'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[The Penguin]

I’m not sure that I completely understand these graphs (why 5-month averages for instance) but what I think I note from the temperature fluctuations is that they are not tied as closely to summer-winter influences as I thought they’d be. Is this an indicator of extra-solar forcing, and if so, by what?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Interesting graphs comparing North and South Hemispheres, but still coming to the same conclusion that the globe is warming.

[pottyprof]

This may help you understand why in natural circumstances the northern hemisphere is warmer than the southern.. and a few other bits and its fairly simple to follow... :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[The Penguin]

Thanks potty. He's a great actor but I had no idea he was in to bikes.

[Mondy]

Interesting C-Bob. Thanks

If i reply to myself again, by showing these graphs and also answering The Penguin's query, for a fact the last solar max was the around 1999-2000. You only have to quickly observe the graphs to note both hemispheres were cooler.

Couple of links:

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreac.../learnmain.html

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/solarmax/

With Cycle 24 now confirmed with the recent spotting of a backword sunspot (heralding the arrival), the solar max of this cycle (which is supposed to be a biggie) has been progged by scientists(!) to peak as early as 2011.

So the million dollar question is whether global temps will again decrease during Cycle 24's fun and games?

Edited February 27, 2007 by Mondy

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

The question i would ask myself though Mondy, has this always been the case? I honestly dont know. If it has, then perhaps there is something in it (although I wouldnt wait another 4 years to see), but if not, perhaps its a co-incidence (or indeed only a partial factor)?

[Mondy]

The question i would ask myself though Mondy, has this always been the case? I honestly dont know. If it has, then perhaps there is something in it (although I wouldnt wait another 4 years to see), but if not, perhaps its a co-incidence (or indeed only a partial factor)?

I'm a little pushed for time Chris just now, but maybe someone can sift through the links below and correlate each warming/cooling phase with the last 3 solar cycles:

http://www.uksmg.org/cycle22.htm

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

Or google Cycle 21,22,23..

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Fair enough Mondy

I would say though, if there was a correlation, it would appear on all cycles.

[Mondy]

Fair enough Mondy

I would say though, if there was a correlation, it would appear on all cycles.

Exactly, which i'll try work out later. I mean what was cycle 17 or for that matter 14 like? I've no idea, but later i'll research each cycle in relation to each warming/cooling phase.

Still a sceptic though

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I know it will be a lot of work, but it might produce something of interest

[Mondy]

Have very quickly googled solar cycle charts and global warming charts.

Buggah

Keep trying, Mondy!! There HAS to be some kind of correlation

[mcweather]

Hey, Mcweather, try bindfolding yourself and putting ear muffs on and then take a chance that you could cross a busy road unharmed. You are not sure to be hit, perhaps a 90% chance? Would you take it?

Hi Devonian.

Sorry I couldn,t reply earlier. The answer to your interesting proposition is simple I wouldn,t put a blindfold and earmuffs on and try to cross the road.

I would use the pedestrian crossing.

[Hiya]

Have very quickly googled solar cycle charts and global warming charts.

Buggah

Keep trying, Mondy!! There HAS to be some kind of correlation

Are you trying to prove that there is a correlation between sunspot activity and global temprature?

[Mondy]

Are you trying to prove that there is a correlation between sunspot activity and global temprature?

Yeah, Scott.

Sunspot activity, flux etc..

[Michael Winston]

I'm reading with keen interest the arguments presented here about belief systems. My favourite educationalists, Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner, in their seminal book 'Teaching As A Subversive Activity' promote the argument that discovery comes not by design but largely by inquiry. They cite Galileo and Copernicus as two examples of scientists who challenged contemporary thinking and were roundly persecuted for it. Of course, now we know the earth is not the centre of the Universe, but such talk in medieval times was heretical. Galileo and Copernicus challenged orthodox thought by inquiry; they didn't decide to get up one morning and 'discover' the motion of the celestial bodies; through inquiry, they perceived and described that which was already there. Their challenge to the belief system, however, was so profound and so iconoclastic that it nearly cost them their lives. Postman and Weingartner also note the subtle shades of language we use and the profound effect it can have on our perceptions e.g. when we say, 'John (or Jane) is stupid', we are in fact talking more about ourselves than John (or Jane). 'Stupid' does not exist. It is a convenient expression of disapproval of the behaviour we see in others, a kind of label we use to describe our feelings of frustration about the behaviour of others. This observation draws on Earl Kelly's assertion that 'my language is me' - that is, what I say is who I am and the language I employ confirms my beliefs and prejudices. A fact is a statement of a human judgement and is, therefore, subject to all its fallibilities. Bear with me: I'm half-way through.

