Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panthers_Lover

Global warming out of this world?

108 posts in this topic

If you want to talk about the politics of it then sure, there's a discussion to be had. If you just want to deny the science then go waste someone else's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a whole, the IPCC has been severely wrong in their predictions. They are the ones cited for evidence when determining political policy and by Al Gore for his continued campaign as the spearhead for said propaganda. Since 1990, actual global temp increases have been ~.014 degree Celsius. This is a far cry from the .30 to .50 predictions touted by their 1st through 4th predictions:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...reports.shtml#1

As for solar cycles, they simply cannot be discounted with the totality of evidence and how it correlates with what we know of global mean temperatures. It doesn't mean that other factors cannot influence global climate, but of all research that has been proven over time, solar radiation (sometimes coupled with geomagnetic influence) is known to account for the majority of variance.

Where are you getting this part? I havent heard of much variation in solar radiation from year to year, to the best of my knowledge the sun spot cycle accounts for maybe 1-3 W/m2 while the total average solar radiation hitting earth is ~1300 W/m2

Also- I thought we had more warming since 1990. I know that sea level rise has been accelerating since 1980 (as compared with the earlier 20th century). And Al Gore is not a climate scientist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting this part? I havent heard of much variation in solar radiation from year to year, to the best of my knowledge the sun spot cycle accounts for maybe 1-3 W/m2 while the total average solar radiation hitting earth is ~1300 W/m2

Also- I thought we had more warming since 1990. I know that sea level rise has been accelerating since 1980 (as compared with the earlier 20th century). And Al Gore is not a climate scientist

Don't take my word for it... ask NASA

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/

They thought enough of the idea to form an entire division for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to talk about the politics of it then sure, there's a discussion to be had. If you just want to deny the science then go waste someone else's time.

I've shown that I'm willing to talk both. You've shown that you're willing to talk neither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take my word for it... ask NASA

http://earthobservat...Features/SORCE/

They thought enough of the idea to form an entire division for it

tsi_plot_lft.giftsi_plot_right.gif

Where are you getting this part? I havent heard of much variation in solar radiation from year to year, to the best of my knowledge the sun spot cycle accounts for maybe 1-3 W/m2 while the total average solar radiation hitting earth is ~1300 W/m2

Called it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tsi_plot_lft.giftsi_plot_right.gif

Called it!

The 11 year cycle? Yes. NASA thinks enough of a possibility of the aggregate effects of TSI in conjunction with GMI with respect to climate effects that they are giving it more research. Why would they do such a thing if GHGs were a slam dunk for attributing climate change?

Again, I point to the utter failure of models to accurately predict a vector for mean global temperatures that lean heavily on GHGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 11 year cycle? Yes. NASA thinks enough of a possibility of the aggregate effects of TSI in conjunction with GMI with respect to climate effects that they are giving it more research. Why would they do such a thing if GHGs were a slam dunk for attributing climate change?

Again, I point to the utter failure of models to accurately predict a vector for mean global temperatures that lean heavily on GHGs.

I agree that there are clearly factors other than greenhouse gasses involved in global temperature fluctuations. But this 0.1 - 0.2% change in solar radiation is just not going to change temperature very much. If the sun spot cycle were a large driving force behind climate change, there would be a significant, 11 year period in the global temperature change

208488main_global_temp_change.jpg

tsi_plot_lft.giftsi_plot_right.gif

You can actually see the slight variability caused by this cycle- look at the small peaks in temperature in 1970, '80, and '90, but this variability is clearly smaller than the overall trend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I was off in R creating some figures to do what thatlookseasy has done just by taking them from other websites. suffice to say there is nothing in the raw, unbias data that twylght has provided that looks any different than the figures that thatlookseasy has provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites