Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 367

Thread: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

  1. #271
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Maybe my choice of words is poor. They place it as insignificant, when it is significant.
    "they"? So there are more than one? Just who are "they"?

    Who is this mysterious "they" who are saying that the sun doesn't matter?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #272
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Despite the absence of an El Niño, 2012 ranked 8th warmest on record. Through June, 2013 ranks 6th warmest. June 2013 was the 2nd warmest June on record with an anomaly of +0.67°C above the 1951-80 baseline. Only June 1998 was warmer with an anomaly of +0.74°C.

  3. #273
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    LOL...

    That's good!

    I need a sig, can I use that?
    Feel free.

  4. #274
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    There are also people who thinks the sun doesn't matter. I never understood that since the sun is the source of 99.99+% of the energy that becomes measurable temperature on earth.
    The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.

  5. #275
    Advisor Morrigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    10-13-14 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    351

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Studies with poxy data have shown the sun to vary greatly over the last several centuries. The IPCC conveniently picks 1750 as their starting timeline to show industrialization has the effect they claim, when solar energy started increasing in 1713 after the maunder minima. During this time, if you take Lean et. al. 2000, and the supplemental 2005 additions, you find the sun has increased by 0.18% This is not talking a low to high solar cycle, but that much from the 11 year average. This is all backed up by other studies, though they have differing results. They all agree there are marked increases in the suns output. There is a growing consensus that the change is more like 0.24% as the sciences are more and more understood..

    As your link correctly points out, even satellite data isn't certain because of instrument drift. The latest two SOURCE satellites with TIM and other equipment has the best calibrated equipment to date, and also has equipment seeing deeper into the shortwave spectrum. The trend from the start of satellite measurements shows a very marginal decrease.

    Simply physics equations prove that a 0.18% increase in solar radiation gives a much larger increase of radiative forcing than the IPCC claims. The actual calculations are about 8 times larger for solar than the IPCC claims, because they only include the "direct forcing." They ignore the "indirect forcing."

    The numbers have nothing to do with fusion, but more the magnetic changes in the sun. Scientists have noted short and long term cycles, and have predicted the solar output to be decreasing through at least the next two solar cycles, and some say we may enter a cooling as great as the maunder minima was.

    As for the simple math of the sun. If we took at solar TSI vs. temperature and assign any number, I'll use 1360 W/m^2, to correspond to a global average of 15 Celsius, and increase the TSI by 0.18%...

    15 C = 288.15 K

    Watts to surface temperature is a fourth root/power of four function.

    1.0018^0.25 = 1.00045

    288.15 x 1.00045 = 288.28

    288.28 = 273.15 = 15.13

    15.13 - 15 = 0.13 degree increase, just for that 0.18% solar increase.
    This is already 20% of what the IPCC is claiming for a temperature increase, but they claim the suns increase is only 7.2% of the radiative forcing increase (0.12/1.66 = 7.2%).

    However, it isn't that simple to go from no atmosphere to an atmosphere. When the IPCC stops lying to us, I might start believing them.

    This 0.18% conveniently equates to a 0.12 W/m^2 forcing, directly absorbed by the atmosphere. take a look at this:



    This is an accepted earth energy budget at the time of the AR4. Please note that the sun is also partially reflected, and absorbed by the surface. Any increase in surface absorption will be proportionally reemitted as upward IR. The greenhouse effect will also be affected proportionally. Changes in greenhouse gas level are not linear, but the output is linear to the input of power. This simple graph shows the actual change of direct and indirect forcing to be 0.93 W.m^2. Not just the 0.12 W/m^2. When you compare that to the 1.6 W/m^2 claimed for forcing increases since 1750, you see it is 58% of the forcing change. The sun has the greatest influence.
    Do you have peer-reviewed studies backing up these claims?

  6. #276
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrigi View Post
    Do you have peer-reviewed studies backing up these claims?
    See http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2770.pdf, pp.45-46 about the modest role played by the sun when it comes to warming, which has become negligible since 1960.

  7. #277
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,325

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.
    Yes it can, and I have explained how several times. The sun has a greater impact at ocean heat, and it takes decades for this large system to redistribute the heat.

  8. #278
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,325

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1
    See http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2770.pdf, pp.45-46 about the modest role played by the sun when it comes to warming, which has become negligible since 1960.
    Thanx.

    Page 33 says the TSI is about 0.6 W/m^2 greater (0.25%), my graph above shows about 0.4 W/m^2. Like I said, more recent (and accurate) studies claim closer to a 0.24% increase.

    I'll have to read it later.

  9. #279
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,645

    2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Yes it can, and I have explained how several times. The sun has a greater impact at ocean heat, and it takes decades for this large system to redistribute the heat.
    Did someone say deep ocean??

    http://earthsky.org/earth/warming-in...y#.UeRreKa9LCQ
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  10. #280
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,325

    Re: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

    Well, after reading the paper more closely, the 0.6 is different than what i thought. The change from a external TSI is in the range of 0.8 to 3 watt/m^2, or 0.06% to 0.22%.

Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •