The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

[Bill12 (Bill J)]

‘…no interest in exploring it.’

The problem is that so much of the stuff you offer just makes the same claim without any real evidence and twists the perspective on the data to suit the argument. For example, you said -

‘In the early and mid part of the 20th century the output was nearly the same because there hadn’t been a large change in greenhouse gas to that point. In this time period the input was the main driver. Later in the 20th century there was a rapid and drastic change in heat output which drove warming.’

Its interesting to me how you can at first say that the heat inputs were roughly the same in the two periods (although you’ve seen my summing of sunspots that indicate the later was more, but probably only marginally), go on to agree that, in the earlier time period, that amount of heat input was the main driver of warming and then simply ignore the effect of the same (or a little more) heat input later. I think you need to sit with this a while.

Now, when you compare the temp increase of those two periods, you find that the earlier one is about 0.10 C/decade versus approx. 0.15 C/decade later. If you simply give credit to the same amount of heat input having the same warming, then you reduce the presumed impact from the increasing CO2 ghg effect to about 1/3 of what has been assessed when giving essentially no credit to the sun.

Of course, this means that there was more warming later, than earlier, and very likely attributable to the increasing CO2. Even so, it would appear that solar heat input was still responsible for the majority of the warming at the beginning and the end of the century, and is still the stronger climate driver today.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Bill12

…just makes the same claim without any real evidence

That is just plain not true. You must have a visual disability that prevents you from understanding graphs.

Nah, you just selectively ignore the many that do not support your extreme bias towards minimal changes in solar irradiance.

[T_aquaticus]

@Bill12

The green line is where temps would be based on the precept that solar energy must continue to increase in order to drive warming, for which I see no serious evidence, only conjecture by those who need an argument to allow for more impact from CO2.

You have been shown that evidence. Here is some more:

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years

Solar input has been changing slightly up and down for the last 2,000 years, but no large changes in global temps were seen. It wasn’t until there was a big upsurge in CO2 that we saw a large increase in temp. That’s the evidence.

@Bill12

I do understand that there is a lot of climate material that has been produced based on the assumption of little, or no, solar-driven warming 1965-2006,

It isn’t an assumption. It’s a conclusion based on mountains of data, data that you refuse to acknowledge.

@Bill12

To the contrary, when you add up the total heat input from the earlier solar-driven, strong warming period (circ 1913-1954), you find that it was less and yet still considered the primary warming driver at that time. How can even more heat, over the same 42 year time-span, later the same century, not be responsible for at least as much warming?!

At least as much warming? Are you kidding? Look at the picture above. Do you see any time period other than the present where there was anything close to the same amount of warming?

You go on and on about evidence, so why is it that you misrepresent the facts so badly?

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Bill,

You are talking to the wrong person. The text you quoted came from someone else.

With respect to the issue of analysis and evidence:

• The IPCC models consider all plausible inputs, including solar activity
• They also model interactions between forces and geophysical systems.
• They compute the mathematics over a vast array of historical data
• They set aside a certain period of output data (e.g., ocean and land temperatures) as a test bed to verify the accuracy of the computations.
• They base their conclusions on those verified computations
• The forward predictions of the models have been strongly confirmed by subsequent climate trends.

All of this is explained in exquisite detail in the sources I linked to, but you have chosen not to read.

This conversation seems to be going nowhere fast. I can’t think of anything else productive to say, so I simply bid you a good day and God’s blessings.

@moderators - I suggest the time has come to close this thread.