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

[flacaltenn]

Here is a comparison of the IPCC lie with a bunch of different studies showing the full TSI
reconstructions..

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

And here is reference from Nasa scientist Judith Lean. Ya know,, one of dem dam gubmint scientists that you guys love..

Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)

Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,
reductions ... from contemporary levels are expected during the
seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral
irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to
spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope
of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range
of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675
are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared
and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.

0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?

 

[mamooth]

0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?

So you're taking from the Maunder minimum low point, and then pretending it's 1750.

If you're going to fib that brazenly, what's the point in discussion? Over and over, you make crap up, and then show no remorse for doing so.

 

[flacaltenn]

0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?

So you're taking from the Maunder minimum low point, and then pretending it's 1750.

If you're going to fib that brazenly, what's the point in discussion? Over and over, you make crap up, and then show no remorse for doing so.

The climate doesn't give a fuck from WHAT POINT i take it.. Only the IPCC does..
Strictly speaking if I stated the time interval ((which LEAN 2004 did)) --- there was no lie.. Left to the reader to understand the implication to the RELEVENT time period.. IE --- ain't NEAR your numbers.. Closer to mine...


But hey --- Let's call Judith's Leans comment about 0.2% then gives us 1.8W/m2 between buds.. Cool???
Did you see the OTHER studies?
Can we move on?

I'd really like to get the other HALF of the IPCC lie in that ONE CHART..
Which is the horrendous OVERSTATEMENT of the CO2 forcing number...

 

[itfitzme]

Here is a comparison of the IPCC lie with a bunch of different studies showing the full TSI
reconstructions..

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

And here is reference from Nasa scientist Judith Lean. Ya know,, one of dem dam gubmint scientists that you guys love..

Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)

Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,
reductions ... from contemporary levels are expected during the
seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral
irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to
spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope
of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range
of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675
are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared
and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.

0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?

Odd, the IPCC publishes this

How odd. Your supposed IPCC TSI is just the top portion of their full graph which includes a comment that

" Reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) by Lean et al. (1995, solid red curve), Hoyt and Schatten (1993, data updated by the authors to 1999, solid black curve), Solanki and Fligge (1998, dotted blue curves), and Lockwood and Stamper (1999, heavy dash-dot green curve); the grey curve shows group sunspot numbers (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998) scaled to Nimbus-7 observations for 1979 to 1993."

Oh, that says that it is just sunspot numbers.

They also show

Why is it that you can't just link the actual publication?

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is a comparison of the IPCC lie with a bunch of different studies showing the full TSI
reconstructions..

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

And here is reference from Nasa scientist Judith Lean. Ya know,, one of dem dam gubmint scientists that you guys love..

Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)

Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,
reductions ... from contemporary levels are expected during the
seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral
irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to
spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope
of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range
of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675
are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared
and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.

0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?

Odd, the IPCC publishes this

How odd. Your supposed IPCC TSI is just the top portion of their full graph which includes a comment that

" Reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) by Lean et al. (1995, solid red curve), Hoyt and Schatten (1993, data updated by the authors to 1999, solid black curve), Solanki and Fligge (1998, dotted blue curves), and Lockwood and Stamper (1999, heavy dash-dot green curve); the grey curve shows group sunspot numbers (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998) scaled to Nimbus-7 observations for 1979 to 1993."

Oh, that says that it is just sunspot numbers.

They also show

Why is it that you can't just link the actual publication?

I did nidget.. The source is Frohlich and Lean 2004.. Can you read??

And why are using OLD IPCC charts. No study in that chart is from the 21st century. I don't why the IPCC rejects those other studies --- ask them.. The numbers they end up with are baseline removed (derived from sunspot only data). That's the only plausible explanation for the lies..

THe only TSI chart you showed that could possibly produce such low numbers would be the grey plot in your crap IPCC chart or the top chart in the F & L 2004 graphic.

I'm getting bored with the inquisition here.. Just like Mann had to IGNORE MULTITUDES of global studies to claim the MWP was a small local zit on the temp curve.. The IPCC is ignoring the BETTER ESTIMATES of TSI just to punch up their propaganda line about Anthropogenic sources.. And LYING...

 

[Abraham3]

The numbers they end up with are baseline removed (derived from sunspot only data). That's the only plausible explanation for the lies..

You didn't read my posts from the AR5 reports, did you. They are most decidedly NOT working only from sunspot data.

Transcribed by hand.

8.4.1.2 TSI Variations since Preindustrial Time

The year 1750, which is used as the preinducstial refernce for estimating RF, corresponds to a maximum of the 11-year SC.[solar cycle] Trend analysis are usually performed over the minima of the solar cycles that are more stable. For such tend estimates, it is then better to use the closes SC minimum, which is in 1745. To avoid trends caused by comparing different portions of the solar cycle, we analyze TSI changes using multi-year running means. For the best estimate, we use a recent TSI reconstruction by Krivova et al (2010) between 1745 and 1973 and from 1974 to 2012 by Ball et al (2012). The reconstuction is based on physical modeling of the evolution of the solar surface magnetic flux, and its relationship with sunspot group number (before 1974) and sunspot umbra and penumbra and faculae afterwards. This provides a more detailed reconstructon than other models (see the time series in Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.3). The best estimate from our assessment of the most reliable TSI reconstruction gives a 7-year running mean RF between the minima of 1745 and 2008 or 0.05 Wm^-2. Our assessment of the range of RF from TSI changes is 0.0-0.10 Wm^-2 which covers several updated reconstructions using the same 7-year running mean past-to-present minima years (Wang et al, 2005; Steinhilber et al, 2009; Delaygue and Bard, 2011), see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.4. All reconstructions rely on indirect proxies that inherently do not give consistent result. There are relaively large discrepancies among the models (see Figure 8.11). With these considerations, we adopt this value and range for AR5. This RF is almost half of that in AR4, in part because the AR4 esimate was based on the previous solar cycle minimum while the AR5 estimate includes the drop of TSI in 2008 compared to the previous two SC minima (see 8.4.1). Concerning the uncertainty range, in AR4, the upper limit corresponded to the reconstruction of Lean (2000), based on the reduced brightness of non-cycling Sun-like stars assumed typical of a Maunder Minimum (MM state. The use of such stellar analogues was based on the work of Bailunas and Jastrow (1990), but more recent surveys have not reproduced their results and suggest that the seclection of the original set was flawed (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; Wright, 2004); the lower limit from 1750 to present in AR4 was due to the assumed increase in the amplitude of the 11-year cycle only. Thus the RF and uncertainty range have beeb obtained in a different way in AR5 compared to AR4. Maxima to maxima RF give a higher estimate than minima to minima RF, but the latter is more relevant for changes in solar activity. Given the medium agreement and medium evidence, this RF value has a medium confidence level although confidence is higher for the last three decades). Figure 8.11 shows several TSI reconstructions modelled using sunspot group numbers (Wang et al, 2005; Krivova et al, 2010; Ball et al, 2012) and sunspot umbra and penumbra and faculae (Ball et al, 2012), or cosmogenic isotopes (Steinhilber et al, 2009; Delaygue and Bard, 2011). These reconstructions are standardized to PMOD solar cycle 23 (1996-2008) (see also Supplementary Material Section 8.SM.6).

For the MM-to-Present AR4 gives a TOA instantaneous RF range of 0.1-0.28 Wm^-2, equivalent to 0.08-0.22 Wm^-2 with the RF definition used here. The reconstructions in Schmidt et al (2011) indicate a MM-to-Present RF range of 0.08-0.18 Wm^-2, which is within the AR4 range although narrower. As discussed above, the estimates based on irradiance changes in Sun-like stars are not included in this range because the methodology has been shown to be flawed. A more detailed explanation of this is found in Suplementary Material Section 8.SM.6. For details about TSI reconstructions on millennia time scales, see Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1.1.[see next post]

 

[Abraham3]

5.2.1.1 Orbital Forcing

The term "orbital forcing" is used to denote the incoming solar radiation changes originating from variations in Earth´s orbital parameters as well as changes in its axial tilt. Orbital forcing is well known from precise astronomical calculations for the past and future (Laskar et al., 2004). Changes in eccentricity, longitude of perihelion (related to precession), and axial tilt (obliquity) (Berger and Loutre, 1991) predominantly affect the seasonal and latitudinaldistribution and magnitude of solar energy received at the top of the atmosphere (AR4, Box 6.1; Jansen et al., 2007), and the durations and intensities of local seasons. Obliquity also modulates the annual mean insolation at any given latitude, with opposite effects at high and low latitudes. Orbital forcing is considered the pacemaker of transitions between glacials and interglacials (high confidence), although there is still no consensus on exactly how the different physical processes influenced by insolation changes interact to influence ice-sheet volume (Box 5.2; Section 5.3.2). The different orbital configurations make each glacial and interglacial period unique (Yin and Berger, 2010; Tzedakis et al., 2012a). Multi-millennial trends of temperature, Arctic sea ice, and glaciers during the current interglacial period, and specifically the last 2,000 years have been related to orbital forcing (Section 5.5).

 

[Abraham3]

5.2.1.2 Solar Forcing

Solar irradiance models (e.g.,Wenzler et al., 2005) have been improved to better explain the instrumental measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) and spectral (wavelength dependent) solar irradiance (SSI). Typical changes measured over an 11-year solar cycle are 0.1% for TSI and up to several percent for the ultra-violet (UV) part of SSI (see Section 8.4). Changes in TSI directly impact the Earth’s surface (see solar Box 10.2), whereas changes in UV primarily affect the stratosphere, but can influence the tropospheric circulation through dynamical coupling (Haigh, 1996). Most models attribute all TSI and SSI changes exclusively to magnetic phenomena at the solar surface (sunspots, faculae, magnetic network), neglecting any potential internal phenomena such as changes in energy transport (see also Section 8.4). The basic concept in solar models is to divide the solar surface into different magnetic features each with a specific radiative flux. The balance of contrasting dark sunspots and bright faculae and magnetic network leads to a higher TSI value during solar cycle maxima and at most wavelengths, but some wavelengths may be out of phase with the solar cycle (Harder et al., 2009; Cahalan et al., 2010; Haigh et al., 2010). TSI and SSI are calculated by adding the radiative fluxes of all features plus the contribution from the magnetically inactive surface. These models can successfully reproduce the measured TSI changes between 1978 and 2003 (Balmaceda et al., 2007; Crouch et al., 2008), but not necessarily the last minimum of 2008 (Krivova et al., 2011). This approach requires detailed information of all the magnetic features and their temporal changes (Wenzler et al., 2006; Krivova and Solanki, 2008) (see Section 8.4).

The extension of TSI and SSI into the pre-satellite period poses two main challenges. First, the satellite period (since 1978) used to calibrate the solar irradiance models does not show any significant long-term trend. Second, information about the various magnetic features at the solar surface decreases back in time and must be deduced from proxies such as sunspot counts for the last 400 years and cosmogenic radionuclides (10Be and 14C) for the past Millennium (Muscheler et al., 2007; Delaygue and Bard, 2011) and the Holocene (Table 5.1) (Steinhilber et al., 2009; Vieira et al., 2011). 10Be and 14C records not only reflect solar activity, but also the geomagnetic field intensity and effects of their respective geochemical cycles and transport pathways (Pedro et al., 2011; Steinhilber et al., 2012). The corrections for these non-solar components, which are difficult to quantify, contribute to the overall error of the reconstructions (grey band in Figure 5.1c).

TSI reconstructions are characterized by distinct grand solar minima lasting 50–100 years (e.g., the Maunder Minimum, 1645–1715) that are superimposed upon long-term changes. Spectral analysis of TSI records reveals periodicities of 87, 104, 150, 208, 350, 510, ~980, and ~2200 years (Figure 5.1d) (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993), but with time varying amplitudes (Steinhilber et al., 2009; Vieira et al., 2011). All reconstructions rely ultimately on the same data (sunspots and cosmogenic radionuclides), but differ in the details of the methodologies. As a result the reconstructions agree rather well in their shape, but differ in their amplitude (Figure 5.1b) (Wang et al., 2005; Krivova et al., 2011; Lean et al., 2011; Schrijver et al., 2011) (see Section 8.4.1).

Since AR4, Most recent reconstructions show a considerably smaller difference (<0.1%) in TSI between the late 20th century and the Late Maunder Minimum (1675-1715) when the sun was very quiet, compared to the often used reconstruction of Lean et al. (1995b) (0.24%) and Shapiro et al. (2011) (~0.4%). The Lean et al. (1995a) reconstruction has been used to scale solar forcing in simulations of the last millennium prior to PMIP3/CMIP5 (Table 5.A.1). PMIP3/CMIP5 last millennium simulations have used the weak solar forcing of recent reconstructions of TSI (Schmidt et al., 2011; Schmidt et al., 2012b) calibrated (Muscheler et al., 2007; Delaygue and Bard, 2011) or spliced (Steinhilber et al., 2009; Vieira and Solanki, 2010) to Wang et al. (2005). The larger range of past TSI variability in Shapiro et al. (2011) is not supported by studies of magnetic field indicators that suggest smaller changes over the 19th and 20th centuries (Svalgaardand Cliver, 2010; Lockwood and Owens, 2011).

Note that: (1) the recent new measurement of the absolute value of TSI and TSI changes during the past decades are assessed in Section 8.4.1.1; (2) the current state of understanding the effects of galactic cosmic rays on clouds is assessed in Sections 7.4.6 and 8.4.1.5 and (3) the use of solar forcing in simulations of the last millennium is discussed in Section 5.3.5.
****************************************************************************************************
Note that Steinhilber and his Beryllium isotope work as well as that of others ARE INCLUDED.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter05.pdf beginning on page 5-7

 

[flacaltenn]

Since AR4, Most recent reconstructions show a considerably smaller difference (<0.1%) in TSI between the late 20th century and the Late Maunder Minimum (1675-1715) when the sun was very quiet, compared to the often used reconstruction of Lean et al. (1995b) (0.24%) and Shapiro et al. (2011) (~0.4%). The Lean et al. (1995a) reconstruction has been used to scale solar forcing in simulations of the last millennium prior to PMIP3/CMIP5 (Table 5.A.1). PMIP3/CMIP5 last millennium simulations have used the weak solar forcing of recent reconstructions of TSI (Schmidt et al., 2011; Schmidt et al., 2012b) calibrated (Muscheler et al., 2007; Delaygue and Bard, 2011) or spliced (Steinhilber et al., 2009; Vieira and Solanki, 2010) to Wang et al. (2005). The larger range of past TSI variability in Shapiro et al. (2011) is not supported by studies of magnetic field indicators that suggest smaller changes over the 19th and 20th centuries (Svalgaardand Cliver, 2010; Lockwood and Owens, 2011).

Of course... The newer numbers are in tighter confidence and the value is somewhat lower than the earlier 0.2% estimates (( that would be about 2.4W/m2)) ---- BUT --- they are NOW in the range of 0.7 to 1.6W/m2... (((That's about 0.1% of 1364W/m2, the current average measurement)) Get past that --- NO ONE IS CLAIMING 2 or 3 Watt changes change anymore...

NOT anywhere NEAR the 0.05W in the LYING sack of shit IPCC report.. I gave you a 2004 study from the 2 top experts on this topic showing FOUR DIFFERENT modern studies.. What more do you need?

That last "excuse" about 2011 studies using "magnetic field" indicators is just horseshit.. That's the DEVELOPMENT of new proxy for TSI that is still in it's infancy and NOT calibrated or fully validated.

Don't ask me to do forensic analysis on the IPCC propaganda. What they say they did --- makes no sense. Makes LESS sense NOW then when they first buggered the issue in the early 90s...

BTW: I DO appreciate you putting effort in to understand this important topic.. Hope you realize the end result of your effort is NOT gonna end well for your preconcieved notions about tthe objective, unerring science at the UN...

 

[flacaltenn]

Nice to know that Mamooth is also putting in effort.. As I stumbled across this yesterday over at
Real Climate....

39mamoo says:
15 Oct 2013 at 3:18 PM
I&#8217;m in discussion with a couple denialists swearing the chart is all a big fraud, because the TSI difference since 1750 is more like +0.5 W/m^2, while the chart shows a solar irradiance factor of +0.05 W/m^2.

Now, I understand that the solar irradiance factor on the chart is not the same thing as the straight TSI difference. For one, there&#8217;s the geometry factor knocking it down by a factor of 4. But I&#8217;d like to be able to explain the rest. Quick and dirty, what else goes into calculating that factor?




Ray Ladbury says:
15 Oct 2013 at 4:19 PM
Mamoo,
TSI is very difficult to measure from Earth&#8217;s Surface. We have a correlation between TSI and Sun Spot # derived from satellite data and we can use that to reconstruct an approximate history. Try here
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j96.pdf

and

Greg's TSI Page

Short answer&#8211;it tracks really well until you get to about 1970 or so. Gee, what happened then, I wonder?

41Patrick 027 says:
15 Oct 2013 at 5:30 PM
re 39 mamoo &#8211;

(1-albedo)*(TSI difference)/4 = solar forcing TOA

Nice to know who I'm debating.. Should we cut out the messenger?
Maybe Patrick and I should discuss how that EXCUSE for IPCC lies is a worthless approximation that doesn't belong anywhere NEAR a true climate model...

And thanks Post #39 Mamoo for weighting me as "a couple of denialists"....

 

[itfitzme]

Here is a comparison of the IPCC lie with a bunch of different studies showing the full TSI
reconstructions..

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...



And here is reference from Nasa scientist Judith Lean. Ya know,, one of dem dam gubmint scientists that you guys love..



0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?

Odd, the IPCC publishes this

How odd. Your supposed IPCC TSI is just the top portion of their full graph which includes a comment that

" Reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) by Lean et al. (1995, solid red curve), Hoyt and Schatten (1993, data updated by the authors to 1999, solid black curve), Solanki and Fligge (1998, dotted blue curves), and Lockwood and Stamper (1999, heavy dash-dot green curve); the grey curve shows group sunspot numbers (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998) scaled to Nimbus-7 observations for 1979 to 1993."

Oh, that says that it is just sunspot numbers.

They also show

Why is it that you can't just link the actual publication?

I did nidget.. The source is Frohlich and Lean 2004.. Can you read??

And why are using OLD IPCC charts. No study in that chart is from the 21st century. I don't why the IPCC rejects those other studies --- ask them.. The numbers they end up with are baseline removed (derived from sunspot only data). That's the only plausible explanation for the lies..

THe only TSI chart you showed that could possibly produce such low numbers would be the grey plot in your crap IPCC chart or the top chart in the F & L 2004 graphic.

I'm getting bored with the inquisition here.. Just like Mann had to IGNORE MULTITUDES of global studies to claim the MWP was a small local zit on the temp curve.. The IPCC is ignoring the BETTER ESTIMATES of TSI just to punch up their propaganda line about Anthropogenic sources.. And LYING...

No, you didn't. Your image is www.usmessageboard.com/members/flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture6142-tsistudiescompare.jpg

Secondly, you present it as "Here is a comparison of the IPCC lie with a bunch of different studies showing the full TSI reconstructions.. "

That would be complete bullshit as the actual IPCC chart is as I show, identical to the one you say is correct, the bottom of your diagram.

Are you having difficulty using language?

On top of that, in the beginning of this discussion, you presented

as being acceptable to you, saying ".. Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so... "

It is your graph from www.usmessageboard.com/members/flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4620-tim-tsi-reconstruction-2012.jpg

You seem unable to make up your mind.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Mr SnowJob...

Item #1)

OF COURSE I gave you the source to that 2 chart graph... From my ORIGINAL POST at
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8002014-post161.html

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

That was all there the FIRST TIME you accused of not citing the work.. You're demonstrably inept and incompetent.


Item #2)


Second error on your part.. I've posted the SORCE/TIM for you DOZENS of times -- many times with cites to the original. What part of googling SORCE TIM TSI can't you accomplish? And if you've SEEN IT FROM ME DOZENS OF TIMES WITH CITES --- how much are you really following the discussion anyway?

When you arrive at the Univ of Colorado SORCE Website --- you've done some work.. Hint (its the first Google hit for SORCE TIM tsi)

Item #3)

Doesn't matter what the IPCC SHOWS in their smoke screen.. They certainly IGNORED the overwhelming data and evidence in that graph you claim was the same in order to assert a massive deception..

Now with that out of way.. Please APOLOGIZE --- or I'm not wasting another lunch hour on you...

 

[itfitzme]

Decision time.

The following is a plot of two CO2 data sets. One is the 20 year smoothed CO2 data from Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores. The second is the Mauna Loa monthly record. The second set is shown in monthly data as well as plots of the minimum and maximum for each year.



The 20 year smoothed does not match up perfectly at the transition and, unfortunately, there is no consistent month that matches in the overlap.

So the decision to be made is which how to make the transition between the two. My thought is to take the midpoint between the min and max for Mauna Loa, begginning at about 1965 to 1968 as the two are most coincidental at this point. This will hide the decline that occurs after 1968, picking up the more precise values from Mauna Loa.

Thoughts?

 

[itfitzme]

Hey Mr SnowJob...

Item #1)

OF COURSE I gave you the source to that 2 chart graph... From my ORIGINAL POST at
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8002014-post161.html

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

That was all there the FIRST TIME you accused of not citing the work.. You're demonstrably inept and incompetent.


Item #2)


Second error on your part.. I've posted the SORCE/TIM for you DOZENS of times -- many times with cites to the original. What part of googling SORCE TIM TSI can't you accomplish? And if you've SEEN IT FROM ME DOZENS OF TIMES WITH CITES --- how much are you really following the discussion anyway?

When you arrive at the Univ of Colorado SORCE Website --- you've done some work.. Hint (its the first Google hit for SORCE TIM tsi)

Item #3)

Doesn't matter what the IPCC SHOWS in their smoke screen.. They certainly IGNORED the overwhelming data and evidence in that graph you claim was the same in order to assert a massive deception..

Now with that out of way.. Please APOLOGIZE --- or I'm not wasting another lunch hour on you...

I'm just trying to figure out what you are willing to be consistent on seeing as you flop around like a fish out of water, depending on what particular information will support your bs.

Obviously, from the start, contrary to your bullshit, the IPCC does use accurate and appropriate TSI.

You might want to consider no wasting a lunch hour on yourself because the biggest snow job is the mental blowjob you keep giving yourself. It should be obvious to you, as it is to everyone else, that the only thing you really have is to accuse others of lying or bsing. You might want to get therapy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Mr SnowJob...

Item #1)

OF COURSE I gave you the source to that 2 chart graph... From my ORIGINAL POST at
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8002014-post161.html

First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..

This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

That was all there the FIRST TIME you accused of not citing the work.. You're demonstrably inept and incompetent.


Item #2)


Second error on your part.. I've posted the SORCE/TIM for you DOZENS of times -- many times with cites to the original. What part of googling SORCE TIM TSI can't you accomplish? And if you've SEEN IT FROM ME DOZENS OF TIMES WITH CITES --- how much are you really following the discussion anyway?

When you arrive at the Univ of Colorado SORCE Website --- you've done some work.. Hint (its the first Google hit for SORCE TIM tsi)

Item #3)

Doesn't matter what the IPCC SHOWS in their smoke screen.. They certainly IGNORED the overwhelming data and evidence in that graph you claim was the same in order to assert a massive deception..

Now with that out of way.. Please APOLOGIZE --- or I'm not wasting another lunch hour on you...

I'm just trying to figure out what you are willing to be consistent on seeing as you flop around like a fish out of water, depending on what particular information will support your bs.

Obviously, from the start, contrary to your bullshit, the IPCC does use accurate and appropriate TSI.

You might want to consider no wasting a lunch hour on yourself because the biggest snow job is the mental blowjob you keep giving yourself.

Gee --- that sounded NOTHING like an apology. Or someone who is in possession of the facts about IPCC claims.

Guess that ends our "dialogue"... I see a couple posts up, the next "snowstorm" has started. Best wishes you fucking fraud...

 

[itfitzme]

This discontinuity in the 20 year smoothed law dome data is a bit annoying

 

[itfitzme]

Hey Mr SnowJob...

Item #1)

OF COURSE I gave you the source to that 2 chart graph... From my ORIGINAL POST at
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8002014-post161.html



That was all there the FIRST TIME you accused of not citing the work.. You're demonstrably inept and incompetent.


Item #2)


Second error on your part.. I've posted the SORCE/TIM for you DOZENS of times -- many times with cites to the original. What part of googling SORCE TIM TSI can't you accomplish? And if you've SEEN IT FROM ME DOZENS OF TIMES WITH CITES --- how much are you really following the discussion anyway?

When you arrive at the Univ of Colorado SORCE Website --- you've done some work.. Hint (its the first Google hit for SORCE TIM tsi)

Item #3)

Doesn't matter what the IPCC SHOWS in their smoke screen.. They certainly IGNORED the overwhelming data and evidence in that graph you claim was the same in order to assert a massive deception..

Now with that out of way.. Please APOLOGIZE --- or I'm not wasting another lunch hour on you...

I'm just trying to figure out what you are willing to be consistent on seeing as you flop around like a fish out of water, depending on what particular information will support your bs.

Obviously, from the start, contrary to your bullshit, the IPCC does use accurate and appropriate TSI.

You might want to consider no wasting a lunch hour on yourself because the biggest snow job is the mental blowjob you keep giving yourself.

Gee --- that sounded NOTHING like an apology. Or someone who is in possession of the facts about IPCC claims.

Guess that ends our "dialogue"... I see a couple posts up, the next "snowstorm" has started. Best wishes you fucking fraud...

There is no dialog between you and I. You are simply not in possession of the skills necessary for us to have a serious discussion. All you have, at your foundation, is "everyone else is lying". What you don't have, and repeatedly demonstrate, is a solid foundation of the actual science. Your entire repertoire is based on a biased position and the consistent approach of misinterpreting science in order to come up with some bs to support your mistaken belief.

 

[itfitzme]

A model that takes into account the data from 1850 through the present is shown below.

Alone, TSI accounts for about 23% of the variability in global mean temperature anomaly from 1850 to present.



Alone, CO2 accounts for 71% of the variability in global mean temp anomaly from 1850 to present.



Together, CO2 and TSI predict the temperature anomaly as shown;



And, as far as the discontinuity I didn't like, I think we are on track for ironing that out.

Notice the trend from 1998 through the present, the so called "pause". It is obvious that there is no pause.

What is, unfortunately missing from the software tool is the confidence levels and R^2 for the betas in the multivariate regression equation;

T =*(7.64·10-3)*CO2 + (1.83·10-2)*TSI*- 27.47 : 1850 <= Year <= 2012

Over this long (1850 to 2012) century and a half look, Solar influence is accounting for a greater amount of the variability that in the shorter span of the Mauna Loa record. This is not surprising



For the first century, 1850 to 1950, CO2 only accounted for about 7.6% of the variability. From 1950 through 2013, CO2 became more significant, by comparison, coming in at about 80% of the variability.

 

[Abraham3]

This discontinuity in the 20 year smoothed law dome data is a bit annoying

It matches the temperature trend quite nicely

 

[itfitzme]

This discontinuity in the 20 year smoothed law dome data is a bit annoying

It matches the temperature trend quite nicely

Yeah, I was overly concerned.

I am just taking a stab at it here.

You may know better than I what the predominant factor is.

I still have volcanic eruptions, other GHGs, what else? (AMO PDO enso data)

Once these are in, then and only then, we might consider any time lag or storage type processes.

------

Notes:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/climateindices/list/