A real alarmist viewpoint

[bobgnote]

Interestingly.............here is the take by the IPCC scientists on the suns effects.................

Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

Sun's Affect on Climate FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

The article never defines "convincing evidence". Accordingly, its an opinion.......but many easily led folks see "no convincing evidence" being reported by a scientist and they invariably believe it BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENTIST saying it.

Thats the whole BS of all this "science". Its as open to interpretation as political science for Christsakes...........in other words, none of this shit is provable.............as its always been.

Of course science fucked up. Were you born, in a hospital? Some doctor, who had to study biology missed a very important chance, to keep the fucktard population to a minimum.

What was said is "no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output." What do you suppose that means? Your shit-rants against warming and related phenomena are shit! The sun couldn't do ACC, all by itself! Fucktards were breeding, cutting trees, burning coal and oil and shit!

You convinced me, sucksassandballs. Science missed one, and like a little alien-phage, looking to get in some astronaut's face, that little problem is rolling around.

 

[bobgnote]

The Permian/Triassic extinction was characterized by extreme volcanic events, as Pangea split.

As SLR accelerates, concurrent with methane out-gassing, heavier tides may force eruptions. It seems both the conditions present, in the P/T extinction are ripening, toward Mass Extinction Event 6, which will possibly rival the top 5, even the number one, the P/T extinction.

Humans really can eat shit and die, which should lead to some sort of alarm. I wonder if the House Investigative Committee will try to get Holder, to bust himself?

Do you think the pubs will sound an alarm and clone Trakar? About all of them but Trakar are tardies.

Tidal Lunacy

The idea is that if a volcano is full of magma, the squeezing at the fortnightly tidal maximum might be just enough to overcome the resistance of the crust, push magma out, and get an eruption going. Once started, the eruption would continue on its own.

More than 25 years ago, a pair of earth scientists compared the records for 680 eruptions that occurred since 1900 and found that "the probability of an eruption is greatest at times of maximum tidal amplitude." In plainer language, volcanoes are more likely to erupt at the fortnightly (or 14-day) "high" tide.

A specific look at 52 Hawaiian eruptions since January 1832 shows the same sort of pattern. "Nearly twice as many eruptions have occurred nearer fortnightly tidal maximum than tidal minimum." HVO scientists have noted that the Pu'u 'O'o fountaining episodes each occurred remarkably close to fortnightly tidal maximums and that the first set of eruption pauses in 1990 (periods where the eruption turned off for up to a few days) occurred remarkably close to fortnightly tidal minimums.

 

[bobgnote]

Fartman. This is Mr Methane. - YouTube

Howard Stern, Fartman, 1992 - YouTube

 

[bobgnote]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa160yRN7l4]Mr Methane - the real Fartman! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bZaAomW7ik&feature=related]Mr. Methane Letting It Rip in Norway. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Flr7JhPow&feature=related]Hippo gets explosive diarrhea. - YouTube[/ame]


Sucksassandballs, do you have any idea what could happen, if Mother Earth started up a load of out-gassing and vulcanism? Nothing as funny as this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Deib3zFjojg&feature=related]Fart and Fire Fart Montage - YouTube[/ame]


Beware the big ass, of Mother Earth, which has many times the killer ass-capacity, of any clowns, walking around on her surface.

NO SPECIES was exempt, from P/T phenomena. ALL SUFFERED. Many became extinct.

 

[flacaltenn]

Interestingly.............here is the take by the IPCC scientists on the suns effects.................

Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

Sun's Affect on Climate FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

The article never defines "convincing evidence". Accordingly, its an opinion.......but many easily led folks see "no convincing evidence" being reported by a scientist and they invariably believe it BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENTIST saying it.


Thats the whole BS of all this "science". Its as open to interpretation as political science for Christsakes...........in other words, none of this shit is provable.............as its always been.

They always stop at "solar irradiance" which as a total is well understood. But they OMIT all the science that we've gained from 30 years of SPACE observation of OTHER solar parameters.. NEver a mention of solar SPECTRUM stability.. We shouldn't expect that the sun is same exact color distribution over time. In fact, WE KNOW that all stars progress in frequency shift from blue to red over their lifetimes. And all the GHG gases absorb in very narrow bands. Would NOT be unreasonable if SMALL shifts in relative solar frequency power swamped the increasing contribution of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Interestingly.............here is the take by the IPCC scientists on the suns effects.................

Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

Sun's Affect on Climate FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

The article never defines "convincing evidence". Accordingly, its an opinion.......but many easily led folks see "no convincing evidence" being reported by a scientist and they invariably believe it BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENTIST saying it.


