Blinded by the Light

[abu afak]

Some "light" ... and Heat.

`


`

 

[Hellokitty]

 

[Billy_Bob]

The authors advised "extreme caution" when using these results ... did you read that part in the conclusions? ... or did you just read the abstract? ...

As you are totally ignorant on this subject, attached is a bit more information and complex answers in long term changes in solar output. This is an older paper but one that shows how much shift in the varying bandwidths which occur on the sun routinely. The shifts directly correlate to warming and cooling of the earths surface and oceans.

You refuse to let go of the CAGW dogma. A scientist ceases to be a scientist when they hold on to dogma rather than the facts presented to them.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017EA000357

 

[Billy_Bob]

Some "light" ... and Heat.

`


`

Your still quoting adjusted data... Nothing ever changes with you. You're citing a 30-year average comparison that has no basis in reality. The range is arbitrary and thus bull shit!

 

[ReinyDays]

As you are totally ignorant on this subject, attached is a bit more information and complex answers in long term changes in solar output. This is an older paper but one that shows how much shift in the varying bandwidths which occur on the sun routinely. The shifts directly correlate to warming and cooling of the earths surface and oceans.

You refuse to let go of the CAGW dogma. A scientist ceases to be a scientist when they hold on to dogma rather than the facts presented to them.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017EA000357

Whoa ... I said your first citation doesn't support your claims ... and you have no rebuttal? ... just another citation that also supports my claim of 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 ... you have no answer for the math I posted? ... that's lazy ...

Yes, you do seem to be arguing with some ignorant strawman, I said SB refutes all claims of catastrophic climate change ... don't you understand what the math says? ... we have to increase irradiation by a huge amount in order to increase temperature by a little bit ... and one degree Celsius is tiny ... meteorologically speaking ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Your still quoting adjusted data... Nothing ever changes with you. You're citing a 30-year average comparison that has no basis in reality. The range is arbitrary and thus bull shit!

If we measure temperature "in the field" to the nearest whole degree ... then any and all averages calculated from this data is only accurate to the nearest whole degree ...

Thus ... all ten years show the same anomaly ... 1ºC over 20th Century average ... certainly below human perception, so why all the grief? ...

 

[abu afak]

Your still quoting adjusted data... Nothing ever changes with you. You're citing a 30-year average comparison that has no basis in reality. The range is arbitrary and thus bull shit!

Because you're low IQ you don't see the irony.
You posted an article that is Using NOAA's both estimates and "adjusted" numbers from 1000 years ago, but are complaining about their much more precise ability now.
:^)

Go back to SunsetMommy's 'Patriot' message board/denier trove.
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Whoa ... I said your first citation doesn't support your claims ... and you have no rebuttal? ... just another citation that also supports my claim of 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 ... you have no answer for the math I posted? ... that's lazy ...

Yes, you do seem to be arguing with some ignorant strawman, I said SB refutes all claims of catastrophic climate change ... don't you understand what the math says? ... we have to increase irradiation by a huge amount in order to increase temperature by a little bit ... and one degree Celsius is tiny ... meteorologically speaking ...

What has happen to you as you are not reading the paper honestly and the TSI isn't what is being disputed it is the changes in the bandwidth that changes through the cycles that you keep passing over which is why the single TSI number can be misleading.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Some "light" ... and Heat.

`


`

Yawn and again no big deal that it has been warming only a moron would wet their pants over this meaningless propaganda as this is what science illiterates does is post shit like this.

Meanwhile this gets overlooked all the time:

 

[abu afak]

Yawn and again no big deal that it has been warming only a moron would wet their pants over this meaningless propaganda as this is what science illiterates does is post shit like this.

Meanwhile this gets overlooked all the time:

View attachment 1106085

You CLOWN.
1. Less deaths don't mean its not warming!
2. otherwise your non-sequitur chart would mean it's rapidly Cooling.
3. Is that you believe? Cooling?

4. If you agree it's warming, man-made or not, you are refuting your own chart!
What is your position on warming/cooling man or not?

5. Of course the chart would go upside down without Our ..... better forecasting of Storms, Tsunami, and other natural disasters we can NOW forecast in advance
That's what your chart really shows you LOW IQ and/or Dishonest sleeze.

6. Numbered for easy reply but Tommy will Run Away (Again) with some excuse because he cannot even declare a position.

`
`

 

[cnm]

Spreading climate misinformation is fast becoming a shortcut to popularity across right-wing media. This man’s rise proves it.

www.mediamatters.org

 

[Sunsettommy]

Spreading climate misinformation is fast becoming a shortcut to popularity across right-wing media. This man’s rise proves it.

www.mediamatters.org

Yet you, Abu, Mamooth don't provide the rebuttals because you have none you reply on poorly written and obviously onesided crap to do the work for you thus you failed.

My chart is 100% based on official data you ignored it so has Abu.

 

[ReinyDays]

What has happen to you as you are not reading the paper honestly and the TSI isn't what is being disputed it is the changes in the bandwidth that changes through the cycles that you keep passing over which is why the single TSI number can be misleading.

Then please tell me where in the paper they claim any changes over 0.02ºC? ...

"SIM measured solar spectral irradiance variations at wavelengths between 240 and 1630 nm from the 2004 to 2008, during a portion of the descending phase of solar cycle 23, reporting a 0.3 Wm-2 (2%) decrease in UV energy at 250 to 300 nm and a corresponding 0.3 Wm- 2 (0.2%) increase in visible energy at 600 to 700 (Harder et al. 2005). Figure 1 shows these changes in the context of the spectral irradiance database."

All well within my claim of ±5 W/m^2 ... it's math, that's what confuses you and Billy-Bob ...

Honestly:

"We suggest that the SIM's radically different solar variability characterization is a consequence of undetected instrument sensitivity drifts, not true solar spectrum changes."

Are you reading the paper honestly? ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then please tell me where in the paper they claim any changes over 0.02ºC? ...

"SIM measured solar spectral irradiance variations at wavelengths between 240 and 1630 nm from the 2004 to 2008, during a portion of the descending phase of solar cycle 23, reporting a 0.3 Wm-2 (2%) decrease in UV energy at 250 to 300 nm and a corresponding 0.3 Wm- 2 (0.2%) increase in visible energy at 600 to 700 (Harder et al. 2005). Figure 1 shows these changes in the context of the spectral irradiance database."

All well within my claim of ±5 W/m^2 ... it's math, that's what confuses you and Billy-Bob ...

Honestly:

"We suggest that the SIM's radically different solar variability characterization is a consequence of undetected instrument sensitivity drifts, not true solar spectrum changes."

Are you reading the paper honestly? ...

You skim for what you want and refuse to look critically at the data... This is why I refused to post here for years. Ignorance and the belief that nothing can or should change. It has become dogma for you. I see the Church of the wayward and far out remains unwavering.

 

[abu afak]

Meanwhile this gets overlooked all the time:
- View attachment 1106085

You CLOWN.
1. Less deaths don't mean its not warming! Just means we now have [hark] Weather Forecasting/TV and other warning.
2. otherwise your Non-sequitur chart would mean it's rapidly Cooling.
3. Is that you believe? Cooling?

4. If you agree it's warming, man-made or not, you are refuting your own chart!
What is your position on warming/cooling, man or not?

5. Of course the chart would go upside down without Our ..... better forecasting of Storms. fires, etc, and other natural disasters we can NOW forecast in advance
That's what your chart really shows you LOW IQ and/or Dishonest sleeze.

6. Numbered for easy reply but Tommy will Run Away (Again) with some excuse because he cannot even declare a position.

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

You CLOWN.
1. Less deaths don't mean its not warming!
2. otherwise your non-sequitur chart would mean it's rapidly Cooling.
3. Is that you believe? Cooling?

4. If you agree it's warming, man-made or not, you are refuting your own chart!
What is your position on warming/cooling man or not?

5. Of course the chart would go upside down without Our ..... better forecasting of Storms, Tsunami, and other natural disasters we can NOW forecast in advance
That's what your chart really shows you LOW IQ and/or Dishonest sleeze.

6. Numbered for easy reply but Tommy will Run Away (Again) with some excuse because he cannot even declare a position.

`
`

All that warming is translating to increased crop yields and far less deaths to a slow warming trend over the recent decades.

People are still flocking to Florida, Texas, Arizona and southern California for vacations and retirement because it is very warm in those regions. The Northern states have much lower populations that grows slowly while the south grows much faster in population.

Your inability to understand this is legendary because you are a science illiterate.

Never have denied the warming trend since 1979 thus you can stop pushing that lie.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You skim for what you want and refuse to look critically at the data... This is why I refused to post here for years. Ignorance and the belief that nothing can or should change. It has become dogma for you. I see the Church of the wayward and far out remains unwavering.

You skim for what you want and refuse to look critically at the data... This is why I refused to post here for years. Ignorance and the belief that nothing can or should change. It has become dogma for you. I see the Church of the wayward and far out remains unwavering.

He is ignoring large areas of the paper to focus on a tiny segment of it as he keeps ignoring the well known small variations of wavelengths data that are well known, hell the 11 year cycle shows them naturally.

 

[abu afak]

All that warming is translating to increased crop yields and far less deaths to a slow warming trend over the recent decades.

People are still flocking to Florida, Texas, Arizona and southern California for vacations and retirement because it is very warm in those regions. The Northern states have much lower populations that grows slowly while the south grows much faster in population.

Your inability to understand this is legendary because you are a science illiterate.

Never have denied the warming trend since 1979 thus you can stop pushing that lie.

Your graph had NO Point except to imply there is No warming at all, much less significant warming.
It was a deception attempt.
All it shows is our tecnological advance since 1920, NOTHING about climate
``

 

[ReinyDays]

You skim for what you want and refuse to look critically at the data... This is why I refused to post here for years. Ignorance and the belief that nothing can or should change. It has become dogma for you. I see the Church of the wayward and far out remains unwavering.

Lazy ... you still refuse to post here ... you just read the abstract ... not the paper ... or you'd offer a rebuttal ...

Now you realize you have no rebuttal ... so now [sniff] you won't post here anymore ... take your toys and go home, child ... if you can't honestly discuss the paper you brought up ... then go away ... leave the adults alone ...

"To prevent future research following a path of unrealistic solar-terrestrial behavior, the SORCE SIM observations should be used with extreme caution in studies of climate and atmospheric change until additional validation and uncertainty estimates of these observations are available." ...

Your citation said this ... in the concluding remarks ... why are you making opposite conclusions? ... who's ignorant, Drs. Lean and DeLand? ... don't forget to denigrate the American Meteorological Society for publishing this ... morons, every one right? ... instrumentation error is Left Wing DemoNazi Double Talk for LIES ...

Now be a good Trampanzee and start throwing your poop at me ...

 

[ding]

Who here thinks the sun and/or the atmosphere is responsible for this?

Mind you I am not arguing neither plays a role. I'm asking if anyone believes the sun and/or the atmosphere are driving these cycles.