Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

a reply to: Kali74

I look out at night. It's cold.

I look out in daylight. It's warm.

I look at places which have extended periods of either and see the result of the sun's absence or long duration periods of being there. Temperature reflects the behavior of the sun in relation to Earth, at least to a basic level.

I'd have thought that a self evident point. Now..how strongly does the Sun factor into changes vs. Earth factors? Considering we've seen warming like this before man had any way to change a thing, better or worse, there is the circumstantial evidence which suggests the relative position of the two does interact for the trends on temperature.

Truth be known, the Sun is probably just one factor of many, but there is no question in my mind it's a factor by it's mere presence and daily observation.

a reply to: Kali74

There is as much proof of the theory of solar irridensence and coorelation of rise and fall of global temperure as there is of anthropogenic sources of CO2 affecting global temperatures.

en.wikipedia.org...

This time read the post and actually look at the graphs.

Where is your proof of anthropogenic sources of global warming?

Tired of control Freaks

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Since we're talking about global warming, I think the context is pretty clear. Has the sun done anything special to cause a .5C rise in global temperature since 1880? No it hasn't. It's had it's normal cycles with some extended minimums.

a reply to: Kali74

Has the sun done anything special to cause a .5C rise in global temperature since 1880? No it hasn't. It's had it's normal cycles with some extended minimums.

I don't know that to a scientific certainty. I can certainly trade scientific and academic journals and papers all evening saying it has or it hasn't...but then..that is the whole problem. Certainty is what we don't have here.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I've addressed this in past several posts, you seem to not understand the terminology involved and are confusing it for me not answering you.

From your link:

Modulation of the solar luminosity by magnetically active regions was confirmed by satellite measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) by the ACRIM1 experiment on the Solar Maximum Mission (launched in 1980).[23] The modulations were later confirmed in the results of the ERB experiment launched on the Nimbus 7 satellite in 1978,[24] and satellite observation of solar irradiance continues today with ACRIM-3 and other satellite measurements.[1] Sunspots in magnetically active regions are cooler and 'darker' than the average photosphere and cause temporary decreases in TSI of as much as 0.3%. Faculae in magnetically active regions are hotter and 'brighter' than the average photosphere and cause temporary increases in TSI.

The net effect during periods of enhanced solar magnetic activity is increased radiant output of the sun because faculae are larger and persist longer than sunspots. Conversely, periods of lower solar magnetic activity and fewer sunspots (such as the Maunder Minimum) may correlate with times of lower terrestrial irradiance from the sun.[25]

So again, we have to look at TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) which has been posted in this thread multiple times now. Higher TSI warmer by about .01C, lower TSI cooler by about .01C based on the 11 year cycle (which isn't a perfect 11 year cycle) so a longer minimum can cause additional cooling over .01C and a longer maximum can cause additional warming by over .01C.



So how is the sun responsible for the current warming?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

How about just one?

a reply to: Kali74

You have proved NOTHING - since global weather is so poorly understood and how the earth modulates its own temperature is also poorly understood and all of those pretty climate models failed to predict a 17 year pause.

You have NOTHING!!!!

I however, have the hallmarks of a hoax plus the actions of Maurice Strong, Al Gore and the UN.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So it's not the sun?

a reply to: Kali74

That is not what I said!

I said there is at least as much proof for the theory of solar irridescence influencing global temperature as there is for the theory of anthropogenic warming.

Are you saying that it isn't anthropogenic warming?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Kali74

I'll be happy to supply several, actually. This has become a real side area of passion and interest for me over the last months. I don't say much yet because I'm still reading and learning....but I have plenty to share in material. Particularly in this aspect of it.

The solar magnetic sector structure appears to be related to the average area of high positive vorticity centers (low-pressure troughs) observed during winter in the Northern Hemisphere at the 300-millibar level. The average area of high vorticity decreases (low-pressure troughs become less intense) during a few days near the times at which sector boundaries are carried past the earth by the solar wind. The amplitude of the effect is about 10 percent.

Source: Science

The record of globally averaged sea surface temperature (SST) over the past 130 years shows a highly significant correlation with the envelope of the 11-year cycle of solar activity over the same period. This correlation could be explained by a variation in the sun's total irradiance (the solar “constant”) that is in phase with the solar-cycle envelope, supporting and updating an earlier conclusion by Eddy (1976) that such variations could have played a major role in climate change over the past millennium. Measurements of the total irradiance from spacecraft, rockets, and balloons over the past 25 years have provided evidence of long-term variations and have been used to develop a simple linear relationship between irradiance and the envelope of the sunspot cycle.

Source: Journal of Geophysical Research

Current concern over ‘greenhouse’ warming and possible human influence upon global climate has been countered by claims that recent advances in solar theory demonstrate a greater role than previously thought for solar forcing in recent climate change. This is still disputed for this century, but new evidence from a range of palaeoenvironmental indicators lends strong support to the notion that not only the long-term (105 to 103 years) climate changes of the Pleistocene but also short-term (101 to 102 years) climate changes in the Holocene may derive in large or small part from solar variability.

Source: Sage Journals

The mean surface temperature of the Earth depends on various climate factors with much attention directed toward possible anthropogenic causes. However, one must first determine the stronger effects such as El Niño/La Niña and volcanoes. A weaker effect, which must exist, is solar irradiance. We have determined the solar effect on the temperature from satellites measurements (available since 1979) of the solar irradiance and the temperature of the lower troposphere. We find the sensitivity to solar irradiance to be about twice that expected from a no-feedback Stefan-Boltzmann radiation balance model. This climate gain of a factor of two implies positive feedback.

Source: Geophysical Research Letters

I've got quite a bit more, although I've not completely read through all of them. It's a slow row to hoe, so to speak. However, it's very enlightening. Thank a course instructor who just couldn't stick to facts as to what got me so deeply interested in establishing just that..or the lack of them, as the case may be.

Certainty is what we do not have. Theories and unknowns? We have plenty of those. Hopefully, that balance shifts as technology improves and more is discovered over time.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No one is disputing that TSI has an affect on global temperatures or even that the solar cycle causes a +-.01C temperature variation. What we are saying and what the data very clearly shows is that there's hasn't been a TSI increase enough to cause .5C warming.

Prove otherwise, if you can.

a reply to: Kali74

please prove 0.5 degrees of warming

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

A lot of reading to do on those. I'll address them after doing so.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Even deniers don't deny that the planets warmed .5C. They just deny why.

a reply to: beezzer

I'm all for solar power and I like clean air and water as much as the next guy. What I don't like? Politics, politicians, and giving more money to those who have PROVEN themselves lousy stewards of what they already have.

Here's an idea: Lets treat "global climate change" like the scary dragon it is and sacrifice Al Gore, and all of congress to it. The way I see it, we are a stupid, superstitious people anyway. It might just work.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

lol

I am all for that idea but when you say all of congress I don't want to hear anybody making exceptions for this or that one and just to be safe I think we need to institute the time old practice of three generations as well.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Well throwing the lot of them into the nearest active Volcano is tempting as ideas go... (..try...to..resist...agreement..lol).

I'll bet we'd do much better if they just exited public life into, say, a comfy retirement. After all.. How much is enough when almost all are independently wealthy beyond a level we'll ever know in life? They don't need to keep taking. Right?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sorry I draw the line at Bernie Sanders, you can have the rest

a reply to: Kali74

why did you choose the date of 1880? Earths been around for millions of year?

Tired of Control Freaks

Waging wars only kills off the fit and the brainy, the stupid and unfit stay at home out of harms way, what army wants its artillery manned by stupid people? what army wants colour blind people? no point in putting fat people in tanks, or aircraft!