CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

That "sixty year old text" was named one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

 

Have you actually read that so called “paper”

It uses the term “stochastic” about 20 times and that sent up a red flag so I googled and checked it out - now let’s start with the fact the author is NOT a climate scientist, in fact they appear to be an economist since he has apparently used this methodology in economic models. But I also found a critique of the paper and as I suspected the author left out a lot - like the natural variability and the why of that variability

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2022.0529

I am sure there are more critiques out there

 

So? When was that?

 

You are getting your teams mixed as solar input is not “atmospheric forcing” it is separate and incorporated under “solar forcing”

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

 

Yeah: by estimating TSI at a low single-digit percent of the forcing, and pretending it is the only possible way the sun can influence global surface temperature...

Likewise.

They could hardly pretend it isn't there, much as they would like to. That would be gaslighting to excess. But they get as close to pretending it has no effect on climate as they can.

 

Why are you so very disingenuously pretending he said it was atmospheric forcing, when he clearly stated it was radiative forcing? What is your purpose in just makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to him?

But of course, we know GISTEMP is nothing but an absurd fabrication that pretends local urban heat island effects are global surface temperature, and TSI is the wrong index of solar activity's effect on climate.

 

I was trying to find the image from AR5, but then I noticed Jack had posted it first, in post #75 in this thread.

 

Hmmm. The "critique" was published on 11 Jan 2023, but the cited paper was not published until 13 Sep 2023. Time travel? Or perhaps you have cited a critique of the wrong paper? Tsk tsk.

 

The topic is "radiative forcing," not "atmospheric forcing."
The 20th century saw extraordinarily high solar activity.
". . . We have been presently living in a period of very high sun activity with a level of activity that is unprecedentedly high for the last few centuries covered by direct solar observation. The sunspot number was growing rapidly between 1900 and 1940, with more than a doubling average group sunspot number, and has remained at that high level until recently (see Figure 1). Note that growth comes entirely from raising the cycle maximum amplitude, while sunspot activity always returns to a very low level around solar cycle minima. While the average group sunspot number for the period 1750 – 1900 was 35 ± 9 (39 ± 6, if the Dalton minimum in 1797 – 1828 is not counted), it stands high at the level of 75 ± 3 since 1950. Therefore the modern active sun episode, which started in the 1940s, can be regarded as the modern grand maximum of solar activity, as opposed to a grand minimum (Wilson, 1988b).


Figure 1: Sunspot numbers since 1610. a) Monthly (since 1749) and yearly (1700 – 1749) Wolf sunspot number series. b) Monthly group sunspot number series. The grey line presents the 11-year running mean after the Maunder minimum. Standard (Z¨urich) cycle numbering as well as the Maunder minimum (MM) and Dalton minimum (DM) are shown in the lower panel. . . . "
Paper demonstrates solar activity was at a grand maximum in the late 20th century
Anthony Watts
Solar activity measured by isotope proxies revealed the end of 20th century was the highest activity in 1200 years A 2010 paper (that I somehow missed) was recently highlighted by…

 

I have, and there is nothing "so-called" about it.

Because you did not know what "stochastic" means -- and evidently still don't.

Climatology and economics have a lot in common mathematically: they both study chaotic, uncontrolled, open systems with complex interactions, lags, cycles, and feedbacks, and refractory problems with measurement and definition of variables -- and they have both been corrupted by political agendas to push a particular objectively incorrect narrative. The paper at issue is about using a novel mathematical approach to identifying causal relationships that could have applications in many similar fields of study.

Sorry, but that "critique" quite misses the point of the paper, and is also very unscientific, one-sided, and self-evidently committed to defending the CO2-controls-temperature narrative at any cost. The actual underlying physical explanations for causal relationships are quite a different problem from the question of how to characterize causal relationships based purely on statistical methods.

 

It is not unknown for papers to be available for review prior to publication - you should know that since you have linked to enough of them Actually this critique explains why that paper could only find publication in an obscure site that only contains that single paper

 

Hmmmm. A 2010 paper that uses proxy data from isotopes as opposed to direct observation - gee I wonder why it does not agree with the NASA a data?
Seems that paper has had “major revisions”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41116-023-00036-z#article-history

 

Just admit your error and move on.

 

The fundamental point was uneffected.

 

Okay - provide an analysis of why the paper was revised

 

You leapt on what you THOUGHT was an error - what you HAVEN’T done is analyse that critique and tell us why you think it is in error

 

For those claiming scientists are ignoring the role of the sun
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/...es-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html

 

Not my responsibility to do your homework.
Never retracted.
Conclusion unchanged.

 

My point was about the timeline. A critique cannot precede the paper being critiqued. Your critique even precedes the date the paper was received for consideration: critique 11 Jan; paper received 17 Mar. As I used to warn my students in history class: you'll have to know dates.

 

Who claimed that? It's not scientists who are ignoring the sun, it's lying CO2 scaremongers like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, etc. who either ignore it or lie about it.

 

The revisions just looked like a bunch of clarifications to me. Lots of times, authors know what they are saying, but it's hard for them to put themselves in the place of a naive reader, so reviewers ask for clarifications.

 

CO2 has a refractive index. You can perform simple experiments to show it traps in more heat. Children know this. Ask a junior high student for help if you don't know this already. Ask yourself why Venus is warmer than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. You won't. But you should.

 

Since nobody on our side has ever said or implied that CO2 is the only thing driving climate, you and that propaganda paper are attacking a strawman of your own invention.

If you can't address the actual science, just admit it. Making up fake stories about the science fools nobody.

 

So now your implied claim is that "Since scientists studied the data and concluded changing solar effects are only a tiny influence on the warming, so that means scientists didn't look at solar effects at all."

As is so often the case, your conclusion in no way follows from your premise.

Oh, do tell us more. This should be hilarious.

 

You keep running from the fundamental point, which is that you and the paper make the very dishonest claim that science has said only CO2 affects climate.

Why won't you address that?

Oh, that's right. It annihilates your propaganda, and you have no response to it.

I congratulate you and the paper on proving that CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate. However, since nobody on the rational side has ever claimed or implied that, it was a pointless exercise. The paper wasn't designed to advance science, it was designed to get the faithful pumped up with a fake story of victory.