Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

I do not assume the earth would be 0C if there was no sun. I do assume that humans would not exist on earth if there were no sun.

Please explain your math here where you claimed the sun's increase caused the temperature to go up 8% then if you didn't make the assumption that the earth would be 0C without the sun.

I illustrated and am here illustrating the bias that can be introduced into the calculation of percentage changes. A percentage calculation depends on the choice of measurement units and base.

AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

Relative to aviation's standard sea level temperature:
1911 = 14.419C = (32 + (14.419 X 1.8)) = (32 +25.954) = 57.954F
1998 = 15.546C = (32 + (15.546 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.983) = 59.983F

15.546C/14.419C = 1.07816076 or a 7.816076 % increase.
59.983F/57.954F = 1.035010526 or a 3.5010526% increase.

Relative to absolute zero:
(273.16+15.546C)/(273.16+14.419C)=288.706/287.579=1.003918923 or a 0.3918923% increase.

(459.69+59.983F-32F)/(459.69+57.954F-32F)=487.673/485.644 = 1.004177958 or a 0.4177958% increase

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2988079#2988079

For that matter you might want to explain your claim that solar radiation went up by 57%. That one was pretty astounding since the science shows an increase of .1% in solar radiation

I used a solar proxy measurement as you can plainly see from my post and link back on December 18th. The problem with calculating percentage increases in solar activity accurately--like the calculation of any percentage increases--is choice of the measurement units and base. I cannot defend my one choice in solar radiation percentage increase, any more than I can defend the best of the choices I gave for percentage increase in global temperature.

Quote:

The rational thing about science is it doesn't match up with any claim--yours and any other claims included--that humans have caused a significant part of the warming.
Really. Care to tell me what % of global warming is attributed to human activity in the current climate change documents from the IPCC?
No! I don't care to tell you that. I don't know the base of the IPCC measurement. I was discussing the qualitative allegations by people here and politicians elsewhere who were claiming that humans were the primary cause of global warming, and that the sun caused relatively little global warming.

Quote:

Come to think of it, I don't even think the earth's temperature would be absolute zero, which is -273.16C, or -459.69F. I'll make a wild guess. Without the sun, this earth probably would have never existed.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
External factors provide energy, but internal factors drive the responce (particularly on the time scale).

I particularly like this...

maporsche wrote:
No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

followed with...

ican711nm wrote:
WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

ican - Your responce is entertianing. It in no way contradicts maporche's statement though. I like the use of the word "primary."

Your strawman that people don't believe that the sun contributes to the climate of the earth is pure comedy.

T
K
O

What is really "entertaining" is your repeated distortions of what I have actually written!

I never wrote that "people do not believe the sun contributes to the climate of the earth." I wrote (see above):

What you and others have been claiming up to now* is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

up to now* = up to the time I first wrote that sentence.

False.

For your argument to be sound you'd need to provide a post that someone has made where they specifically state that the increase of CO2 is the EXCLUSIVE factor in climate change.

Otherwise your post makes no point. Maporshe very clearly states that nobody has made the claim that the sun's output doesn't effect the climate of the earth. Your responce that we (I included) feel that CO2 and other gasses are the primery factor in climate change does not prove that anyone has EVER said that the sun doesn't effect the climate.

Your arguement is pure strawman. Happy new year!

T
K
O

You apparently cannot comprehend in the context of this discussion the difference between the meaning of the word primaryand the meaning of the word EXCLUSIVE. Try a dictionary. It might be able to explain it to you better than ican.

Happy New Year!

0 Replies

What I'm hearing is that you don't have the ability to make the argument you wish you could.

maporche wrote:

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

ican711nm wrote:

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

The only way you could say "WRONG" is if you could prove that what maporche said was false. What Maporche has said is factually accurate; no one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate. You've failed to disprove this, and you won't be able to.

Even your use of the word "primary" illustrates this. You contradict yourself in your own post. If we've been claiming that CO2 is the primary cause, it acknowledges that we understand that other causes exist. We acknowledge the contribution of the sun.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

I do not assume the earth would be 0C if there was no sun. I do assume that humans would not exist on earth if there were no sun.

Please explain your math here where you claimed the sun's increase caused the temperature to go up 8% then if you didn't make the assumption that the earth would be 0C without the sun.

I illustrated and am here illustrating the bias that can be introduced into the calculation of percentage changes. A percentage calculation depends on the choice of measurement units and base.

No, you made a silly mistake in assuming that the earth would be 0C if there was no solar activity. It's a mistake a scientist would never make.

Quote:

Quote:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2988079#2988079

For that matter you might want to explain your claim that solar radiation went up by 57%. That one was pretty astounding since the science shows an increase of .1% in solar radiation

I used a solar proxy measurement as you can plainly see from my post and link back on December 18th. The problem with calculating percentage increases in solar activity accurately--like the calculation of any percentage increases--is choice of the measurement units and base. I cannot defend my one choice in solar radiation percentage increase, any more than I can defend the best of the choices I gave for percentage increase in global temperature.

Really? You used a proxy? What proxy did you think you used? I bet you don't even know what the chart you linked to represents. The chart shows the decrease in Beryllium in the atmosphere from the increase in solar activity. It does NOT show a 57% increase in solar activity because you failed to consider how the proxy relates to solar activity. The text with the graph put it into perspective but you ignored it to make up your number.

Quote:

the variation is small (of the order of 1 W/square meter or 0.1 percent of the total)

Quote:

Quote:

The rational thing about science is it doesn't match up with any claim--yours and any other claims included--that humans have caused a significant part of the warming.
Really. Care to tell me what % of global warming is attributed to human activity in the current climate change documents from the IPCC?
No! I don't care to tell you that. I don't know the base of the IPCC measurement. I was discussing the qualitative allegations by people here and politicians elsewhere who were claiming that humans were the primary cause of global warming, and that the sun caused relatively little global warming.

You don't know the base but you are willing to claim that anyone that says so is going against science? Maybe you should read my post from the IPCC report. The report says that according to science it is 90% likely that human activity has increased global warming by more than 10 times what the solar activity has increased it.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

What I'm hearing is that you don't have the ability to make the argument you wish you could.

maporche wrote:
No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

ican711nm wrote:
WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

The only way you could say "WRONG" is if you could prove that what maporche said was false. What Maporche has said is factually accurate; no one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate. You've failed to disprove this, and you won't be able to.

Even your use of the word "primary" illustrates this. You contradict yourself in your own post. If we've been claiming that CO2 is the primary cause, it acknowledges that we understand that other causes exist. We acknowledge the contribution of the sun.

T
K
O

I have heard it claimed to be nothing to virtually negligible. I have noticed a few more people beginning to triangulate their arguments, because they may sense their sky is falling argument may be falling apart as the temperatures begin to stall out a bit. I sense the global warmers are beginning to harbor doubts, although not fully admitted yet, but as I said, your argument is an example of folks saying, I never claimed this, or nobody ever claimed that, blah, blah, blah.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
What I'm hearing is that you don't have the ability to make the argument you wish you could.

maporche wrote:
No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

ican711nm wrote:
WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

The only way you could say "WRONG" is if you could prove that what maporche said was false. What Maporche has said is factually accurate; no one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate. You've failed to disprove this, and you won't be able to.

Even your use of the word "primary" illustrates this. You contradict yourself in your own post. If we've been claiming that CO2 is the primary cause, it acknowledges that we understand that other causes exist. We acknowledge the contribution of the sun.

T
K
O

I have heard it claimed to be nothing to virtually negligible. I have noticed a few more people beginning to triangulate their arguments, because they may sense their sky is falling argument may be falling apart as the temperatures begin to stall out a bit. I sense the global warmers are beginning to harbor doubts, although not fully admitted yet, but as I said, your argument is an example of folks saying, I never claimed this, or nobody ever claimed that, blah, blah, blah.

It's not that solar radiaiton is 'virtually negligible,' more that the rate of change measured in the output has been virtually negligible.

As I have said many times; Conservationism is a Conservative thing. It's safest for us to proceed with caution into an unknown situation. We don't know for sure what will happen with our environment as we move into the future; why not use prudence, and try and keep ourselves clean?

Slowing progress in the short run is sometimes the right move. Forethought and thinking about the future usually pays off, even though it isn't always the most pleasant option. I don't know why this principle is applied to so many areas of life by Conservatives, but not the environment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

First of all, the rate of change in solar radiation is not virtually negligible. If it is, then so is the global warming, so whats the big worry?

I agree we should proceed with caution when dealing with very uncertain projections. It seems you are advocating the opposite when you advocate draconian measures to offset something that is merely a very uncertain theory with very little proof, and given the projections of the theory, even draconian measures would never avert the projection. Here is what we are given under the global warmers doomsdayers advice:

1. Man produced CO2 is causing potentially severe global warming. Not proven, not even close.

2. Given the first is happening, they then tell us it will cause catastrophies around the world. Again, even if the first assumption is correct, this projection of disaster is far from proven, not even close, in fact warming could even be a net benefit.

