Non Regia Solis

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
It's about the Sun and yes it's about climate change, but it has pictures too.


Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. - A.E.



The sun provides 99.998% of the energy to the Earth’s climate. The amount of total solar radiation reaching the Earth's upper atmosphere in one hour is almost twice as much as the amount of energy currently produced globally in one year. The total solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere, oceans and the global land masses in one year is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources combined.




The 'Consensus' and the Sun__________________________________________________

For climatology, the only relevant metric to measure the Sun's effect on changes of the Earth's climate system is Total Solar Irradiance(TSI). More importantly, TSI is the only solar component incorporated into model simulations of past or future climate conditions.


-Earliest known western drawing of sunspots

Total Solar Irradiance is defined as the amount of solar radiation received outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation, and at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun. The generally accepted value is 1,361 Watts per sqm with an accuracy of about 0.2%. Variations of a few tenths of a percent are common, usually associated with the passage of sunspots across the solar disk. The solar cycle variation of TSI is of the order of 0.1%.




IPCConsensus Glossary

The Sun exhibits periods of high activity observed in numbers of sunspots, as well as radiative output, magnetic activity and emission of high-energy particles. These variations take place on a range of time scales from millions of years to minutes.




In a nutshell, whatever the Sun does, the effects of varying solar activity on global surface temperature for timescales shorter than one millenium are considered minuscule.

Since the first principles, the laws of physics, cannot change this must be equally true for the past as it is true for the present and the future.



According to the 'Consensus', the effect of variations in solar activity on the energy imbalance of Earth has been quantified. It accounts for five percent, at most.


Flatlining________________________________________________

In an attempt to explain why the Earth's surface is not warming for more than 15 years the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers states:


The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.

However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability.

There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).



Considering that variations in solar output during the sunpot cycles are deemed negligible this explanation adds more confusion than clarification, plus it's basically self-contradicting.




The Sun can be ruled out.

Grand Solar Minima (e.g. Maunder Minium) cannot have been responsible for the prolonged cooling periods when average temperatures were significantly lower on at least half of the globe.

Conversely, the Modern Grand Solar Maximum cannot have been the cause for the 20th century warming.

And finally, with regards to the expected next Grand Minimum the 'Consensus' confirms:


Solar Forcing

Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to greenhouse gases.



'Science' tells us - Whatever happens to the changing climate, do not look to the Sun.

A changing Sun would barely make a dent



In the meantime - Nunc quidem paululum' inquit 'a sole.




posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Seems like the IPCC are saying global warming HAS to be of the AGW type because there is no better explanation. It could just be that they are too happy with all the varied bookeeping over a few centuries that itself could be flawed.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





Seems like the IPCC are saying global warming HAS to be of the AGW type because there is no better explanation.


You're right, this is exactly what they're saying. But the 'explanations' for a Sun-Earth climate link beyond total solar output have always been there. The failure to take these 'explanations' into account can only be explained by deliberate ignorance.

Sun-Cimate Connections Workshop


There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Good post, very informative.

I especially love the fact that you're trying to stick with the science without tossing in too much opinion on the subject. Unfortunately, on ATS (or any other forum for that matter), sticking with just the science and leaving out opinion won't get you much traffic in a thread... it seems this subject is preferential to argument, opinion, speculation, and political drama.


And on that note, here's my speculation
:

Magnetics, my friend, magnetics.

I'm of the belief that one day (I hope) climate scientists are finally going to join forces with heliophysicists and discover that climate is actually driven and controlled by, not CO2/methane/water vapour, but (more specifically) the relationship between the sun's and the earth's magnetospheres (aka heliospheric variables).

Nothing to do with TSI.

It's all about the energy exchange causing variations in the heliosphere, and thus, planetary magnetics. Any variable with a decadal constant, and we'll observe the trend effect here on earth.

This is why the models are continuously failing to match up with actual observation... They're missing THE major mechanism in the equation.

But that's just my $.02... for what it's worth.



By the way, excellent excellent link to that National Academies workshop, I wasn't even aware that it existed... There's hope yet for climate science. I gave the report a quick peruse and it instantly grabbed my attention, so I decided to print it off and give it a proper full read later when I have the time. Tons of interesting scientific research in there.

Two thumbs up for you !



