Yeah those are based on fuzzy logic and models that predict 2-5 degrees C warming for the 20th century that turned out to be.6 Degrees C. So we can take those with a grain of salt.
But even factoring in worst case fronm your point, going by your quote, and realizing Proto multiplied times the wrong number we get 20 Centimeters. or 7.1 inches in the next 100 years. RUN PEOPLE RUN THE SEA IS GOING TO RISE 7 INCHES IN A HUNDRED YEARS THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN OUTRUN THAT!!!!!
Divided by a factor of five (which is particularly alarmist), that means which we'll reach max melt of all arctic areas (absurd) we have increased that melt to the point where total meltdown is 38,000 years away.
But that is an unrealistic scenario based upon models that cannot predict present temperatures, and are often wrong by a factor of 4 or 5.
Completely ignoring any changes in the future 38 millenia, the negative logarithmic progression of greenhouse warming*, and the fact that winter isn't going to stop happening anytime soon.
Regardless of all that of BS, you are completely ignoring the fact that even worse case scenario we aren't talking about drastic sea level rises. Do you agree that even based on your quote we are still looking at fairly moderate sea level changes that are nothing to worry about. Or are you simply trying to distract from my point because even in your scenario the sea level rise is minor (worst case(bordering on the absurd) scenario) so you'd rather play a game of distracting from the fundamental point.
In fact based upon those numbers and all the other scaremongering they don't even look at a linear progression, but a positive logarithmic, which goes completely against everything we know about greenhouse warming.
So we are looking at 0.42mm a year, due to glacial melt. To reach the claimed 80 Meters of sea level rise that is bandied about for all the claims of coastal flooding it would take 190,000 years to reach that level, since your worried about warming to increase, let's halve that to 95,000 years.
EVERYONE RUN WE'RE GOING TO FLOOD, YOU ONLY HAVE 94,999 years, 11 MONTHS AND 364 DAYS LEFT!!!!!!!
Hell in 100 years we are going to have 4 CENTIMETERS RISE IN SEA LEVELS!!!!!!!!
I'm not worried about it. I expect we'll have evolved gills or wings or something by then, and I'm sure we'll run out of fossil fuels by then, unless Gold is right.
And to shrinking food supplies. Can I ask why food output has steadily increased during the supposed dangerous warming for the 20th century. Hint: Plants love CO2 and warmth, expect bumper crop report again this year, and as we go forward into the future.
And before someone says it's warmer since 1998, no it's not. Thanks the El Nino of 1998 we saw a tremendous spike, and tempreatures are cooler today than then.
"according to your assumptions, how do you think do the countries near equator survive where tons of water is turning into steam by sun every second... ? billions tons of ocean water is evaporating every year, it seems if as we survive that one... "
Because you assume the "greenhouse" effect is linear, and it's not. It's logarithmic dropping off to cutoff at a certain temperature (based on a variety of factors), and in the case of water it's high thermal inertia actually limits further warming.
You can see this in effect during in those areas the nights are very close in temperature to days. as this stored heat is shed at night.
This holds for equatorial areas with high water content like central/south America, Indonesia, and south east Asia. Areas like the Sahara dessert get much hotter without much greenhouse gasses, but are much colder at night.
In fact water (pure or otherwise) is the MAJOR greenhouse gas ranking #1 #2 and #3
Do you even know what correlation is. And do you understand the fact that the atmosphere doesn't react to anything instantaneously. If solar output increased today, it would take months if not years for the effect to be seen.
Let me ask you this O Genius of everything.
You said that there isn't enough of an increase in solar output to account for current warming. Since you seem to know this. Exactly how much warming can we expect to see form increased solar output. Watt to Degrees would be the best formula, but whatever moonbat terms you prefer to use is fine. Since you seem to feel it is so simplistic that shouldn't be hard
For the fun I'll also ask you the question that I always ask people like you. Since climate is ALWAYS variable. And over the 20th century we have seen 0.6degerees C of warming. Some portion of that has to be natural, and you say a signifigant portion is man made. What portion of that 0.6 Degree warming is man made warming. And as a follow up. Since climate is always changing. What amount of change (warming or cooling) would you find acceptable.
The sad thing about you people is you actually seem to relish catastrophic warming. One would think a rational person would say about the Ruskie bet. "I hope they are right, but I don't think so." Instead you deny even the mere possibility and continue screaming in the town square "we're all going to die"
And you fail to notice that during the cooling of early forties to early seventies happens during a downturn of a separate cycle from the longer increased solar output cycle.
And you seem to fail to accept that cooling trend that all climatologists accept, including the AGW crowd. It's in the temperature record, there really isn't any argument about it.
And I'm not supposed to find your protestations absurd. Regardless you asked for a long trend of increased solar output, you ignore it. And you still seem to refuse to accept that the climate is a complex coupled chaotic system that is influenced by many different forcing variables. Which was all that my original post, that you seem to have such a problem with, says. You continue to think that the climate is simplistic and the only variable that has any input is CO2, completely ignoring that everyone, even AGW climatologists agree that CO2 has a limited effect. It's secondary effects from that they worry about.
That's okay, you don't seem to even be able to understand your own posts, so I guess I can't expect you to understand other peoples posts.
Based on semantics maybe, but irrelevant because I've already submitted the data that shows both of your statements are false anyways.
And showing your rather amazing lack of intelligence you can't seem to understand it. I'm surprised you ever masterd the use of a toilet. Assuming of course that you have, I wouldn't put money on it.
Lars T: "Sun output didn't continuously increase for many decades"
Lars T: "Yes, the sun's output changes over decades, and I have never claimed anything else " - Well except for just above where I did specifically claim exactly that, other than that I didn't
And then I even showed you a graph the explicitly shows a steady rise in solar output at the beginning of the 20th century. Rising till mid Century, where it has plateaud and stayed there until the current date, with an additional 10 year oscilation. The exact correlation you've so eloquently requested. But as usual you ignore it, go on changing your tune in an attempt to make the other person look bad, I say attempt because anyone with the reading comprehension of a 5 year old can see your flip flopping in what you say.
I am fucking annoyed with you guys and your totally ignoring of reality when it doesn't fit with your, increasingly wrong, preconceived political notoions.
YEs but in reference to the same situation in the sattelite data I posted the day before this.
"And before someone posts any articles referencing the recent UAH MSU data that corrects for atmosphere warming by allowing for satellite drift. Keep in mind that that number, even in the most optimistic interpretations, still does not bring atmospheric warming up to the same level as surface temperatures, and based on greenhouse theory, atmospheric temperatures should be ~30% higher than surface. Even with the correction they are still below surface temperatures. "
Yes there is a correction that brings everything closer towards what it should be, but still far short of what is required to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt AGW. Air tempratures of 21C are unlikely to warm the surface of the Earth to 24C. Those numbers are only estimates, I do not have the actually numbers handy. But the fact is that atmospheric tempratures have to be signfigantly higehr than the surface temprature to show atmospheric warming of the surface.
Lars T "Sun output didn't continuously increase for many decades"
Lars T "Yes, the sun's output changes over decades and I have never claimed anything else " well except for that post up there where I specifically claimed it didn't, other than that I didn't.
My what a troll we are, talking about Us Guys and our bogus reasoning. I show yhou a chart with a steady increasing trend in solar output from 1900 till the mid 20th century where it plateaus until present day, and you completely and total ignore it.
Then to make matters worse, you directly contradict yourself.
I am fucking annoyed with you guys and your ignoring reality when it doesn't satisfy your increasingly wrong political needs.
I usually respect Lindzen, but that theory seems a little wacky to me. And so far as safety valves go it's not really required. The nature of greenhouse gasses are such that any warming has an upper limit, at which point Water vapors high thermal inertia actually starts to force tempratures down.
For your own knowledge Lindzen is the complete opposite of the IPCC for information, diametrically opposed would be a word. Even after having been one of the leading members of the IPCC, he was one of those who left due to the political nature of the IPCC. Lindzen is one of the leaders of AWG skeptics and is often maligned because of it.
I'm not going to comment on anyones motives but my own (previous sarcastic comments aside).
As to replying in a couple of days, Not sure I'm going to see it. Should you wish to nitify me my e-mail is above.
But since you ask, and for most people solar variability simply makes sense. And because I highly doubt you will look for, or if you do look since you will not find anything that shows steady state solar output. I will counter you ludicrous unsubstantiated claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Forcing_G ISS_model.gif Hey look at those cycles That seem to line up presactly with observed surface temperature on earth. That is quite a coincidence. You will of course note the upward trend that last from the beginning of the century until present day, that is above the apparent decade cycle.
