A question regarding the Sun

[Chris]

Correlation doesn't equal causatiion....Common sense.

Also, it has been proven that CO2 concentrations follow upticks in temperature, rather than precede them.

It has been proven that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

And we are pumping 8 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong. It's been proven that CO2 retains heat in a bell jar.

The Earf's immensely flexible and incomprehensibly diverse ecosystem isn't in a bell jar.

You are a willful liar.

 

[code1211]

Maybe YOU should have read it FIRST, Kool-Aid Kid.
CON$ are tooooooo STUPID to know the difference between the US and the whole globe.

Yes. Because temperature dropping in the US is certainly ISOLATED.

Don't let facts get in your way.

It would be a shock to your system.

It would help you if you actually knew the facts.

In our language, the whole point of comparatives is to compare. Your little map shows 2008 temperatures as compared to average temperatures from the 60's to 1990.

This has nothing at all to do with the comparative difference between the temperatures between 2001 and 2009.

While the climate of the most recent 8 years has probably been warmer than the climate of the 30 years ended 20 years ago (accepting the various adjustments to the temperature records to account for innaccurate recording and missing locations), the climate's temperature has cooled recently.

Ignoring scientific data to prove a scientific point is not a good strategy. You are welcome to continue to use it as you wish.

 

[edthecynic]

The people who can't keep their stories straight are the enviro-Malthusians.

The goofs on the Weather Channel can't tell anyone with any certainty what the weather is going to be like next week. Yet, change the title from "meteorologist" to "climatologist" and somehow those eggheads can tell us with certainty what the weather is going to be like 20 years from now.

And not a one of them has explained the cooling that has occurred since '98, even though the CO2 levels are supposedly continuing to rise.

What cooling???? Don't you Kool-Aid drinkers know that the decade from 1999 to 2008 has been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement?

Yep.
And all those instruments situated in parking lots near the exhaust of automobiles, outside air-conditioning units, on the tops of building can't possibly be wrong.

But never mind that three other planets have experienced the same global warming....oh wait, you all have had your asses handed to you on that term.....that three other planets have experienced the same climate change as the Earth and their industry just plain sucks. I mean, when was the last time you purchased any goods from Mars?

Another know-it-all who knows nothing about anomalies!

What I love about CON$ is if you let them rant long enough they eventually contradict themselves. In this thread the CON$ insist that we've been COOLING for the last decade, but now we are told the sun is warming other planets so it must be warming the cooling Earth. In reality there is no correlation between the sun's cycles and warming patterns on Earth.

 

[code1211]

yes, like a micro second, but the only time the temps have risen this quickly before is because of a natural disaster, ie meteor, volcano...and with the temps still rising and the sun at a minimum...

To add a little perspective to this, the temperature has risen 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. It rose 0.4 degrees from the year 0 to the year 1000 and 0.3 degrees from the year 1000 to now.

At the end periods of glaciation, the temperature rises very quickly and dramatically. At the end of the last Ice Age, our climate rose by around 10 degrees to today, a level it has been around for about 10,000 years.

We are still far short of the peaks from the most recent Interglacials. About 5 degrees shy of the last one and 3 degrees shy of the previous couple.

File:Ice Age Temperature.png - Wikimedia Commons

The dramatic warming you speak of and which Dr. Hansen predicted, stopped. A very mild cooling has taken hold over the last 8 or so years. CO2 continues to increase. Temperatures continue to fall. Last August in Indianapolis was unusually cool compared to recent Augusts. The high temp yesterday was around the high 60's, very cool for this time of year.

Whatever controls our climate seems to operate outside the controls of the CO2 everyone seems so worried about.

 

[code1211]

What cooling???? Don't you Kool-Aid drinkers know that the decade from 1999 to 2008 has been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement?

Yep.
And all those instruments situated in parking lots near the exhaust of automobiles, outside air-conditioning units, on the tops of building can't possibly be wrong.

But never mind that three other planets have experienced the same global warming....oh wait, you all have had your asses handed to you on that term.....that three other planets have experienced the same climate change as the Earth and their industry just plain sucks. I mean, when was the last time you purchased any goods from Mars?

Another know-it-all who knows nothing about anomalies!

What I love about CON$ is if you let them rant long enough they eventually contradict themselves. In this thread the CON$ insist that we've been COOLING for the last decade, but now we are told the sun is warming other planets so it must be warming the cooling Earth. In reality there is no correlation between the sun's cycles and warming patterns on Earth.

Milankovitch cycles?

Maunder Minimum?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes. Because temperature dropping in the US is certainly ISOLATED.

Don't let facts get in your way.

It would be a shock to your system.

It would help you if you actually knew the facts.

In our language, the whole point of comparatives is to compare. Your little map shows 2008 temperatures as compared to average temperatures from the 60's to 1990.

This has nothing at all to do with the comparative difference between the temperatures between 2001 and 2009.

While the climate of the most recent 8 years has probably been warmer than the climate of the 30 years ended 20 years ago (accepting the various adjustments to the temperature records to account for innaccurate recording and missing locations), the climate's temperature has cooled recently.

Ignoring scientific data to prove a scientific point is not a good strategy. You are welcome to continue to use it as you wish.

And you are welcome to show you have no ability to understand which chart shows what scientific data as you wish, but it makes you look very foolish to those who do understand.

The 30 years establish the the standard that anomalies are measured against. The chart you reposted was used to counter the claim that if the US was cool the whole globe must be cool. The chart to use to determine the comparative warming from year to year based on anomalies is this one:

 

[code1211]

It would help you if you actually knew the facts.

In our language, the whole point of comparatives is to compare. Your little map shows 2008 temperatures as compared to average temperatures from the 60's to 1990.

This has nothing at all to do with the comparative difference between the temperatures between 2001 and 2009.

While the climate of the most recent 8 years has probably been warmer than the climate of the 30 years ended 20 years ago (accepting the various adjustments to the temperature records to account for innaccurate recording and missing locations), the climate's temperature has cooled recently.

Ignoring scientific data to prove a scientific point is not a good strategy. You are welcome to continue to use it as you wish.

And you are welcome to show you have no ability to understand which chart shows what scientific data as you wish, but it makes you look very foolish to those who do understand.

The 30 years establish the the standard that anomalies are measured against. The chart you reposted was used to counter the claim that if the US was cool the whole globe must be cool. The chart to use to determine the comparative warming from year to year based on anomalies is this one:

If you would please re-examine the most recent ends of your graphs, you will see that they all show recent cooling.

I'm becoming confused. Are you agreeing with me or arguing against me? You are presenting data that supports my case.

You continue to interpret data that shows recent cooling as data that shows recent warming. To say that the temperature is warmer now than in 1960 does not address the question asking whether the climate has risen or fallen over the last 8 years.

That is the question at issue.

 

[edthecynic]

Yep.
And all those instruments situated in parking lots near the exhaust of automobiles, outside air-conditioning units, on the tops of building can't possibly be wrong.

But never mind that three other planets have experienced the same global warming....oh wait, you all have had your asses handed to you on that term.....that three other planets have experienced the same climate change as the Earth and their industry just plain sucks. I mean, when was the last time you purchased any goods from Mars?

Another know-it-all who knows nothing about anomalies!

What I love about CON$ is if you let them rant long enough they eventually contradict themselves. In this thread the CON$ insist that we've been COOLING for the last decade, but now we are told the sun is warming other planets so it must be warming the cooling Earth. In reality there is no correlation between the sun's cycles and warming patterns on Earth.

Milankovitch cycles?

Maunder Minimum?

And how exactly does the 100k Milankovitch cycle explain the the last 150 years or the 41k cycle in the Pliocene??? And why the sudden shift from 41k to 100k??

And the second chart shows no correlation between sunspots and temp blowing an enormous hole in the Maunder Minimum sunspot theory.