3. Third, they tell us we need to switch to technologies to avert disaster. Again, not proven that the technologies are even commercially viable on a scale necessary to reduce CO2 emissions in time to avert disaster according to their own projections, much less do we have the authority to force other nations to do it, and even if we did, there is no evidence that emissions would be reduced enough according to their own projections. Plus the alternate solutions have no guarantee of not producing serious side effects that we may not even know about at this point.

Conclusion, the whole thing is built upon fantasies and imaginations concocted into so-called computer models surrounding unproven theories. I would rather stick to the conservative approach and allow the free market devise feasible solutions in a timely manner, rather than troubling ourselves with self defeating solutions for an imaginary problem.

0 Replies

CORRECTION

% CHANGE IN AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES 1998/1911

Relative to absolute zero:

(273.16C+15.546C)/(273.16C+14.419C)=288.706/287.579=1.003918923 or a 0.3918923% increase.

(459.69F+59.983F)/(459.69F+57.954F)=519.673/517.644 = 1.003919682 or a 0.3919682% increase.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...

maporche wrote:
No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

...

We acknowledge the contribution of the sun.

T
K
O

Excellent!

I assume that you all now agree with maporche's claim "that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect."

OK! Please state what you think was the solar contribution to the average global temperatures in the years 1911, 1998, and 2007?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

...

Here's the part where you tell us an estimate, but you present it as absolute. This is the part where you don't tell us the percent error in your (not actually your) calculation.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...

maporche wrote:
No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

...

We acknowledge the contribution of the sun.

T
K
O

Excellent!

I assume that you all now agree with maporche's claim "that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect."

OK! Please state what you think was the solar contribution to the average global temperatures in the years 1911, 1998, and 2007?

What greenhouse effect via man caused CO2 is present is hardly amplified by the sun's increased contribution in any amount as to be worth even considering. What kind of reasoning is that? Now if increased solar activity contributes to increased cloud cover, that is a different story entirely, and has nothing to do with the contribution of man.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
...

Here's the part where you tell us an estimate, but you present it as absolute. This is the part where you don't tell us the percent error in your (not actually your) calculation.

T
K
O

You are rich in fantasies, Di.

Here let me help you.make a decision by providing you four arbitrary definitions:

The sun is a TRIVIAL cause of global warming if it causes 1% or less of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 15C (or 273.16 +15 = 288.16C above absolute zero).

The sun is a PARTIAL cause of global warming if it causes more than 1% but less than 50% of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 15C (or 273.16 +15 = 288.16C above absolute zero).

The sun is the PRIMARY cause of global warming if it causes more than 50% but less than 100% of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 15C (or 273.16 +15 = 288.16C above absolute zero).

The sun is the EXCLUSIVE cause of global warming if it contributes 100% of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 15C (or 273.16 +15 = 288.16C above absolute zero).

So which do you think it is:
(1) a TRIVIAL cause?
(2) a PARTIAL cause?
(3) the PRIMARY cause?
(4) the EXCLUSIVE cause?

I think the correct answer is (3). If you were to agree with me, I would then ask you what percentage between 50% and 100% do you think the sun contributes. If you were to disagree with me, I would ask you why.

0 Replies

Ican,

Is there a simple link you can provide, which shows that the sun's radiation has measurably changed to the degree where it would support your theory (3)?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'd hypothesize 1 or 2. I'm not in love with your wording though. Climate change is a natural thing, but it's excelleration due to human facotrs.

You see, I understand that the sun provides energy in the form of radiated heat to the earth, but the net energy exchange is being changed.

I believe with goo dreason that the dT/dt = funcntion of external and internal elements.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

Increases in GHGs tend to warm the surface while the net effect of increases in aerosols tends to cool it. The net effect due to human
activities since the pre-industrial era is one of warming (+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4]W/m2). In comparison, changes in solar irradiance are estimated to
have caused a small warming effect (+0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]W/m2).

And the CORRECT answer of your 4 scenarios ican is partial. But at 10% it isn't even close to being primary which is what you claimed.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I'd hypothesize 1 or 2. I'm not in love with your wording though. Climate change is a natural thing, but it's excelleration due to human facotrs.

You see, I understand that the sun provides energy in the form of radiated heat to the earth, but the net energy exchange is being changed.

I believe with goo dreason that the dT/dt = funcntion of external and internal elements.

