Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"the solar conditions that brought the globe out of the LIA have not noticeably decreased therefore we have reason to believe a significant portion of the warming both in the past and recently have a solar component, unlike what we have been told by many climate alarmists who claim that solar activity has no impact on the imbalance that is causing an increase in temperature".
sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning flac
Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.
Manmade global warming causes everything.No. Your theory fails hard in accounting for the observed data. The AGW theory does account for all observed data, and is the simplest theory that does, therefore Occams supports it.
Sure, when the observed data is cherry-picked and massaged and altered and invented.
Floods = manmade global warming
droughts = mamade global warming
forest fires = manmade global warming
mudslides = manmade global warming
see how it accounts for every event reported on the Weather Channel?
You're a damned liar.And.....Frank concedes the debate and goes back to mindless spamming.
And for a moment there, I actually thought you were going to discuss the topic!
And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.. I'll take Franks comment over your investment in understanding the issue anyday...
No, I answered that in #97.
I answer every ontopic and coherent comment I see - unfortunately thus far neither Daveman nor Frank have made one.
You have posted a few - I've responded to them all.
Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't. Just another lie from Saigon.EVERYTIME anyone posts a historical chart of TSI --- YOUR gurus pull a sunspot chart out their ass and tell you nothing's happened.. To understand the TRUE story -- you first have to realize that you've PURPOSELY been deceived.... So the myth of CO2 induced warming can survive....
Yes...and the CIA blew up the Twin Towers, the Jews faked the Holocaust...
This makes no sense at all. Scientiists all over the world, in perhap a thousands univerities and reearch labs in a hundred countries and a doen disciplines - all part of some massive evil conspiracy.
It simply is not a creidible argument - anymore so than Dave's idea that the UN is bent on installing a gobal socialist government led by German conservatives.
So you're saying NASA has arrived at its conclusions before the research is complete?"the solar conditions that brought the globe out of the LIA have not noticeably decreased therefore we have reason to believe a significant portion of the warming both in the past and recently have a solar component, unlike what we have been told by many climate alarmists who claim that solar activity has no impact on the imbalance that is causing an increase in temperature".
sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning flac
I think thi is a valid argument - except for the fact that the solar project Flac presents here SORCE is a Nasa project, and Nasa specifically state that human acitivity is linked to climate change.
If NASA is part of this global conspiracy - why are they conducting research of solar activity?
I think there is a lot to learn form SORCE and from studying solar activity - but NASA are also clear about what it is and what it is not likely to reveal.
1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype..
Can you explain the significance of 1.2W/m2 to me yet Saigon??? If you can't --- we're done...
1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype..
Can you explain the significance of 1.2W/m2 to me yet Saigon??? If you can't --- we're done...
Their models assign a zero value to the effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on our climate
1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype..
Can you explain the significance of 1.2W/m2 to me yet Saigon??? If you can't --- we're done...
Their models assign a zero value to the effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on our climate
Please try and post honestly, Frank - you don't look smart when you post gibberish like this.
Fac -
Does NASA do real science?
I notice you used them as a source yesterday, so I assume you believe they are.
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
Climate Change: Causes
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
5. Conclusions
We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.
Our results obviously suggest the need for further research to investigate in greater depth the causes of this Sun-temperature decoupling, but, at the same time, they appear as a clear contribution to the debate on the causes of recent global warming.
Total yip yap... Do you see any evidence that TSI in the 1960s allows them to rule out solar influence? Look at the damn chart... And understand what you're reading...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
between solar radiation and global
temperature
Antonello Pasini1,3, Umberto Triacca2 and Alessandro Attanasio1
1 CNR, Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research, Monterotondo Stazione, Rome, Italy
2 Department of Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of LAquila,
LAquila, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Received 26 June 2012
Accepted for publication 16 August 2012
Published 4 September 2012
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034020
Abstract
The Sun has surely been a major external forcing to the climate system throughout the
Holocene. Nevertheless, opposite trends in solar radiation and temperatures have been
empirically identified in the last few decades. Here, by means of an inferential methodthe
Granger causality analysiswe analyze this situation and, for the first time, show that an
evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature has appeared
since the 1960s.
Keywords: suntemperature relationship, Granger causality, causes of recent global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034020 A Pasini et al
In a previous paper (Attanasio et al 2012), we considered
bivariate analyses between natural or anthropogenic forcings
and global temperature, and found GHG Granger causality
effects on temperature since the 1940s, while TSI and other
natural forcings do not Granger-cause temperature in the
same period. Here, due to the evidence that natural variability
affects temperature behavior on decadal time scalessee,
for instance, DelSole et al (2011) and Wu et al (2011)we
extend our information set to one of the indices of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO) or El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
As is well known, a trivariate extension gives to the Granger
technique a better reliability with respect to a bivariate
analysis (see, for instance, L¨utkepohl 1982).
In this paper the recent climatic role of the Sun is
investigated in this trivariate framework.
2. Data
Time series of mean annual data since the middle of the 19th
century to 2007 are considered for the following variables:
HadCRUT3 combined global land and marine surface
temperature anomalies (Brohan et al 2006): data available
at Data available from CRU (since 1850);
TSI (Lean and Rind 2008), with background from Wang
et al (2005): data available at www.geo-fu.berlin.de (since
1850);
CO2, CH4 and N2O concentrations (Hansen et al 2007):
data available at Data.GISS: Data and Images (since 1850);
greenhouses gases total (CO2 C CH4 C N2O) radiative
forcing (GHG) has been calculated as in Ramaswamy et al
(2001);
Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), related to ENSO
(Ropelewski and Jones 1987, Allan et al 1991, K¨onnen
et al 1998): data available at Data available from CRU
soi/soi.dat (since 1866);
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Smith and Reynolds
2004): data available at ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ersstv2/
pdo.1854.latest.st (since 1854);
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Enfield et al
2001): data available at Climate Research Data
timeseries/AMO (since 1856).
1.2W/m2.. When you understand the significance of that number -- you'll be able to look beyond the spin and the hype..
Can you explain the significance of 1.2W/m2 to me yet Saigon??? If you can't --- we're done...
Their models assign a zero value to the effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on our climate
Please try and post honestly, Frank - you don't look smart when you post gibberish like this.
