This should give FirstAscent a stroke...

[MoonShadow]

Ice albedo feedback loops positively accelerate warming. A larger polar cap reflects heat back into space. Minus polar caps (or polar caps of diminishing size), more heat is absorbed into the oceans. Same goes for glacial ice sheets.

That too.  It's not an either/or dictonomy.

[iCEBREAKER]

…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing.

Conniption fit in 3...2...1...

You give AssScent too much credit by assuming he has the capacity for cognitive dissonance, rather than lacking the prerequisite IQ > 70.

This Pravda report causally confirms the Climategate hackers were Russian.  Go Team Putin, I guess.  Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all.

It's an excellent, vivacious debunking of ManBearPig in any case.

Global warming, the tool of the West

By Stanislav Mishin

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.

Various groups have fought back. This is including Russian hackers, who published a huge database of UK government, scientific and university emails depicting the fixing of data to sell Global Warming, er Climate Change (as if it never changed on its own). And while taking hit after hit, the beast, like Al Qaida, will not die. As a matter of fact, the beast is on a steady come back, as it is quite useful during the down times recession. The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming "studies", which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation, as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.

Amongst the newest claims of pending disasters, is a cry that icepacks are now melting at three times the rate of the 1990s, even though there has not been any significant warming in the past 20 years. Greenland's icepack melt off, has been linked to volcanic activity under the ice, heating it. Must be the magmamen and their SUVs. These facts, however, do not faze the Gia crowd and their Elite/Governmental backers. The fact that a super storm hit the NE US is also being played as evidence of GW. Thank God that before GW no such things ever happened. How are they to explain that Russia and Eastern Europe are projected to have the coldest winter in 20 years? Oh, but I doubt my Western readers are even aware of that.

Now, with their economies in a spiral of debt laden, non-manufacturing recession (if not out and out depression), the Elites, who sense they are loosing their grip or toe hold on key economic regions outside their home regions, are once again calling out their inquisitors of Global Warming and sending them towards the developing world.

The first salvo has been fired by a British Warming dandy named Lord Nicholas Stern of Brantford, who as an academic at Whitehall, has made a career and quite a bit of money off of this scam. Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist and author of the landmark Stern review of the economics of climate change, was a close associate of Gordon Brown and the Leftists, who with the Tory counterparts and in parallel to the American Democrats/Republicans set up the grand and self destructive economic schemes that have plunged their own nations and many many others into the abyss of poverty.

The good Lord Stern, in commentary on why countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil, in other words, the BRICs, have to pony up cash and depress their own growth, made this statement for the Guardian paper: "It's a brutal arithmetic - the changing structure of the world's economy has been dramatic. That is something developing countries will have to face up to,"

His premise is that even if you take out the deindustrialized West, run away Global Warming will not stop due to the industrialized world. Its now all the fault of those raising themselves up for the destruction of the world, from the phantom joke of GW. Lord Stern tried to assure that the opening salvo was not a salvo, by stating: "I am not pointing the finger at the developing world, just looking at what is necessary. I am not accusing or proposing, just calculating what is needed [to meet scientific estimates of the emissions cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change]". More like a calculated accusation.  After all, this is not some light weight of the GIA cult, but the movement's chief economist who enjoyed the ear of the UK government: a perfect tool of the Western Elites.

Expect the cries to get louder and more shrill in the months to follow.

Stanislav Mishin

The article originally appears on author's blog, Mat Rodina

[scrybe]

before this get any more painful and embarrassing:

the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.

Dude, we are not talking about a little bit of ice.  While the ice-in-a-glass analogy has obvious flaws, the effect would certainly have a dampening effect upon the global averages, for no other reason than the area that is 'local' to the polar ice does make up a significant portion of the globe, and cannot much exceed 32 degrees F lest the melting of the ice absorb that heat.

We are also not talking about a little bit of water...

Ice:

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.  Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September.  The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure.  Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011  trend.

Water:

"The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"

So using 2012 numbers and just polar sea ice we have a ratio of 385,294:1 in favor of water. Mean numbers since 1979 give us 45,644:1.

If we add in Greenland and the Antarctic Ice in the water (along with all other water-borne ice) you still "only" get 620,000 km3 (2005 numbers, fun paper to read: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html) for a ratio of 2112:1 in favor of water.