T
K
O

I'm probably misinterpreting you, but I guess you are basically saying that the sun's radiation is responsible for global heating, but humans have caused the effects of that radiation to be amplified to such an extent as to make humans primarily responsible for the 15.546C - 14.419C = 1.127C increase in global warming from 1911 to 1998, and the 15.546C - 15.414C = .132C decrease from 1998 to 2007.

I'll change my question to fit that characterization in case that is what you mean. If that characterization is not what you mean, please ignore this change.

(1) Humans are a TRIVIAL cause of global warming if they have caused 1% or less of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 14.419C (or 273.16 +14.419 = 287.579 above absolute zero).

(2) Humans are a PARTIAL cause of global warming if they have caused more than 1% but less than 50% of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 14.419C (or 273.16 +14.419 = 287.579 above absolute zero).

(3) Humans are the PRIMARY cause of global warming if they have caused more than 50% but less than 100% of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 14.419C (or 273.16 +14.419 = 287.579 above absolute zero).

(4) Humans are the EXCLUSIVE cause of global warming if they have caused 100% of the warming of the earth above an average annual temperature of 14.419C (or 273.16 +14.419 = 287.579 above absolute zero).

So which do you think it is:
(1) Humans are a TRIVIAL cause?
(2) Humans are a PARTIAL cause?
(3) Humans are the PRIMARY cause?
(4) Humans are the EXCLUSIVE cause?

I think the correct answer is (1). If you were to agree with me, I would then ask you what percentage of the temperature increase between 0% and 1% do you think humans have caused. If you were to disagree with me, I would ask you why.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Increases in GHGs tend to warm the surface while the net effect of increases in aerosols tends to cool it.

The net effect due to human activities since the pre-industrial era is one of warming (+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4]W/m2).

In comparison, changes in solar irradiance are estimated to have caused a small warming effect (+0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]W/m2).

0 Replies

ican711nm - One of the largest problems I have with your argument is that you put too much merit into the global average temp.

Do you know what the difference between heat and temperature is?

The First law addresses the net heat and work as being equal to the sum of the total amount of energy. The temperature of a system can reamain the same (or make very small change) with a large change in energy.

I have good reasons to suspect that solar radiation is not the primary cause of climate change.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ican, rather than "thinking the correct number", you might want to actually read some of the literature. The IPCC, in their SAR, TAR, and now FAR, have looked at the research and quantified contributions. From the SAR onward, solar variability has figured around 25-30%. The recent research, several papers of which have been cited, repeatedly, on this topic, support that figure. Human contribution has consistently been the PRIMARY (in your terms, over 50%) of the cause of climate change. They've done the numbers. If you disagree, rather than "thinking", or pulling numbers out of a hat, I suggest you tell us why. They've got the evidence. You don't.

Similarly, if you're going to deal in global mean temps., it would help if you had a bit of general knowledge about what's affecting them. The years in which the temp. spikes, 1997-98 in particular, are el nino years, in which you get a LARGE upwelling of comparatively warm water over much of the Pacific Ocean. 97-98 was the strongest el nino in the hundred and fifty years or so of observation. El ninos historically have occurred everythree to seven years on average. But since the 1990s there have been minor el ninos almost every year--historically unprecedented. Recent research (also cited several times in this topic) has confirmed that the deep ocean--below the 300M level--has increased in temperature in line with climate modelling predictions. Gee, temp. increases, more frequent warm water upwelling. Maybe there's a connection. And the researchers who found the temp. increase said that GW was the cause. Why don't you dispute them? Major el nino years are temporary spikes, which recently have seemed to kick the subsequent curve up just a little bit (notice post 98 is higher than pre 97-98), but you can't use those years as benchmarks, because they're transitory. And if you looked at my cite, you will note that 2007 was on track to surpass previous years, yes, including 97-98, for most of the year. It looks like it might be ending with a la nina, which is a cooler upwelling, which may kick the overall average down a bit, but as most climate researchers agree, CO2 is rising, therefore its effects are increasing. Nothing you have cited can change that. The hottest years in meterological history have been since the mid 90s. Nothing is changing that. Simple physics says it's going to heat up. Until you repeal the laws of nature, that won't change.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm - One of the largest problems I have with your argument is that you put too much merit into the global average temp.

Do you know what the difference between heat and temperature is?

The First law addresses the net heat and work as being equal to the sum of the total amount of energy. The temperature of a system can reamain the same (or make very small change) with a large change in energy.

I have good reasons to suspect that solar radiation is not the primary cause of climate change.

T
K
O

Please post your "reasons to suspect that solar radiation is not the primary cause of climate change."

I do not now understand what your reasons are and I would very much like to.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know