Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, July 2, 2008 04:55 PM

  manacker's Grossly Misleading Rhetoric

  manacker: "This seems to be getting a bit repetitive, with your latest blurb: “Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.

  Got that yet, manacker?”

  Yep. Got it."

  That's odd, as you only seem to be getting part of it - the part that, presented alone, is taken out of context and grossly distorts what the authors of the report were clearly and unequivocally stressing.

  Gee, what a coincidence.

  Here's what the authors were literally stressing, again here with proper context:

  We stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades... even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.

  manacker: "Did you get this quote from another study:

  “From the figures` we concluded that, if variability of the solar total irradiance is the main channel of the solar influence on climate” [i.e. ignoring the Svensmark hypothesis of cosmic ray flux impact on cloud formation as a solar influence on climate] “then less than 30% (50% in the Willson composite) of the dramatic temperature rise since 1970 can be attributed to the sun.”

  So we are talking 30% to 50%, depending on whose study we are citing."

  Of course I did - and if you read my previous post and comprehended it you would have known that.

  So what part of:

  -----------------

  The very first paper you cited in your list, which included one of the same authors (Solanky) nonetheless puts all this in proper perspective:

  we stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades... even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.

  -----------------

  in my response from that previous post did you not understand, manacker?

  Was it the part where Solanky - again the same author - "stressed" that the 30% number was an "extreme" scenario?

  Or was it the part where Solanky declared: "We stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades"?

  Maybe you actually do understand those words and what they mean, manacker, but one would never know it from from your grossly misleading rhetoric.

  __________________________

  Per the U.S National Academy of Sciences, as well as numerous other national scientific bodies:

  There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate... Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

  http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

  —Publicola Read Publicola's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel