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

[itfitzme]

A simple prediction out to 2050.



That is a linear and a second order polynomial fit to the trend from 1960 to 2012.

--------

Question: So what "pause" are they talking about?

 

[Abraham3]

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...

Au contraire, I was pleasantly surprised by the level of detail they provided as to the material that went into their work.

 

[Abraham3]

RealClimate: The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts

 

[itfitzme]

I've added the AMO annual average.

Removing CO2 as a driver and doing the exact same multivariate regression on Temp Anomaly against TSI and AMO only gives;



The most notable feature is that, with CO2 removed, after about 1970, the two start to diverge. The other feature, is that the error between the model and actual is not random.



There is a linear trend in the error meaning that something is not accounted for. In fact, some 33% of the variability is not accounted for.

So, here is the global mean temperature anomaly with TSI, CO2 and AMO.



The model error, the difference between the actual and predicted temp anomalies, is;



It is, as expected, a completely random set of dots. There is absolutely no discernible trend or patter. (can anyone find one? I will do a frequency plot later.)

It really is all just that simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 is responsible for the upward trend in global warming.

One would have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

We can certainly do more. Rising temp increases humidity. A number of green house gasses have been added to the atmosphere along with CO2. CO2 is, basically, a predictor for all the other GHGs. So, at this point, we probably have to go beyond letting the multiple regression model simply evaluate out the betas and put constraints on the model based on the chemistry and physics.

There is no doubt that the Sun, GHGs, and the ocean as a sink and source, accounts for the full range of predictable and non-random global mean temperature anomaly. The remaining is simply random noise. (maybe we can get aerosols in there)

Whatever is to be accomplished further, it must, at the very least, be as good as the model above.

 

[itfitzme]

The problem is that temp is just not a good physical quantity. It is a macro quantity that is the result of more basic energy content. It works for the usual purposes.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The oil industry doesn't want you to believe global warming is real....

 

[Abraham3]

Neither does the coal industry or the natural gas industry. Neither do many of their stockholders. Neither, for some reason, do many conservatives.

We can certainly understand the latter: money. But why do you think conservatives so tend to oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Your avatar seems to be a younger Jimmy Kimmel. Is that who it is? And, if so, any particular reason?

 

[Abraham3]

The problem is that temp is just not a good physical quantity. It is a macro quantity that is the result of more basic energy content. It works for the usual purposes.

What do you think is a good physical quantity: spin state? Mass flux rate? Percent vanilla ice cream by volume?

 

[flacaltenn]

The oil industry doesn't want you to believe global warming is real....

Those same evil oil companies are the LARGEST investors in wind, solar and other alternative energy projects.. They WANT cap and trade.. They make $Bills more....
They are sitting on the BULK of the potential trading credits..

 

[itfitzme]

The problem is that temp is just not a good physical quantity. It is a macro quantity that is the result of more basic energy content. It works for the usual purposes.

What do you think is a good physical quantity: spin state? Mass flux rate? Percent vanilla ice cream by volume?

Energy (joules).

 

[bripat9643]

Neither does the coal industry or the natural gas industry. Neither do many of their stockholders. Neither, for some reason, do many conservatives.

We can certainly understand the latter: money. But why do you think conservatives so tend to oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Your avatar seems to be a younger Jimmy Kimmel. Is that who it is? And, if so, any particular reason?

And government toadies want you to believe the hoax is real. We can certainly understand the reason: money. The so-called "climate scientists" are recieving billions of dollars in research grants, and the federal government stands to receive trillions in the additional taxes that the bureaucrats plan to impose on us. Politicians can then dispense this swag for the purpose of purchasing votes.

It's purely win-win for all those sucking on the government tit.

 

[itfitzme]

Neither does the coal industry or the natural gas industry. Neither do many of their stockholders. Neither, for some reason, do many conservatives.

We can certainly understand the latter: money. But why do you think conservatives so tend to oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Your avatar seems to be a younger Jimmy Kimmel. Is that who it is? And, if so, any particular reason?

And government toadies want you to believe the hoax is real. We can certainly understand the reason: money. The so-called "climate scientists" are recieving billions of dollars in research grants, and the federal government stands to receive trillions in the additional taxes that the bureaucrats plan to impose on us. Politicians can then dispense this swag for the purpose of purchasing votes.

It's purely win-win for all those sucking on the government tit.

So, basically, you're upset because they have a good career and you don't.

 

[bripat9643]

Neither does the coal industry or the natural gas industry. Neither do many of their stockholders. Neither, for some reason, do many conservatives.

We can certainly understand the latter: money. But why do you think conservatives so tend to oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Your avatar seems to be a younger Jimmy Kimmel. Is that who it is? And, if so, any particular reason?

And government toadies want you to believe the hoax is real. We can certainly understand the reason: money. The so-called "climate scientists" are recieving billions of dollars in research grants, and the federal government stands to receive trillions in the additional taxes that the bureaucrats plan to impose on us. Politicians can then dispense this swag for the purpose of purchasing votes.

It's purely win-win for all those sucking on the government tit.

So, basically, you're upset because they have a good career and you don't.

My taxes pay for their careers. Get them off the government tit, and I wouldn't give a damn. Furthermore, based on the liberal theory that people adjust their opinions according to what is financially the most beneficial, all the "climate scientists" are just paid propagandists.

 

[itfitzme]

And government toadies want you to believe the hoax is real. We can certainly understand the reason: money. The so-called "climate scientists" are recieving billions of dollars in research grants, and the federal government stands to receive trillions in the additional taxes that the bureaucrats plan to impose on us. Politicians can then dispense this swag for the purpose of purchasing votes.

It's purely win-win for all those sucking on the government tit.

So, basically, you're upset because they have a good career and you don't.

My taxes pay for their careers. Get them off the government tit, and I wouldn't give a damn. Furthermore, based on the liberal theory that people adjust their opinions according to what is financially the most beneficial, all the "climate scientists" are just paid propagandists.

Actually, no. Your taxes pay for the military and farm subsidies. Mine pays for their careers.

So you believe that somehow your spending power would be higher if you didn't pay taxes.

That's what it is about. And why you are scientifically illiterate. Because you're are trying to prove you would have a higher standard of living by nullifying AWG. Sciencific reasoning doesn't work that way.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Neither does the coal industry or the natural gas industry. Neither do many of their stockholders. Neither, for some reason, do many conservatives.

We can certainly understand the latter: money. But why do you think conservatives so tend to oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Your avatar seems to be a younger Jimmy Kimmel. Is that who it is? And, if so, any particular reason?

Conservatives are bought out by these industries, so are liberals and democrats though. For different reasons though.

It is Jimmy, I thought I was a funny looking avatar which makes people feel annoyed when they debate with me.

It gives me am extra butt kicking.

 

[bripat9643]

So, basically, you're upset because they have a good career and you don't.

My taxes pay for their careers. Get them off the government tit, and I wouldn't give a damn. Furthermore, based on the liberal theory that people adjust their opinions according to what is financially the most beneficial, all the "climate scientists" are just paid propagandists.

Actually, no. Your taxes pay for the military and farm subsidies. Mine pays for their careers.

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.

So you believe that somehow your spending power would be higher if you didn't pay taxes.

Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?

That's what it is about. And why you are scientifically illiterate. Because you're are trying to prove you would have a higher standard of living by nullifying AWG. Sciencific reasoning doesn't work that way.

Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

 

[itfitzme]

My taxes pay for their careers. Get them off the government tit, and I wouldn't give a damn. Furthermore, based on the liberal theory that people adjust their opinions according to what is financially the most beneficial, all the "climate scientists" are just paid propagandists.

Actually, no. Your taxes pay for the military and farm subsidies. Mine pays for their careers.

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.

So you believe that somehow your spending power would be higher if you didn't pay taxes.

Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?

That's what it is about. And why you are scientifically illiterate. Because you're are trying to prove you would have a higher standard of living by nullifying AWG. Sciencific reasoning doesn't work that way.

Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

Yes, dude, I am telling you that everything you have responded with is wrong.

I am telling you that those taxes were never in your pocket in the first place. I am telling, definitively, that they have nothing to do with your spending power. And I can prove it to anyone with a brain that has the capaciry for logic, reason, and mathmatics. It is a macroeconomic effect that is the result of our common money supply.

You are simply not capable because you are emotionally and intellectuqlly deficient.

 

[itfitzme]

My taxes pay for their careers. Get them off the government tit, and I wouldn't give a damn. Furthermore, based on the liberal theory that people adjust their opinions according to what is financially the most beneficial, all the "climate scientists" are just paid propagandists.

Actually, no. Your taxes pay for the military and farm subsidies. Mine pays for their careers.

That might be true if our 1040 form had a checkoff so we could choose the programs we wanted our taxes to fund. However, if that was the case, then "climate scientists" would probably get about 1% of what they are getting now. Social Security and Medicare would disappear. So would welfare.

So you believe that somehow your spending power would be higher if you didn't pay taxes.

Are you really going to tell us that when the government takes money out of my pocket that it doesn't affect my spending power? Seriously?

That's what it is about. And why you are scientifically illiterate. Because you're are trying to prove you would have a higher standard of living by nullifying AWG. Sciencific reasoning doesn't work that way.

Apparently what you call "scientific reasoning" is a form of brain damage. Economics does work that way. Any money the government takes out of my check is money I don't have to spend. I'd love to see you extrapolate on this theory that the government and I can both spend the same dollar. I think that's called the "having your cake and eating it too" theory of economics.

Here is an example of scientific reasoning.

MV=PQ

We can take P and Q as vectors.

Here is another



Your inability to grasp the meaning is your own problem.

 

[itfitzme]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, sunspots, CO2, AMO and global mean temperature



There is some remaining variability not accounted for.

 

[itfitzme]

And it looks like this

Or, this is simply that.

Hmm....

Correct me if I am wrong, but the idea of the AMO and PDO is that the rate of absorption of heat by the ocean is dependent upon the ocean surface temperature. For high temp cycles, the rate is slower, allowing the air temp to increase more. When the AMO and PDO cycle goes into a trough, the rate of energy absorption by the ocean increases, causing a slower increase in air temp.