I have to assume that the Ruskies laid their bet on that last graph which shows a fairly steady cycle that shows us entering into a downward trend. Who would have that a massive fusion reaction throwing off massive amounts of energy, thermal and otherwise, could have any effect on temperature here.
No my claim is that the sun's output has an effect on our climate. Proof, our temperature is significantly above absolute zero, which it would not be if there was no sun. In my claim I sarcastically made a reference to it being a "crackpot theory" It bothers me that so many people like you seem to think this is true and that the suns output has no effect on our climate.
YOUR claim was that it does not vary over decades. I made no claim about the earths output cycle in any way. I know that it varies, I do not know over what time scale so I made no claims. You on the other hand made a specific claim about the Suns output, stating that it does not vary cyclically on a decades time scale. I would like to know on what basis you make that claim. It seems to run against the science in the astronomy field.
Since you seem to refer to A a lot, and make an assumption not backed up with any info. Please show some data that disproves that solar output does not have a cycle of decades. Or even other cycles of centuries, and other cyucles of 1000 of years etc.
Also in that graph you will see a warming trend starting at about 1907, it is also a sudden acceleration in warming in that thirty year period.
Yes it is too soon to say the data is peaked, else there would be no reason for the Ruskie/Limey bet in the article, would there? I'm just siding with the Ruskies.
1998 got much of it's peak due to the El Nino of the century. Are you saying that el Ninos are caused by human emissions of CO2?
They aren't betting just on extrapolation. They have looked at the past variances, which include peaks and valleys, they have correlated this with solar output, and there seems to be a match, as such they are predicting a cooling trend, in line with this historical cycle that they have seen. They are not extrapolating from 2 or 3 years of variance.
As to lagging. Of course it does. You might want to research Water vapors part in global climate, and it's moderating effect. Just like CO2 it's warming influence is logarithmic. IN other words it's not 2XWV=2X warming. It diminishes as you reach maximum, then water vapor, like CO2, actually works against further warming.
Well you commented that the could measure solar output. I agreed.
The inference is if they can, they must have correlated that to global temperatures. I disagree, they don't desire to publish that everywhere because we cannot control solar output. Thus you won't see any flashy graphs like that.
Same with water vapor. "Stop Global Warming! Lower Humidity" Is not a chant anyone is likely to pay attention to.
So I said, if they have done that, go forth and find one. You will never find one if you stick to looking at the IPCC. I have never seen one, and I have actively looked.
I wish the Ruskies would make a pretty graph they can plaster of newspapers and web shites. Not seen anything even close yet.
And I think we both can agree that A: The suns output varies. B: That this variance will have an effect on global climate. C: Without seeing this data it is hard to make any comment about global temperatures and how they change.
"A. Does it vary so much as to cause 20 degree temp changes worldwide? Does it happen in the span of a decade or two?"
Not quite sure of your point here. We have seen nowhere near 20 degrees change worldwide in a decade or two. The current trend is 1 degree (F) over 10 decades.
"B. Unlikely by natural means. Perhaps if there were a surge of geothermal activity or something. And water vapor doesn't increase without some sort of energy influx (i.e warming). An increase in global water vapor would be a result of planetary warming, not the cause (though it ould contribute to it once it was there)."
Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas, it is also the #1 temperature moderator and water vapor does increase, as water content on earth increases at a steady rate. This has been determined.
"C. It could be just coincidence that CO2 levels are higher than they've been in the past 400,000 years. It could be just coincidence that this increase happens to coincide with industrialization. It could be just coincidence that all this is happening within the last 60 years or so. But somehow, I doubt it."
The point isn't that CO2 has increased, it has, the point is, is CO2 the Primary mover in global climate. And has the planet warmed/cooled before anthropogenic input of CO2, and is the slight warming that we are seeing a bad thing.
"D. Have to call you on that one. Google Global Dimming."
What are you calling me on? If you Google on global dimming, you will find that clouds and particulates ARE a factor in climate. So it is another influence as I've said. I must re-state. These are factors that climatologists look at, I posted them in response to a poster here who asked for what else could plausibly influence climate?
"E. Yes, natural emissions play a part. But I haven't read any scientific reports regarding any increases in these emissions (and as far as CO2 levels go, they've been within a certain range for thousands of years).
Yet again. In response to someone else. "Yes, natural emissions play a part." I'm glad we can agree.
"I have read some reports that the warming may end up causing more natural emissions (tundras melting and such)."
Yes because plant matter that has been frozen for a thousand years melts, and then decomposes. But it's some what intuitive that if there is plant matter where it is currently frozen, at one point in time that are was warm enough for plants to grow. The doomsayers only look at the plant mater decomposing. Here's a shock to your system. What else is going to happen is that more plants are going to grow (As plants like warmth) and this will in turn sequester more carbon. Most likely it will be a net even.
"At best, we are contributing to the problem. At worst, we are the problem.
At best there is no problem.
"Regardless, the point is there is a problem."
That is extremely debatable. Life has shown time and time again, that it prefers warmth, and abhors cold.
The problem is that clouds are not static, and many of the clouds are smaller than the resolution of the models. It'
s a well known issue. The numbers you have seen are only fuge factors.
"Climate models rely heavily on satellite data, but because clouds change rapidly, their structure is difficult to simulate in computer models. Yet, understanding global climate change depends heavily on the ability to accurately model cloud structure and behavior. "The only vehicles we currently have to predict future climatic change are general circulation models, which run on computers," said Cess. "As far as we know, no model has predicted the change in cloud vertical structure we observed in 1998 -- that tells us there's a problem with the models. If we're going to have robust climate models, they must predict what we observe."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah those are based on fuzzy logic and models that predict 2-5 degrees C warming for the 20th century that turned out to be .6 Degrees C. So we can take those with a grain of salt.
But even factoring in worst case fronm your point, going by your quote, and realizing Proto multiplied times the wrong number we get 20 Centimeters. or 7.1 inches in the next 100 years. RUN PEOPLE RUN THE SEA IS GOING TO RISE 7 INCHES IN A HUNDRED YEARS THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN OUTRUN THAT!!!!!
Divided by a factor of five (which is particularly alarmist), that means which we'll reach max melt of all arctic areas (absurd) we have increased that melt to the point where total meltdown is 38,000 years away.
But that is an unrealistic scenario based upon models that cannot predict present temperatures, and are often wrong by a factor of 4 or 5.
Completely ignoring any changes in the future 38 millenia, the negative logarithmic progression of greenhouse warming*, and the fact that winter isn't going to stop happening anytime soon.
Regardless of all that of BS, you are completely ignoring the fact that even worse case scenario we aren't talking about drastic sea level rises. Do you agree that even based on your quote we are still looking at fairly moderate sea level changes that are nothing to worry about. Or are you simply trying to distract from my point because even in your scenario the sea level rise is minor (worst case(bordering on the absurd) scenario) so you'd rather play a game of distracting from the fundamental point.
In fact based upon those numbers and all the other scaremongering they don't even look at a linear progression, but a positive logarithmic, which goes completely against everything we know about greenhouse warming.
"Massive flooding along costal areas "
Well of your un-substantiated claims lets look at this one.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
So we are looking at 0.42mm a year, due to glacial melt. To reach the claimed 80 Meters of sea level rise that is bandied about for all the claims of coastal flooding it would take 190,000 years to reach that level, since your worried about warming to increase, let's halve that to 95,000 years.
EVERYONE RUN WE'RE GOING TO FLOOD, YOU ONLY HAVE 94,999 years, 11 MONTHS AND 364 DAYS LEFT!!!!!!!
Hell in 100 years we are going to have 4 CENTIMETERS RISE IN SEA LEVELS!!!!!!!!
I'm not worried about it. I expect we'll have evolved gills or wings or something by then, and I'm sure we'll run out of fossil fuels by then, unless Gold is right.
And to shrinking food supplies. Can I ask why food output has steadily increased during the supposed dangerous warming for the 20th century. Hint: Plants love CO2 and warmth, expect bumper crop report again this year, and as we go forward into the future.
Well according to the article, it's only happening in the UK correct.
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9774264&dopt=Abstract
d f
Good thing North America is a Net Carbon Sink
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/pdf/FanPaper.p
And before someone says it's warmer since 1998, no it's not. Thanks the El Nino of 1998 we saw a tremendous spike, and tempreatures are cooler today than then.
"according to your assumptions, how do you think do the countries near equator survive where tons of water is turning into steam by sun every second ... ? billions tons of ocean water is evaporating every year, it seems if as we survive that one ... "
Because you assume the "greenhouse" effect is linear, and it's not. It's logarithmic dropping off to cutoff at a certain temperature (based on a variety of factors), and in the case of water it's high thermal inertia actually limits further warming.
