Originally Posted by Justin '77

I note, no examples. Even of somewhere that I 'disparaged' contrary data. You might have a hard time finding those (just a heads-up), since I've not done it.

Anyway, it is not science that insists on an up-front explanation for everything; that's religion. And as for comparisons with creationists, I would simply contrast their faith in their priests and sacred texts with the AGW crowds' faith in the Professional (so well illustrated above). Science is questioning, not trusting; it is the one rigorous test that falsifies, not the ten thousand equally rigorous ones that failed to.

If you can't find where you disparaged main line climate science in your recent posts, you are detached from reality indeed.

Which sacred text was it that the scientists follow? I thought it was a political agenda, not a religious vocation? What rigorous falsifying test are you speaking of? Would you care to give me a reference for these things, or do you just have a religious faith that they exist? Do you have any real reason to suggest that climate scientists as a class are driven by political or religious values, rather than scientific ones?

On the libertarian / anarchist thread, I was able to stay with you. I saw it as plausible that you could sincerely believe that language was relevant, even if you were really short on how language contributes to the shaping of societies. Over here, I'm starting to agree with Brian.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If you can't find where you disparaged main line climate science in your recent posts, you are detached from reality indeed.

Talk about changing the subject!

You've gone from claiming I "throw away as much data hostile to [my] conclusion as possible." to saying that I "disparag[e]" the Majority Wisdom. As if those two had anything to do with each other.


Although, I suppose I appreciate your so clearly demonstrating the very degradation of science into mere Consensus that I've bemoaned. So, thanks for that.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If you can't find where you disparaged main line climate science in your recent posts, you are detached from reality indeed.

Which sacred text was it that the scientists follow? I thought it was a political agenda, not a religious vocation? What rigorous falsifying test are you speaking of? Would you care to give me a reference for these things, or do you just have a religious faith that they exist? Do you have any real reason to suggest that climate scientists as a class are driven by political or religious values, rather than scientific ones?

On the libertarian / anarchist thread, I was able to stay with you. I saw it as plausible that you could sincerely believe that language was relevant, even if you were really short on how language contributes to the shaping of societies. Over here, I'm starting to agree with Brian.

Which sacred text was it that the scientists follow? I thought it was a political agenda, not a religious vocation? What rigorous falsifying test are you speaking of? Would you care to give me a reference for these things, or do you just have a religious faith that they exist? Do you have any real reason to suggest that climate scientists as a class are driven by political or religious values, rather than scientific ones?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Power over others, of course. Remaking society in their own image.

They're hardly the only ones, though... It's all very Boomerish.

Oh, come on. "Power over others?" That's just boilerplate stuff. So are the "Boomer" references. You'll have to do better than that to convince me.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The reason AGW climate models so far have failed to stand up to the question of scientific rigor is that the datasets against which they are tested are the sets by which they were created. So far none have succeeded in successfully predicting anything which they hadn't been told ahead of time. That's not science. At least, not good science.

Have you attempted correspondence with any climate scientists? You seem to have relevant technical knowledge and could suggest better tests. My understanding is the most of the testing is on a per module basis (i.e. they try to validate certain parts of the model individually). Perhaps a climate scientist would be able to address your concerns. I don't actually know enough about the state of climate science to determine whether the modeling is any good.

I tend to be skeptical of criticisms of a field of study coming from outside that field. In any matter of dueling experts, the expert whose experience is more directly specialized to the question at hand is usually correct. (That's not always true, but for an outside observer who is even less knowledgeable, a good rule of thumb is to defer to the guy whose specialization is closest to the matter at hand.)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Power over others, of course. Remaking society in their own image.

The quest for power is perhaps a good explanation of the popularity of AGW among certain politicians, but it doesn't particularly explain the motives of the researchers who would at best become low-level bureaucrats in a climate management regime.

For me, it seems most likely that human activity does influence the climate. It's completely unclear whether that's actually a big deal or not. Maybe we can let the courts sort this one out? If you can't prove harm from AGW, then who cares?

POWER OVER OTHERS!!!!!!!

Good thing this is the season of Halloween because ooooh thats scary!

Power over others. Like forcing someone to drive on the right side of the road regardless if they make that choice for themselves or not. Such tyranny!!!!

Power over others. Like mandating that every child go to school so they can actually learn things and function in life instead of allowing them to decide such important matters for themselves. Fascism!!!!!

Power over others. Like demanding that people drive at safe speeds through residential neighborhoods where children may be feet away instead of letting drivers decide for themselves how fast or slow they want to drive. Liberty has died!!!!

Power over others. Like demanding that children get certain medical shots so they do not infect other children with disease and start epidemics in the community instead of allowing they and their parents to make complicated medical decisions on their own. Oh freedom where art thou???

Gimmeabreak.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Which sacred text was it that the scientists follow? I thought it was a political agenda, not a religious vocation? What rigorous falsifying test are you speaking of? Would you care to give me a reference for these things, or do you just have a religious faith that they exist? Do you have any real reason to suggest that climate scientists as a class are driven by political or religious values, rather than scientific ones?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Oh, come on. "Power over others?" That's just boilerplate stuff. So are the "Boomer" references. You'll have to do better than that to convince me.

Not just boilerplate. We are starting to tread the border, here, between values and stereotypes. It seems to me that this is a fuzzy border. To say that Republicans advocate small government might reflect honest values. I can see where small government might be something worthy of striving towards. I can respect it. A lot of Republicans do lean that way.

To say Republicans are all vile racists... might be something else. Sure, one can find some who are. This doesn't mean one should assume every Republican, all the time, is making his decisions based on ethnicity. This does not mean that every time the Republicans propose a bill, one can dismiss and attribute malice by finding something in it that reflects on ethnic issues.

As a liberal reading this forum, I have seen all too many posts that start out "All liberals think that..." From there, you usually see strawman attacks. It's not a one way street. Too many argue not with the other people posting on the forum, but with their vile stereotypes of how the enemy thinks in the twisted world inside their heads.

Here, I'm seeing allegations that "All climate scientists think that..." Someone with one set of values is asserting the core values of a group he is hostile to. Time to fly some sort of storm warning flag.

Of course, I have a stereotype of Libertarian / Anarchists. They believe the world would be better without governments. Therefore, they are apt to see anything the government does as wrong or evil. Would this be honest values or a vile stereotype? If one does hold such values very strongly, it follows that government should not be acting to stop global warming. It follows that government officials and climate scientists who favor action against global warming must be mistaken in their science, acting from foul motive, or both.

Now, I am writing under the assumption that Justin is values locked, that he is incapable of honestly evaluating the science or respecting the motives of those who disagree with him. His political values seem to dominate his scientific values. Thus, he will disparage any method or data that would conflict with the world as he is in the habit of seeing it.

This doesn't mean that liberals, boomers and climate scientists don't have values too. Everyone has their own way of looking at the world. We are quite capable of pounding round pegs into square holes too. We too can look at a square hole, insist that it is round, and insist that the peg will slip right through that hole easily... In just a minute... Sorry... Just a second... I'll be right back. I've got to go find a larger hammer.... It will slip right through...

But I don't get where Justin is stereotyping climate scientists as a group acting out of religious or political values. Scientists would in general act out of scientific values. As it is not possible that Justin's values are wrong, it follows that there must be a giant evil conspiracy? That's where one might have to shrug and give up. Once the giant conspiracy theories start coming into play, you might have to give the guy some tin foil, and walk away while he is shaping his hat.

Conversations across vast divides in values are awkward...

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

For me, it seems most likely that human activity does influence the climate. It's completely unclear whether that's actually a big deal or not. Maybe we can let the courts sort this one out? If you can't prove harm from AGW, then who cares?

For a while it seemed that could have happened. The EPA declared polar bears to be endangered due to polar ice melting, which arguably would give them authority to regulate CO2 emissions. This sort of argument is leading to disagreements between Energy and the EPA. Congress is already involved. I'm not sure I'd want a judge to set himself up as climate czar. I have the old fashioned notion that Congress should set policy, the Executive implement it while the Judicial branch referees if absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Now, I am writing under the assumption that Justin is values locked, that he is incapable of honestly evaluating the science or respecting the motives of those who disagree with him. His political values seem to dominate his scientific values. Thus, he will disparage any method or data that would conflict with the world as he is in the habit of seeing it.

I value liberty, but I also value a healthy planet. I am willing to give up some personal privileges in order to help the whole. And, from what I see, I am not alone in this. I cannot see how this is encouraging anyone to claim more power over me (in fact, I see it in some way as spitting in the eye of the Corporate Con$umeri$t Man).

I would bet that there is a considerable overlap between those who are concerned about global warming and those who are concerned about corporatism. Can we not find some common ground here and refrain from the straw men comments?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I value liberty, but I also value a healthy planet. I am willing to give up some personal privileges in order to help the whole. And, from what I see, I am not alone in this. I cannot see how this is encouraging anyone to claim more power over me (in fact, I see it in some way as spitting in the eye of the Corporate Con$umeri$t Man).

I would bet that there is a considerable overlap between those who are concerned about global warming and those who are concerned about corporatism. Can we not find some common ground here and refrain from the straw men comments?

I sympathize. I certainly feel that there is a need for action on global warming, and that corporate interests have had too much influence with the US government. I've no problem finding common ground with you.

But what I've been hearing from Justin is that the threat of a powerful government is much more real to him than the threat of global warming. I don't think this is a strawman of Justin's position, but basic listening 101.

You might try to find common ground. Good luck to you.

But the nature of values and how they change in crisis is more relevant to me than anarchy. S&H's cycles suggest how value changes happen on a massive enough scale to transform cultures. Learning how to recognize and respect other's values while not reducing them to a shallow and obviously vile strawman perspective seems like a worth while skill. I think we could all constructively try to learn something about the nature and transformation of values. I'm not good enough yet at comprehending alien values truly. It is far too easy to give up on listening and interact with a vile stereotype. I'm working it. I'm not sure how many are.

I like to keep an eye on my old neighbor (sort of) at the Pulkovo Observatory, Dr. Abdusamatov. Here's something he published just recently. One might note that, as would be expected from real science, he proposes a methodology for taking the measurements necessary to falsify or confirm his hypothesis and is working to put in place to tools necessary to do just that.

original

english version

More science.
(indirect link to entire article)
(warning: no models; just boring old measurement-and-compare-with-hypothesis)

-excerpt-

The report, by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, seeks to correct a widely held misimpression based on measurements of a handful of glaciers: that India’s 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change. That’s not so, Raina says.

Even if it were, other researchers argue that severe loss of ice mass would not entail drastic water shortages in the Indian heartland, as some fear. Both concerns were cited in the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 2007 Working Group II report, which asserted that Himalayan glaciers “are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

The Raina report draws on published studies and unpublished findings from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing satellite data or conducted arduous surveys at remote sites often higher than 5000 meters. The report revises perceptions of a number of glaciers, including two iconic ones.

For example, the 30-kilometer long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River, retreated an average of 22 meters a year and shed a total of 5% of its length from 1934 to 2003. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina’s report, which cites, among other observations, field measurements by ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development in Almora. Even more stable is Siachin glacier in Kashmir, where Indian and Pakistani forces are stationed eyeball to eyeball at 6000 meters. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that the glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.”

Bob, I think saying that Justin is "values locked" is overcomplicating a relatively simple situation. Justin is quite evidently an intellectual anarchist as well as a political one, that is, he rejects all authority over his thinking just as he does over his person. That includes not only censors, dogmatists, and champions of orthodoxy, but also such tyrants as facts, measurements, and precise research. The goal is to have not only one's behavior but also one's reality in a state of maximal freedom, and assertions of hard fact comprise a mental ball and chain.

A funny post coming mere minutes after I linked to a new series of "facts, measurements, and precise research"...

And less than two days after I had linked to a different analysis of "facts, measurements, and precise research"...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A funny post coming mere minutes after I linked to a new series of "facts, measurements, and precise research"...

Ah, but since those alleged facts are in direct contradiction to other facts, the net effect is the preservation of intellectual chaos and our inability to know -- and hence our freedom to believe whatever we wish.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ah, but since those alleged facts are in direct contradiction to other facts, the net effect is the preservation of intellectual chaos and our inability to know -- and hence our freedom to believe whatever we wish.

What 'other facts'?

Something to remember: when an organization just says that something is happening -- like, for example, that the himilayan glaciers are rapidly disappearing, or that the sun has a minor role in climate change -- and then someone else does actual measurement... when those two don't agree, it's not a case of conflicting facts, but of fact versus non-fact.

Facts don't contradict. That's practically a tautology.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What 'other facts'?

The ones that have been asserted by climate scientists which you presented these alleged facts to refute, of course. Without which you wouldn't have presented them.

Facts don't contradict. That's practically a tautology.