Even if we dump every last icicle and snowball in the ocean and clear every mountain and continent of all ice, we still only get down to 44:1 water to ice ratio.

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

THIS is why I'm sure FirstAscent was positively giddy when that analogy was used, it is so ridiculous if you look at the numbers that it beggars belief.

Thanks for the laugh guys,

Scrybe

PS, I just watched this today, please consider the points he makes at the very beginning related to his views on GM Food and the issue he encountered when he tried to rationalize that view and his views on Climate Change.

An environmentalist apologises for opposing GM and talks about how learning about Global Warming have demanded a science literacy that his anti-GM views could not survive. Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 http://buff.ly/TMDkzT

PPS, did someone just seriously refer to Climategate as if there was any actual damning evidence found? It was an abject failure actually detecting any fraud or ethics violations after 8 major investigations. Using that as your ammunition is like choosing the Nerf sword instead of a real one. Of course the first paragraph of the quote above shows how insane this mindset is, it does not even slightly reflect the reality in the US where we have finally gotten to a bare majority of the population believing that humans are responsible, and far less than half of our Federal, State and Local politicians. The people are pushing our leaders to accept the scientific consensus, not the other way around.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)

[myrkul]

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

Heh. That's quite an image. But the point was not that the sea ice would be able to maintain an equilibrium of 32°. The point was that the melting of the ice would serve to dampen any heating effect.

[MoonShadow]

before this get any more painful and embarrassing:

the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.

Dude, we are not talking about a little bit of ice.  While the ice-in-a-glass analogy has obvious flaws, the effect would certainly have a dampening effect upon the global averages, for no other reason than the area that is 'local' to the polar ice does make up a significant portion of the globe, and cannot much exceed 32 degrees F lest the melting of the ice absorb that heat.

We are also not talking about a little bit of water...

Ice:

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.  Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September.  The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure.  Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011  trend.

Water:

"The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"

So using 2012 numbers and just polar sea ice we have a ratio of 385,294:1 in favor of water. Mean numbers since 1979 give us 45,644:1.

If we add in Greenland and the Antarctic Ice in the water (along with all other water-borne ice) you still "only" get 620,000 km3 (2005 numbers, fun paper to read: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html) for a ratio of 2112:1 in favor of water.

Even if we dump every last icicle and snowball in the ocean and clear every mountain and continent of all ice, we still only get down to 44:1 water to ice ratio.

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

THIS is why I'm sure FirstAscent was positively giddy when that analogy was used, it is so ridiculous if you look at the numbers that it beggars belief.

Thanks for the laugh guys,

Scrybe

Wow, you really missed the point.

[scrybe]

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

Heh. That's quite an image. But the point was not that the sea ice would be able to maintain an equilibrium of 32°. The point was that the melting of the ice would serve to dampen any heating effect.

Ok, how much "dampening" do you expect?

Or would the small amount of ice melting more and more quickly be more of an indicator that the system's overall temperature was increasing?

The other problem is that it's not a cube, it's really a thin sheet over 1 corner of the top of the container, so we have to deal with a much larger surface area.

Here is a tidbit from the ice study I linked:

However, when spread over the area  covered by Arctic sea ice, the additional energy required to melt this much sea ice is actually quite small. It corresponds to about 0.4 Wm-2 . That’s like leaving a very small and dim flashlight bulb continuously burning on every square meter of ice.

So I'm going with the scientific consensus on this one, the polar ice cap is (mostly) a warning gauge, not the engine or brakes on our climate change train.

FYI, you should not try to believe in climate change, that requires adhering to a dogma and having faith that something is True (note the capital 'T',) you appear to do pretty well with this, but it's more the area for theology than science. Instead think about acceptingthe scientific consensus that a vast majority of climate scientists and others have been able to prove aspects of using decades of research. It might seem like a difference in semantics, but the latter leaves open to possibility that science is wrong (in general, or on particulars) and you can accept these updates without having to burn them into your "I believe!-database" (or your heart as non-geeks like to call it) which is far more resistant to logical arguments or changing (thank goodness for this, it keeps me married!)

I really like the way this smart guy puts it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0 (really good part starts at 1:30)

[scrybe]

Wow, you really missed the point.

There were a lot of points that were made (and several that were abortively made) I was pointing out how blatantly obvious it was that sea ice was not going to be a massive brake, especially given that we now have less than 10% as much of it each winter as we did over the mean of 1979-2012.

I also like math and reducing large numbers to things I can wrap my arms (or a large truck) around, so it was fun all by itself.

Tell a Thai that you went on vacation, and they will ask you "was it fun", I think they are onto something...

If you want some real refutation to the inital publication, here is a snippet of one that gets down in the weeds pretty well:

The major problems in the paper, however, invalidate it _far_ before they get to that point:

• They misapply a test for non-stationary series (with unit roots), and falsely conclude that temperature and forcing are non-stationary.
• Based on that error, they differentiate (difference) both until their erroneous test shows stationary series.
• Proper testing shows both temperature and forcing lack unit roots, are therefore stationary, and _time series regression is therefore the proper method_ rather than differencing. Even using the unit root they apply (ADF), on appropriate data (1975 on, linear trend with variation around it), the unit root is strongly rejected.
• Therefore: Their paper is not even wrong.
• Note: this means their paper does not support or falsify either the AGW _or their null hypothesis_ - you can conclude NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that regard due to invalid techniques, and the initial error regarding unit root identification. There is no support there for your claims regarding their null hypothesis, no matter how you rephrase it.
• As is, any usage of this paper to rebut AGW and/or CO2 correlation with global temperatures should be considered pre-failed. Said attempts to do so should also be considered credibility seppuku.

Proper analysis, with time series regression, has been done by multiple investigators - ALL of them have found causal links between greenhouse gas forcing and temperature.

Another analysis also using a unit root: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/a-rooty-solution-to-my-weight-gain-problem/

The big thing about unit roots is the fact that they do not occur in a deterministic system. Who wants to make the arguments that the climate is truly a random-walk and the laws of physics have no effect that could cause a change?

[myrkul]

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

Heh. That's quite an image. But the point was not that the sea ice would be able to maintain an equilibrium of 32°. The point was that the melting of the ice would serve to dampen any heating effect.

Ok, how much "dampening" do you expect?

Or would the small amount of ice melting more and more quickly be more of an indicator that the system's overall temperature was increasing?

Overall heat energy, not temperature. I do not believe I have ever disputed that there is more heat energy than before, at least over a relatively short timescale. What I have disputed is that: 1. this is necessarily a bad thing, and 2. humans have caused it.

I have seen no conclusive proof of either, so I remain skeptical of both claims.

[scrybe]

Overall heat energy, not temperature. I do not believe I have ever disputed that there is more heat energy than before, at least over a relatively short timescale. What I have disputed is that: 1. this is necessarily a bad thing, and 2. humans have caused it.

I have seen no conclusive proof of either, so I remain skeptical of both claims.

So you just said you don't even believe this paper, because it's methods are deeply flawed and its findings are not the same as what you put forth above.

On point 1, WTF is WRONG with you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming tell me what in this is NOT bad?

Here, read this and you might have a better understanding of this issue. It is quite obvious that you either don't know or don't care what is going on. http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Booklets/Lines-of-Evidence

I can see why he didn't want to respond to your trolling, I'm about to bow out myself.

[fornit]

Overall heat energy, not temperature. I do not believe I have ever disputed that there is more heat energy than before, at least over a relatively short timescale. What I have disputed is that: 1. this is necessarily a bad thing, and 2. humans have caused it.

I have seen no conclusive proof of either, so I remain skeptical of both claims.

would you understand conclusive proof?
i can safely say conclusive proof that human activity plays a significant role in climate change could bite me in the ass and i wouldnt notice. this is not like the physics of thrown objects, needing only a few formulas and allowing for simple self-made experiments. unless you intend to spend months digging into the topic, trusting the scientific consent is the only thing you can do. and there is consent.

[myrkul]

Overall heat energy, not temperature. I do not believe I have ever disputed that there is more heat energy than before, at least over a relatively short timescale. What I have disputed is that: 1. this is necessarily a bad thing, and 2. humans have caused it.

I have seen no conclusive proof of either, so I remain skeptical of both claims.

So you just said you don't even believe this paper, because it's methods are deeply flawed and its findings are not the same as what you put forth above.

Firstly, I never said that I did accept this paper as gospel. I merely stated that it would give FirstAscent a stroke, and that he would throw a conniption fit. He performed exactly as predicted. Secondly, nothing I stated contradicts the statement made by the paper.

On point 1, WTF is WRONG with you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming tell me what in this is NOT bad?

I see quite a lot of negative impacts for the human species. Very few for the earth as a whole. You seem to have a very limited understanding of environmentalism. It's about saving Mother Earth, isn't it, not just people?

Here, read this and you might have a better understanding of this issue. It is quite obvious that you either don't know or don't care what is going on. http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Booklets/Lines-of-Evidence

Thank you, I'll put that on my reading list. I warn you, though, it's a very long list. I may get to it some time in 2015.

[bb113]

The big thing about unit roots is the fact that they do not occur in a deterministic system. Who wants to make the arguments that the climate is truly a random-walk and the laws of physics have no effect that could cause a change?

I can't say anything about whether the paper is valid or not, but I highly doubt this accurately describes what is going on here. For example, by your definition what in the universe would not be a deterministic system?

[scrybe]

The big thing about unit roots is the fact that they do not occur in a deterministic system. Who wants to make the arguments that the climate is truly a random-walk and the laws of physics have no effect that could cause a change?

I can't say anything about whether the paper is valid or not, but I highly doubt this accurately describes what is going on here. For example, by your definition what in the universe would not be a deterministic system?

That's my point. The analysis method used by the author of the paper requires an assumption that is utterly and provably invalid.

[bb113]

The big thing about unit roots is the fact that they do not occur in a deterministic system. Who wants to make the arguments that the climate is truly a random-walk and the laws of physics have no effect that could cause a change?

I can't say anything about whether the paper is valid or not, but I highly doubt this accurately describes what is going on here. For example, by your definition what in the universe would not be a deterministic system?

That's my point. The analysis method used by the author of the paper requires an assumption that is utterly and provably invalid.

I don't think so. While the universe may also be ultimately deterministic (everything was decided at the moment of the big bang), our understanding of the laws of nature are incomplete and therefore we model the various unknowns as random processes. The idea is that as we discover more natural laws then we can reduce the amount of deviation from our model bit by bit.

So while I do not know enough about cointegration to really say anything in detail, the idea that the method is flawed because climate is not truly a random walk does not make sense to me.

[scrybe]

So you just said you don't even believe this paper, because it's methods are deeply flawed and its findings are not the same as what you put forth above.

Firstly, I never said that I did accept this paper as gospel. I merely stated that it would give FirstAscent a stroke, and that he would throw a conniption fit. He performed exactly as predicted. Secondly, nothing I stated contradicts the statement made by the paper.

I see quite a lot of negative impacts for the human species. Very few for the earth as a whole. You seem to have a very limited understanding of environmentalism. It's about saving Mother Earth, isn't it, not just people?

Thank you, I'll put that on my reading list. I warn you, though, it's a very long list. I may get to it some time in 2015.
[/quote]

He did so because you were putting it forward and defending it as if you believed in it's position. But the entire paper is patently invalid (which you should have been able to determine on your own before posting it) so this looks more and more like a troll-fest.

Honestly, my personal view is fuck the planet, this is about the species. Of course I also think that it would be really nice to eventually have an ancestral homeland that our future descendants can visit from the stars (<1000 years, peanuts in geologic and climate cycles) that is not a lesson i what NOT to do to a planet. We also only have 1 home until we colonize other planets, asteroids, etc in large numbers and even then earth is going to be critical to a large percentage of the human population unless/until we go interstellar. This is likely to take more than 100 years, and the cliamte change effects that are being predicted are significant enough that they present a danger before we can expand. So that's what I personally think.

But even if I was a naked green-painted whackjob driving a sustainable bio-diesel shoebox from destroying a GM farm to a tree-spiking party and then on to vandalize some SUV's with my tree-hugging, sandal wearing, dope smoking, patchouli smelling, whale loving, humanity apologists of an Environmentalist (please note this is not a typical model, I'm picking the most extreme environmentalist I can, no insult is intended to the vast majority, yes I was competing for most adverbs in a single sentence.) Even then I would have a huge objection - Destruction of BioDiversity. If Gaea is a living thing, then chopping off entire species must be painful. The fact that humans caused it (certainly in this guys mind) and we know how to feel guilty, is just icing on the cake.

Either way it's bad news, give it long enough and the planet will recover, but why not help it (and ourselves) along, instead of just letting the steamroller slowly crush us from the toes up.

That is a good, up to date primer, run through it earlier in the process and you will be better off.

[ElectricMucus]

I thought I'd post that for hilarity. Apparently there are SUVs on Neptune.
Oh and I researched the "debunking" too, the data on solar irradiance is supposed to be false. If it weren't for the Neptune chart that would be almost believable

[scrybe]

That's my point. The analysis method used by the author of the paper requires an assumption that is utterly and provably invalid.

I don't think so. While the universe may also be ultimately deterministic (everything was decided at the moment of the big bang), our understanding of the laws of nature are incomplete and therefore we model the various unknowns as random processes. The idea is that as we discover more natural laws then we can reduce the amount of deviation from our model bit by bit.

So while I do not know enough about cointegration to really say anything in detail, the idea that the method is flawed because climate is not truly a random walk does not make sense to me.
[/quote]

Polynomial co-integration is a technique from the world of the Austrian School of Economics (http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/eco/es-264.pdf) that is used when you are trying to find correlations between a bunch of data that you THINK is related, but you don't know HOW.

It's not just a matter of degree like you are stating, we know some stuff, not every little niggle, but we still know enough to show that the climate DOES have forcings (multiple, not just 1) that influence things from one year to the next. We know the basic rules (even if Bill O'Riley thinks we don't know what causes tides. Yes, he really said that.) and we know that the movement from year to year is not in a random pattern.

I'm pretty sure if I was a climate scientist I'd either be laughing or crying about how inappropriate this analysis method is. As it is I'm pretty appalled.

[myrkul]

Honestly, my personal view is fuck the planet, this is about the species. Of course I also think that it would be really nice to eventually have an ancestral homeland that our future descendants can visit from the stars (<1000 years, peanuts in geologic and climate cycles) that is not a lesson i what NOT to do to a planet.

Ah, an honest environmentalist. Yes, I think I can work with you. I, too, would like to preserve the species. That is the main reason I am so strongly in favor of setting up shop, at the very least, on the moon. There are other reasons I favor space research, such as moving the really nasty processes up into space, so as to not pollute our nice pretty planet, thus far the only one we've discovered capable of supporting human life in a shirtsleeves environment. We might even be able to generate or collect all our energy up there, and just beam it down, clean as can be.

But all that needs more technological progress, not a shrieking flight from it, like I see so often.

[bb113]

Polynomial co-integration is a technique from the world of the Austrian School of Economics (http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/eco/es-264.pdf) that is used when you are trying to find correlations between a bunch of data that you THINK is related, but you don't know HOW.

It's not just a matter of degree like you are stating, we know some stuff, not every little niggle, but we still know enough to show that the climate DOES have forcings (multiple, not just 1) that influence things from one year to the next. We know the basic rules (even if Bill O'Riley thinks we don't know what causes tides. Yes, he really said that.) and we know that the movement from year to year is not in a random pattern.

I'm pretty sure if I was a climate scientist I'd either be laughing or crying about how inappropriate this analysis method is. As it is I'm pretty appalled.

Look at a graph of temperature (even the average of average of average ones). Pretty much none of the "niggles" are explained, and are therefore validly modeled non-deterministically (ie stochastically). There may be problems with using cointegration to describe climate, but I am confident you are not describing them well since it makes no sense.

[scrybe]

I thought I'd post that for hilarity. Apparently there are SUVs on Neptune.
Oh and I researched the "debunking" too, the data on solar irradiance is supposed to be false. If it weren't for the Neptune chart that would be almost believable

Well hello there, I had to take you off ignore for this one (FYI, I found several of your comments in this thread insightful and thought provoking, I'm not sure what is wrong with me )

I'm pretty sure that the "other planets are warming too" thing came from a session where they just compared all the graphs to find several that went in the same direction.

Here is a good recap of the details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-basic.htm

I like the Neptune one the best because most people have no concept of the speed seasons change with that 164 year orbital period. Not sure if they have SUV's or not, but if they have spring fashions like our coed's do, you might want to visit a Neptuntian University and take in the sights.

Also the earth solar forcing has been uncooperative since the temperature keeps going up when it goes up, or down, or stays the same.

(FYI, the intermediate tab has this gem: "On the other hand, Uranus is cooling")