Comments on: 2006 Hottest Year on Record - So what? Part 2 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/2006-hottest-year-on-record-so-what-part-2/ Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:11:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Greg Miller http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/2006-hottest-year-on-record-so-what-part-2/#comment-46 Greg Miller Mon, 15 Jan 2007 06:22:55 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/2006-hottest-year-on-record-so-what-part-2/#comment-46 I attended the last sustainability conference at Chico State and specifically asked if the computer models they used included solar flux in the variables for global warming. His response was that they did. He indicated that the solar flux correlation was insignificant compared to the CO2 correlation. Also, an article that appeared in Science (Consensus About Climate Change?, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005),Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]) indicated that there was a consensus among the major scientific organizations. but not politicians and business. Can you tell me if the solar variables were used in the modeling? This seems like massive omission for the major scientific organizations to make. Could you also explain how these models work and where they neglected to take the factors you are talking about into consideration? *** Moderators response*** I'll be addressing the things you ask about in Part 3. But the quick answer is that no, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't included solar wind and the changes in earths magentosphere. It appears they only consider visible and infrared. There also appears to be a glaring error related to the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant in the IPCC report. I'll talk about all these these things. I attended the last sustainability conference at Chico State and specifically asked if the computer models they used included solar flux in the variables for global warming. His response was that they did. He indicated that the solar flux correlation was insignificant compared to the CO2 correlation. Also, an article that appeared in Science (Consensus About Climate Change?, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005),Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]) indicated that there was a consensus among the major scientific organizations. but not politicians and business. Can you tell me if the solar variables were used in the modeling? This seems like massive omission for the major scientific organizations to make. Could you also explain how these models work and where they neglected to take the factors you are talking about into consideration?

*** Moderators response***

I’ll be addressing the things you ask about in Part 3. But the quick answer is that no, to the best of my knowledge, they haven’t included solar wind and the changes in earths magentosphere. It appears they only consider visible and infrared. There also appears to be a glaring error related to the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant in the IPCC report. I’ll talk about all these these things.

]]> By: Tina http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/2006-hottest-year-on-record-so-what-part-2/#comment-45 Tina Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:13:07 +0000 http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/2006-hottest-year-on-record-so-what-part-2/#comment-45 <i>Humans tend to extrapolate their experience to their environment. Its only natural to think that when your experience tells you things are different from what you remember "the way it used to be" to go searching for answers.</i> I would bet that most of the Global Warming Zealots live, or grew up, in big cities like LA, SF Bay Area, etc. The air they breath scares them! If they would stop traveling by jet and drive across country, say...in an SUV, they might relax a bit. Clean the smog out of their brains and they might begin to <i>think</i> clearly. Great set of articles...looking forward to the next offering. Humans tend to extrapolate their experience to their environment. Its only natural to think that when your experience tells you things are different from what you remember “the way it used to be” to go searching for answers.

I would bet that most of the Global Warming Zealots live, or grew up, in big cities like LA, SF Bay Area, etc. The air they breath scares them! If they would stop traveling by jet and drive across country, say…in an SUV, they might relax a bit. Clean the smog out of their brains and they might begin to think clearly.

Great set of articles…looking forward to the next offering.

]]>