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

@ican711nm,

Quote:

And yes, I have repeatedly said that increases in solar irradiance are a major cause of that warming. I'll say it again.

Could you please provide your math showing this?
You post charts but you don't show how they relate to anything. You often deny what the charts themselves show. You claim there is no warming since 1998 but ignore the standard ways of figuring trends.

What is the percent of warming caused by the increase in solar radiation? Could you point us to a scientific article that supports that with math?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

From about 1894, solar irradiance peaks have had an increasing trend from about 1365.1 w/m^2 to about 1366.7 w/m^2 in 2001, an increase of about 1.6 w/m^2. Also, from about 1891, solar irradiance valleys have had an increasing trend from about 1364.3 w/m^2 to about 1365.6 w/m^2 in 1998, an increase of about 1.1 w/m^2.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote: "So, are you ready to admit that the sun does NOT account for all the observed warming?"
I'm ready to AGAIN admit that the sun PROBABLY DOES NOT account for all the observed warming?"

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

That's nice but no one says it does account for all of it. You are using a logical fallacy.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

And what do you think the chart shows? Other than the solar irradiance increased but you have not shown HOW MUCH warming it would cause.

Increases in solar irradiance accounts for some of the warming which is what just about every scientist studying it has said.
Increases in solar irradiance do NOT account for all of the warming which again is what just about every scientist has said.
Ican keeps posting the same chart over and over as if the math which he does NOT present will change just because he posts a chart.

You are a complete idiot and continue to be one.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados asked: "And what pray tell is the greatest cause of the cooling since 1998? And why has it NOT cooled as much as it should have based on the change in the solar irradiance? The current output by the sun is about what it was in 1901. Why is it so much warmer today than it was then? What has changed? Are there more volcanoes? What are the possible reasons other than the change in the atmospheric makeup?
These are all questions that you ignore ican because you find them inconvenient."

I don't find these questions inconvenient. I find them silly.

It took time for the globe to warm from 1900 to 1998. That warming was not in complete synchronism with the increase in solar irradiance over that period. In other words, the heating and cooling of the globe laged in time the increasing and decreasing of the sun's irradiance. So the globe has apparently been cooling slowly since since 1998, while the sun's irradiance has been decreasing faster.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados asked: "are you ready to admit that the sun does NOT account for all the observed warming?"

I am ready to admit AGAIN that the sun DOES NOT account for ALL the observed global warming?" I HAVE CLAIMED and do now claim again that the increase in the sun's irradiance over the last hundred years or so is the MAJOR CAUSE of global warming. I NOW CLAIM the LESSER causes of global warming have caused an amount of global warming that is a VERY SMALL THREAT to life on this planet that does not justify major economic investments to control.

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados asked: "Could you please provide your math showing this (increases in solar irradiance are a major cause of that warming?)"

I can no more provide the math that proves this than you can provide the math that refutes this. This is generally true of the alleged consensus of scientists who claim increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is a MAJOR cause of global warming.

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

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

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

222
Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, chastised Gore for his scientific inaccuracies. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data," Easterbrook said in a March 13, 2007 New York Times article. "[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that ‘our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this' threatened change.
"Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to ‘20 times greater than the warming in the past century.' Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. ‘I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company,' Dr. Easterbrook told the group," the Times article explained. (LINK) Easterbrook rejects the notion that there is a "consensus" on global warming. "There are several hundred thousand scientists in the world. And the people who wrote the [UN IPCC] report that received a lot of publicity in February consisted of 33 policy makers, and the authorship of the entire IPCC report consists of 143 people. And that's hardly representative of the entire meteorological word," Easterbrook told Fox News Channel on March 13, 2007. "The validity of a scientific concept is not a matter of how many people vote for it or against it. It's a matter of the evidence upon which it's based. And the truth is there is no real tangible evidence of the connection between CO2 and global warming," he added.

223
Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article.(translated) "The earth will not die. Our archives show clearly that it has often been warmer, in addition, there have been cooler periods, which occurred just as fast as the current warm phase," Mangini said. "The statement that the heating up of the climate taking place now is comparable only with the heating up before 120,000 years is simply not correct. We have data, which show that there were periods which were similarly warm or even still warmer than today during the last ten thousand years," Mangini said. (LINK)

224
German climate scientist Dr. Hans von Storch, the Director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre, a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg who focuses on climate diagnostics and statistical climatology, and has published 11 books. Storch believes human are influencing climate change, but feels the fear factor has been dramatically overplayed. "We should spend more time talking about adjusting to the inevitable and not about reducing CO2 emissions. We have to take away people's fear of climate change," Storch told the German publication Der Spiegel on March 16, 2007. Storch dismissed fears of mass deaths from future heat waves caused by global warming. "Such claims are completely idiotic and dubious. What they did was to simply perform an extrapolation based on the mortality rate during the exceptionally hot 2003 summer, which took everyone by surprise and for which we were therefore completely unprepared. But if higher summer temperatures become the norm in the future, people will adjust," he explained. (LINK) Storch noted the limitations of science. "We climate researchers can only offer possible scenarios. In other words, things could end up being completely different. But there are undoubtedly parts of the world that will benefit on balance from climate change. Those areas tend to be in the north, where it has been cold and uncomfortable in the past. But it's considered practically heretical to even raise such issues," he said.

225
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he witnessed scientists distorting the science. "I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. "One of the statements in the [IPCC Summary for Policymakers] SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don't agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous," Christy said. Christy also dismissed Gore's warning of a 20 foot sea level rise to due future global warming. "To come up with 20 feet is really grasping at straws, I think, but it does make a dramatic image. It makes a startling announcement," Christy said. (LINK) Christy dismissed fears of man-made climate doom. "I don't see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food,'" Christy wrote in a February 6, 2007 article. "The climate cannot be predictably managed with such [emission reduction] proposals given the uncertainty of natural variations. For example, to make a 10 percent dent in CO2 would require 1000 nuclear power plants and this would still not make a measurable difference on whatever the climate will do anyway," Christy explained. "I'm full of optimism about the continued growth of wealth and health around the world. This wealth will create cleaner environments even in countries where persistent poverty has destroyed too much habitat and fouled too many rivers," he concluded. (LINK)

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote of me: "You are a complete idiot and continue to be one."

Parados, you are a slandering bigot!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

So the globe has apparently been cooling slowly since since 1998, while the sun's irradiance has been decreasing faster.

The only thing that has been happening since 1998 is the downward trend in an 11 year solar cycle which hit its minimum in 2008. From 77 to 85 we saw a slight drop in temperatures. From 91 to 97 we saw a slight drop in temperatures. But from 85-90 and 96-200 we saw an increase in temperatures that far outweighed the drop in the downside. The drop in temperatures on the downward trend of the cycles don't match the increase on the up trend so we get warming. We are about to enter an upward trend on the solar cycle. Why do you think we will see continued cooling when every other upward trend has produced warming?

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/nicholas/insider/thegreengrok/graphics/compositesolarvariation/image

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote: "Why do you think we will see continued cooling when every other upward trend has produced warming?"

The allegation that "every other upward trend of [solar irradiation] has produced warming," is false. Carefully examine the following graphs and you will see there are time periods when SI (i.e., Solar Irradiation) increased and AAGT (i.e., Average Annual Global Temperature) decreased.

For example:

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
SI 1611 to 2001.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
AAGT 1850 to 2008.

SI increased from 1891 to 1961, while AAGT decreased from 1891 to 1910, and from 1948 to 1956. Also, SI increased from 1975 to 1981, while AAGT decreased from 1975 to 1978.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Parados asked: "Could you please provide your math showing this (increases in solar irradiance are a major cause of that warming?)"

I can no more provide the math that proves this than you can provide the math that refutes this.

I see. You don't have math or science on your side when you claim this then. You are just making **** up, obviously.

Quote:

I HAVE CLAIMED and do now claim again that the increase in the sun's irradiance over the last hundred years or so is the MAJOR CAUSE of global warming.

Here is some math showing from 1900-2000 TSI was less than 50% of total warming. Feel free to present your own math ican
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

Since this paper was done, the TSI numbers have been reduced based on instrument drift so even less solar forcings would contribute using the new numbers.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Your temperature charts have an up and down cycle in them that is remarkably similar to the cycles in the solar irradiance. I see a spike in temperature about every 11 years. Don't you?

For you to claim that increased solar activity does not produce warming is ridiculous since you argued that was the reason for the majority of the observed warming. You are now arguing that your original argument was false.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote: "Why do you think we will see continued cooling when every other upward trend has produced warming?"

Parados, your allegation that "every other upward trend of [solar irradiation] has produced warming," is false.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Which upward trends have not produced warming and why?

1 Reply

@parados,

Re: ican711nm (Post 3510299)
Parados asked: "Could you please provide your math showing this (increases in solar irradiance are a major cause of that warming?)"
I, ican responded, can no more provide the math that proves this than you can provide the math that refutes this.

Parados then said, "You don't have math or science on your side when you claim this then. You are just making **** up, obviously."

I, ican, have science--and not merely a consensus of a minority of scientists--on my side. But I do not yet have math on my side. You, parados, have neither math or science on your side. You and those whom you follow "are just making **** up (i.e., arbitrary models), obviously."

I, ican previously said, HAVE CLAIMED and do again claim that the increase in the sun's irradiance over the last hundred years or so is the MAJOR CAUSE of global warming.

Parados now says, "Here is some math showing from 1900-2000 TSI was less than 50% of total warming. Feel free to present your own math ican."
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

You, Parados, allege "Here is some math showing from 1900-2000 TSI was less than 50% of total warming." The "Here" can allegedly be found in the following:

Quote:

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf
We estimate that the sun contributed 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming.
...
Neverthe less, several authors have observed that the sun climate coupling mechanisms are not implemented in the models.
...
In addition there are empirical studies claiming that the solar contribution to climate change has been miscalculated using present theoretical climate models.

Next, you parados allege, "Since this paper was done, the TSI numbers have been reduced based on instrument drift so even less solar forcings would contribute using the new numbers." Signature"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson.

Your signature, parados, applies to you as well as everyone else who is less enlightened.

Parados has written: "Your temperature charts have an up and down cycle in them that is remarkably similar to the cycles in the solar irradiance. I see a spike in temperature about every 11 years. Don't you?"

Yes, and I also see increasing and decreasing trends in the peaks and valleys of those spikes.

Parados then wrote: "For you to claim that increased solar activity does not produce warming is ridiculous since you argued that was the reason for the majority of the observed warming. You are now arguing that your original argument was false."

That is a flagrant distortion of what I wrote.

I actually demonstrated via two graphs that you were wrong when you asserted that increased solar activity always produces warming. Clearly, based on the evidence I provided, increased solar activity over some period has sometimes not produced warming over that period. Just as important is the fact that decreased solar activity over some period sometimes does not produce cooling over that period proportional to the amount of reduced solar activity.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Which upward trends have not produced warming and why?

I previously posted the following at the end of my post containing SI and AAGT graphs:
SI increased from 1891 to 1961, while AAGT decreased from 1891 to 1910, and from 1948 to 1956. Also, SI increased from 1975 to 1981, while AAGT decreased from 1975 to 1978.

At this time, I can only speculate on the answer to your "why." I expect that there are occassionally other factors that limit the effect on AAGT of SI increases. I expect cloud cover is one of these factors which is itself affected by SI to various degrees depending on the season. I expect volcano eruptions are sometimes a factor. But I do not yet know the math for relating any of these factors.

1 Reply

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

222

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, chastised Gore for his scientific inaccuracies. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data," Easterbrook said in a March 13, 2007 New York Times article. "[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that ‘our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this' threatened change.

"Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to ‘20 times greater than the warming in the past century.' Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. ‘I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company,' Dr. Easterbrook told the group," the Times article explained. (LINK) Easterbrook rejects the notion that there is a "consensus" on global warming. "There are several hundred thousand scientists in the world. And the people who wrote the [UN IPCC] report that received a lot of publicity in February consisted of 33 policy makers, and the authorship of the entire IPCC report consists of 143 people.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

A nice cut and paste from the article to try to make it mean something it doesn't.

Quote:

We estimate that the sun contributed 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming.

The authors are talking about their study.
...

Quote:

Neverthe less, several authors have observed that the sun climate coupling mechanisms are not implemented in the models.
...
In addition there are empirical studies claiming that the solar contribution to climate change has been miscalculated using present theoretical climate models.

In both of those cases the authors are talking about criticisms of OTHER models and not theirs.
The authors argue that other models that show LESS solar contributions are wrong and theirs is more accurate but even theirs is not a majority of the warming coming from solar activity.

You continue to be dishonest and still have presented no science in the form of any peer reviewed works. If you disagree with the paper I presented then present criticism of the paper itself and not your crap cut and paste out of context.

Quote:

I actually demonstrated via two graphs that you were wrong when you asserted that increased solar activity always produces warming. Clearly, based on the evidence I provided, increased solar activity over some period has sometimes not produced warming over that period.

So, if you are willing to argue that then your argument about solar radiation being the major cause is complete hogwash, isn't it? You ARE an idiot.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I previously posted the following at the end of my post containing SI and AAGT graphs:
SI increased from 1891 to 1961, while AAGT decreased from 1891 to 1910, and from 1948 to 1956. Also, SI increased from 1975 to 1981, while AAGT decreased from 1975 to 1978.

Wow.. what nice garbage from you.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
TSI from 1890-1910

Quote:

1890.5 1365.5912 1364.3982
1891.5 1365.8303 1364.6823
1892.5 1365.9163 1364.8152
1893.5 1366.0458 1364.9875
1894.5 1366.1332 1365.1044
1895.5 1366.0166 1364.9883
1896.5 1365.8434 1364.7870
1897.5 1365.7094 1364.6105
1898.5 1365.6982 1364.5564
1899.5 1365.6534 1364.4856
1900.5 1365.6216 1364.4579
1901.5 1365.5294 1364.4176
1902.5 1365.5165 1364.4843
1903.5 1365.7083 1364.7440
1904.5 1365.9651 1365.0502
1905.5 1365.7684 1364.8820
1906.5 1365.9651 1365.0778
1907.5 1365.8604 1364.9320
1908.5 1365.9426 1364.9508
1909.5 1365.8459 1364.8024
1910.5 1365.7173 1364.6566

A linear regression shows only a .04w/m^2 increase over the time period.

TSI from 1948-1956

Quote:

1948.5 1366.3475 1366.3531
1949.5 1366.2528 1366.2626
1950.5 1366.0098 1366.0220
1951.5 1365.7721 1365.7882
1952.5 1365.7653 1365.7739
1953.5 1365.6313 1365.6204
1954.5 1365.6599 1365.6467
1955.5 1365.7793 1365.7719
1956.5 1366.3097 1366.3141

Wow.. you failed to mention that the TSI decreased from 1948-1956. Dishonesty at its best there ican. The regression shows of a little over .o3 w/m^2 decrease .

Again, your argument is bull ****. You try to get around the actual numbers for those years by using different years for TSI and temperature.

You are so full of **** in selecting your numbers
1890 and 1910 are identical in temperature but you cherry pick 1891 so you can show cooling. But lets do a simple regression from 1891 to 1910. Oops. It seems you are not telling the truth. The trend is UP from 1891 to 1910
These are the numbers for Jan-Dec for the years

Quote:

-55
-39
-40
-33
-33
-27
-16
-20
-25
-6
-5
-30
-36
-42
-26
-15
-40
-30
-31
-21

1891 to 1910. Simply paste them in excel and do a chart with a regression. The trend is up. Surprise, the trend for both TSI and temperature are UP unlike your claim.

1948-1956 the trend for BOTH TSI and temperature is DOWN.
Jan -Dec for those years

Quote:

-3
-9
-17
-2
4
12
-9
-8
-18

The numbers don't even show what you claimed ican. They certainly don't show that TSI has ever increased while temp has decreased. Numbers don't lie ican but you do it seems.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know