 

[edthecynic]

In our language, the whole point of comparatives is to compare. Your little map shows 2008 temperatures as compared to average temperatures from the 60's to 1990.

This has nothing at all to do with the comparative difference between the temperatures between 2001 and 2009.

While the climate of the most recent 8 years has probably been warmer than the climate of the 30 years ended 20 years ago (accepting the various adjustments to the temperature records to account for innaccurate recording and missing locations), the climate's temperature has cooled recently.

Ignoring scientific data to prove a scientific point is not a good strategy. You are welcome to continue to use it as you wish.

And you are welcome to show you have no ability to understand which chart shows what scientific data as you wish, but it makes you look very foolish to those who do understand.

The 30 years establish the the standard that anomalies are measured against. The chart you reposted was used to counter the claim that if the US was cool the whole globe must be cool. The chart to use to determine the comparative warming from year to year based on anomalies is this one:

If you would please re-examine the most recent ends of your graphs, you will see that they all show recent cooling.

I'm becoming confused. Are you agreeing with me or arguing against me? You are presenting data that supports my case.

You continue to interpret data that shows recent cooling as data that shows recent warming. To say that the temperature is warmer now than in 1960 does not address the question asking whether the climate has risen or fallen over the last 8 years.

That is the question at issue.

Whenever CON$ know they are wrong they play dumb!
It's pretty obvious that I'm NOT agreeing with you, just as it is obvious the chart shows only the ocean cooling the last 2 years due to a strong La Nina.

And again, the 30 year 1961 to 1990 base period is used to establish a standard to measure anomalies against, the zero point of the chart. The chart clearly shows that this last decade's anomalies deviated from that 30 year standard to a greater degree than the previous decades' deviated from that same standard and therefore was WARMER than the previous decades.
Get it now???

 

[code1211]

Another know-it-all who knows nothing about anomalies!

What I love about CON$ is if you let them rant long enough they eventually contradict themselves. In this thread the CON$ insist that we've been COOLING for the last decade, but now we are told the sun is warming other planets so it must be warming the cooling Earth. In reality there is no correlation between the sun's cycles and warming patterns on Earth.[/QUOTE]

Milankovitch cycles?

Maunder Minimum?

And how exactly does the 100k Milankovitch cycle explain the the last 150 years or the 41k cycle in the Pliocene??? And why the sudden shift from 41k to 100k??

And the second chart shows no correlation between sunspots and temp blowing an enormous hole in the Maunder Minimum sunspot theory.

You are the one who said that there is NO CORRELATION between the Sun's cycles and the warming patterns on Earth. There clearly is. If you cannot see it, you cannot see it. Not my problem.

As far as Maunder's theory goes, you are using no perspective, yet again. The TSI has been at a historically high point for about the last 100 years having risen from a historically low point in the early part of the last millenium.

Again, if you cannot see it, you cannot see it. And again, not my problem.

Below are links to a useful site which has a graphic representation of the rise and fall of temperature, the rise and fall of TSI and the rise and rise of CO2. Two of these things belong together and one of these things just doesn't belong.

If you read the article, you find that the author has written an article connecting the rise and fall of TSI to Climate. Also, he has writen one on the impossibility of CO2 causing warming. Are sitting down? It was peer reviewed. {{{{{JARRING CHORD}}}}}}}

Solar Irradiance Anomalies and Climate



Nahle, Nasif. 2007. Total Solar Irradiance and Climate Change. ©07 May 2008 by Biology Cabinet Organization®. Obtained from: http://www.biocab.org/SI_Anom_T_Anom.html. Last reading: (Day) (Month) (Year).



Abstract:



Scientists, writing in the journals Science and Nature, have recently pointed out that the tropospheric temperature is not increasing, but is decreasing. Contrary to the predictions made by scientists linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the warming of the atmosphere, the observations clearly show that the link is extremely weak or that it does not exist, and that the hypothesis on the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) is scientifically incorrect and cannot explain the current state of the global climate. I have written a peer reviewed paper on the impossibility of carbon dioxide causing global warming. I have also written another peer reviewed paper on the correlation of the Solar Irradiance and the Variation of Atmospheric Temperatures (VAT) where I refer to the evidence on the influence of solar activity on tropospheric temperature and the global climate since the medieval period to the present. Further assessments have been carried out by solar physicists to correct and calibrate the 2001 databases on the Intensity of Solar Irradiance (i.e. Lean. (2004), Preminger (2005) and Svalgaard (2007)). In this paper, I compare the calibrated databases of TSI with the new databases of VAT since 1610 AD to date and since 1700 AD to date. The TSI databases were provided by Dr. Judith Lean from NOAA. The VAT databases were provided by Dr. Craig Loehle and UAH.

 

[edthecynic]

And how exactly does the 100k Milankovitch cycle explain the the last 150 years or the 41k cycle in the Pliocene??? And why the sudden shift from 41k to 100k??

And the second chart shows no correlation between sunspots and temp blowing an enormous hole in the Maunder Minimum sunspot theory.

You are the one who said that there is NO CORRELATION between the Sun's cycles and the warming patterns on Earth. There clearly is. If you cannot see it, you cannot see it. Not my problem.

As far as Maunder's theory goes, you are using no perspective, yet again. The TSI has been at a historically high point for about the last 100 years having risen from a historically low point in the early part of the last millenium.

Again, if you cannot see it, you cannot see it. And again, not my problem.

Below are links to a useful site which has a graphic representation of the rise and fall of temperature, the rise and fall of TSI and the rise and rise of CO2. Two of these things belong together and one of these things just doesn't belong.

If you read the article, you find that the author has written an article connecting the rise and fall of TSI to Climate. Also, he has writen one on the impossibility of CO2 causing warming. Are sitting down? It was peer reviewed. {{{{{JARRING CHORD}}}}}}}

Solar Irradiance Anomalies and Climate



Nahle, Nasif. 2007. Total Solar Irradiance and Climate Change. ©07 May 2008 by Biology Cabinet Organization®. Obtained from: http://www.biocab.org/SI_Anom_T_Anom.html. Last reading: (Day) (Month) (Year).



Abstract:



Scientists, writing in the journals Science and Nature, have recently pointed out that the tropospheric temperature is not increasing, but is decreasing. Contrary to the predictions made by scientists linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the warming of the atmosphere, the observations clearly show that the link is extremely weak or that it does not exist, and that the hypothesis on the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) is scientifically incorrect and cannot explain the current state of the global climate. I have written a peer reviewed paper on the impossibility of carbon dioxide causing global warming. I have also written another peer reviewed paper on the correlation of the Solar Irradiance and the Variation of Atmospheric Temperatures (VAT) where I refer to the evidence on the influence of solar activity on tropospheric temperature and the global climate since the medieval period to the present. Further assessments have been carried out by solar physicists to correct and calibrate the 2001 databases on the Intensity of Solar Irradiance (i.e. Lean. (2004), Preminger (2005) and Svalgaard (2007)). In this paper, I compare the calibrated databases of TSI with the new databases of VAT since 1610 AD to date and since 1700 AD to date. The TSI databases were provided by Dr. Judith Lean from NOAA. The VAT databases were provided by Dr. Craig Loehle and UAH.

Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?

We employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

 

[Chris]

The scientists at the Stanford solar center came to almost the exact same conclusion. They said that the sun is only contributing 25% to the increase in global temperatures. Now the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and we are still seeing record heat in the southern United States.

 

[code1211]

The scientists at the Stanford solar center came to almost the exact same conclusion. They said that the sun is only contributing 25% to the increase in global temperatures. Now the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and we are still seeing record heat in the southern United States.

Any temperature anomoly in a particular area only that. It is not a global indicator. You have pointed this out numerous times. Why bring it up?

You say that there is no correlation between the sun and temperature and the Stanford Center says 25%. Others say the effect is far stronger. Thinking that the irradience of the Sun has an effect on temperature seems plausible to me.