The inquiry method of education advocated by Postman and Weingartner is a student-centred method of education focused on asking questions. Students are encouraged to ask questions which are meaningful to them, and which do not necessarily have easy answers; teachers are encouraged to avoid giving answers when this is possible, and in any case to avoid giving direct answers in favour of asking more questions: just like the GW/AGW debate, in fact. In this sense, education takes the form of Socratic methodology, giving open-ended answers to problems not yet clearly defined, or speculative, or open-ended in themselves. (e.g. like GW?)

The inquiry method is motivated by Postman and Weingartner's recognition that good learners and sound reasoners centre their attention and activity on the dynamic process of inquiry itself, not merely on the end product of static knowledge (''The right answer! Well done Fred''!!). They believe that certain characteristics are common to all good learners :

* They enjoy self-confidence in their learning ability

* They find genuine pleasure in problem solving

* They have a keen sense of relevance

* They have reliance on their own judgment over other people's or society's

* They have no unfounded fear of being wrong

* They are not hasty in answering - they are reflective

* They have a flexible point of view

* They have a respect for facts, and the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion

* They feel no need to seek final answers to all questions, and take comfort in not knowing an answer to difficult questions rather than settling for a simplistic answer.

While this might not be entirely pertinent to the AGW/GW debate, I think that some of the above points are relevant and worth considering when we present our beliefs, opinions and facts for examination. It sure does cut down on the meandering (except in my case, alas!).

Incidentally, I have no idea if AGW/GW is taking place, despite a great deal of reading and thinking. I genuinely value the opinions of posters here in guiding me to some sort of conclusion at some point in my lifetime!

Regards,

Mike.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Winston

[Thundery wintry showers]

* They enjoy self-confidence in their learning ability

* They find genuine pleasure in problem solving

* They have a keen sense of relevance

* They have reliance on their own judgment over other people's or society's

* They have no unfounded fear of being wrong

* They are not hasty in answering - they are reflective

* They have a flexible point of view

* They have a respect for facts, and the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion

* They feel no need to seek final answers to all questions, and take comfort in not knowing an answer to difficult questions rather than settling for a simplistic answer.

I agree 100% with those; I do think there is also much relevance to the topic area- and something society, as a whole, could do with more of when people develop opinions and give reasons for things.

[Hiya]

Yeah, Scott.

Sunspot activity, flux etc..

keep googling, there are a few papers out there about it, its pretty much accepted that sunspot cycles noticably effect global temprature.

I'm doing uni work just now but I'm off tomorrow afternoon and can prepare a decent post about it if no one else has by then.

Some examples I've just dug out:

http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/climato3.htm

i think the name of the website could be even to get that graph slated, and no I haven't looked at it.

I know the graph you are looking for tho, I've seen a few.

If you wanna help try and find number of sunspots per month data going back as far as possible and I can make my own graphs.

[shuggee]

Anyone remember how 10 years ago after the BSE crisis, tens of thousnads of people were to die of CJD in the coming years? It had to be true because scientists said so and there was so much evidence...

[Mondy]

keep googling, there are a few papers out there about it, its pretty much accepted that sunspot cycles noticably effect global temprature.

I'm doing uni work just now but I'm off tomorrow afternoon and can prepare a decent post about it if no one else has by then.

Some examples I've just dug out:

i think the name of the website could be even to get that graph slated, and no I haven't looked at it.

I know the graph you are looking for tho, I've seen a few.

If you wanna help try and find number of sunspots per month data going back as far as possible and I can make my own graphs.

Scott, i'm heading off soon, but your offer of graph making with regards sunspot/solar output is too good to knock back.