No, but the allegation of facts sometimes do. If we have conflicting allegations of fact, then we have intellectual chaos. That the underlying facts themselves are (presumably) fixed doesn't matter as long as we have no means of determining what they are.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

One might note that, as would be expected from real science, he proposes a methodology for taking the measurements necessary to falsify or confirm his hypothesis and is working to put in place to tools necessary to do just that.

I didn't see that in the article. All I saw were measurements of the solar radius, which has nothing to do with testing his theory of a long cycle that is going to start dropping temperatures real soon now.

I have a great deal of the data presented in Justin's article that I obtained in my research about climate change. I created a webpage about climate change to present my results. For example, figure 4 from that page

shows TSI and sunspots on the same graph showing the excellent correlation. One can use this correlation to estimate what TSI was in the pre-1978 period using the record of sunspots going back to 1611. This appears to be what was done in Figure 3 of the article Justin cited.

I could do this too, but there is no point, what you get is an estimate of TSI for centuries back which isn't really very useful. What would be useful would be to plot temperature versus sunspot number and use that to predict past temperatures rather than past TSI. After all, it's temperature, rather than TSI that is of interest here.

There is actually a reasonably good correlation between temperature and solar activity in recent centuries. The author certainly implies this in his paper, but he doesn't show the data. Why not?

Well I did. Here is Figure 13 of my webpage on global warming


The black line shows the temperature trend. The red line shows a regression of temperature data with solar activity. That is, it is the temperature predicted based on solar activity, just as figure 3 in Justin's article shows predicted TSI. The solar activity was smoothed over an 11-year cycle to remove the short cycle and to bring out the effects of the long cycle in solar activity that Justin's author discusses.

Notice that temperature and solar activity rose together following a minimum around 1900. Fig 3 of the Justin's paper shows a solar minimum around 1900.

Note that the rise in solar activity in the first half of the 20th century accurately predicts the amount of temperature rise over this same period. I have used this same approach to estimate that during the Maunder minimum temperatures were about 0.4 degrees cooler than in 1900, or about 1.3 degrees cooler than today.

If you look at the author's figure 3 you will see he is predicting another Maunder minimum in the middle of this century. That is, the author expects temperature to return to Maunder levels at that point:

But if solar activity in the “short” cycle does not rise sufficiently, the cooling of planet will begin to the deep temperature drop in 2055-2060 ± 11 years, when temperature will be lower by 1.0 – 1.5 degrees.

So you see, he has the Maunder temperature 1-1.5 degrees less than today and I have the same result. What this means is I can replicate how he got his results.

There is a problem however. If you look at the figure above you will see that solar activity reached a high plateau after 1950. Figure 3 of the Justin's paper shows this same plateau. Solar activity stopped rising after the 1950's (red line). Temperature rose strongly in the last three decades of the 20th century while solar activity did not.

Now if solar activity is the key factor in temperature, then we should expect low temperatures during the Maunder minimum (which seems to be the case) higher temperature in the mid-to-late 19th century, with a minimum around 1900 (which is approximately the case--see figure above) and a strong rise in the first half of the 20th century (which clearly happened--see figure). After mid-century there should be no further rise in temperature.

But there was a strong rise in temperature in the second half of the 20th century which can not be explained by rising solar activity because it was not rising.

Now you can see why Justin's scientist did not show any temperature data in any of his long term solar activity graphs. Had he done so, it would destroy his whole argument. This paper Justin cites is like almost all of the global warming skeptic stuff I have seen. It quite deliberately misinforms.

One of the few exceptions is the Israeli physicist Shaviv. His published papers are sound, as far as I can tell. But he too, skirts around the fact of substantial warming since the 1970's with no corresponding change in solar activity as measured by TSI, sunspots, open magnetic flux or cosmic rays.

When I specifically asked him about this he had two responses (1) lag effects and (2) his coursework load is high and he doesn't have time to address this issue now.

I am not ignorant of lag effects and explicitly considered them in my work. But detailed calculations are not really necessary. What Shaviv was suggesting is the clear temperature rise of the 1990's was a delayed response to rising solar activity into the 1950's. That is, the heating effects of increased solar activity was showing up 40 years later. If 40 year lags are occurring, then the temperature rise over the 1900-1940 period must have reflect increasing solar activity over the 1860-1900 period, while the cooling from 1940 to 1970 must have reflected falling solar activity over the 1900-1930 period.

I refer you to figure 3 of the paper Justin recommends. Is the solar activity rising over 1860-1900 and falling over 1900-1930? No! The opposite happened. The figure above shows that temperature responds to solar activity at about the same time, with maybe a decade of variation, not with a 40 year lag.

Thus, Dr. Shaviv was just trying to brush off inconvenient facts by giving a silly answer and then pleading excessive work load as an excuse to engage further.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What 'other facts'?

Something to remember: when an organization just says that something is happening -- like, for example, that the sun has a minor role in climate change -- and then someone else does actual measurement... .

What measurement? The key measurement in climate change is temperature, which was conspicuously absent in the reference to gave about "science" being done that supports your views.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Facts don't contradict. That's practically a tautology.

Of course they do. Only someone ignorant of science would say something like this.

If facts didn't contradict advances in science would be easy. Just do the experiment and show the result.

I mentioned before the chemical process I was working on with a chemist colleague. I had done experiments and he had done experiments. My data said that the process he wanted to use would yield a lower yield. His data showed a higher yield. So there you have it, contradictory facts. The question was, if we go to production, and run this new process would we get higher yield (good) or lower yield (bad)?

We ran the new process in production. It was my decision.

The results from the production campaign would surely decide the issue. What do you think happened?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

All I saw were measurements of the solar radius, which has nothing to do with testing his theory of a long cycle that is going to start dropping temperatures real soon now.

Then you missed the last part about the SL-200 project to be installed aboard the ISS. You know, the device with which he talks about getting more precise measurements (his number is +/- 3-5km) of solar diameter.

And, had you read the paper thoroughly, you would have noted the following passages regarding solar diameter oscillations and TSI: (I've omitted the equations, since they don't copy well)

Oscillation in the intensity of solar radiation follows from changes in the radius of the Sun. When the radiating surface increases, luminosity grows.
...
Such a change occurs as a result of the flow of complex processes in the interior of the Sun. Even a smooth change in the temperature of surface layer, no more than 10-3 °K in a 24-hour period, leads to disruption of hydrostatic equilibrium (the balance between internal pressure and gravity). Restoration of thermodynamic equilibrium can be achieved through a change in the size of the Sun to that value which restores balance; specifically, restores the temperature of the surface to the previous level...

In that case, alternations in the TSI occur as a result of fluctuations in the radius of the Sun with an amplitude of up to 250 km in the 11-year cycle, and 700-800 km in the bicentennial cycle (Fig. 3). The precise value of these fluctuations serves as the most important indicator of both the TSI and the level of solar activity. Therefore, long-term, high-precision measurements of the solar radius would facilitate a more-reliable estimate of the value of the TSI and its fluctuations.

and from there, global temperatures

The most significant solar event in the 20th century was the extraordinarily high level and the prolonged (virtually over the entire century) increase in the intensity of the energy radiated by the Sun (Fig. 3). A similar rise in solar radiation has not been observed in at least 700 years. However, its consequence - the global warming of climate - that followed, was not an anomalous event in the life of the Earth. Climate on the Earth has periodically changed, and our planet during the course of the well-studied, most recent millennia has repeatedly survived global warming, comparable to that of the current period, after each of which episodes the temperature has dropped deeply, in a bicentennial cycle. Neither temperature drop nor warming lasts longer than the 200-year fluctuations of size and luminosity of the Sun.

In case you missed it, he argues that the evidence appears to show that the sunspot number is not causative, but merely a symptom of the underlying driver of temperature/diameter oscillation in the sun -- which itself tracks with the changes in global climate.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There is a problem however. If you look at the figure above you will see that solar activity reached a high plateau after 1950. Figure 3 of the Justin's paper shows this same plateau. Solar activity stopped rising after the 1950's (red line). Temperature rose strongly in the last three decades of the 20th century while solar activity did not.

Now if solar activity is the key factor in temperature, then we should expect low temperatures during the Maunder minimum (which seems to be the case) higher temperature in the mid-to-late 19th century, with a minimum around 1900 (which is approximately the case--see figure above) and a strong rise in the first half of the 20th century (which clearly happened--see figure). After mid-century there should be no further rise in temperature.

But there was a strong rise in temperature in the second half of the 20th century which can not be explained by rising solar activity because it was not rising.

Now you can see why Justin's scientist did not show any temperature data in any of his long term solar activity graphs. Had he done so, it would destroy his whole argument. This paper Justin cites is like almost all of the global warming skeptic stuff I have seen. It quite deliberately misinforms.

Talk about deliberate misinformation. Where to start...

As an engineer, you should appreciate the heat-sink effect. That is, a rise in energy input never results in an instantaneously-tracking temperature rise. Rather, when the energy input to a system is increased, the temperature gradually increases to the new steady-state equilibrium. Holding the energy input stable at the new, higher level will hardly result in the temperature increase immediately halting, too. So, contrary to your above claim, a continued (for a time) increase in global temperatures following a leveling-off of solar intensity at a new higher level is hardly unexpected or necessarily indicative of some other outside factor.

So, the late-20th century rise in temperature is very explainable by the fact that the sun was continuing to crank out energy at a level higher than the Earth was able to radiate out at its current temperature. Global temperature just hadn't 'stabilized' with the level of energy-input at which the sun was operating.

You might note, that's not a 'lag effect', since as soon as solar energy output fell below the line necessary to maintain whatever temperature the Earth had managed to warm to, you would expect to see a relatively quick reversal of global temperature trends (though again, not perfectly tracking the sun, since it takes more time to cool or warm due to changes in energy input than it does to change the energy input itself).

In fact, figs 3 and 5 both show this very phenomenon. As solar energy fell off its higher level (the plateau), global temperatures also came off their high. Though not immediately -- just as you would expect, were the late-20th-century rise in temperatures to have been the result of the Earth trying to equalize to the plateau-level of solar-energy input. In fact, '98 (when solar energy started falling off the plateau) was actually warmer than preceding years. Again, what one would suspect, if it took some time before energy input fell to and then below the level necessary to sustain the global temperature levels at the time.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course they do. Only someone ignorant of science would say something like this.

No, they don't. Only some ignorant of epistemology (or a cloistered mathematician) would try to argue that facts can disagree.

Brian's response, fwiw, was correct. Allegations of fact can disagree. But facts simply are.


----

btw, good catch on the global trade index. I was looking at the Paasch number and missed the fact that the graph was of something else.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mikebert

All I saw were measurements of the solar radius, which has nothing to do with testing his theory of a long cycle that is going to start dropping temperatures real soon now.

Then you missed the last part about the SL-200 project to be installed aboard the ISS. You know, the device with which he talks about getting more precise measurements of solar diameter.

Didn’t I say just this above?

And, had you read the paper thoroughly, you would have noted the following passages regarding solar diameter oscillations and TSI:

Oscillation in the intensity of solar radiation follows from changes in the radius of the Sun. When the radiating surface increases, luminosity grows.
...
Such a change occurs as a result of the flow of complex processes in the interior of the Sun. Even a smooth change in the temperature of surface layer, no more than 10-3 °K in a 24-hour period, leads to disruption of hydrostatic equilibrium (the balance between internal pressure and gravity). Restoration of thermodynamic equilibrium can be achieved through a change in the size of the Sun to that value which restores balance; specifically, restores the temperature of the surface to the previous level.

In that case, alternations in the TSI occur as a result of fluctuations in the radius of the Sun with an amplitude of up to 250 km in the 11-year cycle, and 700-800 km in the bicentennial cycle (Fig. 3). The precise value of these fluctuations serves as the most important indicator of both the TSI and the level of solar activity. Therefore, long-term, high-precision measurements of the solar radius would facilitate a more-reliable estimate of the value of the TSI and its fluctuations.

I did read the paper and I saw this part, which gives reasons for why the author thinks is a good idea to measure solar radius. The author is apparently is interested in solar dynamics and needs to collect data from space on the sun’s radius to test a model of solar mechanics. I understand this just fine.

However, this is a thread on global warming. The paper you cited is entitled “The Sun Defines the Climate”. And you said this about the author:

Originally Posted by Justin

One might note that, as would be expected from real science, he proposes a methodology for taking the measurements necessary to falsify or confirm his hypothesis and is working to put in place to tools necessary to do just that.

It seems to me that the hypothesis you refer to is that the sun is responsible for rising temperature in recent decades. But this is not the hypothesis being addressed by the methodology the author proposes. The hypothesis being tested is a model of solar dynamics that would allow predictions of things like solar radius and TSI.