Thats the whole BS of all this "science". Its as open to interpretation as political science for Christsakes...........in other words, none of this shit is provable.............as its always been.

They always stop at "solar irradiance" which as a total is well understood. But they OMIT all the science that we've gained from 30 years of SPACE observation of OTHER solar parameters.. NEver a mention of solar SPECTRUM stability.. We shouldn't expect that the sun is same exact color distribution over time. In fact, WE KNOW that all stars progress in frequency shift from blue to red over their lifetimes. And all the GHG gases absorb in very narrow bands. Would NOT be unreasonable if SMALL shifts in relative solar frequency power swamped the increasing contribution of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere.

exactly! the solar effects variable is essentially set to zero in the climate models leading to an over estmate of the influence of CO2

 

[bobgnote]

Fatass: "They always stop at "solar irradiance" which as a total is well understood. But they OMIT all the science that we've gained from 30 years of SPACE observation of OTHER solar parameters.. NEver a mention of solar SPECTRUM stability.. We shouldn't expect that the sun is same exact color distribution over time. In fact, WE KNOW that all stars progress in frequency shift from blue to red over their lifetimes. And all the GHG gases absorb in very narrow bands. Would NOT be unreasonable if SMALL shifts in relative solar frequency power swamped the increasing contribution of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere."

Ian:
exactly! the solar effects variable is essentially set to zero in the climate models leading to an over estmate of the influence of CO2

The sun hasn't varied, DDs. The CO2, CH4, and other GHGs have varied, in a way, which, via accelerating warming, from the known and accepted greenhouse effect heads us past the PETM outcome, toward the #1 mass extinction event, the Permian/Triassic extinction.

What you two amount to is still a Fatass, with a Crapforbrains chasing, looking for something to eat, such as shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fatass: "They always stop at "solar irradiance" which as a total is well understood. But they OMIT all the science that we've gained from 30 years of SPACE observation of OTHER solar parameters.. NEver a mention of solar SPECTRUM stability.. We shouldn't expect that the sun is same exact color distribution over time. In fact, WE KNOW that all stars progress in frequency shift from blue to red over their lifetimes. And all the GHG gases absorb in very narrow bands. Would NOT be unreasonable if SMALL shifts in relative solar frequency power swamped the increasing contribution of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere."

Ian:
exactly! the solar effects variable is essentially set to zero in the climate models leading to an over estmate of the influence of CO2

The sun hasn't varied, DDs. The CO2, CH4, and other GHGs have varied, in a way, which, via accelerating warming, from the known and accepted greenhouse effect heads us past the PETM outcome, toward the #1 mass extinction event, the Permian/Triassic extinction.

What you two amount to is still a Fatass, with a Crapforbrains chasing, looking for something to eat, such as shit.

You got a personal orbiting Solar Observatory there at the institution do ya?
Maybe a 500 yr history of Solar Spectral Stability?

Even understand the diff between TSIrradiance and Spectral Shifts?

Does anyone know the name of the character in Idiocracy that was the lawyer watching "ouch, my balls"?? Reminds me of someone.

 

[daveman]

Interestingly.............here is the take by the IPCC scientists on the suns effects.................

Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

Sun's Affect on Climate FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

The article never defines "convincing evidence". Accordingly, its an opinion.......but many easily led folks see "no convincing evidence" being reported by a scientist and they invariably believe it BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENTIST saying it.

Thats the whole BS of all this "science". Its as open to interpretation as political science for Christsakes...........in other words, none of this shit is provable.............as its always been.

Of course science fucked up. Were you born, in a hospital? Some doctor, who had to study biology missed a very important chance, to keep the fucktard population to a minimum.

What was said is "no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output." What do you suppose that means? Your shit-rants against warming and related phenomena are shit! The sun couldn't do ACC, all by itself! Fucktards were breeding, cutting trees, burning coal and oil and shit!

You convinced me, sucksassandballs. Science missed one, and like a little alien-phage, looking to get in some astronaut's face, that little problem is rolling around.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=tmm_pap_title_0]Amazon.com: How to Win Friends & Influence People (9780671027032): Dale Carnegie: Books[/ame]

 

[bobgnote]

Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year

Previous studies have shown that the oxygen isotope ratio (δ18O) of plant cellulose can serve as a sensitive proxy indicator of past climate, but its application has mainly been restricted to tree-rings. Here we present a 6000-year high-resolutionδ18O record of peat plant cellulose from northeastern China. Theδ18O variation is interpreted as reflecting changes in regional surface air temperature. The climate events inferred from the isotope data agree well with archaeological and historic evidence. The record shows a striking corre spondence of climate events to nearly all of the apparent solar activity changes characterized by the atmospheric radiocarbon in tree-rings over the past 6000 years.

Spectral analysis of theδ18O record reveals the periodicities of around 86, 93, 101, 110, 127, 132, 140, 155, 207, 245, 311, 590, 820 and 1046 years, which are similar to those detected in the solar excursions. We consider these observations as further evidence for a close relationship between solar activity and climate variations on timescales of decades to centuries. Our results also have implications for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic contributions to future climate change.

------------------

Role Of Solar Radiation In Climate Change

Decrease in solar radiation discovered

The initial findings, which revealed that solar radiation at the Earth’s surface is not constant over time but rather varies considerably over decades, were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s for specific regions of the Earth. Atsumu Ohmura, emeritus professor at ETH Zurich, for example, discovered at the time that the amount of solar radiation over Europe decreased considerably between the 1950s and the 1980s. It wasn’t until 1998 that the first global study was conducted for larger areas, like the continents Africa, Asia, North America and Europe for instance. The results showed that on average the surface solar radiation decreased by two percent per decade between the 1950s and 1990.

In analyzing more recently compiled data, however, Wild and his team discovered that solar radiation has gradually been increasing again since 1985. In a paper published in “Science” in 2005, they coined the phrase “global brightening” to describe this new trend and to oppose to the term “global dimming” used since 2001 for the previously established decrease in solar radiation.

Only recently, an article in the journal Nature, which Wild was also involved in, brought additional attention to the topic of global dimming/brightening.

*
It is particularly unclear as to whether it is the clouds or the aerosols that trigger global dimming/brightening, or even interactions between clouds and aerosols, as aerosols can influence the “brightness” and lifetime of the clouds. The investigation of these relations is complicated by the fact that insufficient – if any – observational data are available on how clouds and aerosol loadings have been changing over the past decades. The recently launched satellite measurement programs should help to close this gap for the future from space, however.

“There is still an enormous amount of research to be done as many questions are still open”, explains Wild. This includes the magnitude of the dimming and brightening effects on a global level and how greatly the effects differ between urban and rural areas, where fewer aerosols are released into the atmosphere. Another unresolved question is what happens over the oceans, as barely any measurement data are available from these areas.

A further challenge for the researchers is to incorporate the effects of global dimming/brightening more effectively in climate models, to understand their impact on climate change better. After all, studies indicate that global dimming masked the actual temperature rise – and therefore climate change – until well into the 1980s. Moreover, the studies published also show that the models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fourth Assessment Report do not reproduce global dimming/brightening adequately: neither the dimming nor the subsequent brightening is simulated realistically by the models. According to the scientists, this is probably due to the fact that the processes causing global dimming/brightening were not taken into account adequately and that the historical anthropogenic emissions used as model input are afflicted with considerable uncertainties.

-----------------------

Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet : Feature Articles

The launch of the Nimbus-7 satellite in 1978 changed all that. It enabled us for the first time to detect sunlight without interference from the atmosphere. The Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) instrument on the satellite measured levels of solar radiation just before it strikes the Earth’s atmsophere. Through subsequent satellite missions, scientists have gathered a wealth of information on the Sun and the solar energy that drives our world’s climate system.

Today researchers know that roughly 1,368 watts per square meter (W/m2) of solar energy on average illuminates the outermost atmosphere of the Earth. They know that the Earth absorbs about only 70 percent of this total solar irradiance (TSI), and the rest is reflected into space. Perhaps most intriguing, researchers have affirmed that the TSI doesn’t stay constant, but varies slightly with sunspots and solar weather activity. In particular, by analyzing satellite data, scientists have observed a correlation between the Sun’s output of energy and the 11-year sunspot cycle, which physicists have known of since Galileo’s time. These data show that TSI varies just as regularly as the sunspot activity over this 11-year period, rising and falling 1.4 W/m2 through the course of the cycle (0.1 percent of the TSI). There are also longer-term trends in solar weather activity that last anywhere from years to centuries to millennia and may have an impact on global warming.

