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.
No problem, Flac!
I can't really answer questions until I've seen the material. I'll read it now.
I have understood that solar variations functioned on an eleven year cycle, which would do little to explain current changes in the climate or temperature.
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.
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.....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...
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...
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.....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...
One seeks their own peer level
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 scales—see,
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 Ni˜no 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:
A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior
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.
Dave, Frank -
Can you either post something other than spam, or comment on the topic sensibly?
I did. You pretended it doesn't exist.
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.
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:
Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..
There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.
So -----
A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior
BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..
I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.
How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...
The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..
Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????
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:
Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..
There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.
So -----
A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior
BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..
I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.
How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...
The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..
Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????
In other words, "I don't care what no stinkin' pointy headed librul scientists says".
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 scales—see,
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 Ni˜no 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:
Let's chat for minute about this load of academic ejaculate you've stumbled upon..
There is NO REASONABLE expectation that the Climate temp response NEEDS to be directly correlated with ANY forcing function.. What we know is that there are HUGE LAGS in heating, powerful feedbacks, and long settling times to a stimulus either man-made or natural. The idea that CO2 has to be culprit because it has such an excellent record of tracking temp YEAR TO YEAR is juvenile.. It's not required.. IT's not even EXPECTED that CO2 would need to perfectly correlate with the temp curves given the climate complexities I noted above.
So -----
A number of studies have indicated the major role of the
Sun in contributing to drive climate throughout the Holocene:
see, for instance, Jansen et al (2007) and references therein.
Recently, however, by simple correlation and graphical
methods it has been found that solar radiation shows an
evidently contrary behavior compared with the temperature
trend since the 1980s (Lockwood and Fr¨ohlich 2007, Stauning
2011).
Thus, it seems that there has been a decoupling between
solar forcing and recent temperature behavior
BULLSHIT ---- If you have a Solar insolation GAINING 1.2W/m2 over 300 years and SITTING THERE for a couple decades at the highest relative level.. It doesn't mean that because it's not CURRENTLY increasing on a timescale so small to be irrelevent to climatic change --- that it's NOT a SERIOUS contribution to warming..
I don't CARE that TSI hasn't EXACTLY tracked temp since the 80s.. That's math masturbation. It's NOT REQUIRED that TSI tracks temperature.
How long does it take to boil water AFTER you've turned on the burner and let it get to it's highest temp? What happens if you add salt or place a cover on the pot. The BURNER doesn't get any hotter -- but the water will eventually boil away...
The climate IS NOT LINEAR.. Does not require a LINEAR correlation between forcing function and temperature. And MANY of the critical "tipping points" will EXTEND the heating effect beyond the curve of the underlying forcing function..
Next pile of academic masturbation you want to chat about????
In other words, "I don't care what no stinkin' pointy headed librul scientists says".
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...
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....