Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[52ndStreet]

This recent info about man made global warming is all false. The Sun goes through what is
called a "Solar cycle", this is what is really heating up and cooling down the Earth. Man has
nothing to do with it. This has been going on for thousands of years. Increased Sun spot activity has been linked to this increased heating up of the earth. NOAA has documented this.

This talk of man made global warming is all a money making scam, aimed at charging
people throughout the world carbon fees.

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

 

[flacaltenn]

There are many DIFFERENT cycles that the sun is prone to have.. The fastest 22yr cycles are NOT the actual culprit.. But in a sense --- you are correct. The current warming started with a 1.2W/m2 warming of the sun since the last Solar minimum in 1700...

Global warming fans ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE the sun's role when their models fail to produce warming. Claiming that the sun is "reaching a relative low period"... Many solar scientists believe we may be heading into a longer 300 yr cycle of Grand Minimums again very soon..

 

[mamooth]

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

Er, no. Since 1970, the earth warmed as the solar output stayed level.

And pay no attention to Flac's magical stored heat theory. That is, his theory declares the heat from this solar warming somehow stayed hidden for a hundred years or so, and only then magically manifested. It's a ridiculous theory which is contradicted by the data, which is why no one takes it seriously.

 

[Moonglow]

This recent info about man made global warming is all false. The Sun goes through what is
called a "Solar cycle", this is what is really heating up and cooling down the Earth. Man has
nothing to do with it. This has been going on for thousands of years. Increased Sun spot activity has been linked to this increased heating up of the earth. NOAA has documented this.

This talk of man made global warming is all a money making scam, aimed at charging
people throughout the world carbon fees.

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

Do you speak with a forked tongue, Keemoshabie?

 

[Moonglow]

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

Er, no. Since 1970, the earth warmed as the solar output stayed level.

And pay no attention to Flac's magical stored heat theory. That is, his theory declares the heat from this solar warming somehow stayed hidden for a hundred years or so, then magically manifested. It's a ridiculous theory which is contradicted by the data, which is why no one takes it seriously.

My friends and I lit a lot of farts over the last half century. It smells like the Texas panhandle towns.

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

Er, no. Since 1970, the earth warmed as the solar output stayed level.

And pay no attention to Flac's magical stored heat theory. That is, his theory declares the heat from this solar warming somehow stayed hidden for a hundred years or so, and only then magically manifested. It's a ridiculous theory which is contradicted by the data, which is why no one takes it seriously.

That's really rich.. Truely is.. Flac has a "magical stored heat theory".. But when CLimate scientists FINALLY WAKE THE **** UP and discover heat stored in the oceans to explain the lagging warming --- that's something he buys..

It's NOT a 100 year lag.. It TAKES awhile to establish new thermal equilibriums on a ball as big and complex as the Earth.. Your "climate scientists" will discover that also in about 3 more IPCC reports..

 

[Abraham3]

Climate scientists - scientists in general - have long been aware that the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans. Your grandchildren could figure that one out. The question is: has the process changed? The answer is yes. Up till roughly the beginning of the 20th century, there was a close balance between energy in and energy out and the result was a world ocean with a stable temperature. Now we have an ocean warming at an unprecedented rate. Can you identify some behavior of the sun that could have produced that change? You cannot.

And, Dear 52nd street,

There is overwhelming evidence that man made greenhouse gases are the primary agent responsible for the warming that the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years. The suns radiation patterns do not match the growth in total heat content which the Earth has experienced. The levels of atmospheric GHGs do.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate scientists - scientists in general - have long been aware that the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans. Your grandchildren could figure that one out. The question is: has the process changed? The answer is yes. Up till roughly the beginning of the 20th century, there was a close balance between energy in and energy out and the result was a world ocean with a stable temperature. Now we have an ocean warming at an unprecedented rate. Can you identify some behavior of the sun that could have produced that change? You cannot.

And, Dear 52nd street,

There is overwhelming evidence that man made greenhouse gases are the primary agent responsible for the warming that the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years. The suns radiation patterns do not match the growth in total heat content which the Earth has experienced. The levels of atmospheric GHGs do.

Your first statement is false.. The majority of incident solar flux on the oceans is NOT absorbed. Not by the surface NOR the deeps.. The MAJORITY is either reflected back or radiated back into the sky..

Of course the rapid climb in TSI over 200 years can hide warmth in the oceans just as easily as CO2 radiative insulation can. And there is AMPLE reason and logic behind delays of multiple decades --- if not a century or two --- to establish a new thermal equilibrium to ANY increase in thermal forcing. The earth's temperature NEED NOT change INSTANTANEOUS with any forcing.

What forcing do we know of that has taken a hiatus in the last 30 or 40 years? Certainly NOT CO2.. It's TSI stupid... The pause in the warming matches a delayed thermal equilibrium caused by a new plateau in solar flux. When (if) the TSI actually goes down, I'd expect a delayed reaction in surface temp to that change as well.

Only idiots believe that changes in surface temp must IMMEDIATELY track the respective forcing.. NO complex thermal mass behaves that way..

 

[Abraham3]

Climate scientists - scientists in general - have long been aware that the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans. Your grandchildren could figure that one out. The question is: has the process changed? The answer is yes. Up till roughly the beginning of the 20th century, there was a close balance between energy in and energy out and the result was a world ocean with a stable temperature. Now we have an ocean warming at an unprecedented rate. Can you identify some behavior of the sun that could have produced that change? You cannot.

And, Dear 52nd street,

There is overwhelming evidence that man made greenhouse gases are the primary agent responsible for the warming that the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years. The suns radiation patterns do not match the growth in total heat content which the Earth has experienced. The levels of atmospheric GHGs do.

Your first statement is false.. The majority of incident solar flux on the oceans is NOT absorbed. Not by the surface NOR the deeps.. The MAJORITY is either reflected back or radiated back into the sky..

One of the oldest graphics in my collection. This was on Page 22 of my TinyPics account.

Of course the rapid climb in TSI over 200 years can hide warmth in the oceans just as easily as CO2 radiative insulation can. And there is AMPLE reason and logic behind delays of multiple decades --- if not a century or two --- to establish a new thermal equilibrium to ANY increase in thermal forcing. The earth's temperature NEED NOT change INSTANTANEOUS with any forcing.

Obviously. Warming might be from too many Boy Scout campfires. The problem with your hypothesis is that the changes in TSI are insufficient to have created the warming we've experienced and require a unsupportably convoluted time lag completely lacking any of its own justification.

What forcing do we know of that has taken a hiatus in the last 30 or 40 years? Certainly NOT CO2.. It's TSI stupid... The pause in the warming matches a delayed thermal equilibrium caused by a new plateau in solar flux. When (if) the TSI actually goes down, I'd expect a delayed reaction in surface temp to that change as well.

You're missing a wee point. The growth of the world's total heat content HAS NOT TAKEN A HIATUS, STUPID.

 

[itfitzme]

This recent info about man made global warming is all false. The Sun goes through what is
called a "Solar cycle", this is what is really heating up and cooling down the Earth. Man has
nothing to do with it. This has been going on for thousands of years. Increased Sun spot activity has been linked to this increased heating up of the earth. NOAA has documented this.

This talk of man made global warming is all a money making scam, aimed at charging
people throughout the world carbon fees.

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

Well, there is Stanford Universities take on it. No correlation between sunspots and temp. Clearly caused by CO2

So you were saying?

 

[itfitzme]

This is such and old topic that was debunked years ago. Do they all live in caves and come out once every five years?

 

[flacaltenn]

Then you don't UNDERSTAND your "oldest" graphic.. It does not state that "the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans" as you alledged. Science is very SPECIFIC about terminology and phrasing.. THe fact that you didn't get my correction means I'm wasting time here.

 

[itfitzme]

Then you don't UNDERSTAND your "oldest" graphic.. It does not state that "the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans" as you alledged. Science is very SPECIFIC about terminology and phrasing.. THe fact that you didn't get my correction means I'm wasting time here.

Oh, by all means, let's hear you use some of that "science" phrasing.

Tell me, what is divergence and curl?

 

[itfitzme]

Then you don't UNDERSTAND your "oldest" graphic.. It does not state that "the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans" as you alledged. Science is very SPECIFIC about terminology and phrasing.. THe fact that you didn't get my correction means I'm wasting time here.

It doesn't have to. It just proves that it ain't sunspots. That is how science works. Attempt to show it is sunspots. Fail to show it is. Show it isn't. Done.

 

[flacaltenn]

This recent info about man made global warming is all false. The Sun goes through what is
called a "Solar cycle", this is what is really heating up and cooling down the Earth. Man has
nothing to do with it. This has been going on for thousands of years. Increased Sun spot activity has been linked to this increased heating up of the earth. NOAA has documented this.

This talk of man made global warming is all a money making scam, aimed at charging
people throughout the world carbon fees.

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

Well, there is Stanford Universities take on it. No correlation between sunspots and temp. Clearly caused by CO2

So you were saying?

All this time with you and you STILL DON"T KNOW the freaking difference between TSI and SunSpot Number??? We're done also... You're not paying attention.. Is it because you can't ---- or you won't ???

 

[flacaltenn]

That makes TWO warming idiots that don't understand their own graphics..

Am I frustrated? Nope.. Gonna go do politics for awhile and hope for brighter warmers..

 

[Abraham3]

All this time with you and you STILL DON"T KNOW the freaking difference between TSI and SunSpot Number??? We're done also... You're not paying attention.. Is it because you can't ---- or you won't ???

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

 

[Abraham3]

Then you don't UNDERSTAND your "oldest" graphic.. It does not state that "the majority of the suns energy falling on the Earth goes into the oceans" as you alledged. Science is very SPECIFIC about terminology and phrasing.. THe fact that you didn't get my correction means I'm wasting time here.

RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!

Obivous cop out. Obvious that haven't got jack shit to back up your line.

 

[flacaltenn]

All this time with you and you STILL DON"T KNOW the freaking difference between TSI and SunSpot Number??? We're done also... You're not paying attention.. Is it because you can't ---- or you won't ???

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

 

[mamooth]

You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Competent scientists understand that curve-fitting isn't science. Since you're completely incompetent, you rely entirely on curve-fitting.

"Fourier combinations of periodic functions" can be fit to _any_ finite curve. Literally. That's very basic stuff, but poor Flac doesn't get it, or why such curve fitting is so meaningless. He's happy to be sitting in the corner mathturbating, and doesn't understand why no one wants to watch him doing it.