Global Warming, eh?

[compared2what?]

in the article I posted a link to.
Here's the link again if you change your mind about wanting to understand the thoughts of the sources you cite:
http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf

You are cherry picking bph, here is what she had to say on her introduction to your referenced article,....check it out yourself...

The attribution of present-day climate change, interpretation of changes prior to the industrial epoch, and forecast
of future decadal climate change necessitate quantitative understanding of how,
when, where, and why natural variability, including by the Sun, may exceed,
obscure or mitigate anthropogenic changes .

Now look up in the right hand corner of her presentation...
You see this,...it's her personal message for all the delegates at the Nagoya workshop to consider...
It's a given that Judith Lean aligns herself with the AGW skeptics. Get over it already and stop wasting my time and obfuscating the facts...

What is it about dark brooders,...seething with repressed hate,... they are just so transparent...can't stand even their own company..

I don't know!

But speaking of cherry-picking, here's page 17 from the poster display by Judith Lean that you linked to:



Now look in the lower left-hand corner of her presentation. It's the exact same dismissal of claims that the sun causes 70 percent of global warming that bph quoted. Which is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONSISTENT WITH THE PARTS OF HER PRESENTATION AS A WHOLE THAT ARE BY HER.

I mean: Rather than what appear (based on context) to be the slides showing how wrongly popular media outlets like Wired understand her area of expertise, such as the one you posted.

But whatever. I'm sure you regret the error.

The funny thing is: I imagine that you acquired your belief that she was endorsing that "It's the sun, stupid!" graphic from this here post by Anthony Watts, congratulating himself on having a web-page from his site featured in her presentation.

So he's evidently:

(a) not scientifically literate enough to understand that the data-sets she showed say "It's not the sun, stupid!";

(b) not self-aware enough to know when his work is being used as an example of confusion and ignorance;

(c) not very honest; or

(d) all of the above.

_______________

None of which is at all surprising. But still. Unwittingly boasting on yourself for having been singled out as a poster-child for idiocy by a world-class expert in the field you write about does kind of take things to whole a new level. Don't you think?

[Ben D]

If this thread is to be saved, it needs an injection of civility.

I hear a voice in the wilderness..

I acknowledge your post and will do my very best to be and stay in compliance DrVolin..

[compared2what?]

And what does the evidence on solar variation say?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
No correlation.

Oh yes, a pro AGW site tells its readers that there is no correlation, give me a break.

RI readers can make up there own mind. And importantly, readers can at least see that that the validity of Solar Irradiance graph below from Judith Lean is supported by actual real data..link below!



Data Source....http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

The science is far from settled, which is understandable when one considers the difficulty involved in trying to understand the actual respective contribution of all the various factors influencing global climate....and the fact that this change is a relatively mere 0.8 of a degree C over 130 years.

That graph isn't in the text you linked to....

[Ben D]

It's the exact same dismissal of claims that the sun causes 70 percent of global warming that bph quoted.

You're new to this aren't you...you're still cherry picking AND creating a strawman.

Fyi, no serious person believes that the sun causes 70 percent of global warming, that number is a result of typical media hype.

namaste..

[compared2what?]

Hey, Ben D --

No matter where that chart comes from -- you do realize that the reason that the reason it looks like there was a big jump in total solar irradiance is because it includes the Maunder minimum, as Judith Lean calls attention to in both her Nagoya presentation and the paper that bph linked to, right?

[JackRiddler]

That graph isn't in the text you linked to....

Don't you hate when people actually check the link? He gave you a link, it's discourteous not to bow to it.

Now I'll open this question up for all: How would they have reliable measures of solar irradiance in 1611, or any time before the latter 20th C.?

.

[Ben D]

That graph isn't in the text you linked to....

It’s the Sun, stupid

..namaste..

[compared2what?]

It's the exact same dismissal of claims that the sun causes 70 percent of global warming that bph quoted.

You're new to this aren't you...

No.

you're still cherry picking

No. All of her work says the same thing.

AND creating a strawman.

Where?

Fyi, no serious person believes that the sun causes 70 percent of global warming, that number is a result of typical media hype.

^^

You mean there?

That wasn't really a point I was trying to make. I had two. And they were:

(1) Judith Lean's work unambiguously shows that TSI's influence on global warming is negligible, and that most of it's due to anthropogenic forcing; and

(2) Anthony Watts is a fool.

The first one was the more important of the two.

[compared2what?]

That graph isn't in the text you linked to....

It’s the Sun, stupid

..namaste..

Wait!

My second point just got considerably shored up....

Nah. The first one is still more important. Never mind.

[Ben D]

Let's all take a moment to reflect. This is a global Warming thread. I posted an article that questions the relevance of Sun's contribution to global climate.

Now there are AGWers here who do not agree with the view that the Sun's role is more important than AGW climate models currently factor in.

So far so good?

Now it is not my job to go on and on responding to each and every point that you AGWers raise on the scientific merits or otherwise of said article. It's was posted to share, with the view that some readers were not aware of the significance that some scientists find the Sun has in the context of global climate, and if it has accomplished that (and it has) then my sharing was not in vain.

So I remind you all once again to be vigilant concerning the fundamental error of conflating the message with the messenger.

No where were we?....Oh yes, something on which we all apparently now agree...

...the total global warming for Planet Earth since records began in 1880 is 0.8 of one degree C...everyone agrees...

Nice to be be able to see eye to eye on this most important fact,..the word denier as in global warming denier can now be expunged.

..namaste..

[wintler2]

..Now it is not my job to go on and on responding to each and every point that you AGWers raise on the scientific merits or otherwise of said article.

So you admit that your interpretation is indefensible, good.

So I remind you all once again to be vigilant concerning the fundamental error of conflating the message with the messenger.

..What is it about dark brooders,...seething with repressed hate,... they are just so transparent...can't stand even their own company..

Free tip BenD: try and spread the proofs of your hypocrisy a bit further apart.

..the word denier as in global warming denier can now be expunged.

Not so fast champ, because IIRC you still deny the overwhelming evidence that warming has been and is predominantly a consequence of human activity. Or are you ready to admit that now too?

[Ben D]

Anthony Watts is a fool..

Oh deary me, where do and you Wintler2 hide from the news of incremental and unstoppable evolutionary changes that inevitably bring about a correction to errors as they are recognized as such...

Subject: Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

From: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch

Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:57 AM

To: awatts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Cc: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch

Subject: Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Dear Anthony Watts,

The IPCC Working Group I (WGI) Co-Chairs are pleased to announce the

Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) of the WGI contribution

to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical

Science Basis (AR5) and invite you to serve as an Expert Reviewer.

-snip-

The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011

to 10 February 2012. All comments must be submitted through the above

website by the close of the Expert Review on 10 February 2012.

Thank you in advance for providing a review of the WGI AR5 FOD.

Best regards,

IPCC WGI TSU

on behalf of the WGI Co-Chairs

——————————————————————

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Ben D]

..the word denier as in global warming denier can now be expunged.

Not so fast champ, because IIRC you still deny the overwhelming evidence that warming has been and is predominantly a consequence of human activity. Or are you ready to admit that now too?

'Champion?...shucks wintler2, go easy on the accolades , the word 'predominately' is the sticking point my friend, and always has, that's all!

And since I know Anthony Watts has the same view as myself on this, it seems it is also not a prerequisite belief for the IPCC going forward as it invites Anthony Watts to contribute.

Hey, get with the here and now, CAGW/AGW is all getting just so yesterday...

You have some growing up and adapting to do my boy, so start being a little more civil to those who might have a different present understanding than you,.. fair enough.

[compared2what?]

Anthony Watts is a fool..

Oh deary me, where do and you Wintler2 hide from the news of incremental and unstoppable evolutionary changes that inevitably bring about a correction to errors as they are recognized as such...

<span>[url=<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/16/the-ipcc-gives-me-a-shock/]Subject:" class="smarterwiki-linkify">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/16/the-ipcc-gives-me-a-shock/][b][size=150][color=#408040]Subject:</a> Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report[/url]</span>

<span>

From: <a href="mailto:wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch" class="smarterwiki-linkify">wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch</a></span>

Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:57 AM

<span>To: <a href="mailto:awatts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" class="smarterwiki-linkify">awatts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx</a></span>

<span>Cc: <a href="mailto:wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch" class="smarterwiki-linkify">wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch</a></span>

Subject: Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Dear Anthony Watts,

The IPCC Working Group I (WGI) Co-Chairs are pleased to announce the

Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) of the WGI contribution

to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical

Science Basis (AR5) and invite you to serve as an Expert Reviewer.

-snip-

The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011

to 10 February 2012. All comments must be submitted through the above

website by the close of the Expert Review on 10 February 2012.

Thank you in advance for providing a review of the WGI AR5 FOD.

Best regards,

IPCC WGI TSU

on behalf of the WGI Co-Chairs

——————————————————————

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

??

True, that invitation has no glaring errors, lies or distortions in it, but that's not a reflection on the intelligence or integrity of Anthony Watts. He didn't write it. And everything he does write is full of glaring errors, lies and distortions.

It's obviously to the IPCC's advantage to deal with that by asking for his comments in advance, so that they can head him off at the pass and prevent him from spinning shit out of thin air about their report as it occurs to him for years afterward. Anyway. I don't see the relevance.

[compared2what?]

^^

I'm sure he knows that, too.

He's exploiting his readers' trust with the exact same ploy that he used when he pretended that Judith Lean's name-check of his site was a reference to anything other than the menace to public well-being that he is.

Some people will do anything for $$$.