71
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 11:54 am
Here are more of my sources:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007
...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 12:38 pm
Even the UN sponsored IPCC (i.e., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) organization that falsely claimed their reports represent a consensus of Scientific opinion, admits there has been an increase in solar output since 1750. See TS.2.4, page 4,2nd paragraph.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Technical Summary
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 12:55 pm
1750 is NOT 1975.

The Senate report is NOT a source for solar radiation numbers.

You keep throwing nothing but smoke ican. I am amazed you haven't burned up with the amount of smoke you have to generate to try to hide from your claim you can't support.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 01:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not a science wonk Parados and all the graphs and analytic data go right over my head and I don't pretend to know which represent valid research and which represent manufactured propaganda.


An interesting if somewhat disingenuous claim there Fox since you have on several occasions announced what the temperature is doing the last few years.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 01:28 pm
ican,

The biocarb site does NOT go to 2005 but stops at 2000. Only more of your smoke.

Burn, baby, burn.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 01:36 pm
parados wrote:
...

The Senate report is NOT a source for solar radiation numbers.

You keep throwing nothing but smoke ican. I am amazed you haven't burned up with the amount of smoke you have to generate to try to hide from your claim you can't support.


Backatcha:
Laughing You keep spewing nothing but putrid purple puke parados. I am amazed you haven't been dehydrated by the amount of putrid purple puke you have generated in your failed effort to conceal the falsities of your claims. Laughing

Read it, parados. Read the Senate Report, parados. The Senate Report, parados, lists testimony by many scientists who claim solar radiation increases, and not CO2 increases in the atmosphere, are the primary cause of global warming.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 01:43 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
...

The Senate report is NOT a source for solar radiation numbers.

You keep throwing nothing but smoke ican. I am amazed you haven't burned up with the amount of smoke you have to generate to try to hide from your claim you can't support.


Backatcha:
Laughing You keep spewing nothing but putrid purple puke parados. I am amazed you haven't been dehydrated by the amount of putrid purple puke you have generated in your failed effort to conceal the falsities of your claims. Laughing

Read it, parados. Read the Senate Report, parados. The Senate Report, parados, lists testimony by many scientists who claim solar radiation increases, and not CO2 increases in the atmosphere, are the primary cause of global warming.

And which one of them testified that from 1975-2005 the solar radiation increased by 1w/m^2?

When I read it I don't see a single one of them saying that. Maybe you have a different report or maybe you just imagined that one of them said it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 01:43 pm
parados wrote:
ican,

The biocarb site does NOT go to 2005 but stops at 2000. ...

And therefore what, parados? Solar irradiance did not increase up to 2000? And, therefore, solar irradiance did not increase after 2000? And therefore any source that shows a continuing increase up to 2005 is proved false? Question Question Question

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 01:50 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007
...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 02:09 pm
Are you really sure you want to include the minority report as evidence of "increasing" solar radiation ican? Because if you had bothered to read the report you would see that more than one of those quoted say the solar irradiation is on the decline now.

Let me quote from that report. Somethin YOU will not be able to do in support of you 1w/m^2 claim.

Quote:
The current 100 year solar radiation cycle may now have reached its peak, and irradiation intensity has been observed to be declining. This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988,
[/color]

Quote:
Solar radiation and conduction are essentially constant and the earth's surface temperature will vary according to increasing back IR radiation


Quote:
Sorochtin wrote. "The highest point of the warming has already occurred,"


Nope, no one in that report backs up your claim ican.. You can provide no quote from your report.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 02:27 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
ican,

The biocarb site does NOT go to 2005 but stops at 2000. ...

And therefore what, parados? Solar irradiance did not increase up to 2000? And, therefore, solar irradiance did not increase after 2000? And therefore any source that shows a continuing increase up to 2005 is proved false? Question Question Question

Rolling Eyes

maximum vs minimum in an 11 year cycle, ican..

You just don't understand that concept do you?

What evidence do you have that the 11 year cycle suddenly stopped in 2000 and the sun is getting more active? Sunspot numbers show you to be wrong. Go out, stare at the sun and count the sunspots yourself. Stare for a really long time.

Hint- Don't count the sun spots at night.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 07:59 pm
parados wrote:
Are you really sure you want to include the minority report as evidence of "increasing" solar radiation ican? Because if you had bothered to read the report you would see that more than one of those quoted say the solar irradiation is on the decline now.

Let me quote from that report. Somethin YOU will not be able to do in support of you 1w/m^2 claim.

Quote:
The current 100 year solar radiation cycle may now have reached its peak, and irradiation intensity has been observed to be declining. This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988,
[/color]

Quote:
Solar radiation and conduction are essentially constant and the earth's surface temperature will vary according to increasing back IR radiation


Quote:
Sorochtin wrote. "The highest point of the warming has already occurred,"


Nope, no one in that report backs up your claim ican.. You can provide no quote from your report.


None of what you allegedly quoted from that report,

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report ,

refutes or contradicts my claim that solar irradiation increased from 1975 to 2005. All these folks are saying is that solar irradiance has probably reached its peak. I hope it has. I expect cooler global temperatures will follow--it looks like that cooling may have started in 2006.

Some example quotes from that report that claim increased solar radiation has probably been the primary cause of global temperature increases:

Quote:
Geologists Dr. George Chilingar, and L.F. Khilyuk of the University of Southern California authored a December 2006 study in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Geology which found warming temperatures were due to natural factors, not mankind. "The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere.


Quote:
Professor of Ecological Studies, Dr. Terry Wimberley of Florida Gulf Coast University teaches courses on environmental health, risk assessment, and epidemiology. Wimberley, who is a professor in the Division of Marine Sciences and Ecological Sciences at the University, is the author of the forthcoming book Nested Ecology. Wimberley dissented from man-made climate fears in 2007. "At issue is how big of a problem is human produced CO2 emissions. Undoubtedly to some marginal degree - which scientists debate about - it is a problem, but is it the major cause of global warming? No," Wimberley wrote said on Nov. 1, 2007. "More important is the interaction of solar activity (solar winds) with penetrating cosmic rays into the earth's atmosphere.


Quote:
A November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, authored the new study. The study concluded: "[L]ong-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic and luminosity variations... There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650 thousand years. ... [C]hanges in solar insolation at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings of CO2 and CH4 by several-fold, and ... [therefore] regional responses to solar insolation forcing will decide the primary climatic feedbacks and changes."


Quote:
An October 2007 Danish National Space Center Study concludes: "The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."


As for your preoccupation with the accuracy of my specific claim of a 1.0 W/m^2 increase in solar irradiation from 1975 t0 2005, it appears you would be right to question its accuracy, since the increase from 1975 had already increased by more than 1.0 W/m^2 by the year 2000--5 years before 2005.

Quote:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
...
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
and
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
...
ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Lean, J. 2000.
Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum.
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428,
Aug. 15, 2000.
...
Calculation of TSI from calc_tsi_ann.pro
Mon Apr 2 15:18:18 2001
...
1975.5 1365.5466 1365.5020
...
2000.5 1366.6620 1366.6744
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 10:04 pm
parados wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not a science wonk Parados and all the graphs and analytic data go right over my head and I don't pretend to know which represent valid research and which represent manufactured propaganda.


An interesting if somewhat disingenuous claim there Fox since you have on several occasions announced what the temperature is doing the last few years.


I have NEVER claimed to be a scientist or qualified to discuss the technical scientific stuff. But I can read a thermometer which could account for me announcing what the temperature was if I in fact did. And I can read a scientific opinion. And I can usually even discern when one scientific opinion disagrees with another.

I can also read a graph sufficiently well to note that on not any Ican have posted or you have posted or any others have posted does the reported global temperatures perfectly correlate with the reported solar TSI, yet on every graph it there is a correlation within a general period.

Again, based on that observation, I logically deduce that solar TSI is a significant force driving climate conditions, but that there are likely other forces that modify or affect the shorter term affect of solar TSI.

So far nobody has shown me that my logical deduction is flawed.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 06:59 am
ican.. the year 2000 is NOT the year 2005 No matter how many times you post the TSI from 2000, the year 2000 will NEVER become the year 2005.

Laughing You just don't have anything to support your 1w/m^2 increase from 1975 - 2005 do you? Certainly nothing you cited from the MINORITY report by Inhofe, a global warming denier, does anything to support it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 07:19 am
Oh for heaven's sake, here are some graphs and information on solar TSI up to the current time. Will that do?

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM.png
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 07:33 am
Yes Fox and what would you say the solar irradiance does on that graph?

Does it go up or down? Be careful because ican is going to claim it doesn't go down at all and certainly doesn't go down the .7 w/m^2 that I see from 2002 -2008.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 07:52 am
I don't know what Ican can say; all I know is that he generally gets it right on this stuff; but he puts his pants on one leg at a time (I presume--I have no way of verifying that) and he probably does err or get something wrong now and then. Who among us is perfect, and over the course of a long thread we are gonna say something that can be justifiably criticized.

Also, as we think about stuff and ponder this and look at that, our own perceptions likely are changed, however subtle that might be, so that we can even be seen to contradict ourselves even when that isn't the actual fact.

Anyhow, here is another site with recent information on solar TSI.
http://ilws.gsfc.nasa.gov/ilws_swiss0405.pdf

To me, it does appear that solar TSI has been decreasing over the last several years and, to me, this could explain the data recently posted showing that ocean temperatures all over the world have stablized and even cooled somewhat.

And my own observations that climate trends do not exactly correlate with solar TSI when you compare both over a year or a few years, but the overall trends do show a correlation.

So to pick one year with high solar TSI without a specific comparable spike in global temperatures that very same year just doesn't wash--for me anyway--when I draw conclusions. And because all spikes in solar TSI don't result in exactly comparable spikes in global average temps, it also follows that other factors are at play that modify the solar influence.

To me, it seems quite probably that the solar influence is the number one factor driving all large climate trends, however.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 08:48 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I have NEVER claimed to be a scientist or qualified to discuss the technical scientific stuff. But I can read a thermometer which could account for me announcing what the temperature was if I in fact did. And I can read a scientific opinion. And I can usually even discern when one scientific opinion disagrees with another.

I can also read a graph sufficiently well to note that on not any Ican have posted or you have posted or any others have posted does the reported global temperatures perfectly correlate with the reported solar TSI, yet on every graph it there is a correlation within a general period.

Again, based on that observation, I logically deduce that solar TSI is a significant force driving climate conditions, but that there are likely other forces that modify or affect the shorter term affect of solar TSI.

So far nobody has shown me that my logical deduction is flawed.

I think you summed it up pretty well. So far, the relationship of the sun to earth's temperatures appear to offer the best correlation. I have not followed the numerous graphs and counter arguments of Parados here which probably involves alot of splitting hairs, but the sun correlates alot better than CO2.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:45 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know what Ican can say; all I know is that he generally gets it right on this stuff;


I am curious how you know ican gets it right since you don't understand the technical parts of the issue? Laughing

Read the chart. Tell us if it goes up or down. Simple to do Fox. Then compare your reading to what ican has argued. If you think ican generally gets it right then you are correct in that you don't understand the technical stuff but way off in saying that ican generally gets it right. He understands the technical stuff less than you do and you have admitted you don't understand it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 11:00 am
okie wrote:

I think you summed it up pretty well. So far, the relationship of the sun to earth's temperatures appear to offer the best correlation. I have not followed the numerous graphs and counter arguments of Parados here which probably involves alot of splitting hairs, but the sun correlates alot better than CO2.


It did correlate reasonably well up until the last 30 years, maybe 75. In the last 30 they have quite clearly moved apart. In the last 7 the sun has cooled significantly but the earth has not.

You guys want to argue we need to look at the solar cycle then want to ignore the cycle when it digresses from global temperature. You can't have it both ways. Either the temperature should now be following the solar cycle or it isn't. Ican's argument is that the solar cycle is NOT what the readings are. Your argument is what okie? Is the solar cycle presently in a minimum or not? Do you think or maybe have evidence that ican can't provide that the solar radiance has increased by 1w/m^2 from 1975-2005?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 12:26:40