Reply With Quote
There are zero surprises coming with the new IPCC report. It will say pretty much what AR4 said with more evidence.
The AR5 will have some sad surprises for the alarmists and indoctrinated.
One example:
What have I been saying about UV....As discussed in Section 8.2.1.4.1, a recent satellite measurement (Harder et al., 2009) found much greater than expected reduction at UV wavelengths in the recent declining solar cycle phase. Changes in solar uv drive stratospheric O3 chemistry and can change RF. Haigh et al. (2010) show that if these observations are correct, they imply the opposite relationship between solar RF and solar activity over that period than has hitherto been assumed. These new measurements therefore increase uncertainty in estimates of the sign of solar RF, but they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF, which remains small (Chapter 8). However, they do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate (as discussed in 10.3.1.1.3), that are not necessarily reflected by the RF metric (see 8.2.16).
There are zero surprises coming with the new IPCC report. It will say pretty much what AR4 said with more evidence.
No one has argued anything about the UV findings. They have been known for ten years. The only thing has been disputed has been your grandstanding as to the conclusions drawn from it. AP4 was released in 2007 well after the NASA finding were published. As MiG pointed out: zero surprises.
As has been told before, 2005 called and wants it's argument back.
The point I was making about the dates above is that you were saying that any studies done previous to these UV findings were invalid because they did not consider said UV findings. I already know why that argument is stupid.
Once again, you prove you you are not smart enough to understand. I was saying previous instruments had more drift and error levels that the changes in signals we need to see, to use the data in a meaningful way. I also believe it is at the 200 nm point that they were not making measurements before too. TIM sees 200 nm and smaller.
All the material I read in TIM indicates that deep UV levels are from six times to factors more in delta than previously thought.
Previous instruments prevented us from using the data in a meaningful way and you show stuff extrapolated from data from before the meaningful way was found.....
You cannot even keep up with your own bull . Again no one is arguing with the findings that the satellites found. It raised important questions in 2004. Who really gives a what you believe now.
It's like your dumbass think you found a bone and you are repeating the same bone over and over again.
It's also noted that you used the bull 'it was cold today' argument to segue into this same argument that has been rebutted in the last few threads. That is waht I am talking about how you will get owned drop the thread for a month and then dredge the same up a month later with a new thread. Here it is. YAY for us!
That extrapolated data is every bit as good and any extrapolated CO2 warming claims.
At least you now finally get it.
Dumbass.
LOL...
You mean at least you finally get it. I have known this all along, about the accuracy of the two types of knowledge.
How many times must I remind you that I am not a denier, but an honest skeptic. I see CO2 as being the scapegoat for warming. Most previous posts I have made discounting the degree to which alarmists claim is because we keep finding out things like the sun and soot having a greater effect than previously thought.
Well, if you keep increasing the percentage of something, and only have so much of a total, then that means the percentage of something else must decrease...
Does anyone believe this?
I will say that I do not believe this.
You have a right to your opinion.
Think about my claims all along, when pertaining to AR4 claimed levels.
Solar is greater.
Soot is greater.
CO2 is less.
So far, the IPCC and scientific community have proven me correct on the first two. They are, in my opinion, being stubborn on CO2.
The solar spectrum variation was discovered in 2003. WTF 'your claims all along.' That was ten years ago
I would like to think that you are trolling but you really do just seem this stupid.
This is your own quote and you obviously do not understand it. This is why I was saying before about your lack of discussion of phase in regards to the UV variability is glaring. For me this is particularly entertaining because of how you were trying to making a point about 'why 3 phase power.'These new measurements therefore increase uncertainty in estimates of the sign of solar RF, but they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF, which remains small (Chapter 8). However, they do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate
The soot ranking up is because of an increasing of coal industrialization --'more soot' for dumbasses such as yourself-- not on the base rate of contribution. You have no clue.
You just talk out of your ass trying to get to a conclusion. 'The data before this date is meaningless so here is some data from a year before.' Now I am just going to wait for the whines about 'Fuzzy Troll.'
Stop nitpicking Fuzzball. Spectrum variations were discovered long before tha, and by all along, i meant as long as I was debating this topic.
As for the "they are unlikely to alter estimates of the maximum absolute magnitude of the solar contribution to RF"... I see you completely failed at knowing the various places the different aspects apply.
The UV primarily affects the atmosphere only above the troposphere. The rest of the solar variations have little change. In the neighborhood of 0.12% Since the IPCC only addresses "direct solar forcing" and ignores the increased upward radiation, which turns into an increased downward radiation by H2O, C02, Ch4, etc... Don't you see... They are playing all of you who don't see thou their selective wording.
Direct solar forcing delta is small. The indirect solar forcing delta is about 3 times as great, if I remember correctly.
As for the soot, past estimates have been revised upward by around a factor of 3 if I recall correctly. Yes, it is more today than the 2004 era the IPCC AR4 reviewed.
You are the expert at talking out your ass. Not me.
nitpicking
The AR4 was in 2007. Still no discussion of phase or the integral. Their models are all about the re-emission of energy. That's what the greenhouse effect is, dumb . We know you want to think they do not consider these things
You done yet or are you going to continue to say the same ing things?
Some of you may find this of interest.
link: Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5
Parts of it:
"Expert review" of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:
My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call "the omitted variable problem" (or when it is intentional, "omitted variable fraud"). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year "grand maximum" of solar activity that began in the early 1920's? ("Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints," Usoskin et al. 2007.)
