Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...
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.
The oil industry doesn't want you to believe global warming is real....
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.