Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8332060)

Sufficient Straw Men arguments here to build a largish haystack.

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8332060)

Sufficient Straw Men arguments here to build a largish haystack.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8332072)

Perhaps you'd like to point out were there is an intellectual problem with the argument rather than chucking soundbites around in a Farquarish sort of way.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8332072)

Perhaps you'd like to point out were there is an intellectual problem with the argument rather than chucking soundbites around in a Farquarish sort of way.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331180)

The theory that the sun heats the Earth is far fetched? What about summer and winter? Even here in the tropics where there is very little seasonal variation in the amount of solar energy reaching this geographical location there is a huge effect on average daily temperature. Are you saying that a small difference in solar energy has no effect?? Are you saying that CO2 levels have caused all previous warming events on the planet?

The problem is that the connection between solar radiation and the earth's climate changes is established, and if we are not to consider it the main cause today we have to come up with a very good reason for it. Essentially I'd like to see solar activity reduce to pre-1950 levels and still observe global temperatures rising (after a suitable lag period while other physical factors respond), before I'm convinced. You may be more easily convinced.

It is that lag period which is in fact the problem with most of the research from the deniers that attempts to be sceptical about the effect of solar energy. They expect it to be an immediate effect, but the warming of the ocean, the melting of ice caps etc all take time. Several papers attempting to discount solar activity as the cause of recent warming only look at the period post 1985, which is far too short a period to consider, as the deniers themselves point out when we discuss the cold decade between 1965 and 1975.

Please do not hold back from complex analyses if you think they will help.

Originally Posted by Budawang (Post 8332201)

The basic physics involved is fairly straight-forward. During different phases of the solar cycle, and between different solar cycles themselves, the amount of energy hitting the earth's atmosophere is X amount. Likewise, the forcing effect of CO2 is also quite straight-forward to calculate.

The devil, so to speak, is in the multitude of feedback loops - both positive and negative.

The current solar cycle, Cycle 24, has been exceptionally quiet and is reminiscent of the so-called Dalton Minimum which occured in the 19th century and led to such phenomena as "ice fairs" on the Thames. There was much eager anticipation from the Solar Groupies that the earth was heading for another mini ice age. However, no such thing seems to be happening. The latest much-touted UAH satellite-derived global temperature analysis in January showed record warmth in the troposhere. Granted, El Nino has something to do with it but this is a disappointing result for the Solar crowd. I guess they're holding out hope for the "lag effect" to save their credibility, but it's looking grim.

Yet another hot day in Canberra (I know it's irrelevant, but I couldn't resist :) )

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8332149)

OK:

2. A bunch of "climate scientists" who until now have received low funding and have never been asked for an opinion on anything before and have been generally unloved, say that our current warming is due entirely to human activity, giving them instant fame, funding and recognition as being valuable people.

and:

3. The sun, which has caused, by general agreement, almost all of the Earth's previous climate changes, has been much more active in the last 50 years than in the preceding 1000. But, say the climate scientists, it has no effect on this one.

As far as I'm aware no-one in the IPCC or any serious scientist has ever said anything like that. They are your words and self-evidently untrue.

(Sorry if that's a soundbite....)

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8332309)

Are you saying that the sun has not been involved in previous climate changes? And you are also saying that no one else says this? I do not wish to put words into your mouth. Just trying to clarify.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8332309)

Are you saying that the sun has not been involved in previous climate changes? And you are also saying that no one else says this? I do not wish to put words into your mouth. Just trying to clarify.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8332305)

And where did you source the these conclusions on solar activity for the current solar cycle? I'm interested.

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 8332336)

Oh, for Christ's sake - I quoted your post which twice said that the IPCC and other warmists deny that the sun has an effect, or that they say that CO2 is the only warming forcing agent.

RTFQ.

Originally Posted by Budawang (Post 8332575)

Here's a few links:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/0...cle-24-update/

To quote: Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century. It was almost as late as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.

If you really want to rub shoulders with some serious solar scientist nerds, you can't go past:

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Check out the forums: there are plenty of AGW sceptics so you'll feel right at home.

Originally Posted by iolande (Post 8332329)

I think to be fair no one is saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate change. I think that they are saying that there is a lot more to the debate then to narrow it down to one aspect.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8332800)

I think the IPCC is clearly saying that the sun has nothing to do with this climate change. Surely that would be why they are screaming out for reductions in emissions?

Originally Posted by iolande (Post 8333881)

Where did they say that?