A further post to help Clive and others understand that there is a lot more to the Earth's climate dynamics that the IPCC let on. And, that there is a wealth of evidence of the Sun's pre-eminent role regardless of what the IPCC, CSIRO, BoM or Ross Garnaut says.

Remember Galileo who in another time insisted on a certain role for the Sun even though the cardinals and the Pope decreed otherwise.

This post connects with the previous one

Now read on.......................

There are several well-established relationships between the behaviour of the Sun and the decadal or longer changes in the rotation of the Earth. (Over shorter periods the changes seem all internal to the Earth system).

There is a gravitational relationship; there is a relationship indicating a transfer of angular momentum from the Sun to the Earth via the Sun’s plasma output; there is a relationship between the Sun’s variable electromagnetic field and the Earth’s rotation via the effect on the Earth’s magnetic field.

These relationships have been established by many scientists over many years. There are heaps of papers published in the main solar physics/geophysical peer reviewed scientific journals that put all of these relationships together.

There is also an intriguing relationship reported by several scientists, eg Katya Georgieva of Bulgaria, that connects a transfer of angular momentum to the Sun from the planets of the solar system to the rotation of the Earth via the Sun’s plasma output.

Spikey,

"I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" seems to suggest that agreeing "with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute" was something out of the ordinary for Graham. The two sit well together unless you are looking for something sinister.

'headlined his diatribe against Clive provocatively, "Silencing dissent"' it might be a more provactive headline if it was not the title of a book Clive edited
http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/silencing-dissent/2007/02/09/1170524288496.html

"Hamilton has published a grand total of 12 articles in 6 years and only once has he contributed to a discussion of an article - and that was last week." - how much better if Clive had got down and dirty with the discussions that followed his pieces.

"it is on the same basis as everyone else" - find the places please where Graham or Susan have had different posting priviliges than other posters. Where they have involved themselves in a discussion and posted more often or in more words than allowed to other posters. Tell us about the times where attacks on Graham's logic or beliefs appear to have been censored (other than for clear cut breaches of the published forum rules).

"a man who has forfeited any right to take part in this debate" in context appears to refer to Clives comment "There I also explain why I do not presume to engage in arguments about climate science because I do not have the expertise to do so without making a fool of myself." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580 - there is the forfeit.

OLO carries articles from both sides of what is an important debate, a debate some (such as Clive) wish to declare over but which others of us while holding opinions are still keen to consider the arguments for and against.

I'm personally of the view that the evidence is sufficient to warrent action but the desire of some to have the other side of the debate silenced bothers me a lot. That suggests to me that the information my existing opinions are based on might already have been subjected to those tactics.

R0bert

It can be difficult for non-scientists such as myself to untangle claimed scientific evidence that solar flares and such are behind global warming. However, reading the various posts attempting to establish this link, I remembered and found an ABC science report from 2007. 'Study clears sun of global warming' can be found here:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/07/11/1975695.htm

The article refers to research published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, which can be found here:

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page=1086

The latter page refers to two follow-up articles that back up the initial study. The abstract of the third paper states in part:

"It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

That is to say, as reported by the ABC regarding the initial finding, solar variability is likely to have acted to cool rather than heat the planet in recent times.

In accordance with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence - the IPCC and our own CSIRO included - the warming evident in the atmosphere is resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations (387ppm and rising) from human activity. That's the problem that needs to be addressed nationally, in response to findings from Garnaut, and internationally, as we enter 2009 negotiations for a successor to Kyoto.

The papers cited in the research above are heavily referenced with other recent findings. I very much doubt that the spurious arguments mounted to downplay human influence on climate change can mobilise anything like the same degree of scientific corroboration. Informed debate in response to Garnaut will shape a climate strategy that full acknowledges anthropogenic climate change. Denialism as a credible position is dead in the water.

This is great news in terms of seeing the standards of OLO rising with Clive's departure. It reminds me of a Seinfeld skit with George Costanza as Clive.

George: Gerry, I wrote an opinion in OLO.

Gerry: But you said you weren’t going to write any opinions in OLO

George: Yes that’s right, I wrote an opinion in OLO about not writing an opinion in OLO.

Gerry: But you said you weren’t going to write an opinion in OLO and you also said you weren’t an expert in the field.

George: That’s right Gerry I wrote an opinion in OLO about why I wasn’t going to write an opinion in OLO about a subject I have no expertise in.

Gerry: But that’s not logical.

George: I know, but who said writing an opinion about not writing an opinion about a subject I have no expertise is has to be logical.

Gerry: Yea , you’re right. What are you writing about next?

George: About not writing opinions in areas I have no expertise.

Gerry: I want you to write a final article for OLO explaining why you've decided not to write any more articles for OLO.

George: Well, you know why. I've discussed it with you privately. What's the point?

Gerry: Yes, but I want you to tell OLO readers your reasons. It's your one big chance to tell OLO why you think we are biased and why my attack on Robyn Williams was over-the-top.

George: Yes, but the intelligent ones on OLO already understand that. Besides how can I trust you not to turn my article into just another cheap ad hominem attack?

Gerry: [Crossing fingers behind his back] I promise to play it straight and fair, George. Trust me.

George: Well, if you really think it will make any difference. I'll give it one more shot.

Gerry: [Aside] Got him! By the short and curlies! I'll crucify the bastard! I'm been after him ever since he refused to fund OLO. I'll pull the old freedom of speech versus censorship line - that'll shut him up! I can rely on the loony right OLO cave dwellers to be sucked in with that slogan. Watch them do most of the dirty work for me.

Ah well well gentlemen. It's all over except the shouting and how pleasing to note the release of the Garnaut Report - the way forward.

"Take action on climate now or risk facing more pain," says Garnaut.

Now it's just a matter of sorting out the big polluters - the "who pays for what" via The Trading scheme and the Emissions' targets.

Nevertheless, the howls and the plotting will continue from the fossil fuel industry, the neo-cons, the mining barons, the cartels, the skeptics, who have failed abysmally to acknowledge the mess we're in and who are responsible for taking absolutely no responsibility for trashing the planet.

Ian Campbell, former Liberal environment minister today offered these pearls of wisdom:

"Emissions trading schemes are not new. I promoted them as a sensible way to reduce atmospheric pollution in one of my first speeches as a senator in June 1990."

Sensible way Mr Campbell? 1990 Mr Campbell and you did nothing? It's a pity that you, as environment minister, failed to enforce the existing legislation on atmospheric pollution when you had every opportunity.

Ah but your party enjoys being captured by the big end of town Mr Campbell. It was not on your agenda to upset your donors, or their lobbyists. Aye and is that not the truth, Sir? And look at the mess we're in now. Thanks very much Mr Campbell. Eleven years of eco-vandalism in an age of enlightenment - unbelievable!