..and from there, global temperatures:

The most significant solar event in the 20th century was the extraordinarily high level and the prolonged (virtually over the entire century) increase in the intensity of the energy radiated by the Sun (Fig. 3). A similar rise in solar radiation has not been observed in at least 700 years. However, its consequence - the global warming of climate - that followed.

It also does not show an increase in solar radiation over the entire 20th century. What it shows is an increase in radiation over the first half of the 20th century. Figure 3 shows no temperature data. If it did, what it would show was decades of no temperature rise in the face of the highest levels of solar radiation in 700 years. Global temperatures cooled slightly over the 1940-1975 period. What it would also show was a rise in temperature concurrent with the rise in solar radiative intensity. From 1900 to 1940 both temperature and radiation rose. But that’s not what the author says.

In case you missed it, he argues that the evidence appears to show that the sunspot number is not causative, but merely a symptom of the underlying driver of temperature/diameter oscillation in the sun

I didn’t miss it. Once again, it's more information on solar dynamics, the author’s real interest, but hardly relevant to global warming.

…which itself tracks with the changes in global climate.

You keep asserting this over and over. Assertion does not make it true.

As an engineer, you should appreciate the heat-sink effect. That is, a rise in energy input never results in an instantaneously-tracking temperature rise. Rather, when the energy input to a system is increased, the temperature gradually increases to the new steady-state equilibrium. Holding the energy input stable at the new, higher level will hardly result in the temperature increase immediately halting, too. So, contrary to your above claim, a continued (for a time) increase in global temperatures following a leveling-off of solar intensity at a new higher level is hardly unexpected or necessarily indicative of some other outside factor.

The key feature is the time.

So, the late-20th century rise in temperature is very explainable by the fact that the sun was continuing to crank out energy at a level higher than the Earth was able to radiate out at its current temperature.

No it might be explainable, but you haven’t shown that.

You might note, that's not a 'lag effect', since as soon as solar energy output fell below the line necessary to maintain whatever temperature the Earth had managed to warm to, you would expect to see a relatively quick reversal of global temperature trends

Yes, cooling would begin once the input fell below the level needed to maintain whatever temperature the earth was at. But that temperature is below where the sun is at because the earth's temperature is playing catch up. That is, the response of system temperature to solar input is sluggish.

So if the sun’s activity starts to fall, the temperature will continue to rise for a while until to catches up with the input. You see this in seasonal temperatures. Solar insolation rises during the winter and spring, reaching a maximum around the first day of summer, after which is starts to fall. Temperatures continue to rise for about 3 weeks or so (here in Michigan) after this reflecting the heat sink effect

So yes, the heat sink effect does give a lag on a cyclical driver. With a ramp followed by constant period you get a delayed initial response, which resolves into a delayed ramp, which then asympotically approaches to the equilibrium value after the forcing reaches its constant value.

With a step change, you get an exponential response to the equilibrium value.

If recent temperature rise actually reflects an incomplete response to a fixed forcing since the 1950’s, that says something about the time constant of the system (the size of the heat sink). In one of his papers, Dr. Shaviv considers the size of the temperature oscillation associated with the 11 year cycle. Using the sensitivity he obtains from a variety of approaches, the temperature effect of the 11-year cycle should be quite large, about 0.6 or 0.7 degrees. In actuality it’s much smaller, Shaviv gives a value of about 0.1 degree. The smaller amplitude of the temperature cycle reflects that sink effect and can be used to estimate its magnitude, which Shaviv does.

Now the sort of time constant required for 1990’s warming to be resulting form solar activity increases earlier in the century means that the 11-year cycle would be much more damped than Shaviv posits. Given the observed 0.1 C temperature change, this must mean the solar effect is much larger today than Shaviv estimates from paleoclimate data. So much larger that the solar change known to have occurred in the 20th century should heat the Earth enough to melt the icecaps and doom civilization. But Shaviv isn't saying that.

In actuality, if we use the time constant Shaviv estimates, we have a system that finishes the vast majority of its response to changes in solar insolation in a few years, and temperature rises in the 1990’s do not reflect solar activity.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Brian's response, fwiw, was correct. Allegations of fact can disagree. But facts simply are.

OK, I see what you are getting at. I was actually referring to allegations of fact.

The Washington Post reports on a A climate threat, rising from the soil

Indoneasia has a good deal of peat. As jungles are cut down, a good deal of it is burning, releasing an awful lot of CO2, amounts almost comparable to that released by the US or China.