You can see this in effect during in those areas the nights are very close in temperature to days. as this stored heat is shed at night.
This holds for equatorial areas with high water content like central/south America, Indonesia, and south east Asia. Areas like the Sahara dessert get much hotter without much greenhouse gasses, but are much colder at night.
In fact water (pure or otherwise) is the MAJOR greenhouse gas ranking #1 #2 and #3
Get some reasoning ability.
Do you even know what correlation is. And do you understand the fact that the atmosphere doesn't react to anything instantaneously. If solar output increased today, it would take months if not years for the effect to be seen.
Let me ask you this O Genius of everything.
You said that there isn't enough of an increase in solar output to account for current warming. Since you seem to know this. Exactly how much warming can we expect to see form increased solar output. Watt to Degrees would be the best formula, but whatever moonbat terms you prefer to use is fine. Since you seem to feel it is so simplistic that shouldn't be hard
For the fun I'll also ask you the question that I always ask people like you. Since climate is ALWAYS variable. And over the 20th century we have seen 0.6degerees C of warming. Some portion of that has to be natural, and you say a signifigant portion is man made. What portion of that 0.6 Degree warming is man made warming. And as a follow up. Since climate is always changing. What amount of change (warming or cooling) would you find acceptable.
The sad thing about you people is you actually seem to relish catastrophic warming. One would think a rational person would say about the Ruskie bet. "I hope they are right, but I don't think so." Instead you deny even the mere possibility and continue screaming in the town square "we're all going to die"
but then again your not rational.
Doesn't change my surprise.
But I'll be laughing as the years progress and it's shown that the Ruskies really were right.
And you fail to notice that during the cooling of early forties to early seventies happens during a downturn of a separate cycle from the longer increased solar output cycle.
And you seem to fail to accept that cooling trend that all climatologists accept, including the AGW crowd. It's in the temperature record, there really isn't any argument about it.
And I'm not supposed to find your protestations absurd. Regardless you asked for a long trend of increased solar output, you ignore it. And you still seem to refuse to accept that the climate is a complex coupled chaotic system that is influenced by many different forcing variables. Which was all that my original post, that you seem to have such a problem with, says. You continue to think that the climate is simplistic and the only variable that has any input is CO2, completely ignoring that everyone, even AGW climatologists agree that CO2 has a limited effect. It's secondary effects from that they worry about.
That's okay, you don't seem to even be able to understand your own posts, so I guess I can't expect you to understand other peoples posts.
Based on semantics maybe, but irrelevant because I've already submitted the data that shows both of your statements are false anyways.
And showing your rather amazing lack of intelligence you can't seem to understand it. I'm surprised you ever masterd the use of a toilet. Assuming of course that you have, I wouldn't put money on it.
Lars T: "Sun output didn't continuously increase for many decades"
Lars T: "Yes, the sun's output changes over decades, and I have never claimed anything else " - Well except for just above where I did specifically claim exactly that, other than that I didn't
And then I even showed you a graph the explicitly shows a steady rise in solar output at the beginning of the 20th century. Rising till mid Century, where it has plateaud and stayed there until the current date, with an additional 10 year oscilation. The exact correlation you've so eloquently requested. But as usual you ignore it, go on changing your tune in an attempt to make the other person look bad, I say attempt because anyone with the reading comprehension of a 5 year old can see your flip flopping in what you say.
I am fucking annoyed with you guys and your totally ignoring of reality when it doesn't fit with your, increasingly wrong, preconceived political notoions.
YEs but in reference to the same situation in the sattelite data I posted the day before this.
"And before someone posts any articles referencing the recent UAH MSU data that corrects for atmosphere warming by allowing for satellite drift. Keep in mind that that number, even in the most optimistic interpretations, still does not bring atmospheric warming up to the same level as surface temperatures, and based on greenhouse theory, atmospheric temperatures should be ~30% higher than surface. Even with the correction they are still below surface temperatures. "
Yes there is a correction that brings everything closer towards what it should be, but still far short of what is required to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt AGW. Air tempratures of 21C are unlikely to warm the surface of the Earth to 24C. Those numbers are only estimates, I do not have the actually numbers handy. But the fact is that atmospheric tempratures have to be signfigantly higehr than the surface temprature to show atmospheric warming of the surface.
