Global warming and causality.

Ah, no, I called yours.

 

I haven't read all the sacred scriptures of all the religions, either. That doesn't mean I have to read them to judge their scientific validity.

 

Not if you cannot point to the part that you claim supports your point

 

Errrr yes it does - at least you have to have some knowledge of what you are objecting to

 

Ps I posted the graph from NASA which is part of the IPCC findings

 

"Some knowledge" =/= reading it all. And I definitely have more than just "some" knowledge of what is in the IPCC reports (which almost no one in the world has read all of).

 

And I proved it's trash.

 

Sorry but an opinion is not “proof”

 

Wrong. Until you can quote a climate realist saying that CO2-centered climatology "forgot" about the sun -- which you can't -- my point stands, and you are done.

 

No it doesn’t but for an effective critique one has to have at least a primitive cognitive map of the core concepts

 

I identified the facts that prove it's trash.

 

Why would I want to do that? That is YOUR claim. I stated that it would be ridiculous to think scientists have not taken solar influence into account. You have yet to prove that have not

 

You DID? Where?

I missed the bit where you posted facts

 

Posted many times.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion


"This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . .

Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776. The low climate sensitivity one obtains this way is actually consistent with other empirical determinations, for example, the lack of any correlation between CO2 variations over the past half billion years and temperature variations."

 

How sweet! A blog! And by a known contrarian - not even one with a good reputation at that!

 

No, yours.

No, you said "forgot" to take it into account. Forgetting has nothing to do with it.

False. The IPCC's absurdly microscopic estimate of solar influence proves they haven't -- but it wasn't because they "forgot" anything, except maybe their integrity as scientists.

 

Quote me where I said that

 

I think you better read this analysis

https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-ziskin-shaviv.html

 

Hi, bringiton.

I'm not sure that I have made my statements clear. Permit me to re-state.

Science is grounded in cause and effect. There is a geologic record of periods in the earth's history of global warming and cooling. If these periods are cyclic, they must share a cause or causes. Unless these causes are known, it is not sound scientific thinking to assume the present global warming is assignable to the same cause or causes. Unidentified causes are, in essence, accepting a deus ex machina as sound logic.

That leaves us with the problem of assigning the current warming to a cause or causes. One which appears likely is the increase in heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere. Until another cause is identified, that becomes the present working assumption.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n warm.

 

Addendum.

Unless a common cause/causes for the various warming/cooling periods can be identified, the periods should be considered as individual unique events and not part of a cycle.

Regards to all.

 

WTF???
“Magnetic cycles??

 

No but your graph was rubbish that looked like it had been, “adjusted”. Let’s look at the original


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Now compare that to yours


And you can clearly see they have left something out

 

Tsk tsk. When presented with data and an argument rooted in peer-reviewed research you really need something better than a personal attack.
As for Professor Shaviv's reputation, I have no idea to what you might be referring. Certainly there were no qualms when the Institute for Advanced Study named him an IBM Einstein Fellow.

 

And again you swing and miss. The AA geomagnetic index shows a clear increase in solar activity over the 20th century. The indirect solar effect, as demonstrated in subsequent research, is the GCR/solar wind relationship hypothesized by Svensmark.

1. THE SUNSPOTS 2.0? IRRELEVANT. THE SUN, STILL IS.
   ... isotopes ( 14 C and 10 Be), and the geomagnetic AA index. The AA index (measured since the middle of the 19 th century) ...
   
   shaviv - 19/08/2015 - 00:11
   

The two important objective proxies for solar activity are cosmogenic isotopes (14C and 10Be), and the geomagnetic AA index. The AA index (measured since the middle of the 19th century) clearly shows that the latter part of the 20th century was more active than the latter half of the 19th century. The longer 10Be data set reveals that the latter half of the 20th century was more active than any preceding time since the Maunder minimum. (The 14C is a bit problematic because human nuclear bombs from the 1940's onwards generated a lot of atmospheric 14C so it cannot be used to reconstruct solar activity in the latter part of the 20th century).


Figure 2: The AA geomagnetic index showing a clear increase in solar activity over the 20th century (From here).

 

You left something out. The first line of linked article confirms what I told you.

'The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.'

The Holocene Climate Optimum was 8,000 years ago, we've been in a long term cooling trend, ever since.