Comments on: August 2008: The first Sunspot-less Month since June 1913

By: Graeme Bird

Graeme Bird — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:30:55 +0000

“Toby and Joel, I am not sure what you are debating – perhaps you can sumarise. We are in agreement that UHI does not explain global warming – unless you count Atlantis – and Jen has already shown us that the sun does not explain global warming.”

No in fact you are lying. And lies ought to have no part in your analysis.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:43:16 +0000

As #23 spots aretiill more frequent than those of #24, expect another such month before this time next year.

By: toby

toby — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:22:37 +0000

Sorry I shoudl also have highlight Barry Moore’s comments from the thread suggested above and several others ongoing at the moment where he is raising serious questions about co2.

By: toby

toby — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:17:03 +0000

David yet again you are obfuscating the point. AND you throw in some rubbish about a 30 cm increase in sea level due to a rise from 0.5 to 0.8c? Where is this sea level rise?
My point remains exactly as i made it a few posts a go. 0.7c is the generally accepted temp rise over teh last 100 years, the sun accounts for between 0.3 and 0.5c of this. If the UHI effect reduces the real increase by 20%…..your words “By your reckoning the warming trend is 80% correct. Great… you can now join the consensus!” ( I assume that is your position?)then the temp rise is 0.56c adjusted for UHI. So all this additional co2 has caused 0.26c to 0.056 c increase. DOESNT MAKE MUCH OF A CASE TO BE CONCERNED DOES IT?!
Where do you pluck a 40% decline in snow cover in spring from? recently that would hardly be surprising given teh drought and lack of rain?!..see what happens this year with an unusually good snow season?
The IPCC is a political body that bases its prognosis on models. They make abundantly clear that they do not understand many of the inputs and feedbacks.
The models have been shown to be innacurate and to require fudge factors to get even consistently close in matching with the past, let alone their inability to make predictions about the future events, some of which are now historical events.

The IPCC had to remove the MWP with Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick to try to get people concerned.
Its been shown that the sun has been at its hottest for 1000 years, and low and behold temps are back near where they were during teh MWP.

There are many scientists who dispute the degree of warming likley to occur from a doubling of co2. infact the IPCC seem to be so unsure of it that they refuse to even discuss the science of it in the 4th report and simply refer us back to teh first report. Many of teh numbers in their formulae have been shown in recent blogs here to be highly debatable. try cohenite and J F Pitmtmans comments for starters http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003366.html#comments
And last but not least, the IPCC has to keep referring to Hansen articles. Anything relying on him has to be questionable because he has made it abundantly clear that it is alright to lie if its for the right reasons.

You seem to think that we sceptics are sceptical because we have not done our homework. On the contrary many here have started from a point of beleiving in the AGW catastrophe, certainly I started from that point. 6 years later and several 1000 hours and the case against continues to mount against in my opinion.

Also let me make clear its the degree of warming that I am highly sceptical about and peoples faith in models to make predictions.
The politics however is what really scares me, and peoples apparent lack of sanity when discussing possible solutions to a possible problem.

By: ecforster

ecforster — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:13:14 +0000

The name of Timo Niroma does not seem to come up in these sunspot discussions unless I have missed it. Here is the link:http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
It provides a very interesting analysis.

By: david

david — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:12:53 +0000

Toby and Joel, I am not sure what you are debating – perhaps you can sumarise. We are in agreement that UHI does not explain global warming – unless you count Atlantis – and Jen has already shown us that the sun does not explain global warming.

That leaves the greenhouse effect. Now you might think 0.5 to 0.8C isn’t much, but it has led to 30cm of sea level rise, a 40% decline in snow cover in OZ in spring, and the collapse of the summer Arctic ice pack. Further a 1C rise translates into a stream-flow reduction in the MDB of 8%. We’ve only increased CO2 by 30%.. just ponder what the world will look like when that number is 300%.

The IPCC has provided you with 100,000s of pages of peer reviewed science over the last 20 years, with many life-times worth of reading. It is not for me to save you the effort of reading what is freely and openly available to you – being a sceptic requires some effort and an inquisitive mind.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:16:41 +0000

Come on David, one study. Peterson? Parker?

So far you’ve made a sweeping generalisation that UHI doesn’t matter without supporting it other than with some shonky math.

By: toby

toby — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:40:33 +0000

David, with you logic its no wonder there are so many sceptics!
you state “By your reckoning the warming trend is 80% correct. Great… you can now join the consensus!” so if we agree on 80% of the agreed 0.7c rise …then we have just over 0.55c of real increase. Now listen carefully….if 0.3-0.5c increase over the last century is natural, that doesnt leave much for co2..does it?
how about answering the questions…oh thats right play the man not the question…or the point….

By: david

david — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:28:57 +0000

Perhaps Joel and Toby can get together, and consolidate your ideas. At the moment you two are all over the place with your denial.

You two are giving “sceptics” a bad name.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:56:23 +0000

David – “Joel the UHI is a scientific fact. It is also a fact that it is a tiny contributor to global warming.”

David, every paper the IPCC relies on to show no significant impact from UHI is utter crap. Please show me 1 that’s worth the paper its written on.