Wild Cobra

I am at odds with using the word "significant" and inflating the meaning of it to "most." I am not questioning the results of the polls and numbers, but the methodology and intellectual lie of how they are being portrayed. There is a NASA link I'm sure you all have seen that states something like 97% of the scientists agree we are causing most of the warming. They reference three sources, none of which say that. The closest one is the poll that asks something like if mankind’s activities are a significant cause for global warming. My answer would be yes. I would be counted as part of the 97%, but then authorities using these material effectively lie about what they mean. Changing the word "significant" to "most" becomes a lie. Anyone doing so is either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant sig·nif·i·cant adjective \sig-ˈni-fi-kənt\ : large enough to be noticed or have an effect : very important : having a special or hidden meaning Full Definition of SIGNIFICANT 1 : having meaning; especially : suggestive <a significant glance> 2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : important <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease> So tell me. If something large enough to be noticed, does that constitute "most?" If something is large enough to have influence or effect, is that "most?" I am amazed at the level of logical fallacies, weasel words, etc. that are allowed in climatology.

No, it means the location of the material I read and worked on is a mystery as to finding any of it in any quick manner. As an exercise, maby you will want to find a paper that has a CO2 sensitivity level, and trace the origial paper. It's pretty enlightening! What I criticised was a graph that ended in 2003 or 2004. Wasn't that a trend to justify now, when trends change? What I speak of was actual learning of how the sciences work, papers, books, etc. read 10 or so years ago. I believe there are limits that can be confidently applied. Explicity? I went back and looked. I didn't recall it using any such context, and didn't see in a quick search. Page/paragraph please. How did you come up with that? By advanced, I meant the level of formulas, methodology, and variables used. As for calling it my preconceptions, I would agree if I tried to pin down values and didn't read a lot and do a great deal of critical thinking on the issue. Instead, I used terms like "no more than" and "at least," etc. when speaking of my claim of CO2 having a sensitivity of no more than 0.55 degrees and solar causing most of the warming since 1750. I don't know how much lower CO2 sensitivity really is, some people think it has a net cooling. I don't see my beliefs as "preconceptions." I didn't have any preconceptions when went to seeked out the truth of global warming those years back. I will accept people to say it is my assumption. I will accept that I have a hard time backing it up, but I did supply a paper that is well written and covers areas not previously looked at. In the end, I will accept the future's history to be my judge on this issue. At least I don't use the logical fallacy of alarnmists, using statistics to say something is fact! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability For CO2, one of the things I did was use several 21st century works that gave a sensitivity. All of them sourced a previous paper for values, which sourced another yet, etc. By the time I found source studies that the quantified CO2 sensitivities are derrived from, they are from the mid 70's before we knew as much as we do now. The conclusions were based on cause and effect, correlationg CO2 levels to warming. The works of harde are the first that I have seen that uses modern understand of the climate and does not use correlation = causation to assign CO2 sensitivity. It also supports the range of the solar sensitivity I have believed it to be. How does such a paper compare when it is already starting t\with the dataset used in the AR5? What is new about it that matters? "suspect." Can you critique the paper, or do you only have low blows in your arsenal?

Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library? Dodgy? Why to you use such slander? Is that your only tactic? Discredit reputable scientists? As for my statement, I said that because what I did was straightforward, simple, and for small changes, nearly linear. Anyone understanding what is done with energy budget would understand that. Those who just are true believers of what the consensus is, should not be debating in my opinion. At least be able to follow and understand what is being said. OK. Back to one paper. How about his previous work on the topic: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727.pdf How about his biography: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-7451 How about a list of some other works he did: http://www.hindawi.com/16572439/ I find it ironic, that the same likes of people who call me a denier, are in such denial themselves. Wouldn't it be prudent to research this scientist a bit before slandering him? I ask that you back up your use of "dodgy" please. dodg·y ˈdäjē/ adjective Britishinformal adjective: dodgy; comparative adjective: dodgier; superlative adjective: dodgiest dishonest or unreliable. "a dodgy secondhand car salesman" potentially dangerous. "activities like these could be dodgy for your heart" of low quality. Is "dodgy" your professional assessment, or are you just a naysayer? Look. I understand your reaction to assign fault to a paper that is contrary to belief. Problem is, you have not found any actual fault. Only innuendo. When doing the math. There is little disagreement that the suns output has increased overall from 1700 to present day. The debate would be not if the TSI incresaed, but by how much. Didn't I explain? Sorry if I didn't. I used Lean et al 2000 with her supplemental expaned data to around 2005. Using an 11 year rolling average in excel, I had a value increase of 0.18% from the 1750 to 2004 (2005?) timeline used in the IPCC AR4. Other studies have more and less of a TSI increase of the several I looked at. Lean's was about midway, and is one of the IPCC contributors, so I used hers.

I say "at one time" and you cherry pick an era. Please stop wasting my time. Are you implying there never was consensus the earth was flat?

I agree I have not supported everything I said. Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more? I camn find such material again, but I will do it a piece at a time as more posts, threads, questions, etc. arise. I will not attempt to do it all at once. There is nothing simplified about that 50 page paper I linked in post 349. It is far more advanced than any climatologists paper I read. I have referenced K&T '97, and anyone worth debating the energy budget with, understand what I said about it. There are different numbers and different studies, but the calculations start with percentages. Later the watts per square meter forcing are aplied. You change the solar input, and all values change!

I understand that what you say is the consensus. I do not blindly follow consensus. That type of faith becomes like a religion. Don’t get me started on that one! I am not the one playing word games. The alarmists are. They use weasel words to imply exaggerated results. What you call word games is me pointing out theirs! Nice of you to use a decade old graph… Even the IPCC and other groups acknowledge those values have changes. Please keep up. I am not denying anything. I am acknowledging the facts. The facts are scientists do not know with 100% certainty. I have not quantified the levels in the same manner. I have only stated things like CO2 cannot be more than 0.55 degrees for a doubling, and solar is at least half the warming we have seen. You say I look blind and/or foolish? You should look in a mirror. You have not addressed my explanations. Instead you apply insults. Talk about bad form… Did you even read the paper I linked? If anyone is a denier, it is those of you dismissing a well written paper. To do so, you deny real science. Please do yourself a favor. Stop looking blind and/or foolish by understanding what is said, instead of parroting consensus. You know, at one time, most people believed the world was flat. People like you, trusting the so-called consensus. How did that turn out?

Wow. Are you aware that the paper used for the 0.43 sensitivity is from a respected expert of particle physics? This is his field. Most climatologists do not understand spectral forcing like these guys do. He has a previous 2013 paper I read a few weeks back as well. I linked the whole paper earlier in post 349. You tell me... what is wrong with it. Read the 50 page paper and come to you own conclusions instead of believing a blogger please. Believing a blogger without verification of facts is not a good practice. It's called a two layer, but on page 2:

Hmmm.... Even studies done by the accepted climatologists have been increasing the effect of soot since the AR4 was published. Are you not following along? OK, I meant CO2 forcing. Yes, CO2 levels continue to rise.

I see. I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why. Does that mean you don't understand the sciences involved? It is a waste of time for me to look up decades old material to school someone. I take into account real science, instead of believing what someone else tells me to believe. Are you a denier of real science? You see, in real science, you don't dismiss ideas. In real science, you try to prove a concept by doing everything in your power to see if it can be disproved. When you cannot find a way to disprove an idea, then it might remain sound. That's the problem with the new earth science called "climatology," It should be called climastrology, because it is claimed to be proven, no matter how many people disagree and have papers showing the consensus is wrong. Didn't Einstein say something like it only takes one proof or error to disprove a theory?

