Reply With Quote
For one, you should check on the dates of the events, dumb . The maunder min and that chart do not coincide. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr.
You're STILL trying to make this up after I broke it down for you? SMH
For one, you should check on the dates of the events, dumb . The maunder min and that chart do not coincide. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...n/ch2s2-7.html2.7.1 Solar Variability
The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Why is the IPCC lying to me?!?!??!!? They just don't understand! Durrrrrrrrrr
The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum) based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of recent solar variations and their relationship to physical processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sun-like stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales. {2.7, 6.6}
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...tssts-2-4.html
Duurrrrrrrr Dates are hard! Durrrrrrrr!!!!!
Durrrrr I'm sick of you laughing at me so I'm going to double down on my stupidity on breaking down the forcing for no reason other than I still have no idea what the I am talking about.
If you're truly sick of being laughed at, stop saying stupid over and over.
In the meantime....
x 304309483094830948340
The maunder minima ended just after 1700, but there is such a thing as lag you know. The oceans account for about 70% of the surface, and take time to respond to changes of input energy.
You don't even care to understand why I break down direct and indirect forcing.Durrrrr I'm sick of you laughing at me so I'm going to double down on my stupidity on breaking down the forcing for no reason other than I still have no idea what the I am talking about.
If you're truly sick of being laughed at, stop saying stupid over and over.
In the meantime....
Just how ignorant do you wish to remain?
WHAT THE DOES LAG HAVE TO DO WITH THE SO CALLED INCONSISTENCIES IN A CHART THAT DON'T EXIST?
Holy you're a moron.
You do it that way because you don't understand the proper way to do it. I explained it to you, and you STILL want to keep doing in that way so what the do I care if I understand your stupidity or not?
LAG!
Its Ocean Lag! No really, OCEAN LAG! Thats why I can't read charts! LAG!!!!!
man, it must be hard for you to be a parts changer if you have this much trouble reading a ing chart properly. No wonder you think you're so damn smart. You think your job is actually hard.
OK, I quit for now. I'd like some of what ever drug you are on right now. My IPA just isn't keeping up with your stupidity.
You might want to hold off on killing too many more brain cells. It would appear you're running a bit short to begin with.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions