Are some alarmist the real denialist?

Question

One of the top answerer's on this forum routinely makes the statement that TSI has not changes in 60 years, and uses the following graph as evidence;

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

Over looking the fact that it looks like my child made it in a first grade art project, we have no data to indicate what Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the top of the atmosphere was until 1977 to present. The current TSI composite which is validated by peer reviewed literature shows that there was an increase in TSI that can explain the warming between 1980 and 2000.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg

The PMOD calibration is questionable and can only be considered as a possibility. However the PMOD TSI dataset is what climate models use. If some of the new solar induced feedback mechanisms where incorporated into climate models and the ACRIM composite was used as the TSI dataset, Solar variance alone could account for as much as 65% of the warming between 1980 - 2000, and all of this is supported by peer reviewed literature.

If you cannot accept this as a reasonable hypothesis to explain recent warming, I think you are in DENIAL!

Do you agree?

Answer 1

The answer to your question is in the money. The person you may be referring to makes his living from so-called "Man Made Global Warming".



If it is shown that man has no link to "Global Warming", that temperature changes are normal, then governments have a harder time taxing things like the sun, and this person is out of a job as he lives for handouts rather than produces.



If I had loans to pay for an inadequate education, home loan, car loan, I would also be promoting the idea that the government needs to spend more.



Follow the money!

Answer 2

It looks like Mann created that chart. They did the same thing with hurricanes. These people are simply not honest scientists. They deny natural history. They deny human history. They are denialists to the max. They deny the MWP. Mann had to create a climate history to smooth out the past variation so that they could argue that man must have caused the recent warming. They did the same thing with the sun in the graph you linked to. It would almost be funny if these alarmists weren't serious. I can't believe they actually believe what they say. There are a couple like Dawai and Pegminer that seem honest but they are the most annoying of all because they should have the sense to see through this garbage. I think many alarmists are trapped by their ideology. They simply can't see the forest through the trees because they deny evidence that doesn't fit their world view and gobble up anything which makes humans look like the villain.



Say no to stop signs suggests there is no increase from 1980 to 2000. He thinks he is an expert on geology but apparently can't even read a graph. Typical denier of science.

Answer 3

"Over looking the fact that it looks like my child made it in a first grade art project"

It would probably be best to not do that as someone may post some of the diagrams from the work of Lord Mockingtone some of which really do look like first grade art that has been photocopied several times.

For your info the source of the diagram is not the usual denier blog but the Max Planck Institute, world leaders in solar research.

Whatever argument you are try to make is further lost in your claim of "an increase in TSI that can explain the warming between 1980 and 2000"

When your own diagrams shows no such increase in TSI in fact it shows a slight decrease, and you are try to pick on the theories of other, weak!

That James supports you when he can't make up his mind from one week to the next whether he is behind the "big oil" conspiracy or the "Dow Chemical conspiracy"

As james is using wiki as a source this is their diagram of TSI, Spots, Flares and Radio Flux, all are showing slight decline through the last solar cycle. So actually it is quite obvious who is in denial.

Answer 4

This question is the epitome of denial.



Just for starters, PMOD is probably more accurate than ACRIM, as discussed here:

http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2008/Lockwood_PRSA2.pdf



But even if it's not, you show this ACRIM TSI graph with 0.016% trend between minima over the past 20 years and claim that TSI can account for 65% of the warming trend? That's a total joke.

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig26.pdf



I mean jesus, if this near-zero trend accounted for 0.35°C warming over the past 30 years, just think how much the planet would have warmed in the first half of the 20th century when TSI was actually increasing by 6 times more than it has according to ACRIM!



Why didn't the planet warm 2°C from 1900-1940 if you're right, Tomcat?

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20090831085849AAA4Gxr



Further, Scafetta is the only one who's argued that this near-zero increase in TSI can account for any significant amount of warming, and even his highly flawed study only attributed 25-35% at most, unless he's cooked the numbers more since then. Since you don't support your BS 65% statement, I have no idea what you're basing that on.



If that doesn't make it obvious enough that your claims are wrong, why is the upper atmosphere cooling? Why is the diurnal temperature range decreasing? Why is the 1.6 W/m^2 radiative forcing from CO2, which is more than an order of magnitude larger than the solar forcing, not causing more significant warming?



Denial, thy name is Tomcat.

Answer 5

You haven't shown any such long-term increase in TSI in the data you cite (http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg) and it's certainly not obvious from the graph.



In any case, the difference between solar minimum and solar maximum in the regular solar cycle is thought to account for *at most* 0.1°C of global temperature fluctuations, and any long-term increase in the TSI over the period of the graph (if such an increase exists at all) must necessarily be only a small fraction of this, so it can't possibly account for any significant fraction of the 0.7°C or so of global warming observed to date.



Vague assertions about "new solar induced feedback mechanisms " are hardly persuasive - what are these mechanisms, and if they exist how much influence could they have on global average temperatures? If there is any good evidence for such mechanisms then they should already be taken into account in the climate models.



Also, the attribution of the current global warming to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases doesn't just rely on us not having yet found a natural forcing to account for it - it is a matter of straightforward physics that increasing greenhouse gases means increasing global temperature, so that warming has to be happening, and moreover it should be happening just as much at night as it is during the day. In contrast, if global warming was due to a stronger sun then the enhanced warming would only be seen during the day, and it's not. Warming is uniform throughout the day and night, so increased TSI cannot account for any substantial proportion of it.

Answer 6

You do realize that your graph shows no "increase in TSI," right?



jim z: I don't believe I'm an expert in geology. I was making fun of you, a self-appointed expert of climate science. And I still maintain there is no increase in TSI over the time period as Tomcat incorrectly puts it.

Answer 7

It would be interesting to know who is the major financial sponsor of the major alarmist blogs. I wonder if it is the same organization that sponsored that Utube flick Gwen was promoting this morning.

Answer 8

You forget one thing, that the AGW crowd recreates what they want to be the past for data that we don't have. There for you are wrong because it is not in a peer reviewed article or from a known source such as the IPCC or NASA. Even West Virginia University's research is not accurate since it calls in doubt man's affect on the environment.

Answer 9

Yep.



The sun is much more powerful than we are, and there are many more variables to the climate than we know about, and certainly more than we could put accurately into a computer model.



The climate has followed sunspots very directly in the past -- even if we're not sure why, we should expect it to do so in the future.

Answer 10

Matches very well with the long term sun spot cycle chart from 1600 to date.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png



Warmers in general do not have a clue about science because I have tested them on basics many times and they do not know anything that has not been filtered through Big Als clergy.