Not so fast. It seems to me that the sun’s many different “rays” it sends , and sometimes shoots our way (those we can see or feel, and those we can’t see or feel - or haven’t discovered yet), would have a variety of effects. To ignore them, discount them, minimize them, or even worse, disregard the important null hypothesis beginning point of view for any theory you explore or adhere to, seems decidedly unscientific whether your science is green or not.

If I were to state a hypothesis for global warming being human caused I would want to disprove that view in order to make my case stronger. I would be forced to consider the sun and its many different cosmic rays as potentially strong disproving variables. There is lots we already know. Some types of rays have larger effects with small changes, others have small effects with larger changes, some have only small effects with small changes, still others have large effects with large changes, and some seem only to entertain us as they pass us by. Some may eat ozone, some may simply heat us up much like the coils on a burner, and some may even cause the ocean to froth and boil. I am willing to bet there are many other sun-related effects we haven’t begun to understand and may not even know about. My point is that if you adhere to one or the other point of view, you MUST consider and explore all of these variables as potential theory busters that could readily disprove your heated arguments.

Let’s say I am a green scientist in search of the Nobel Prize II. In my exploration, statistical analysis, and model building of all variables I would be forced to consider many, maybe even hundreds or thousands of models. For example, what if the sun decided to stop shooting its “rays” as strongly as before and our ozone layer thickened up, causing sun reflection from the outside. What if the ocean was in a more CO2 absorbing phase (IE cool and calm), causing insulation thinning from the inside? What if I caused these two things to come together in my model (which I could calculate as a random occurrence or a long term cycle)? Would I be spending my prize money on long underwear? I have yet to see evidence that this kind of extensive null hypothesis model building has been done.

Here’s what I do. Every time someone shows me their modeled theory, I always ask the following question: “Disprove it!”

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt

-.007C. About as expected.

http://tinyurl.com/22rtut

However, their data only goes up to yr 2000 and I don’t think that they used satellite data for global temperature. Thus my interest in a continuation of their plot. And you have the requisite data. Thank you.

good point, which reflects how polarised the issue has become. I agree (as a non-expert) the anomaly of the last 12 months could be reversed, and still fit with an upward trend. Anthony has been scupulous in pointing this out.
However, you gloss over something when you speak of inference rules ‘you chanced to pick up’. It is my impression that the alarmists by no means ‘chanced’ to pick up the notion that we were doomed to fry unless we trashed industry, motorised travel and incandescent light bulbs. They wanted precisely that, and were glad to find a reason to justify it. This is why their predictions were so extreme.
As to why they should wish for such things, I’ll leave alone here, as this is a science blog, and I doubt Anthony will thank me for slipping in a theory of post-Communist ecological millenarian self-Flagellation… oh damn, I’ve said it now.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/solar-geomagnetic-ap.png

Does the geomagnetic spice correspond with the temperature spike in 1999?

REPLY: A worthwhile endeavor. I’ll make a post on it soon.