50's to about the year 2000. The impact of this shows up after about a 50 year lag from the actual event. Not much different from the highest TSI hitting in Late June and the highest temperatures hitting in August.

We are on the verge of seeing the data that will either prove or disprove the "CO2 is the prime driver" mantra.

Unfortunately, it may not occur during my life time.

climate4you welcome

Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000), until 2000. From 2001 data from PMOD/WRC are used. The thin line indicates the annual reconstructed solar irradiance, while the thick line shows the running 11 average. The values shown include a background component. See Lean (2000) for discussion of the amplitude of the background component. See Fröhlich (2000, 2003) for a description of the PMOD data. Last year shown: 2014. Last diagram update: 26 May 2015.