You need to carefully read all the studies and weasel words people use surrounding these studies. Though the 97.4% agree mankind influences global warming, that number is not accurate to use when saying human activity is the cause of warning. Is it proper to include anyone as expressing mankind has a "significant" impact on the climate as implying mankind is "the primary" reason? How many scientifically mined people are here? Think about the scientific definition of “significant.” Isn't that a bit disingenuous, and shouldn't we be careful about the integrity of such authors? Well, I agree CO2 warms the planet, but by far less than the consensus agrees to. A new paper has the sensitivity for CO2 at 0.43 degrees / doubling. http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf Years back, I looked at the absolute maximim possible for CO2 sensitivity to be 0.55 degrees. This paper also quantifies the solar changes to well over what the consensus says, and also is more in like with my assessments years back.

Can anyone show me on a log curve, how we might achive 4 to 5 degrees from methane? CO2 is responsible for about 6 degrees total, using the accepted material of consensus. The linear lines show RE (radiative efficenncy.) Using accepted AR4 numbers, N2O and Ch4 are clearle a lesser gas than CO2. How many ppm of CH4 would we need to get to around 25 W/m^2 of total CH4 forcing?

This is my first thread here. I don't know what has been said before, but I assume you then agree that past numbers for soot were highly underestimated. New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed. As for your knocking me on spelling. I agree, and didn't realize on my first post that there is no auto spell checker like there is on the other forums I visit. I assume there is a setting, but I haven't fiddled with any yet. It does bother me that you tie in spelling with knowledge. Isn't that being a bit elitist? Maybe you should check your own writing as well, as you used a double space. When I was involved with rapid research and development in the 90's, composing procedures was not easy for me. I accel at things technical, but not technical writings. Then what is the correct terminology for me. I don't deny warming, I just disagree with the consensus and quantifications used. You want citations for my certain opinion? I'm sure as this thread, or others advance, you will understand my points if you don't simply dismiss what I say. I'm not going to try to find supporting material that is several years old, as I have already arrived to such conclusions over six years ago.

Consider this: There is little debate that the sun has increased since the 1700's. Around the time of the AR4, studies centered around 0.2% ranging about +/- 0.2. The IPCC AR4 uses a value of 0.12 W/m^2 forcing for the TSI changes and a value of 0.06 W/m^2 in the AR5. Some years ago, I used Lean et al 2000, with her extended data. Using an 11 year average of her data, from 1750 to 2004 (2005?) I came up with a 0.18% increase for the time covered in the AR4. When I edited a simplified graphic of the one used in Kiehl and Trenberth '97, I came up with a total change in solar forcing of 0.93 W/m^2. Keep in mind, the AR4 is claiming a total flux increase of 1.6 W/m^2. Before you guys deny my results, please consider this. The IPCC is careful to claim the 0.12 W/m^2 forcing as "direct" forcing. Well... what about the indirect forcing? Just because the atmosphere is seeing an increase of 0.12 W/m^2, doesn't mean that's where it stops. The oceans absorb more, and thermal inertia takes it decades until we see the full extent of these indirect increases. The added heating on the surface means more longwave up, to fuel the greenhouse effect. In all, the actual suns contribution is around 0.93 W/m^2, a full 58% of the 1.6 W/m^2 claimed for warming during this period. Now… If you guys wish to deny these numbers, if the total solar flux only amounts to the 0.12 W/m^2, then that means the increases since 1750 were only around 0.023% Ask any scientist studying the solar history. That’s a ridiculously low number.

How do I know? Years of reading the materials and crunching numbers, using more works than what the alarnist community says. Consider this: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf

So what is a skeptic in the opinion of the warmers here? I consider myself among the skeptics as the classificatiins in climatology forums go. I am definately not a denier. I don't like the term skeptic myself, but wht should I call myself? I am certain that solar changes since the 1700's have cause more than half the warming we have witnessed since. I am certain that soot on ice is the largest antropogenic warming we have. I am certain that CO2 has no more than a 0.55 degree sensitivity for doubling. I am not "skepical" or in "denial," but as the termnonoly out there, I fit in the skeptical catagory. I have been studying the AGW scare from the alarmists for a decade or so now. I am no amature at these debates, so don't underestimate me. I am new, and this is my first post here.