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Are we really going to insist on pretending that satellite measurements of outgoing thermal radiation, specifically reduced by GHG's (confirmed by spectrum analysis) doesn't exist? Furthermore are we going to keep pretending that mainstream climate science hasn't weighed all solar variables or that it doesn't continue to make sure findings are correct?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Are we really going to insist on pretending that satellite measurements of outgoing thermal radiation, specifically reduced by GHG's (confirmed by spectrum analysis) doesn't exist?



I don't know, are you? Cause i sure don't. But i'm virtually certain you still insist on pretending you would know what you're talking about.

Kali (i'm paraphrasing): "All hell is gonna break loose when the sun wakes up again."

You could at least try to make it a bit more interesting.

How much is the observed TOA energy imbalance?




Furthermore are we going to keep pretending that mainstream climate science hasn't weighed all solar variables or that it doesn't continue to make sure findings are correct?


No they have not. They can't. Models don't even do UV.

The Consensus



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Considering that variations in solar output during the sunpot cycles are deemed negligible this explanation adds more confusion than clarification, plus it's basically self-contradicting.
Here's what the full report says. I don't see a contradiction.

Since AR4 there has been considerable new research that has connected solar forcing to climate. The effect of solar forcing on GMST trends has been found to be small, with less than 0.1°C warming attributable to combined solar and volcanic forcing over the 1951–2010 period (Section 10.3.1), although the 11 year cycle of solar variability has been found to have some influence on GMST variability over the 20th century. GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C from some regression studies of GMST and forcing estimates (Figure 10.6) although several studies have suggested these results may be too large due to issues including degeneracy between forcing and with internal variability, overfitting of forcing indices, and underestimated uncertainties in responses (Ingram, 2007; Benestad and Schmidt, 2009; Stott and Jones, 2009).

www.climatechange2013.org...

What the summary is saying (if you read it carefully) is that the slight change in temperature associated with the variation due to the solar cycle, in combination with volcanic aerosols (and other factors like ENSO) is likely to be the cause for the flattening of the temperature trend in 1998-2012. The thing is, as slight as the variation is during the cycle, indications are that any overall variation (from cycle to cycle) is far less than that 0.1%.
 


Grand Solar Minima (e.g. Maunder Minium) cannot have been responsible for the prolonged cooling periods when average temperatures were significantly lower on at least half of the globe.
The IPCC makes no such claim.

There is medium confidence that both external solar and volcanic forcing, and internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes between the MCA and the LIA, but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions (Sections 5.3.5.3, 5.5.1).

The combined influence of volcanism, solar forcing and a small drop in greenhouse gases likely contributed to northern hemisphere cooling during the LIA (Section 10.7.2).



Conversely, the Modern Grand Solar Maximum cannot have been the cause for the 20th century warming.
That's right. Not without the help of rising CO2 levels. It can't account for the amount of warming.
 


Models don't even do UV.
Really? I don't see that in Chapter 8. Did you provide the wrong link? What I do seen in Chapter 8 is this:

In addition, the reduction in CH4 via stratospheric O3, UV fluxes and OH levels due to increased N2O abundance is included in GWPs and GTP.

The effects of UV are considered. It is pointed out that changes in UV flux may have an influence on general circulation patterns which may have an influence on transitory (like ENSO) things but no so much on the overall trend.
edit on 10/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Thank you.



I'm of the belief that one day (I hope) climate scientists are finally going to join forces with heliophysicists and discover that climate is actually driven and controlled by, not CO2/methane/water vapour, but (more specifically) the relationship between the sun's and the earth's magnetospheres (aka heliospheric variables).


I hope this day comes soon, but i wont old my breath. There were signs of progress back last December when the Second Order Draft was leaked, but except for a few references to uncertainty they seem to be back to 'normal' now.

Here's my speculation. Surface temperature trend will remain flat for one more year and then it will start cooling until the next El Nino, with more cooling commencing afterwards.

This will be the time when climate science has no other chance than to acknowledge the obvious.

Have you ever heard of Cornelis de Jager? He's a very 'special character' so to say, but a higly skilled solar physicists. He was one of those who predicted a next Grand Minima more than 5 years ago when NASA's top dogs were still forecasting high solar activity for the coming years. It seems he was right.

I wonder what else he could be right about.

He would like your speculation.

Solar activity and Cimate

Solar forcing

The second paper was written eight years ago.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Here's what the full report says. I don't see a contradiction.


Look closer and forget the Sun, they tell you it's negligible.


GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C from some regression studies of GMST and forcing estimates although several studies have suggested these results may be too large due to issues including degeneracy between forcing and with internal variability, overfitting of forcing indices, and underestimated uncertainties in responses.


And highly uncertain.


but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions.




The IPCC makes no such claim.


No, i did. It's all about first principles, remember? They say they still don't know.




Really? I don't see that in Chapter 8. Did you provide the wrong link? What I do seen in Chapter 8 is this:



Chapter 8

As UV heating of the stratosphere over a SC has the potential to influence the troposphere indirectly, through dynamic coupling, and therefore climate (Haigh, 1996; Gray et al., 2010), the UV may have a more significant impact on climate than changes in TSI alone would suggest. Although this indicates that metrics based only on TSI are not appropriate, UV measurements present several controversial issues and modelling is not yet robust.




That's right. Not without the help of rising CO2 levels. It can't account for the amount of warming.


Models don't do ENSO and they don't do clouds.

Net TOA and surface energy flux is also still highly uncertain. The heat could be there or it couldn't.

Update on Earth’s energy balance

edit on 6-10-2013 by talklikeapirat because: a series not a cycle



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Look closer and forget the Sun, they tell you it's negligible.
They say it is slight. I pointed that out. They also say that slight reduction in TSI, along with volcanic activity and other transient factors (like ENSO) are the probable cause for the flattening. Volcanic activity and those transient (internal) factors are thought to be the primary causes.


No, i did.
So you are saying that the low solar activity during the Maunder minimum had nothing to do with the LIA? You could be right, it could have been volcanic activity and other factors I suppose....you don't think the Sun could have had a very slight affect? IPCC thinks it's possible.

Models don't do ENSO and they don't clouds.
Yes, I know that the effect of UV on the transient factors are not well understood. I know there are difficulties with modelling clouds. I've been reading the report. These factors are considered in looking at the overall confidence level of the models. Just because a particular factor may not be well modeled, it doesn't mean that nothing else works. And the models are improving. That's the point.



Net TOA and surface energy flux is also still highly uncertain. The heat could be there or it couldn't.
That's not what I get from that article.

Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm–2, than earlier model-based estimates


More longwave radiation means more heat. It certainly doesn't imply the "heat" might not be there.

edit on 10/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





They say it is slight.


Quantify slight.



So you are saying that the low solar activity during the Maunder minimum had nothing to do with the LIA?


No i said that IPCC-related science has quantified the varaitions in solar output and the assessment is that the effect on the climate is minuscule compared to all other forcing. I also said the laws of physics cannot change and therefore the LIA must have been caused by something other than the Sun.

I do think varying solar activity has major effect on climate.



They also say that slight reduction in TSI, along with volcanic activity and other transient factors (like ENSO)


ENSO is not a transient factor. Climate science would like to treat it as such. That's why climate models have so much difficulties simulating the process. The same is true for clouds, slight changes in cloud cover, depending on altitude and latitude, can have huge impact on how much energy is absorbed or radiated back to space. You remember that global warming is all about strong positive feedbacks?

Getting clouds worng makes all the difference.



More longwave radiation means more heat. It certainly doesn't imply the "heat" might not be there.


You misunderstood the part you've quoted, it describes the discrepancy between models on observation, nothing else.

The net energy imbalances for TOA and the surface are clearly stated.



The net energy balance is the sum of all individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 W/m2. The uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The uncertainty is also an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.4 W/m2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.





The heat might be there or in the oceans, or it might be not.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




I don't know, are you? Cause i sure don't.


It sure seems like you are because something sure is making the planet act as if we are receiving more energy from the sun even though we are receiving the same or less and you want to pretend that all of climate science is simply ignoring the elephant in the room as opposed to looking at it first and concluding that just because there is foul smell in the room doesn't mean the elephant farted, but increasingly likely to be the infant that was fed too much and now has gas.



But i'm virtually certain you still insist on pretending you would know what you're talking about.


That's beginning to translate to "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to have an emotional reaction and call names" because I'm virtually certain this is a demonstrated modus operandi for you and I'm not the only victim. Either that or you're simply incapable of reading comprehension.



Kali (i'm paraphrasing): "All hell is gonna break loose when the sun wakes up again."


Indeed that's similar to something I said, how does that conflict with anything I, or for that matter, the IPCC... have said about the sun? By the way what happens to that thermal radiation that isn't escaping back into space? If the sun does wake up won't that make the situation worse? Barring more aerosols and La Ninas of course.



How much is the observed TOA energy imbalance?


You must read Judith Curry, a lot... or Watts. Your implication requires more pretending. In order to argue that the satellite data is wrong we must pretend that the argument regarding the modelling is about TOA and not surface fluctuations, which I believe can be attributed to those pesky volcanic aerosols and La Ninas... funny how those things keep popping up. I believe the accepted energy imbalance number is 0.6.



No they have not. They can't. Models don't even do UV.


Ohhhh so if it's not in the models it isn't considered?

Really?
edit on 6-10-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




No i said that IPCC-related science has quantified the varaitions in solar output and the assessment is that the effect on the climate is minuscule compared to all other forcing. I also said the laws of physics cannot change and therefore the LIA must have been caused by something other than the Sun.


Which is absurd, you are trying to equate what variations in climate do with the amount of energy we receive from solar output vs. less energy given to us from the sun. How can the two possibly be equated?



ENSO is not a transient factor.


Another absurdity. ENSO is transient. Sometimes we have an El Nino year which tends to give us warmer surface temps, sometimes we have a La Nina year which tends to give us cooler surface temps and sometimes we have neither.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Quantify slight.
If the IPCC can't I certainly can't. Slight is a little, maybe, if at all. To low to measure. The other factors are more important.
 


I also said the laws of physics cannot change and therefore the LIA must have been caused by something other than the Sun.
And the IPCC agrees. It was the result of a number of possible contributing factors. The Sun may or may not have had a slight contributing effect but the Sun alone cannot account for it.
 


ENSO is not a transient factor.
Really? You mean it's a permanent feature? It seems to vary quite a bit in timing and intensity.
upload.wikimedia.org...
 


Getting clouds worng makes all the difference.
Not all the difference. If you read the report it's pretty clear what the IPCC has based its evaluations on. (7.2.3.5)

Most CRM and LES studies do not span the large space and time scales needed to fully determine the interactions among different cloud regimes and the resulting net planetary radiative effects. Thus our assessments in this chapter do not regard any model type on its own as definitive, but weigh the implications of process model studies in assessing the quantitative results of the global models.

The report details the strengths and weakness of various cloud models. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You understand the weaknesses in the models and assess their overall impact on the effectiveness of the model.
 


You misunderstood the part you've quoted, it describes the discrepancy between models on observation, nothing else.
No, I didn't misunderstand it. It says that previous models understated the amount of longwave radiation infrared at the surface.

Satellite observations combined with other data (Box 1) now convincingly support previous observation-based estimates of the surface downward longwave flux. The revised estimates of these fluxes range between 342 and 350 Wm−2, and are between 10 and 17 Wm–2 larger than past estimates that have relied primarily on
global models.

That means more infrared energy at the surface than older models showed (about 5% more). It doesn't mean the heat "may or may not be there". If the energy is there, the heat is there.

edit on 10/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


There so much conjecture and baseless assumption in your last post alone, you really don't need me to prove the point.

I say it again, unemotionally, you have no idea what you are talking about. You're making it clear time and time again.



Indeed that's similar to something I said, how does that conflict with anything I, or for that matter, the IPCC... have said about the sun?


It's only you claiming it would make a difference. Based on what? The IPCC does not.


GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C from some regression studies of GMST and forcing estimates (Figure 10.6) although several studies have suggested these results may be too large due to issues including degeneracy between forcing and with internal variability, overfitting of forcing indices, and underestimated uncertainties in responses.





If the sun does wake up won't that make the situation worse?

See above.




In order to argue that the satellite data is wrong we must pretend that the argument regarding the modelling is about TOA and not surface fluctuations, which I believe can be attributed to those pesky volcanic aerosols and La Ninas...


You're proving the point once again. See post above yours. No one has said anything about wrong satellite data. Nothing to do with La Ninas or modelled TOA. You need to stop making up your own conversations. If you have a probelm with Curry or Watts, talk to them.


If you want to talk about elephant farts, why not.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





If the IPCC can't I certainly can't. Slight is a little, maybe, if at all. To low to measure. The other factors are more important.


Lets drop this part. It seems we're arguing about semantics. I mentioned half of what you've said before myself. If the effect is only slight, it's probably more important to understand the other factors.




Really? You mean it's a permanent feature? It seems to vary quite a bit in timing and intensity.


What do you suppose the graph represents? The individual physical processes or a condensed index of the combined effects of El Nino and La Nina conditions?

It's crucial to have clear defintions of ENSO (the process) and to make a clear distinction between the indicies representing it.

If we would single out only one of it's dominant feature, ENSO could be defined as a series of seperate events that are physically independent from each other, after a previous oscillatory modulation is completed.


Is ENSO a cycle or a series of events?

After early ideas that saw El Nin˜os as isolated events, the advent of coupled models brought the conception of ENSO as a cycle in which each phase led to the next in a self-sustained oscillation. Twenty-two years of observations that represent the El Nino and La Nina peaks (east Pacific SST) and the memory of the system (zonal mean warm water volume) suggest a distinct break in the cycle, in which the coupled system is able to remain in a weak La Nina state for up to two years, so that memory of previous influences would be lost.

Similarly, while the amplitude of anomalies persists from the onset of a warm event through its termination, there is no such persistence across the La Nina break. These observations suggest that El Ninos are in fact event-like disturbances to a stable basic state, requiring an initiating impulse not contained in the dynamics of the cycle itself.


In that sense ENSO is not a cycle.

Only a part of the energy released from the Western Pacific Warmpool during an El Nino is due to internal variability. The majority of the energy restored during neutral or La Nina conditions comes from the Sun.


Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures

The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the discharge of heat during El Nino events and of the recharge of heat during La Nina events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.


None of the indicies captures or represents these aspects. ENSO events do not cancel each other out.

There is no other single physical climate process that has such profound impacts on Surface Temperatures and overall climate conditions.

You're science guy Phage, i'm sure you understand what that means.




That means more infrared energy at the surface than older models showed (about 5% more). It doesn't mean the heat "may or may not be there". If the energy is there, the heat is there.


Again, it only means previous model based estimates were lower than previous observations.

The net energy fluxes are clearly stated, plus uncertainties.




posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




There so much conjecture and baseless assumption in your last post alone, you really don't need me to prove the point.


So you're going to pretend some more, in this case you're going to pretend you weren't going to take up Judith Curry and other skeptics attempt at casting doubt on the satellite data by arguing about uncertainties in surface variability in models.



I say it again, unemotionally, you have no idea what you are talking about. You're making it clear time and time again.


It's hilarious to me that you keep claiming I'm either a liar or don't know what I'm talking about, unemotionally of course (sure), when you clearly have a much better understanding of maths, graphs, formulae etc, yet come away with much less understanding of the overall picture than I.



It's only you claiming it would make a difference. Based on what? The IPCC does not.


The IPCC does not ignore the sun.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You did it again. You're just throwing words together. I'm not even going to ask you what satellite data has to do with all the other things you've said. Please don't try to explain it anyhow. Give it rest.




... maths, graphs, formulae etc ...less understanding of the overall picture than I.


That's your problem right there. All the sciency stuff.

Here's something you can add to the bigger picture. The Consensus tells you, you don't need to be afraid about what the Sun does. You won't even notice the difference.

You should be out celebrating.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 





That's your problem right there. All the sciency stuff.


It's not a problem at all. The really cool thing about all that sciency stuff is that papers generally explain what all that sciency stuff means and if they don't it can be looked up and I can figure it out. It just takes me longer. How arrogant.



The Consensus tells you, you don't need to be afraid about what the Sun does. You won't even notice the difference.


That's not what the consensus tells me or anyone else. Stop pretending.



You're just throwing words together.


There's that reading comprehension problem again.



I'm not even going to ask you what satellite data has to do with all the other things you've said.


It's the very first thing I said in this thread. You want to pretend that not only am I too stupid to understand science, that climate scientists are too stupid to understand science. You want to pretend that mainstream science ignores the sun, when it doesn't. You want to pretend that there are solar factors involved that need closer looking at, which I don't think anyone has a problem with per se but you are doing so in order to prove that warming has nothing to do with humans or increased GHG's in the atmosphere.

Where does satellite data come in? CERES and ISIS gave us empirical data that in fact thermal radiation is being absorbed and reradiated by GHG's.
edit on 6-10-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Stop pretending.


You say that a lot. No pretending. I specifically stated what i meant.


GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C

Reading comprehension.




not only am I too stupid to understand science


I don't know if it's stupidity, you said that. My guess was something entirely different. But i don't care anymore.



you are doing so in order to prove that warming has nothing to do with humans or increased GHG's in the atmosphere.


You got that part right, at least some of it. I never said nothing, but i will say very little.



CERES and ISIS gave us empirical data


I know, i posted the link.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join