Through the radio hobby, sunspot numbers are always cropping up, past and present, so with more time tomorrow afternoon aswell, i'll get busy and have a good look. See what we can come up with.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Mondy

[Hiya]

I found the sunspot data, so I'll give it a couple of hours tomorrow, PM me any specific trends or such like you are after.

[Michael Winston]

I agree 100% with those; I do think there is also much relevance to the topic area- and something society, as a whole, could do with more of when people develop opinions and give reasons for things.

Yes. It's truly terrible to see people shouted down for what they believe in, particulary in a democratic debate.

Kind regards,

Mike.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Scott, i'm heading off soon, but your offer of graph making with regards sunspot/solar output is too good to knock back.

I compiled a graph a couple of months back which I've put on the "skeptics' links" thread that overlays global temperatures on top of 11-year sunspot cycles between 1860 and 1970 (it was not a conscious decision to lop off temperature trends post-1970 - it was just the first global temps graph that came to hand at the time). I can see a distinct correlation between sunspot cycles and global temps at first, but towards the end of the graph it goes a bit out of kilter - there could well be an explanation that doesn't invoke AGW.

Penguin - in answer to your question "why 5-month averages" with regards the northern- and southern-hemisphere graphs, it seems that this is an arbitrary period chosen to average out, and therefore smooth, the curves so as to more easily see the apparent trends.

Hiya - complete records of 11-year sunspot cycles going back to the 18th Century can be found at www.dxlc.com, with links to individual 11-year cycle graphs. The graph I made used cut-and-pasted graphs from this site, with a global temperature graph found at www.cru.uea.ac.uk

Almost midnight now, so I must away for some (much needed) beauty sleep!

C-Bob

[Stratos Ferric]

Well got a lot of reading to do to catch up on the new comments today, but to answer your question. I do feel although the 2 opposing camps want a YES or NO, I am giving a MAYBE answer which I believe is what the majority of people think. You come across to me as a person wanting the YES answer which I cannot give, I feel universally hated and ridiculed by both sides because I will not comitt to one or the other.

I think you misunderstood my question. Never mind, just in case I shall answer it for you. Although I believe in AGW that is not to say that I think all warming is anthropogenic. Can I reitterate for about the tenth time in two days that saying one supports AGW is not the same as saying that one believes all warming is anthropogenic.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think you misunderstood my question. Never mind, just in case I shall answer it for you. Although I believe in AGW that is not to say that I think all warming is anthropogenic. Can I reitterate for about the tenth time in two days that saying one supports AGW is not the same as saying that one believes all warming is anthropogenic.

That rather reminds me of the 'straw man fallacy'; addressing a weakened form of the person's actual argument. I think there is a tendency for those of us who believe that the warming is, to quote one of the IPCC reports, 'unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone', to be associated with the extremists, when it isn't always correct to do so.

[Bobby]

-- From Wikipedia

They don't seem to match up to me. Well, not until the last few decades at least. I don't think any AGW believer denies that the Earth's climate can change and indeed has changed naturally, just not the rapid warming we are seeing today.

Imagine that we are aliens, observing Earth from far above. There are no humans on this Earth. The aliens start to notice that CO2 levels on Earth have about doubled in 200 years, faster than any previous increase they can find in the records for at least 400,000 years. They also notice that the temperature is warming significantly throughout the planet. Now, these aliens are puzzled. They look all over the Earth, do all sorts of tests to try to find the source of this CO2 increase. Nothing seems to be a very clear explanation.

Then they find a massive volcano, a volcano that's pouring out 24 BILLION tons of CO2 ever year. Now, I imagine if those aliens found that, that would be a pretty good explanation for them I would think. They'd find that also would explain the temperature rises, as it's a fact that CO2 warms up planets. It would be case solved. Of course, humanity is that huge volcano in the real Earth.

That may have made no sense, I am tired and tipsy.

One really has to look at this whole thing objectively, seems very hard for people to do this though (both AGW believers and deniers). I do believe though that the only logical conclusion when you look at this whole thing with cold, hard, sceptical objective eyes, is that humans are mainly behind the changes we are seeing.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Magpie