*

In 2003, Earth scientists will move a step closer to a full understanding of the Sun’s energy output with the launch of the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. SORCE will be equipped with four instruments that will measure variations in solar radiation much more accurately than anything now in use and observe some of the spectral properties of solar radiation for the first time. Robert Cahalan of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center serves as SORCE Project Scientist, and the four instruments are being built at the University of Colorado under the direction of Gary Rottman, SORCE Principal Investigator, with participation by an international team of scientists. SORCE will be launched in January 2003 from Kennedy Space Center on a Pegasus XL launch vehicle provided by Orbital Sciences Corporation. With data from NASA’s SORCE mission, researchers should be able to follow how the Sun affects our climate now and in the future.

-----------------------

What I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN, solar radiation has not increased, but rather, in addition to the 11 year cycles, which I knew about, solar dimming has affected climate, which is known.

It turns out, the sun has dimmed, by 2% per decade, since 1950, and it started brightening, in 1985. Since temperatures are rising steadily, the principal forcing factor for long-term rises AND falls in Earth's average temperature is still CO2, while out-gassing of methane is the leading runaway-rise forcing factor, which will do more damage, during times of brightening, either in the long-term or short-term bright periods.

But solar radiation has still been consistent, even if my former statement was inaccurate. The fact remains, long-term climate change is occurring, relative to increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. Action must be taken, to reverse forcing factors, via reducing variable GHG emissions, while increasing metabolization, of CO2. Temperatures will continue to increase.

The sun isn't the main forcing factor, in modern, long-term climate change, Fatass. Temperature rise has been steady, and it is accelerating, during 2% brightness per decade increase or decrease, of course, more during bright periods, see Trakar's relevant hockey sticks:

 

[flacaltenn]

Your first paper says that there are Many periodic IRRADIANCE cycles that DO affect warming..

We consider these observations as further evidence for a close relationship between solar activity and climate variations on timescales of decades to centuries. Our results also have implications for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic contributions to future climate change.

That one is limited in accuracy because they're studying PEAT BOGS --- not satellite data.

Second paper is also ground-based readings "clouded" by atmospheric interference.

Third paper talks about what we learned by satellite up to about 2000 -- ten years old.. But it makes ONE of my points..

Prior to 1979, in fact, astronomers and Earth scientists did not even have accurate data on the total amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth’s outermost atmosphere. Variable absorption of sunlight by clouds and aerosols prevented researchers from accurately measuring solar radiation before it strikes the Earth’s atmosphere.

We didn't know much about the sun's interaction with the atmos and surface, and could only wildly guess as to the SPECTRAL content and stability.

NONE of these references say anything that I could see about SOLAR SPECTRAL SHIFTS or stability.. Something you can only accurately measure from space. And we've only had that ability to periodically get a glimpse of this by satellite for about 20 years.. NOT long enough to observe cyclical changes.

Even up to 1994 or so -- only a couple observations of solar spectrum had been done by packages hoisted by the Shuttle.. We don't have a long-term reliable survey of Solar spectral stability yet..

 

[bobgnote]

Solar spectral shifts will affect weather, more than they climate change. Solar intensity will affect climate change, but this is not driving the current acceleration, of warming and acidification problems.

When you aren't advanced enough to figure out what atmospheric molecular composition does, and how changes affect climate, don't expect to be able to think your way out of a bag, by noting spectral shifts or even Milankovitch cycles, or any other stuff, which isn't going to kill us.

Unmitigated climate change is going to land us, at Mass Extinction Event 6, well past the destructive level, of the PETM event. M.E.E.6 will likely be almost as nasty, as the Permian/Triassic Extinction, number ONE, on the scale, of five previous mass extinctions. I don't see how we could knock off number one, by simply cutting down lots of trees, clearing brush and grasses, failing to grow hemp, and burning all the fossil fuels, but keep your eye, on developments, in the "nukuler" arena and religious zealotry, mixing with this.

On the way, new weather data will come in, with data, relevant to climate prediction. The Earth keeps turning and circling the sun, in the meantime. The economy will fuck up, but we'll still have some kind of science. Black Obamney says, if he's re-elected, he'll focus on climate change.

I personally think the Obamney sack race is boring. I'd rather look at O.R.'s and Trakar's posts. I like cussing wingpunks at environment threads, more than I like sorting white Obamnists and black Obamnists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who's sock are you really? You really should take a bow and end this..

 

[bobgnote]

Who's sock are you really? You really should take a bow and end this..

It seems Bill Buckley is dead, so I don't care to be anyone's sock, you goddamned queer neo-con wingpunk, from a Log Cabin Club daisy chain. In your face, from me to you!

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess I should wink and bow out, but there is the strangest coincidence here.. You'll never guess who has these posts AND MORE in just the past month....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5503977-post23.html
Read and enjoyed William Buckley for decades. Now, when we speak of 'Conservatives', that is a differant animal. But then, they consider Buckley to be a liberal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5421063-post113.html
And, like another very inteligent conservative, Buckley, Simpson has enough character and intellect to see the humor in the present labels they are hanging on him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4656515-post50.html
If you 'Conservatives' wish to have a real candidate, get back to conservative principles, instead of bullshit that would have people like Buckley and Goldwater telling you that you are completely around the bend.

I'd call that pretty good circumstantial evidence -- wouldn't you sock? Since even the most CONSERVATIVE on this board don't rave about Buckley 10 or 12 times a month.. Good Job...

Now the next thing is -- what are the USMB rules pertaining to socks?

 

[percysunshine]

What is the difference between a real alarmist and a fake alarmist?

 

[flacaltenn]

What is the difference between a real alarmist and a fake alarmist?

One has a "snooze" button???

 

[bobgnote]

I guess I should wink and bow out, but there is the strangest coincidence here.. You'll never guess who has these posts AND MORE in just the past month....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5503977-post23.html
Read and enjoyed William Buckley for decades. Now, when we speak of 'Conservatives', that is a differant animal. But then, they consider Buckley to be a liberal.

I'd call that pretty good circumstantial evidence -- wouldn't you sock? Since even the most CONSERVATIVE on this board don't rave about Buckley 10 or 12 times a month.. Good Job...

Now the next thing is -- what are the USMB rules pertaining to socks?

Now the next "thing" is, since you suck, what do you expect? I'm not a sock, Fatass. However, you are obviously queer and paranoid. Compare my writing, to other posting styles. My style is pretty much unique. Why don't you ask sucksassandballs, about how he always puts "0" up, instead of "O?" Maybe he's a sock, that sucks!

I mentioned Buckley once, and you introduced links, to unrelated posts, delusional bitch. I'd read the one I pasted, only, but why don't you tell us who pasted those, since I'm not going over there, you intrigue-sucking queer?

I don't know why you think anybody into science would go to that amount of trouble, to initiate a sock-account, to post stuff, where queers like you predominate. Do you feel, like you are losing something, to me? Get sucksassandballs to post some more smilies, if you are too queer, for graphs and tables. See if somebody pasted, what Buckley said, to Gore Vidal, on TV, before Buckley got dumped and died.

USMB is a Log Cabin Club runway, compared to other forums. Good thing, we get to cuss you bitches out, or getting good posts suddenly trashed would be too much, to endure.

Aren't you worried how that guy who fixed your BMW might be my sock, you psychotic queer?

 

[Old Rocks]

I guess I should wink and bow out, but there is the strangest coincidence here.. You'll never guess who has these posts AND MORE in just the past month....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5503977-post23.html
Read and enjoyed William Buckley for decades. Now, when we speak of 'Conservatives', that is a differant animal. But then, they consider Buckley to be a liberal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5421063-post113.html
And, like another very inteligent conservative, Buckley, Simpson has enough character and intellect to see the humor in the present labels they are hanging on him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4656515-post50.html
If you 'Conservatives' wish to have a real candidate, get back to conservative principles, instead of bullshit that would have people like Buckley and Goldwater telling you that you are completely around the bend.

I'd call that pretty good circumstantial evidence -- wouldn't you sock? Since even the most CONSERVATIVE on this board don't rave about Buckley 10 or 12 times a month.. Good Job...

Now the next thing is -- what are the USMB rules pertaining to socks?

Now Flatulance, you are just once again proving what a dumb fuck you are. All my posts are under Old Rocks, no other screen names at all.

 

[bobgnote]

Sucksassandballs actually didn't suck, when he loaded the UCSUSA-link, above. So let's huzzah, for sucksassandballs, he's a horse's ass, who doesn't get it, climate change is happening because GHG concentrations are running away, from any sort of controlled scenario.

Sun's Affect on Climate FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

Remember when Fatass gave a rat's ass, a month or so ago, and he loaded the 400,000-year climate cycle graph, from Wattsupwiththat, which comes from Brighton-UK? That graph of CO2 vs. temperatures was really interesting, even if Fatass couldn't read it, for shit.

Sucksassandballs loaded lots of cartoons, in the last months, but he didn't load the following graph:

Note that the Hansen-graph describes both solar dimming AND GHG proliferation, which put side-by-side, with temperature gives us a good idea, how GHG concentrations are the driving forces, behind:

1. Global warming;
2. Runaway global warming.

UCS also included the following graph, which clearly shows 11-year solar cycles: