Comments on: NASA’s press conference on the state of the sun

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:33:57 +0000

mds (15:49:16) :
Doesn’t an extended solar minimum mean a reduction in the total solar output?
Yes it does. However the reduction is VERY, VERY small. Like one in a thousand or less. A 1/1000 reduction = 0.1% gives you a 0.1/4=0.025% reduction in temperature, which comes to 300K*0.025/100=0.08 degrees K, which I don’t think would bother anybody.

By: mds

mds — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:04:10 +0000

What I mean to ask is: Isn’t there a direct heating/(relative)cooling effect from the sun that will account for most of the effects we’ll see?

Clearly most of the AGW debate should be about how much effect it has on top of natural (Milanovich & others?) cycles. What is the percentage effect and how important that is relative to other changes.

So what is the direct effect? Is the sun’s irradiance fluctuating in general with sun-spot activity and how much effect does that have on the earth’s temperature and climate, ignoring other effects?

Has the sun been getting hotter and now it’s cooling down?

By: mds

mds — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:49:16 +0000

OK, I have a question. Maybe it’s a dumb one.
Doesn’t an extended solar minimum mean a reduction in the total solar output?
Could it be that GCR and AGW are only small effects compared to the increased or reduced output of our giant fusion heating system, the sun?
Actually, it’s two questions isn’t it.

By: Update on solar cycle 24 - and a possible period of global cooling « Fabius Maximus

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:00:50 +0000

[...] An explanation of this theory by John-x in a comment posted at Watts Up with That? [...]

By: global warming diagram

global warming diagram — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:00:26 +0000

global warming diagram…

Some weblog software programs, such as WordPress, Movable Type and Community Server, support automatic pingbacks where all the links…

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:30:36 +0000

Gary Gulrud (12:02:23) :
“Are you or are you not an ardent AGW proponent?”
Obviously not.
Yet you claim to disagree with me on this issue, so you must be.

Whether large or small solar forcing cannot imply greater or lesser import to AGW.
Nonsense, as you well know.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:02:23 +0000

“Are you or are you not an ardent AGW proponent?”

Obviously not. What delightfully embarrassing trap have I walked into now? Tendentious, contradictory and oh, so tiresome, but a snare carefully laid, ‘eh.

Whether large or small solar forcing cannot imply greater or lesser import to AGW. Nought plus or times nought, is nought.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:10:02 +0000

Erl Happ (08:25:44) :
You seize on irrelevancies to challenge the thesis. What do you expect me to do?
I expect you to repeat your earlier post with all the irrelevant things removed and with the central thesis highlighted.

By: Erl Happ

Erl Happ — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:39:50 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (09:11:39) :I don’t know what you mean by overlap. There is ozone and H2O at all levels of the troposphere, so why ‘upper’?

The point is covered meticulously in the paper that I sent you. It may also be downloaded at:http://www.happs.com.au/downloaders/The%20ENSO%20mechanism.pdf

See in particular figures 9 through 14.

It’s actually the central thesis of the paper. Strange you missed it.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:09:23 +0000

Gary Gulrud (11:21:43) :
“So, from this I deduce that you are an ardent proponent of AGW.”
Perhaps Pancho can right you in the saddle once again.
This is no way to conduct yourself in a serious debate. Are you or are you not an ardent AGW proponent?

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:21:43 +0000

“So, from this I deduce that you are an ardent proponent of AGW.”

Perhaps Pancho can right you in the saddle once again.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:09:33 +0000

“” a possible multiplier, with giant impact measured in W/m2.””

Not my utterance, Sir. If I maintained the obsessive concern with minutiae that some are prone to I might have edited the quote but I have an interest in encouraging others when the are conceptually accurate rather than nit-picking every detail.

I am seldom, if ever, the smartest man in the room, why bother?

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:54:29 +0000

Gary Gulrud (09:36:47) :
In fact, setting aside the very many crucial issues remaining to be decided, we disagree on very many facts, particularly anything to do with AGW.
So, from this I deduce that you are an ardent proponent of AGW. This was not totally clear from you previous postings, but thanks for this explicit clarification of your view.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:36:47 +0000

“You do a disservice to other readers by pretending that you understand the physics”

“reductio ad absurdum is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue”, to the effect that increased consequence of “solar forcing is support for AGW”.

And you, dear Watson, are deluded regarding you’re facility with logic. If all crucial facts were effectively in hand, deduction, vis a vis, induction, might be sufficient to decide a point.

In fact, setting aside the very many crucial issues remaining to be decided, we disagree on very many facts, particularly anything to do with AGW. Yes, you are in command of very many facts, but skill with their use, particulary in AGW, is not granted perforce.

Moreover, you’ve inverted the customary relation (where by “sensitivty”, I acknowledged admits exception): decreased consequence of “solar forcing implies support for AGW”.

So, I hear you fancy yourself a reader of Wittgenstein? Tell us more.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:11:39 +0000

Erl Happ (08:25:44) :
Perhaps you can accept that there is an overlap between ozone and water vapor in the upper regions of the tropical troposphere
I don’t know what you mean by overlap. There is ozone and H2O at all levels of the troposphere, so why ‘upper’?