Lars T "Sun output didn't continuously increase for many decades" Lars T "Yes, the sun's output changes over decades and I have never claimed anything else " well except for that post up there where I specifically claimed it didn't, other than that I didn't.
My what a troll we are, talking about Us Guys and our bogus reasoning. I show yhou a chart with a steady increasing trend in solar output from 1900 till the mid 20th century where it plateaus until present day, and you completely and total ignore it.
Then to make matters worse, you directly contradict yourself.
I am fucking annoyed with you guys and your ignoring reality when it doesn't satisfy your increasingly wrong political needs.
I usually respect Lindzen, but that theory seems a little wacky to me. And so far as safety valves go it's not really required. The nature of greenhouse gasses are such that any warming has an upper limit, at which point Water vapors high thermal inertia actually starts to force tempratures down.
For your own knowledge Lindzen is the complete opposite of the IPCC for information, diametrically opposed would be a word. Even after having been one of the leading members of the IPCC, he was one of those who left due to the political nature of the IPCC. Lindzen is one of the leaders of AWG skeptics and is often maligned because of it.
I'm not going to comment on anyones motives but my own (previous sarcastic comments aside). As to replying in a couple of days, Not sure I'm going to see it. Should you wish to nitify me my e-mail is above.
In other words you don't want to discuss the facts/information.
No comment on the solar output graphs? You seemed intersted in that concept before.
Not an overlay of temprature and solar output, but very interesting
3 68682
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159584&cid=13
But since you ask, and for most people solar variability simply makes sense. And because I highly doubt you will look for, or if you do look since you will not find anything that shows steady state solar output. I will counter you ludicrous unsubstantiated claim.
o utput.html
_ years.jpg Seems to show multiple cyclical changes
a riations.png
r .png "Carbon-14 production showing 10,000 years of solar variation and generally increasing solar activity."
r -Hallstadtzeit_Cycles.png "2,300 year Hallstatt solar variation cycles."
_ sunspots_since_1700.png "Sunspot record (red) with 14C (inverted). There is a 20-60 year delay between sunspot levels and radiocarbon changes."
_ activity_labels.png "Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon."
G ISS_model.gif Hey look at those cycles That seem to line up presactly with observed surface temperature on earth. That is quite a coincidence. You will of course note the upward trend that last from the beginning of the century until present day, that is above the apparent decade cycle.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K5FA257AB Space.com
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/solterr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspots_11000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14-10ky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14-10ky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14_with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14_with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Forcing_
I have to assume that the Ruskies laid their bet on that last graph which shows a fairly steady cycle that shows us entering into a downward trend. Who would have that a massive fusion reaction throwing off massive amounts of energy, thermal and otherwise, could have any effect on temperature here.
Gee, who'd have thunk it. Any questions?
PS. You are aware of course of the adage "Correlation does not mean causation"?
No my claim is that the sun's output has an effect on our climate. Proof, our temperature is significantly above absolute zero, which it would not be if there was no sun. In my claim I sarcastically made a reference to it being a "crackpot theory" It bothers me that so many people like you seem to think this is true and that the suns output has no effect on our climate.
YOUR claim was that it does not vary over decades. I made no claim about the earths output cycle in any way. I know that it varies, I do not know over what time scale so I made no claims. You on the other hand made a specific claim about the Suns output, stating that it does not vary cyclically on a decades time scale. I would like to know on what basis you make that claim. It seems to run against the science in the astronomy field.
Screwed up linky
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf
Since you seem to refer to A a lot, and make an assumption not backed up with any info. Please show some data that disproves that solar output does not have a cycle of decades. Or even other cycles of centuries, and other cyucles of 1000 of years etc.
HE refers to studies, and I most certainly do not get my science from the NYT who are at the top of the Global warming band wagon.
That being the case, to you discount NYT articles that promote AGW?
Look at any non skewed data set, in other wards something that doesn't alter the left hand side of the graph.
I think you will find that 1939 is tied for 3rd or fourth.
But regardless, at least one sorce can be found on the right hand side of this page http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf/
Also in that graph you will see a warming trend starting at about 1907, it is also a sudden acceleration in warming in that thirty year period.
Yes it is too soon to say the data is peaked, else there would be no reason for the Ruskie/Limey bet in the article, would there? I'm just siding with the Ruskies.
1998 got much of it's peak due to the El Nino of the century. Are you saying that el Ninos are caused by human emissions of CO2?
They aren't betting just on extrapolation. They have looked at the past variances, which include peaks and valleys, they have correlated this with solar output, and there seems to be a match, as such they are predicting a cooling trend, in line with this historical cycle that they have seen. They are not extrapolating from 2 or 3 years of variance.
As to lagging. Of course it does. You might want to research Water vapors part in global climate, and it's moderating effect. Just like CO2 it's warming influence is logarithmic. IN other words it's not 2XWV=2X warming. It diminishes as you reach maximum, then water vapor, like CO2, actually works against further warming.
Well you commented that the could measure solar output. I agreed.
The inference is if they can, they must have correlated that to global temperatures. I disagree, they don't desire to publish that everywhere because we cannot control solar output. Thus you won't see any flashy graphs like that.
Same with water vapor. "Stop Global Warming! Lower Humidity" Is not a chant anyone is likely to pay attention to.
So I said, if they have done that, go forth and find one. You will never find one if you stick to looking at the IPCC. I have never seen one, and I have actively looked.
I wish the Ruskies would make a pretty graph they can plaster of newspapers and web shites. Not seen anything even close yet.
And I think we both can agree that A: The suns output varies. B: That this variance will have an effect on global climate. C: Without seeing this data it is hard to make any comment about global temperatures and how they change.
"A. Does it vary so much as to cause 20 degree temp changes worldwide? Does it happen in the span of a decade or two?"
Not quite sure of your point here. We have seen nowhere near 20 degrees change worldwide in a decade or two. The current trend is 1 degree (F) over 10 decades.
"B. Unlikely by natural means. Perhaps if there were a surge of geothermal activity or something. And water vapor doesn't increase without some sort of energy influx (i.e warming). An increase in global water vapor would be a result of planetary warming, not the cause (though it ould contribute to it once it was there)."
Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas, it is also the #1 temperature moderator and water vapor does increase, as water content on earth increases at a steady rate. This has been determined.
"C. It could be just coincidence that CO2 levels are higher than they've been in the past 400,000 years. It could be just coincidence that this increase happens to coincide with industrialization. It could be just coincidence that all this is happening within the last 60 years or so. But somehow, I doubt it."
The point isn't that CO2 has increased, it has, the point is, is CO2 the Primary mover in global climate. And has the planet warmed/cooled before anthropogenic input of CO2, and is the slight warming that we are seeing a bad thing.
"D. Have to call you on that one. Google Global Dimming."
What are you calling me on? If you Google on global dimming, you will find that clouds and particulates ARE a factor in climate. So it is another influence as I've said. I must re-state. These are factors that climatologists look at, I posted them in response to a poster here who asked for what else could plausibly influence climate?
"E. Yes, natural emissions play a part. But I haven't read any scientific reports regarding any increases in these emissions (and as far as CO2 levels go, they've been within a certain range for thousands of years).
Yet again. In response to someone else. "Yes, natural emissions play a part." I'm glad we can agree.
"I have read some reports that the warming may end up causing more natural emissions (tundras melting and such)."
Yes because plant matter that has been frozen for a thousand years melts, and then decomposes. But it's some what intuitive that if there is plant matter where it is currently frozen, at one point in time that are was warm enough for plants to grow. The doomsayers only look at the plant mater decomposing. Here's a shock to your system. What else is going to happen is that more plants are going to grow (As plants like warmth) and this will in turn sequester more carbon. Most likely it will be a net even.
"At best, we are contributing to the problem. At worst, we are the problem.
At best there is no problem.
"Regardless, the point is there is a problem."
That is extremely debatable. Life has shown time and time again, that it prefers warmth, and abhors cold.
The problem is that clouds are not static, and many of the clouds are smaller than the resolution of the models. It' s a well known issue. The numbers you have seen are only fuge factors.
l ance/
d cover.htm
"Climate models rely heavily on satellite data, but because clouds change rapidly, their structure is difficult to simulate in computer models. Yet, understanding global climate change depends heavily on the ability to accurately model cloud structure and behavior. "The only vehicles we currently have to predict future climatic change are general circulation models, which run on computers," said Cess. "As far as we know, no model has predicted the change in cloud vertical structure we observed in 1998 -- that tells us there's a problem with the models. If we're going to have robust climate models, they must predict what we observe."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CloudsInBa
"Current computer climate models can't accurately predict cloud formation, which, in turn, hinders their ability to forecast climate change from human activities. " http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/clou