2010-09-07 08:48:51Advanced 1: It's the sun
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99
I put together the advanced rebuttal for "it's the Sun".  Take a look, let me know what you think.
2010-09-07 09:22:25Wonderful stuff!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62

This is exactly what I was hoping the advanced sun rebuttal would be - covering the various ways that the sun affects climate. That's been the major criticism of my intermediate rebuttal - that it only looks at total solar irradiance, not the other methods. Great work, Dana!

Question - has anyone seen any literature on whether UV radiation and its effect on the upper atmosphere (ozone?) has been investigated as a cause of global warming? Or other solar effects like solar flares? It's not a deal breaker whether this be included but if there is research that rules these options out, would be good to include.

2010-09-07 09:56:59thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99
Thanks John.  I was wondering the same thing, but personally I'm not aware of any seriously considered major solar influences on climate besides TSI and GCRs.  But if anybody else is aware of any, we should include them.
2010-09-07 10:23:49Clarification
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.100.6

You say:

"In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory, the galactic cosmic ray theory cannot easily explain the cooling of the upper atmosphere, greater warming at night, or greater warming at higher latitudes.  These are fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming."

The statement in boldface seems a bit of a non sequitur, even though you provide a link.

What about something like: "These are fingerprints of the enhanced greenhouse effect, the major mechanism of anthropogenic global warming." ?

2010-09-07 12:31:48okay
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99
Sure, that works.  Change made.
2010-09-07 17:14:54OK
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.182
Looks good!
2010-09-08 04:21:43UV
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249

I found a reference to the UV effect you mentioned and added it in as another indirect effect, John.

Somebody also mentioned that Dansgaard-Oeschger events could be triggered by the Sun, but this seems to be a controversial suggestion, and moreover the timing of D-O events (1,470 years) can't explain the recent warm periods anyway, so I'm not sure this is even worth mentioning.  Thoughts?

2010-09-08 05:25:15D-O events
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.182
I think it would be useful to discuss these events, to explain why they AREN'T good candidates for explaining GW. I think Singer is still pushing the concept.
2010-09-08 07:15:13solar
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249

I know some people still push D-O events, but I'm not sure they necessarily push them as a solar effect.  It's pretty iffy whether or not they're caused by the Sun.  So I'm just not sure if this is the right place to talk about them.

Do you know if Singer calls it a solar effect?

*edit* whoops yes, it appears that he does.

"Geological evidence also has uncovered a 1,500-year climate cycle, likely caused by the sun — and also unstoppable."

Okay, I may as well add a little section on it.  It's pretty easy to debunk (like duh, the planet wasn't even warming 1,500 years ago).

2010-09-08 08:16:04D-O added
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
Done adding a section on Singer and his silly D-O cycles.  It was actually kind of fun poking fun at Singer in this one.
2010-09-08 09:00:25questions
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.182

- At the beginning of the Advanced posting, you reference the Intermediate posting. What is the logical relationship between these?

 

- I don't see any explanation of what the D-O events actually are. What is the phenomenon that is given this name? There should be a brief description at the beginning of that subsection.

2010-09-08 09:33:10answers
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249

I referenced the intermediate level because it has a good summary of studies which ruled out solar warming.

I added a bit more explanation about what D-O cycles are, and also added a summary of one more study.

2010-09-08 10:09:40You could also add the argument
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.182
that D-O events cause global warming - except when they don't!
2010-09-08 13:04:34live
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Can you make this one live so I can get some feedback on it, John?
2010-09-08 14:25:57Done
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
2010-09-09 08:46:41good to go
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
It doesn't look like I'm getting any more feedback at this point, and I'm happy with it.  So anytime you want to do a blog post on this one, go ahead John.
2010-09-09 09:48:14Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62

As they say on Facebook, more gold dust from Dana :-)

Have gone live - made one tweak. You posted a link to climate sensitivity but linked to the rebuttal preview here in the forum. This will only be visible to authors - the average user cannot view this page. I changed the link to:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

2010-09-09 14:23:57thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

Whoops, I'm glad you caught that.

I think this one turned out well, despite the fact that the first commenter panned it :-)  What's really cool is that I just realized my solar radiative forcing calculation was within 0.05 W-m-2 of the IPCC's, which was a relief, because I didn't think to check it until I was responding to that first comment.  It's sort of like when you do a homework problem and then check the back of the book and see you got the right answer.  Except you forgot to check the answer until after you've turned the assignment in.  Big relief!

I also liked this one because other than the galactic cosmic ray section, I didn't have a wiki written on it, so it was a learning experience.  I didn't realize TSI had changed so little over the past century, I thought the early 20th century increase was larger.

Now I need to decide which rebuttal to do next!

2010-09-09 16:35:40Fixed link
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62

Unfortunately I only spotted it after I'd sent the email out to the mailing list but no big deal.

Always a shame when a skeptic gets the first comment in - that can make a difference to the impact of an article, the tone of the first batch of comments. A few months ago, I spoke to a social scientist PhD student who was actually looking to do research into the influence of a blog's comments thread on the impact of the blog post.

If you're keen to do another rebuttal, I do have a suggestion - would you be interested in investigating this new study that found GRACE measurements of ice loss have previously been overestimated? I find it a curious result considering the GRACE data closely matched over measurements of ice loss and that it makes it harder to close the sea level budget. And the results have been trumpted quite triumphantly among skeptic blogs. So would be interesting to contact a few of the scientists involved in this field to see the significance of the results.

There's the beginning of a discussion thread on this where Robert Way has some good thoughts:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=145

2010-09-10 01:54:00Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.242
I don't mean to overstep my bounds but I was thinking that perhaps Dana should consider looking at the following
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/24055/   post about the armaugh observatory in ireland. I think it was something I was going to do a response to but never got the time to. It seems really straight forward to do a response to this one. The data is available. It wouldn't be hard to show how they use absolute temperatures to hide the recent warming... maybe a 10, 20 year and decadal averages graph with a year to year or something would be sufficient. I like to not use year to year and go with moving averages but obviously it would be your choice. I think it is ultimately very straightforward and shouldn't be a problem with someone with your expertise to address the points mentioned in the post... I do find it odd that Armaugh is not used in the GHCN... especially considering it is one of the highest quality stations in the world...

If you like to go forward with the grace thing i've added some more commentary. I've tried to stick clear of it at this point because it is tumultuous and it would be best to discuss with the real experts before writing anything concrete...
2010-09-10 02:06:49stick with what you know
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249

Well, I'd prefer to stick with rebuttals that I have some knowledge about, because I mostly have time to write them on the weekends.  The solar one, even though I had a good idea as to what I was going to write, still took the good part of a day because I had to research a few papers.

GRACE I know very little about.  And the Armaugh Observatory - I'm not sure it's worthwhile to debunk every time Watts chooses a new surface station to pick on, when you can just look at the surface temperature record as a whole and debunk these urban heat island effects in one fell swoop.  Plus I don't have any good graphing software.