Soon and Briggs: Global-warming fanat...

Soon and Briggs: Global-warming fanatics take note – Sunspots do impact climate

There are 91 comments on the Free Republic story from Sep 12, 2012, titled Soon and Briggs: Global-warming fanatics take note – Sunspots do impact climate. In it, Free Republic reports that:

Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

litesong

Everett, WA

#21 Sep 12, 2012
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
..... name some deniers and explain exactly what they deny?


"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling", without a hi skule deegreee & with errors of as much as 500 million TIMES, believes he can assign homework(altho he never got a teaching certificate & never did homework in his life).

He is also sick, & best described as a slimy(slithery) steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#22 Sep 12, 2012
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the same legacy as the one that drove me to emigrate.
The Labour party's finest created a cartel interested in directed low skill low wage labour & rack rental.
The low skill low wage labour cartel of wage theives trading as agencies is now history.
The rack rental cartel has destroyed the bulk of the 1st time housebuyers, and successfully enabled continued construction of a subsidised tenament to become the next labour party tied rack rental sink estate. The result of this subsidy has been a £30,000 reduction in the asking price for my house and (currently at least), one estate agent going to the wall.
My career is still history, and currently my nose is out of shape as a result of a dose of silly name calling & vandalism inspired by a labour party union leader in social services whom advocated that I work for the cartels & threw the teddy out of the pram when the labour party lost the last election.
As for the "social home" dwellers responsible for that episode last year... One was jailed as a result of the failure of the "care in the community order" that she was released under, One other was jailed for 4 years for burglary and 2 families were evicted for anti sociel behaviour one of which appears to be the family of said burglar.
The MP advocating all this mess was Mike O Brien whom is justifiably out of office.
Been nice & quiet this year.
have a nice day: Ag
"Been nice & quiet this year?"

Did you go to the Olympics?

Have a nice day, Ag.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#23 Sep 12, 2012
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show

Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ju...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#24 Sep 12, 2012
Soon and Briggs haven't been honest in labelling their graph.

The source of the total solar irradiance data is certainly not Berkeley.

Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance only go back to 1979.

Previous data must be a reconstruction, but from where?

Soon and Briggs total solar irradiance graph line doesn't look like other attempts to combine sun spot reconstructions and the satellite record.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Sola...

None of the satellite data sets show a sharp rise in irradiance since 1979, as Soon and Briggs graph does.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Var...

A sceptic would want to know where Soon and Briggs data come from and why they don't match other graphs.

A sceptic would also suspect that the reason the graph doesn't match is that once again that $1,000,000 has bought the results the fossil fuel industry wants to see.

Errors, misrepresentations and deceptions presented as scientific evidence that AGW is not a problem.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#25 Sep 13, 2012
FuGyou wrote:
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
James E Hansen ha received $1.6 million in undisclosed income.

Muller used money supplied by the Koch bros.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26 Sep 13, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
Soon and Briggs haven't been honest in labelling their graph.
The source of the total solar irradiance data is certainly not Berkeley.
Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance only go back to 1979.
Previous data must be a reconstruction, but from where?
Soon and Briggs total solar irradiance graph line doesn't look like other attempts to combine sun spot reconstructions and the satellite record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Sola...
None of the satellite data sets show a sharp rise in irradiance since 1979, as Soon and Briggs graph does.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Var...
A sceptic would want to know where Soon and Briggs data come from and why they don't match other graphs.
A sceptic would also suspect that the reason the graph doesn't match is that once again that $1,000,000 has bought the results the fossil fuel industry wants to see.
Errors, misrepresentations and deceptions presented as scientific evidence that AGW is not a problem.
So where did skeptical science get their graph? The most glaring descrepancy is the TSI values. Lower in the Soon and Briggs graph than in any of the graphs you posted.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#28 Sep 13, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So where did skeptical science get their graph?
From the peer reviewed literature.

Here's a comparison of TSI from the peer reviewed literature with Soon and Briggs:

http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-N...

Once again deniers prove how entirely unsceptical they really are.

A graph is presented that claims to overturn AGW science, and they don't even question the source.

If this was as graph from a scientist, you'd be demanding the data and the source code, you hypocrite.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#30 Sep 13, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again deniers prove how entirely unsceptical they really are.
A graph is presented that claims to overturn AGW science, and they don't even question the source.
One factor here is that the Soon and Baliunas chart puts but plots on the same chart without 'equivalent scaling'. If the two were properly scaled, the solar trace would be nearly flat (as shown in the correction)This sort of 'misleading presentation' is common among junk science.

Nor is the 'correlation' convincing. In general, there are signficant departures in the 'solar constant' plot that have no effect on the temperature plot. This is hardly convincing evidence of the connection claimed.

Two other deception are noted when closely examined. First, the temperature track is of the Contiguous USA, which is a cherry picked micro-climate not related to GLOBAL temperatures.

The other misleading touch is that the temperature is of 'daily maximum' temperature instead of the GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE (what they are claiming to be studying). This is another case of deliberate cherry picking utilizing the fact that the effect of AGW is primarily in higher LOW temperatures and more in the upper latitudes (as against the USA's more southerly location).

Baliunas and Soon have shown that they are no longer reputable scientists but have moved into political manipulation. And this unpublished, non-peer reviewed junk science is clear evidence of that. They really should be ashamed to show their faces.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32 Sep 13, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
One factor here is that the Soon and Baliunas chart puts but plots on the same chart without 'equivalent scaling'. If the two were properly scaled, the solar trace would be nearly flat (as shown in the correction)This sort of 'misleading presentation' is common among junk science.
Nor is the 'correlation' convincing. In general, there are signficant departures in the 'solar constant' plot that have no effect on the temperature plot. This is hardly convincing evidence of the connection claimed.
Two other deception are noted when closely examined. First, the temperature track is of the Contiguous USA, which is a cherry picked micro-climate not related to GLOBAL temperatures.
The other misleading touch is that the temperature is of 'daily maximum' temperature instead of the GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE (what they are claiming to be studying). This is another case of deliberate cherry picking utilizing the fact that the effect of AGW is primarily in higher LOW temperatures and more in the upper latitudes (as against the USA's more southerly location).
Baliunas and Soon have shown that they are no longer reputable scientists but have moved into political manipulation. And this unpublished, non-peer reviewed junk science is clear evidence of that. They really should be ashamed to show their faces.
All true, but the real question is: where do their TSI data come from? The satellite data don't show the jump in TSI that Soon and Briggs show in their graph.

My guess is they ignored the satellite data and did their own dodgy reconstruction of TSI from recent sun spot activity.

Where real scientists have to submit their methodology to peer review, the agenda driven pseudo scientists pick a method that gives them the results they want to see, and the pseudo sceptics obligingly swallow the results, in complete contrast to the way they demand sources, raw data, methodology, workings out and source code from any scientist that produces results they don't want to see.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#33 Sep 13, 2012
PNAS: Peer Review or Old Boy Network?
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/09/23/pnas-pee...
PHD

Houston, TX

#34 Sep 14, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
PNAS: Peer Review or Old Boy Network?
PNAS: Pushing North Allday Stupid. Your forte would be useless babble tainted with hate covered with spam cut and paste.You can't answer a 2nd grade question.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#35 Sep 14, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
From the peer reviewed literature.
Here's a comparison of TSI from the peer reviewed literature with Soon and Briggs:
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-N...
Once again deniers prove how entirely unsceptical they really are.
A graph is presented that claims to overturn AGW science, and they don't even question the source.
If this was as graph from a scientist, you'd be demanding the data and the source code, you hypocrite.
So where did you get that graph from? And the first graph still doesn't have a source.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#36 Sep 14, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So where did you get that graph from? And the first graph still doesn't have a source.
The Skeptical Science graph is here, with a link to the peer reviewed research:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...

The second graph was posted by Leif Svalgaard at Wattatwat:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-an...

He's a solar physicist working on reconstructions of TSI from proxy data.

He reckons Soon and Briggs have used a 20 year old outdated TSI reconstruction.

He links to a summary of the latest research and peer reviewed TSI reconstructions here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-an...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37 Sep 14, 2012
So, what is ff going to do with all that??

"The usual" is the answer.
PHD

Houston, TX

#38 Sep 14, 2012
So what is the dirtling going to do next? Yes more useless babble coming to your new topic soon real soon.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#39 Sep 15, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The Skeptical Science graph is here, with a link to the peer reviewed research:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...
The second graph was posted by Leif Svalgaard at Wattatwat:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-an...
He's a solar physicist working on reconstructions of TSI from proxy data.
He reckons Soon and Briggs have used a 20 year old outdated TSI reconstruction.
He links to a summary of the latest research and peer reviewed TSI reconstructions here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-an...
Followed the reference provided by skeptical science, the Soon and Briggs graph, looks pretty much like the originals produced by the study by Krivova et al 2010.

It does in fact show that our recent solar activity was higher than at any other time in the period analyzed. Why switch horses in the middle of the stream? If you are analyzing reconstructed TSI then take it all the way, don't stop one set of data to replace it with another set of data. So why did skeptial science use TSI and PMOD to make one graph?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#40 Sep 15, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
All true, but the real question is: where do their TSI data come from? The satellite data don't show the jump in TSI that Soon and Briggs show in their graph.
My guess is they ignored the satellite data and did their own.
When the paper is available to read we will see the data source.

The TSI values presented do in fact look like the TSI satelitte data. Difference is the time period. The 'jump' you see is from before TSI satelitte data.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#41 Sep 15, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
One factor here is that the Soon and Baliunas chart puts but plots on the same chart without 'equivalent scaling'. If the two were properly scaled, the solar trace would be nearly flat (as shown in the correction)This sort of 'misleading presentation' is common among junk science.
Nor is the 'correlation' convincing. In general, there are signficant departures in the 'solar constant' plot that have no effect on the temperature plot. This is hardly convincing evidence of the connection claimed.
Two other deception are noted when closely examined. First, the temperature track is of the Contiguous USA, which is a cherry picked micro-climate not related to GLOBAL temperatures.
The other misleading touch is that the temperature is of 'daily maximum' temperature instead of the GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE (what they are claiming to be studying). This is another case of deliberate cherry picking utilizing the fact that the effect of AGW is primarily in higher LOW temperatures and more in the upper latitudes (as against the USA's more southerly location).
Baliunas and Soon have shown that they are no longer reputable scientists but have moved into political manipulation. And this unpublished, non-peer reviewed junk science is clear evidence of that. They really should be ashamed to show their faces.
Nothing is misleading, it is clearly stated what was studied.

From the article

"Even small changes in solar radiation may have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, one of us demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, we have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the U.S. mainland and China. The confirmation of a sun-temperature relation using only the daytime-high-temperature records from the United States certainly adds scientific weight to the soundness of this connection.

Read more: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42 Sep 15, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Followed the reference provided by skeptical science, the Soon and Briggs graph, looks pretty much like the originals produced by the study by Krivova et al 2010.
It does in fact show that our recent solar activity was higher than at any other time in the period analyzed. Why switch horses in the middle of the stream? If you are analyzing reconstructed TSI then take it all the way, don't stop one set of data to replace it with another set of data. So why did skeptial science use TSI and PMOD to make one graph?
No it doesn't.

Soon and Briggs show TSI rising sharply over the last three decades; Krivova shows it falling.

You don't use proxy data where you have direct measurement.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43 Sep 15, 2012
Denier language is spoken in: "Given the wide, and perhaps at times excessive, interest in tying carbon dioxide to climate, there has been relatively little work investigating the solar-climate connection."

Duh. Excessive? That's the adjective for spewing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into our breath, our air.

Relatively little work? Nonsense. It shows lack of knowledge in science. Also, so does this lie:

The scientific community has proved the wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said,“The sun shines and warms and lights us and we have no curiosity to know why this is so.”

Why is it the liars are deniers and vice versa??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Some creepy stuff went down on St. Joe (20 phot... 4 hr Green 1
News 'Substantial damage' reported after tornadoes t... 5 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 1
News Heavy rainfall expected in Halton Hills Tuesday 8 hr last nite 4
News Flash flood advisory for Northeast El Paso Tue DC Dave 4
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) Tue silly rabbit 114
News They didna t expect theya d have to salvage pie... Tue grovenanny 1
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Tue Jim Mac 787
More from around the web