looking at your reply I can see that you realise that your argument is in trouble.

muso wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 9:59pm:


Understand all that.

But cop this: "The Greenhouse effect basically reroutes some of the solar energy" - that means you have to have some solar energy to reroute, to start with. No solar energy, means nothing to be trapped by the greenhouse gases. So far, so good.

Now, all those denialist coves banging on about the sun are saying that there has been increased solar activity because of sun spots or whatnot. More solar energy to reroute. More oming in, more getting trapped, blanket being the same.
You follow?

So complexity is the argument, not the sun or the moon, or mah baby's shapely arse. The sceptics, denialists, evil horsemen of the apocalypse - call them what you like -  are revolting NOT againt science, not against reason but againt simplistic reductionism. Against reductionism in the name of science.

DING, DING, DING.
It looks like soren has thrown in the towel.
Muso wins by a Technical Knock Out, in the second round.

This whole 'issue' is more slippery than eels on skates. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then antropogenic global warming, then climate change, now it's climate justice!

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/commen...

And anyone not buying it is a denialist, an idiot, a fascist, a naive drone, etc, etc. Well, I am not signing up to whatever this guy, for example, is pushing. Or the rest of the propagandists.

I think it's a farce.

Re sun graph - reconstructed solar irradiance? Now modelling some other variant is proof?

These graphs are from blogs, warmerist blogs. Being condescending about blogs that don't buy the whole idea of man made climate change/warming/justice is part and parcel of the 'scientific' argument mounted. the whole issue is NOT about science but politicised science. It is not impartial, it is about vested interests, prestige, vanity, political convictions, resistance and attack.


For my part, the weather is so complex, and CO2 is so miniscule in the atmosphere (itself just one of the variants in climate) that any unblinking declaration to camera, like the above clip, makes me think that believing in 'climate justice' IS the domain of lunatics.

And I am not calling you a looney, Muso, but the science is a long way off from being conclusive. Slicing and dicing CO2 measurements to death is not a scientific conclusion about the weather. Plotting them against some other guesswork about some other climate element is not conclusive either.

I mean, can anyone claim that there is a scientific consensus on what all the global and galactic influences on climate are and what their  respective importance is, and what the mechanism is for all their local and global interactions over time? Of course not. It is lunacy to pretend that there is an understanding of how it works, let alone to predict not only how it will turn out, but that we can influence it by simply reducing the emission of our precious bodily fluids, er, I mean CO2. To pin it all on CO2 is hubristic lunacy (and that's the benevolent madness).  The only point of it is to drive political action. By loonies.
The non-blinking 'climate justice' militants show just what a dangerous nonsense it all is.

Here's another believer in fish licences.

http://media.causes.com/ribbon/607605

Let's take a look at the data we have available.  Anybody can throw their hands in the air and say "It's all too difficult", but let's see what the data actually shows.

We have pretty reliable satellite data from about 1975. The world authorities for Solar irradiance are the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos" (PMOD). If you look on their website, they are based in a very picturesque part of Switzerland.

The graph shows Solar Irradiance. It's measured directly by a number of satellites over that period. Solar irradiance is a measure of how the Solar output has varied. There are few interferences, unlike measurements taken at ground level. It's a good measure of what is being presented to the Earth.

Notice the peaks? If you look at the scale, it's not that significant. It varies about 2-3 Watts per square metre peak to peak over approximately 11 year solar cycles.

The main thing is that there is no actual increasing trend here.  This is during a period where there was a very pronounced warming trend.

OK, hold that thought, because we're not done yet.

I should tell you where all this data is coming from. It's mainly work by the Planck Institute, as in Max - not thick as (Sorry about the Irish joke )

You might recall us talking about Sami Solanki? He's the Director for the Sun-Heliosphere Department of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

He has been quoted as saying:

Quote:


If you look at the previous graph, you can see how that is true. If you look at the graph below, you can see clearly how Sunspot numbers  peaked around 1955 or so with another small peak around 1982, but since about 1982, it has been following a downward trend. (notice the thick yellow line?)

Also plotted on that graph is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

That is relevant because while sunspot numbers have been decreasing, the global temperatures have been rising.

Again from Sami Solanki:

Quote:


If anybody in the world is acquainted with what the sun is doing, it's Sami Solanki.

(That's not the core argument, but it's the easiest one to relate in non technical terms. )

So you are saying that


1. the causal relation between CO2 measurements and temperature measurements has been established. 
2. the absence of causal relationship between solar output measurements and temperature measuremnts has also been established.
3. therefore, having established the causal relationship of 1. above, reduction in the human component of CO2 measurements will reduce, halt or reverse (depending on the reduction) the temperature measurements over a knowable period of time.



My position is that none of these causal relationhips have been established and are unlikely to be within our ken to be established for a very very long time to come with the kind of accuracy assumed under 3. above.



Your take?