EnviroLink Forum

And what evidence might this be?



There is no evidence to support such a dominant mechanism for CO2, there is evidence that the sun has had a large impact on the climate in the past, and is having a large impact on the climate now.

See for example, Labitzke et. al 2006, Mayewski et. al 2005, Palus and Novotna 2011, and Ponyavin 2004.

The way we are warming is also inconsistent with the CO2 theory with the warming not being uniform in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.



That is not correct, as Cliver et. al 1998 has gotten over 100 citations.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

There is definitely a strong correlation between geomagnetic activity and temperatures. The slight divergence towards the end of the timeframe, might be simply due to natural variability in the climate system, as many advocates claim is the case with CO2 increasing, and temperatures flatlining over the last 10 years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

No, I am here to participate in the discussion, just like yourself.



This does not sound very scientific.

It has been observed that the geomagnetic flux has increased at a rapid rate compared to the last 1000 years, and that there was a MWP and LIA.

See Usoksin et. al 2004 for example (even advocates like Usoskin and Solanki who are authors of this paper agree that there has been a sharp increase in solar activity over the 20th Century).



Saying that I shouldn't participate in a discussion is the definition of rude.

Disagreeing with scientists is not rude... you sir are also disagreeing with many solar scientists.

BTW I did not know Wayne was a scientist. What degrees do you have, Wayne?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

A discussion is an interchange of ideas we aren't having that



It may not sound scientific to you but I assure you that it is. You use the word observe when its imposible for something to be observed over the time period in question, I think you know what I am driving at. You put so much faith in proxy reconstructions as long as they tell you what you want to hear. Wayne has already pointed out your sources have the medieval warm period in a variety of different time periods. So as far as I'm concerned you don't know what your talking about, all the cut and paste is not going to advance the discussion.



I'm not disagreeing with many solar scientists they aren't here for a start and your solar scientists are only a small minority anyway. Claiming to be something your not so your opinions should be given more weight then they deserve may not be rude but it certainly makes you look like a buffoon, if it's rude to point that out then guilty as charged.

You are rejecting anything that supports the solar hypothesis with no physical basis, and now that the data shows that there has been a rapid increase in solar activity, as indicated by the stark decline in the Carbon 14 isotope values over the last 100 years, you are accusing the data of being unreliable, because the solar activity could not POSSIBLY have increased during the industrial revolution.

You are a denier.



You are embarrasing yourself.

You have shown time and time again that you do not know what an amateur climatologist is, and you are simply flat out wrong in the quote above.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

What do you expect to happen to carbon 14 levels when people start burning fossil fuels you idiot?


I am flat out wrong am I? How would you go about proving that? So if I look at the IPCC report I would not find any input by solar scientists? If I asked 10 random solar scientists what would they say? And an amateur climatologist is someone totally unfamiliar with the work of Svante Arrherius? right.

The evidence of the temperature nor the CO2 concentration never rising this quickly in the known history is a start.



Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence correlating temperature and CO2 increases throughout history. The fact we can increase the CO2 concentration to create a forcing is another bit of evidence to the unnatural nature of the situation.



And there is even less evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable?



Yes and their focus was on irradiance correlation not cause and effect, which is not the same hypothesis.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

In other words the "strong correlation" goes to hell in a handbasket once you get into the range where the human induced impacts are the greatest because the human induced impacts overshadow the natural variation at that time.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

My field of study was Chemical Engineering, but I have operated environmental laboratories monitoring air emissions for over twnety years.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Carbon 14 levels have been DECLINING in the 20th Century, so you are being hypocritical when you call me an idiot.

In addition, we have Beryllium 10 isotopes that pretty much confirm what the decline in Carbon 14 isotopes tell us, that solar activity ramped up strongly during the 20th Century. Read the Usoskin et. al paper I posted.



http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judit ... solar.html

There are plenty of solar physicists who disagree with the IPCC.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Didn't we just go over that assuming that this is a causation is not correct?

Solar Activity had also increased substantially to levels that are unusual during the Holocene, perhaps even unprecedented.



Solar Activity had also increased substantially to levels that are unusual during the Holocene, perhaps even unprecedented.



I posted those papers to show that there are many other ways that the sun can indirectly influence the Earth's atmospheric dynamics besides just through the GCR.

There is also a lot of papers documenting a GCR-climate link as well:

See for example Rusov et. al 2005, Tinsley et. al 2009,and Christl et. al 2004, and Ogurtsov et. al 2002



Please admit that you were mistaken about this claim:

Given the massive lack of citation of the works on geomagnetic flux theory

They focused on the changes in Geomagnetic activity and not solar irradiance.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

That's an exaggeration. The gap is only slightly larger than the early 20th Century gap.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Would you consider yourself to be a climate scientist?

Just curious.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

No, there is a proven mechanism connected to the cause and effect.



Solar activity as in solar output? References?



References?



As I stated, there is LESS evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable.



Why? The geomagnetic flux theory does not claim increased radiance as the effect does it?



In connection to levels of radiance. If the theory is that the activity causes the increased radiance to warm and thus cause cloud cover, then it would be connected. If the theory is not reliant on radiance, then the paper is not connected. Just the mention of the flux does not make it part of the theory.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, climate is not my field of study, but the basic science is the same and some of my experience is also directly useful in the understanding. I am better versed than many of the other non-climate scientists I have had the opportunity to speak with on the subject.

I first became aware of the increasing CO2 levels when I helped my son with a school science project. He wasnted to see if the concentration was different in the city and country where there was more vegetation. The levels did not match my CRC Handbooks for concentrations in ambient air by a large amount. I was worried our analysis was somehoe skewed and did some research. I then found the increasing levels were documented but the proportion charts had not been corrected. That was in the mid 1990s and I have studied the situation ever since.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein