Reply With Quote
Fuzzy, admittedly, I only scanned that file you linked. I will read is more slowly when I have time. Looks like a good find.
I did not see any place it disagrees with me. Please give me a page and/or section and quote of where I am wrong.
Actually, you should read what you link. Starting at section 4.1, it agrees with what I have been saying.
Jumping to 6.4:
That's just the direct forcing. The indirect forcing from feedback is greater yet.The change in solar radiative forcing since
1750 was estimated in the IPCC [2007] report to be
0.12 W m−2, corresponding to an increase in TSI of
0.69 W m−2. A value of 0.24 W m−2 solar radiative forcing
difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently
considered to be more appropriate.
Fuzzy, admittedly, I only scanned that file you linked. I will read is more slowly when I have time. Looks like a good find.
I did not see any place it disagrees with me. Please give me a page and/or section and quote of where I am wrong.
Read section 4 "mechanisms." And mind you that this was just the first link I clicked from a simple google scholar search. You are certainly a willfully ignorant stick.
No, it just proves you don't understand.
It agrees with me. If you think not, then quote the part that disagrees with me.
This repudiates your assertionsHowever, in a series of diagnostic thermal budget studies of SST and ocean heat storage, White et al. [2003] and White [2006] concluded that the observed 11 year SC signals in SSTs could not be explained solely by this bottom‐up direct impact of radiative forcing at the surface (~0.15 W m−2). They showed that the temperature anomalies in the tropical lower troposphere were warmer than the tropical upper ocean anomalies and that these anomalies increased upward, from ∼0.2°C in the tropical lower troposphere to ∼
0.5°C in the tropical middle to upper troposphere and∼1°C in the tropical lower stratosphere. This anomalous lapse rate was matched by a corresponding downward sensible plus latent heat flux anomaly across the air ‐ sea interface of ∼0.5Wm − 2, which was larger than the direct solar radiative forcing by a factor of ∼3 and also explained the correct phase of the response. This therefore represents a different kind of amplification of the 11 year solar cycle and is not associated with changes in trade wind strength or cloud cover since these did not have the correct magnitude or phase. [101] This result implies a role for the top‐down influence of UV irradiance via the stratosphere.
White et al.[2003]also noted that time sequences of tropical tropospheric temperatures lead those in the lower stratosphere, which appears to argue against the top‐down influence. They suggest, however, that this should not be interpreted as a tropospheric signal forcing a stratospheric response because the stratospheric temperature response appears to be in radiative balance and hence is in phase with the 11 year solar cycle, while the troposphere responds to anomalous heating and advection which peaks during the period leading up to solar maximum and not at the maximum itself. This is a good example of the difficulties and dangers of interpreting observed signals from different parts of the atmosphere and especially in using their time response to try to infer cause and effect.
and
No it doesn't.This repudiates your assertions
I see you don't understand my argument.
That doesn't surprise me one bit from a dimwit like you.
Anyone else read the above and read the bolded portions and come to your own conclusion as to whether or not I know what I am talking about.
vs.
vs.
That one gave me a chuckle.
vs.
Fuzzy, did you read the very first paragraph before the introduction? They say they show how climate scientists understand it today, then they propose new ideas. They are not saying that is what this paper is about. Their new ideas are in line with mine.
If you keep going, after what you quotes, they say:Understanding the influence of solar variability on the
Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability,
solar‐terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining
the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide
a summary of our current understanding in each of these
three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability
are described, including solar irradiance variations
on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation
to galactic cosmic rays. Corresponding observations of variations
of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are
described, including variations in ozone, temperatures,
winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability
such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation.
A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is
provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate
observations are described, including the effects of variations
in solar irradiance and of charged particles. Finally,
the contributions of solar variations to recent observations
of global climate change are discussed.
I'm not going to bother playing this game with an idiot like you. You don't take anything as a whole. You find one item you fail to understand, and think it's a goldmine in your favor. You keep proving how much of an idiot you are.This result implies a role for the top‐down influence
of UV irradiance via the stratosphere.
The stuff in post 58 is what I am saying about most other studies. I posted that before you posted this link, and it does not apply to what they say the current understanding is. As I have said, over time, the old alarmist views are dying.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-02-2013 at 02:47 AM.
You know Fuzzy. You would appear more intelligent if you asked questions pertaining to why people say certain things, instead of accusing them of being wrong from the start. As it sits, everyone who can follow, sees you as a total fool.
So says the one that is universally seen as the local idiot. You have read how everyone calls you that. You are the only one that says that I am an idiot, and you are just parroting what I refer to you as. No one else is. OTOH, you are called a moron on a daily basis around these parts. I could give a flying as to what you think makes one appear intelligent.
I don't ask why you say what you say because I already know. It's not as if you come up with new novel things. You repeat the same drivel over and again. I don't really care to read more bull from you as you waffle around as you do with your racist commentary.
You have a reputation of that around here as well. Whether or not you admit the legitimacy of that is besides the point. You know that pretty much everyone around here thinks that of you. Your face is rubbed in it constantly. You have ZERO credibility. Even DMC, CC, and the local conservatives around here make fun of you. When you tried to have a discourse with Darrin above? You notice how he ignored you? You're all alone in this, dimwit.
As for my reputation, I am well regarded as being an argumentative jerk. OTOH, I don't have people responding to every post I make calling me a moron. That would be what you get. And you know this because you get it constantly. The best you seem to get is pity. Remember the awards from last year. Remember the award you got? Yeah that would be the poster with the dumbest takes.
I do find it hilarious that you got as far as the introduction in your reading. The part I quoted was part of said summation, dumbass.
I quoted the portions that stated that the current models considered surface flux. You said that they did not.
I quoted the portion that said that current models are using the new satellite information to consider the UV atmospheric affects and the interaction between the two. You said that they did not.
You don't even understand the phenomenon which is obvious because you have no understanding whatsoever of the issue of phase. You just like saying they don't consider it as if you are some groundbreaker.
You're wrong. Deal with it.
Do they agree with you that there is surface flux? Sure. Scientists agree with you that temperature effects solubility too. Just because you have some dimwitted understanding of the processes does not mean that they don't consider them. That doesn't make you have special insight. It just means you have a poor understanding. It's time to quote Bert again:
They don't agree with you that current models don't consider the various issues above. That's the entire point I am making. I have been saying that these solar issues have been known for years. Try and keep up.
Further, the article is not 'new,' dumbass. It was submitted 4 years ago. It alludes to studies from before that in the portions I quoted. All of these things that you say the climate scientists don't consider? Well I just showed you that they do. I just showed you that they have been considered for years.
The new IPCC report subsumes all of this. Haigh, Gray and Beer, et al the authors that you say agree with you? Yeah those guys are IPCC contributors. IOW, if you agree with them then you agree with IPCC because the newest iteration will have considered the things you claim they don't. You know this now.
Is that going to stop you from saying that they don't consider these things? No. How do I know this? Because you keep repeating the same about them not considering deep ocean currents in their models when I showed you PSU and UW studies where they do. You like playing make believe that you have something figured out that all the climate scientists in the world haven't figured. That's your entire schtick.
Nobody buys it. Nobody.
Fuzzy, I saw the date of the article. This is the first I have seen of it. Overall, it's a good article, but still lacking.
It does not disagree with the things I have been saying.
Admit it. I own you.
Yet you posted it for a different purpose, thinking it disagrees with what I say, when it supported what I say.
They agree that the current model is flawed. They are attemting to fix it. They still didn't address how the increase in solar forcing increases the greenhouse gas forcing.
No Sherlock.
I didn't say Climate Scientists don't consider, I said the alarmists don't consider . If I miststated that, then so be it. This is why I wasnt real climate scientists (not those with alarmists agendas) in the peer reveir process.
If I agree with thyem, I agree with the IPCC... That's just one more examply of how ing stupid you are. Someone can agree with part of a publication, and disagree with most of the rest. Agreement to part does not mean the whole.
All three of these contributed to the solar parts of the IPCC which are not only small and incomplete, but rated as a "low level of understanding." I wonder how much of their work the IPCC may have revised or thrown out.
The point of the article is finding ways to understand it better. I don't recall saying anyplace in the IPCC material that this particular work was wrong, just incomplete. They only address "direct" forcing. As you see, these people are working on a more complete understanding.
We should go back to post 48:
I have answered in a previos post. Many scientists don't even know they are wrong, it's what they are taught. Manny's a good example.
They do not consider all the implications, at least in released material related to Climate Change. I don't ever recall saying they don't consider ocean currents at all, which is what your statement implies.
On you the things that proves you are a ing idiot is that you keep arguing incorrect points. Maybe if you argued against what someone actually said, you would appear a little more intelligent.
I do understand linear and non linear. Did you forget I mentioned some of it doesn't matter, that is can be linearized over small changes, because we are only dealing with three significant digits?
Do you know what "significant digit" means?
end post 48 quote...
I ask again, how does any of that link about solar influences show that I am wrong about anything I say? they admit they don't have a complete understanding, and review what they believe. They go on to suggest other possible things to study, many of which are in line with what I say.
No, you don't understand and it's hilarious watching you apply grade school science concepts like sigfigs to understand. "because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand."
You have said the the models do not consider surface flux, upper atmosphere heat transfer and the relation between the two claiming that they included that as part of the greenhouse effect. Here is a quote that says that they have recognized it in print (re:peer reviewed) for 12 years and that they have factored models with it for 4 years.
This is from IPCC contributors, ie 14 of the 'alarmists,' dimwit. The international conference that advocates swift, decisive and broad-reaching policy change understands this. The National Academy who advocates the same thing understands this. It's what they teach. They've only been discussing it for 12 years. Try and keep up.However, recent recognition of the influence of stratospheric processes on climate in general [Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2001] has prompted the vertical extension of coupled ocean‐atmosphere climate models to include the stratosphere, so that fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere climate and Earth system models are now becoming available and the TSI (bottom‐up) and UV (top‐down) influences can be assessed in the same model [e.g.,Meehl et al., 2009].
IRONY ALERT!!!!Lol @ this from http://climaterealityproject.org/press/
Comment bot, built by bots, for like-minded bots
Let us know when they come to take yer lightbubs.
Tisk tisk. Changing the goalpost from the original argument.
You lose.
Yawn...
I was specifying cvertian types. Any does not cons ute what I specified.
And that means they are right?
Throughout history, science has been taught incorrectly many times, and agenda driven.
You have yet to show where I am in error at. You keep throwing to see if any sticks.
You are pathetic.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-03-2013 at 02:18 AM.
For those not knowing what I mean about not considering a complex formula, and using linear instead, there was a factor that was only about 6 units, whereas the end result is about 500 units. A change of only 0.2 percent, unless exceptional sensitive, will have little bearing on the 6 units. 0.2% of 6 is 0.012. Now this same 0.2% changes the linear 500 units by 1. Now when using 3 digits of significance, the absolute total of these two added are 506 before adding 0.2%, and 507.012 with the added 0.2%. Assuming the non-linearity is about a fact of eight, for the smaller number, a change from using linear to complex math will still not be seen until using 4 significant digits.
Fuzzy is a certified loser.
Complex math? I'm assuming you mean difficult and not imaginary axis because complex functions can be linear.
And wtf are you talking about? Percentage? Now we have regressed to primary school.
.0000000004 has ten significant figures. If you change it by .002, it doesn't change very much. You have no concept of proportion, dimwit.
Your dumb ass actually thinks that using smaller numbers will somehow make the behavior more linear. What about inverses? You should just stop.
Now that you know that:
Do you stand by your statements that:
or
or
I still am amazed at how you are able to combine stupidity and wishful thinking. Do you really think that scientists do not consider that the earth and sea absorb and emit energy? Really? My guess is that this is you doing what Bert is talking about again.
ffs, punch yourself in the face.
OK, my usage of complex was incorrect to use in place of nonlinear math. That';s all you have me on here.
You still have not shown me where I am wrong. Stop with the generalized statements lacking context.
Out up or shut up troll.
but GOP politicians are in touch with Kock Bros, US CoC, Carbon Industry paymasters
GOP Leaders Out Of Touch With GOP Voters On Clean Energy And Climate Change
Republican and Republican-leaning independents and found the majority of respondents accept climate change is happening — a step some influential Republicans have yet to take — and 62 percent of those think the U.S. should take steps to address the problem.
Republican voters support clean energy: 77 percent of respondents said they want America to use more renewable energy, and a large majority of them want the switch to happen immediately.
They believe the benefits of clean energy outweigh the costs: achieving energy dependence and saving resources for future generations were more important to a majority of respondents than the increased government regulation and free market interference that the survey cited as potential costs of a major change in energy sources. This is at odds with Republican leaders’ recent stances on renewable energy: during the 2012 election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney condemned the Obama Administration’s “war on coal,” and several Republicans in congress have opposed government funding for clean energy.
Only about one-third of the respondents agree with the Republican party’s stance on climate change, a platform that in 2012 made no direct mention of climate change and lauded the economic value of coal and the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...limate-change/
But will such Repug/independent voters ever vote against Repug politicians on the climate change issue?
so you don't stand behind it. that's nice.
I stand behind my words. If you care to bring up the thread and quote you started accusing me of the nonlinear thing when I said it didn't matter, I will be glad to prove you an idiot once again.
so you don't stand behind it. that's nice.
But no...
You only make generalized nonrelevant attacks.
Once again, you should ask questions before accusing. I do use a poor choice of words that can be corrected at times, but most the time, it is your absolute stupidity that keeps you from understanding.
Put up or shut up troll. Be specific on where I am wrong. Show me how I am wrong.
Lol @ that survey:
Climate change refers to the idea that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past
150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that other aspects of the world’s climate may change
as a result.
What do you think? Do you think that climate change is happening?
I just used the linear example to show how you talk out of your ass. You were the one that ran with it and tried to use 4th grade math to try and demonstrate how you understand. Now you are going onto this tactic. CONTEXT!!!! You shouldn't talk about concepts that you don't understand and you won't be made fun of for being stupid.
I've told you specifically what you are wrong about. I've done it several times. This time, I'll even number them again so your dumb ass can figure it out.
1) Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI (and being out of phase even though your dumbass has yet to recognize this).
2) Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3) That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.
You have been shown that the models do consider these things and have been in existence for at least 4 years.
Your dumbass is trying to twist it into me saying that they agree with you. It's tantamount to you accusing someone of being colorblind and patting yourself on the back when they say the sky is blue.
Knee jerk reaction.
Not altogether shocking.
Sad thing is that it will be touted and its importance magnified by the cherry pickers seeking to show that we don't need to bother with even mildly reasonable efforts to curtail GHG emissions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
