Track tsi(solar energy reaching the earth)

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,694
    Thanks Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    [​IMG]

    This shows that our minimum is longer and deeper then the mins in 22, 23. What is even bigger is the fact that even in 2011 it is not much higher then the minimum. A little sure, but not much.

    You better believe that is a negative forcing on our global temperatures. It got down to 1365.2 or 1365.25 around that area, but now we're near 1365.55. Quite a bit below what is normal for the past 50 years within a solar max, which is near 1366.5-1366.6 range in 22 and 23. The minimum of 22 was 1365.5 or 1365.6 range, so within a max we're now on touching the min of 22.

    You not only have to consider the depth(Y), but the length(X) to understand just how big of a negative solar minimum this is compared to 22, 23. This is not even going into how sad this maximum is.

    Lets just say that since late 2005 or early 2006 we've been as low as nearly any part of min 23 and all of 22.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  2. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,694
    Thanks Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    Lets say Z=co2 forcing, X=is the means solar forcing and X1=solar cycles from means, S=sulfur

    So Y=X(+-)x1+Z-S
    ()->to denote that it can be a positive or negative as x1 is a cycle.

    This is how it shall be looked at. As Z is only part of the system, but a important part of the energy budget of the earth.

    X has 95 percent of energy on the means
    Natural green house effect keeps the other 5 percent

    Z is the extra unnatural Positive forcing
    S is the unnatural negative forcing

    Both right now are increasing...
    Of course you have internal variables that cause yearly change like pdo, amo, nao, ect, but they add no energy or take away. So over 5 or more years they mean nothing.

    So X1 is deeply negative right now...How negative forcing could be enough to slow the effects of Z down. That is my theory onto why global warming went from nearly .17 per decade in the 1990s to .12-.13c/decade range today.

    If Z is growing and it is then -x1 and S is growing to match it. Guess what it is. So it would make sense to predict once x1 becomes positive again and the developing world caps there sulfur emissions in S that Z will be able to increase the temperature of the earth as the positive forcing will grow as the negative decreases.

    Lets pull some numbers out of ones ass to plug into the equation...
    Y=X(+-)x1+Z-S
    80 for X
    5 for Z
    -2 for S
    -1.5 for X1 for this cycle
    Y=80-1.5+5-2
    Y=81.5

    But if it was not for the negative forcing of both x1 or S it would be
    y=80+0+5+0
    Y=85

    So you would get more warming without the negative forcings from S and x1.

    Does this make any sense? As this is my Hypotheses of why the decrease of the rate of the warming of our planet in the first decade of the 21st century.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Your conclusions are basically what the climate scientists are stating.

    If you look at the TSI graph, note that 1998 was a high TSI year, with a super El Nino. 2010, was a very low TSI, with a moderate El Nino and the last half of the year in a very strong La Nina. Also, a good deal more aerosols in the atmosphere. Yet it matched 1998 for heat. What that demonstrates is just how strongly the GHGs are retaining heat. And when there is a strong El Nino, a high TSI, and less aerosols, well, Katy bar the door.

    Add in the affects of the GHGs coming out of a thawing Arctic. We have not given our grandchildren a world that they will thank us for.
     
  4. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,795
    Thanks Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,761
    We are giving our grand kids a wonderful world of freedom and democracy despite the hysterics and extortion schemes perpetrated by the left. Forty years ago you could find the same scientists postulating theories about a new ice age if the grant money was good enough.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Same old lie, dumb fuck. Are you incapable of learning anything?


    Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

    In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

    At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

    By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

    10% of the papers predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    If you Know-nothings have anything to do with it, there will be no Democracy in this nation.
     
  7. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,694
    Thanks Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    Nah, even if it was not for co2 forcing the world we're giving our children and grand children is another dark age. Why the entire global economy is about ready to collapse on its self. It will make anything since the last dark age look like a joke. Look at the defaulting going on with the eu. This is of course economic and has nothing to do with this thread!

    What is your scientific case to say I'm wrong? Seriously??? because in science you have to be able to challenge with the facts and data :eusa_whistle:

    Can you Challenge my thinking with the facts?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    I truly wish some of these people would actually challenge the conclusions that are being forced on us by the data with facts. I would love to have something positive posted concerning global warming. Unfortunately, the denier posts are all about opinion, and the world as it ought to be.
     
  9. waltky
    Online

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,829
    Thanks Received:
    1,790
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,874
    Granny says, "Dat's right - Bible says the earth gonna be destroyed by a big ol' ball o 'fire...
    :eusa_eh:
    Sun storms 'could be more disruptive within decades'
    18 August 2011 - Solar storms may be more powerful at times of middling solar activity
     
  10. FactFinder
    Offline

    FactFinder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,641
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +237
    Finally...some truth. 'Out of ones ass is right"
     

Share This Page