Non Regia Solis

reply to post by talklikeapirat

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

Okay maybe delusion would be a better word.

Reading comprehension.

Ironic.

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

Shill? Is that what you were going for next?

I know, i posted the link.

Did you?

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

So why did you even ask me this? Or rather not ask me this...

reply to post by Kali74

Shill? Is that what you were going for next?

Delusion would be a better word.

Did you?

Yup. And i posted the chart, twice. The one with the colors.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


So you know the empirical data exists, you have the pretty colored charts... you know that there is thermal radiative being forced back down by GHG's, what happens to that down forcing with less GHG's in the air? What happens when there's more? You sure you posted it? You're sure you even looked at it? It takes quite some amount of pretending or delusion to have posted that yet still come away saying we have little to do with global warming when we are emitting 26 gigatonnes of Co2 alone per year.

reply to post by Kali74

So you know the empirical data exists

What does the empirical data say? The small numbers next to the colored bars.

What happens when there's more?

Apparently not much, for more than 15 years now. Even less in the 30 years before the brief warming period at the end of the century.

It takes quite some amount of ideological conditioning or addiction to fear to ignore the obvious.

We are emitting 26 gigatonnes of Co2 alone per year

So we are adding about 0.002% by volume to the existing 0.039% by volume each year.

But it's not the CO2, it's supposed to be the feedbacks.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


You seem awfully fixated on small numbers equalling insignificance. What's up with that? Don't worry, 5-6 inches is plenty to have a big impact er.... speaking of sex, how big is a sperm compared to an adult male, yet upon successful penetration of an egg becomes an entirely new human.

reply to post by Kali74


I figured it would be better to divert your attention to smaller numbers, really big ones seem to induce panic. I see this happening a lot.

Do you find man-made global warming sexually stimulating? I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense.

The people with a vested interest in carbon tax will always push the human agenda.

And ignore the trolls, when they start going off topic you know why they are here.

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74

 

I figured it would be better to divert your attention to smaller numbers, really big ones seem to induce panic. I see this happening a lot.

Do you find man-made global warming sexually stimulating? I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense.

Yes my learning disability does make me feel overwhelmed with big numbers, I don't let it deter me though. However you aren't talking about big numbers so your little dig falls limp. To you, small numbers have "negligible" effect. That's not very scientific.

Took the joke a bit too far there didn't ya? It's funny that you think I'm the ideologue when it's you who continuously loses perspective.

I love how easily I can get you to show your true colors.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

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.

Whoa...

I just glanced at de Jager's abstract: "Solar activity and its influence on climate" written in 2008 and I'm blown away. He's actually talking about what I speculated on ?!


Some juicy bits from the abstract:

Guided by its quasi-regularities and by recent measurements of the solar magnetic fields we find that the sun is presently undergoing a transition between the past Grand Maximum and a forthcoming period of Regular Oscillations. We forecast that this latter period will start in a few years and will continue for at least one Gleissberg cycle and that the next solar maximum (expected for 2014) will be low (Rmax ~ 68).

Spot on about the low solar maximum.

Also noting that this paper was written in 2008, isn't it interesting how since roughly 1998 or so, temperature rise has slowed (and continuing to do so) even though the CO2 rise hasn't slowed one iota ?

It seems he's pretty spot on about the solar transition towards an eventual Grand Minima. Or at least so far it's looking like we're heading towards a down slope... time will tell whether or not it does actually continue downwards for the next 70+ years until it hits peak minima.

We discuss the heliospheric drivers of Sun-climate interaction and find that low-latitude magnetic regions contribute most to tropospheric temperatures but that also the influence of the (so far always neglected) polar activity is significant. Subtraction of these components from the observed temperatures in the past 400 years shows a residual series of relative peaks and dips in the temperature. These tops and lows last for periods of the order of the Gleissberg cycle. One of these is the recent period of global warming, which, from this point of view, is not an exceptional period.

Wow. Them's are some strong words.



I'd never heard of de Jager before.

Maybe I'm not so crazy with my thought process regarding that big yellow battery we revolve around, afterall ?!





Pardon me while I spend the next 5 hours googling the crap out of Cornelis de Jager and his publishings... I've just found my new short-term addiction.

Must... absorb... new... knowledge...

Weeeee !

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Just finished reading through de Jagar's "Solar Forcing of Climate. 1: Solar Variability (2005)"

Fascinating stuff.

What really caught me is this:

On the basis of the correlation between the open solar flux and the 14C and 10Be data it is possible to obtain information on the ejection of solar magnetised plasma during the past. Ice core research offers the possibility to go far back into time.

After various earlier investigations a main step forward was made by Bard et al. (2000) who studied the past fluxes of the cosmogenic nuclides 10Be and 14C and who realized that the Sun has been unusually active during the second half of the twentieth century. They found that solar activity measured through the ejected plasma “was lower than present during most of the last millennium, except during a
brief period centred around 1100 AD”.

This result was amplified by Usoskin et al. (2003) who gave data for the period 850–2000 (Figure 12, upper frame). Their reconstruction was based on 10Be numbers, 14C data and on observed sunspot numbers. Since there is no straight statistical correlation between the isotope numbers and solar activity (Mursula et al., 2003), their investigation included physical models for the heliospheric magnetic flux, a model for the transport and modulation of galactic cosmic rays in the heliosphere and one for the 10Be production in the Earth’s atmosphere. For the period before 1950 the result is also based on 14C data (atmospheric influences of nuclear bombs influencing data after 1945). The Figure demonstrates that over the past 1150 years the Sun has never been as active as during the past 50 years.

In a subsequent paper Solanki et al . (in press), using independent data sources, confirmed this latter results and they demonstrated that this even applies to the past 11 millennia (lower frame of Figure 12).

Summarising : never during the past ten or eleven millennia has the Sun been as active in ejecting magnetised plasma as during the second half of the twentieth century.

Interestingly enough, they're using the same proxy data that the AGW climatologists have been using (ice cores), in order to determine solar magnetic plasma output only to discover that the 20th century seems to have experienced unprecidented plasma outflow, since roughly 1950 or so.

If these guys are correct, this changes everything...


My two new favourite phrases:

"Heliospheric Magnetic Flux"
and
"Magnetic Plasma"


Schwing !



Great read OP, thanks !

reply to post by Kali74

Yes my learning disability does make me feel overwhelmed with big numbers

You're playing the victim card again? I don't believe for a second your 'learning disability' has anything to do with it.

The most characteristic feature of stupidity is not inability to think or lack of knowledge but the certainty with which ideas are held.

People who have excessive faith in their theories are not only ill-prepared for making discoveries; they also make poor observations.

A mind that is afraid withers away; it cannot function properly.

reply to post by CranialSponge

Fascinating stuff.

I know what you mean. It sometimes boggles the mind to see how many people who are convinced all global warming must be man-made have no idea this stuff exists.

My favorite:

"a quasi-periodic engine with the properties of deterministic chaos that occasionally shows phase
catastrophes"

Sounds like an apt description of human history too.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

You're playing the victim card again?

Obviously not, here's the part of my quote you left out.

I don't let it deter me though.

The most characteristic feature of stupidity is not inability to think or lack of knowledge but the certainty with which ideas are held.

You make this assumption of me based on me not agreeing with you.

I'm all for learning more about the sun and gaining better understanding of it's complexities and how those complexities may have an impact on our climate and to what degree or whether they can be ruled out as having an impact on our climate. Funny enough most of what you have linked talks about various solar activities and what effect do they have on the sun (not earth) and how does any of it affect TSI, yet you seem to have an issue with TSI variations being the only factor considered.

You continually project your feelings about small numbers onto science and equate it to consensus saying something it is not. You say 0.01C temperature rise over the past 15 years or so, is negligible (it's not because we should have been cooling). You say that the changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1C equals the consensus saying the difference is negligible when it is saying no such thing... you're convinced that it is negligible therefore that must be what science is saying. You imply that .0039% Co2 in the atmosphere is negligible and that adding .002% is insignificant when spectral analysis shows that indeed that tiny amount of Co2 is having a large effect.

You insist that it is me who is ideologically driven when rather it is you. You have convinced yourself that the IPCC and any scientist that agrees that climate change is caused by AGW is ideologically motivated to do so and therefore must be wrong. You even let it make you behave in ugly ways. You threw the 1st punch, as you always do.

reply to post by Kali74

Funny enough

Speaking of funny. I'm trying to come up with some climate change-related catastroclyptic disasterporn movie titles.

So far i got.


Global Warmed - You cannot have the cake and heat it.

Climate Séance - Channeling fiery demons from the depth

The Conjecturing

Heat 2

Fahrenheit 0.00451

Got one more

Excess Denied

Tell me what you think. I always value your opinion

You say 0.01C temperature rise

If you believe 0.01 is significant then we are cooling. All trends are negative, some for more than a decade.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

Tell me what you think. I always value your opinion

I think your mental state reflects the energy budget.
Out of balance.

reply to post by Kali74

Out of balance.

That would be a cool title. Not bad.

What about ...

AR6 - The Minority Report

reply to post by talklikeapirat


You're trolling your own thread?

Meanwhile you gave an absolute pathetic response to the only person in the thread who seems to actually want to discuss your views. You're making it seem like it's more important to you to insult me than have a discussion.

reply to post by Kali74

You're making it seem like it's more important to you to insult me than have a discussion.

You must be a hoot at parties.


Ok, let's discuss something.

Did you know that there is actually an inverse relationship between the index representing the PDO and Sea Surface Temperature in the Northern Pacific, the residence area of the PDO (the oscillation)? Meaning that when the Index turns negative SST in the North Pacific start to rise and vice versa. Curious?

reply to post by talklikeapirat

You must be a hoot at parties.

HardGore.

Ok, let's discuss something.

You're still mad that I said it is absurd to say ENSO isn't transient?
Also I meant have a discussion with poor CranialSponge you didn't even give them a star. Rude.

reply to post by Kali74


Hey katie