The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity "explains," in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.
Such a high degree of correlation over such long time periods implies causality, which can only go one way. Global temperature cannot be driving solar activity, so there must be some mechanism by which solar activity is driving or modulating global temperature change. The high degree of correlation also suggests that solar activity is the primary driver of global temperature on every time scale studied (which is pretty much every time scale but the Milankovitch cycle).
I see you continue to regurgitate what you are spoon fed.
The AR4 was in 2007. Still no discussion of phase or the integral. Their models are all about the re-emission of energy. That's what the greenhouse effect is, dumb . We know you want to think they do not consider these things
You done yet or are you going to continue to say the same ing things?
I especially liked the samples where ever source and excerpt said 'solar activity.' For example:
The long term trends in solar datatrong coherence between solar variabilityBoys and girls shall we look to see what solar minima, maxima and variability means?a high correlation between δ18O in SPA 12 and D14C (r =0.61). The maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300).
Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun.
I mean never mind the relationship between electricity, magnetism and EM radiation but this is just correlation as causation with a whole bunch of stupid.
Speaking of which, so dumbass, in your own words describe the mechanism by which variations in the sun's magnetic field alters the temperature of the earth. Give us some tale of magnetic induction please.
More to the point, this guy is telling what the IPCC is outright ignoring.
They have an agenda. They are lying.
So no mechanism for magnetic induction? Just a bunch of that talks of solar activity. That's nice.
They ignore solar 'burps' too. I hear it may rain tomorrow and the next few weeks. Have your ark ready?
No.
We normally have a net loss of hydrogen because the suns energy in the upper atmosphere actually breaks down water and fair share of the hydrogen escapes the atmospheric bounds. However, when equilibrium is a reality, things change when in a hydrogen cloud that is more dense than the earths outer atmosphere surrounds us after a massive CME.
Still think this is above my head?
I think it's above yours.You're joking, right?
The thermosphere reaches temperatures as high as 2500C. Hydrogen will easily have chemical reactions with oxygen at those temperatures.
Care to detail how I'm wrong? Don't forget the intensity of solar radiation to help.I'm pretty sure it's clear to most that you are talking out your ass.
The disk of the earth covers about 0.0000000453% of the solar radiation based on a sphere of our orbit. The emission of particles from the sun is about 1.3 E36.second. this mean the earth will collect about 1.86 E34 particles/year, most of which protium. If it were all protium, this would yield to as much as 9.3 E33 molecules of water per year, or 2.78 megatonnes.
Now this is very small as a normal increase in the earths water. Not even measurable. However, if we did go through a large ejection of stellar matter in the past, it could become a very large increase in total water volume.
I didn't read the entire thread, but it's likely that WC is associated outside temp with the "warming" part of global warming.
Fast, in Earth terms, means different things than it does in terms of your very minute life span.
Global warming is occurring. How or why is up for speculation, but it is happening. Unless you're a who just likes to nay say facts because you think that one article you misunderstood settles it, just accept it and move on.
Jesus ing Christ, Iron Man went through that great magnetic field when he traveled time for the future of mankind. Didn't you know that? Are you ing stupid?
I especially liked the samples where ever source and excerpt said 'solar activity.' For example:
Boys and girls shall we look to see what solar minima, maxima and variability means?
Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun.
I mean never mind the relationship between electricity, magnetism and EM radiation but this is just correlation as causation with a whole bunch of stupid.
Speaking of which, so dumbass, in your own words describe the mechanism by which variations in the sun's magnetic field alters the temperature of the earth. Give us some tale of magnetic induction please.
No, I'm not. Not sure which of Fuzzy's idiotic posts you are referring to.
Agreed. I do know for certain the alarmists do not give the solar aspect of warming as much as it should be. I can make rough guesses at the level of solar induced warming, but nothing solid. I do know with absolute certainty, that the level the alarmist community claims is way too small. This means they are miscalculating something else, like greenhouse gasses.
It's hilarious. You claim that I am a troll and then go from thread to thread on forum to forum insulting my intelligence. You insult my intelligence by your mere existence.
If you really think that I am a troll I do not think there is a better way to demonstrate how asshurt you are than by doing that. Well other than your call out thread from earlier. That menas I should probably add you to the fan club.
It just goes to show how stupid you are. Note: when I insult your intelligence I give specific cause for said belief. In this case it is your inability to control yourself.
Now, dumbass, where is the explanation for solar magnetic flux inducing warming on Earth? Did it cause a solar 'burp' like with Noah and the explosions warm us?
Oh and protip: DMC was not alluding to a post of mine. He was discussing the typical stupidity from your OP. Even your fellow conservatives thing you are a moron, moron.
Fuzzy, I don't think you realize just how ing stupid you are. You very often tell people what I am saying or implying, and it is almost always wrong. That is stupidity on your part. Not mine. I'm sure many people see past you.
If Fuzzy is right for once and you mean because of the pic in the OP, not. I mean the forces of climate. Not just because of the snow in AZ. In the OP I said this:
UV changes affect the balance of the upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere, which makes climate changes. It probably has a minor affect of temperature as the layers mix, but I doubt it's anything significant.
I get tired of the fact, that every time we have some notable climate, the AGW crowd always says "it's because of CO2." Well guys, there larger forces at play. Her name is Mother Nature.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
