Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#71 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,783
  • Reputation: 535
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:43 AM

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.

#72 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

VOLCANOS

#73 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:54 AM

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

#74 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:11 PM

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://earthobservat...Features/SORCE/

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

#75 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:12 PM

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

#76 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,711
  • Reputation: 2,351
Moderators

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:52 PM

SUNSPOTS

#77 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

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


Posted ImagePosted Image

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!

#78 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

Posted ImagePosted Image


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.

#79 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:03 PM

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

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image

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

#80 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:23 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users