The test suggests that global warming is most likely caused by changes in solar output and shifts in the earth's orbit. As far as the current global warming is concerned, this is incorrect. The irrandience of the sun has not increased since about 1940, so the climate change we're experiencing cannot be due to the sun. Neither can it be due to orbital forcing. At the point we're currently at in the periodic orbital shifts the earth goes through, the earth ought to be cooling, not warming. Therefore you need to look elsewhere for an explanation of the current warmning.
I do think that Piers Corbin might be on to something...but no, that doesn't make me reject AGW as a possibility! This is a complex issue, and many factors interplay to produce our climate. Why can't the sun be one of them? There is no one right answer, no one factor that explains everything, no one grand unifying theory of climate change; so just because one theory seems more plausible, why do we have to reject all the others? Einstein's discoveries of relativity didn't suddenly make Newtonian physics completely wrong... it just added a bit more to our understanding.
Yes seen this pro-AGW biased site before. I noted that although Micheal Le Page attempts to appear neutral saying;
"Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways"
and
"With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories."
Yet fails to recognise the unsubstantiated onesided 'wild theories' in the reference material he uses to emphasise his point - in other words he tries to wrap the pro-AGW rubbish posted by other authors with a legitmate facade.
Catherine Brahic acknowledges that there is a lag then says: "but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."
Second point first. Of course it does when realising that CO2 has risen and fallen naturally AFTER the planet has warmed naturally for over 400,000 years. Clearly showing that CO2 follows temperature rise and fall, and does NOT cause it. She then builds her point based on not why the 800 lag is not true but only on the assumptions of other areas that support AGW and this is pretty much the theme throughout the other 'myths' - it's complete rubbish.
As for 'climate scientist' - what is this? What are the required qualifications to be a 'climate scientist'? This is a political correct pro-AGW term that enables these people to select only those scientists who they consider worthy to speak about global warming.
Originally posted by Lucibee: I do think that Piers Corbin might be on to something...but no, that doesn't make me reject AGW as a possibility! This is a complex issue, and many factors interplay to produce our climate. Why can't the sun be one of them? There is no one right answer, no one factor that explains everything, no one grand unifying theory of climate change; so just because one theory seems more plausible, why do we have to reject all the others? Einstein's discoveries of relativity didn't suddenly make Newtonian physics completely wrong... it just added a bit more to our understanding.
Lucibee, why do you think that the sun, or indeed any relevant factor, is excluded? This is not the case at all. Without including everything relevant, how else could the CO2 contribution be estimated?
The point here is that total insolation has not really increased, whilst the hypothesis of cosmic rays affecting cloud formation is still highly speculative. If the cosmic ray idea becomes established it will be included in the climate models, just like any other that is accepted in peer-reviewed science.
I do think that Piers Corbin might be on to something...but no, that doesn't make me reject AGW as a possibility!
Piers Corbyn (do spell his name right as I think he occasionally Googles himself. I've had a reply from him on this forum ) wrote this in a letter just after the last set of flooding in the UK.
quote:
I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms.
I kept my eye out and sure enough the rain abated on 21st July and nothing happened in August. Furthermore, tropical storm intensity died away markedly in August:
and the sun was very quiet with both sunspots and solar flares being much less than in June and July.
He who lives by the precision forecast dies by the failure of the precision forecast
His answers are so wrong anyone who got them "right" is half a brain all right.
I agreed with most of the "correct answers" but not the analysis. Basically it is more of "objective truth" versus "meaning" discussion - see another thread. Eg. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but it provides more like 2/3 of the effect and its not anthropogenic. People who cannot understand, or refuse to understand, this ever so slightly confusing point are refusing to think critically. Try this statement: 2/3 of people die from a cause other than cancer, therefore cancer is unimportant.
From memory (I won't access it again) the first few questions were OK then we had some guff about orbital changes.
It's actually a clever psychological trick. After all we're preconditioned to accept that the answers to questionnaires, quiz shows, school test etc have the correct answers.
Rather than what we have here which is the agenda-driven fossil-fueled answers of some right wing think tank.
Yep - maybe those with a quarter brain would be fooled. The 50% brainers want to be fooled and post.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell
In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. Theodore Roosevelt
"Clever" and "amusing" quotes in signature files are invariably irritating. Steve Milesworthy
That's not false dichotomy or whatever the term is as the "CO2 causes warming" statement is based on physics, chemistry and observed results.
APL - temperature
A tenuous correlation based on huge assumptions, estimates, leaps of faith and dubious climate science. As Steve_M says, "Correlation doesn't prove anything."
In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. Theodore Roosevelt
Ergo, to do nothing is always the wrong answer. Was he a politician? Not the brightest bulb in the box obviously.
) wrote this in a letter just after the last set of flooding in the UK.
