Actually,the world isn't warming

[atomweaver]

I'll read your link if you read the article I posted THREE times and discuss the contents which I've summarized three times and you've ignored so far.

Mmmm. That sounds a lot like work... I'm guessing Greatcloud would rather just post another op-ed cartoon, as they apparently do all of his in-depth debating for him. Don't let us down now, Greatcloud, we're all so looking forward to the next op-ed cartoon. *rolleyes*

 

[thaumaturgy]

Mmmm. That sounds a lot like work... I'm guessing Greatcloud would rather just post another op-ed cartoon, as they apparently do all of his in-depth debating for him. Don't let us down now, Greatcloud, we're all so looking forward to the next op-ed cartoon. *rolleyes*

argumentum ad comicum

 

[Greatcloud]

Then why has solar irradiance been nearly constant for the past 70 years, while the temperature has increased significantly for the past 40 of those years?

Solar TSI has been constant for seventy years. The very high TSI has acted like an oven baking the earth until the plateau hence no change for ten years. It adds up the Sun is the culprit.

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor

I urge you to read the above file hailing the Sun as the primary driver of climate change.


CO2

 

[atomweaver]

Solar TSI has been constant for seventy years. The very high TSI has acted like an oven baking the earth until the plateau hence no change for ten years. It adds up the Sun is the culprit.

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor

I urge you to read the above file hailing the Sun as the primary driver of climate change.


CO2

Where's the op-ed cartoon, Greatcloud? This post soooooo needs an op-ed cartoon... Your point is totally lost without one.

Op-Ed Cartoon.

 

[Chalnoth]

Solar TSI has been constant for seventy years. The very high TSI has acted like an oven baking the earth until the plateau hence no change for ten years. It adds up the Sun is the culprit.

So, let me get this straight. Because the total solar irradiation has been nearly constant for the past seventy years, but the Earth has been warming at an accelerating pace for the past forty, clearly it must be the Sun? Are you even paying attention to what you're writing? Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

If the Sun was the cause, most of the change would have been early on, in the first years since it increased to the current irradiance level. The change would have slowed since, as the temperature of the Earth equilibriated, barring the onset of any positive feedback effects that could keep the process moving.

And, if you look at the temperature records, you'll find that exactly this happened: when the irradiance kicked up a notch about 70 years ago, the average global temperature very quickly responded. And when the solar irradiance stabilized, so did the global average temperature. Until, that is, some thirty years later.

So, if it wasn't CO2 that caused the warming since the 70's, what was it? Because there's no conceivable way that it's the Sun: the Sun's contribution has been nearly constant.

 

[Greatcloud]

So, let me get this straight. Because the total solar irradiation has been nearly constant for the past seventy years, but the Earth has been warming at an accelerating pace for the past forty, clearly it must be the Sun? Are you even paying attention to what you're writing? Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

If the Sun was the cause, most of the change would have been early on, in the first years since it increased to the current irradiance level. The change would have slowed since, as the temperature of the Earth equilibriated, barring the onset of any positive feedback effects that could keep the process moving.

And, if you look at the temperature records, you'll find that exactly this happened: when the irradiance kicked up a notch about 70 years ago, the average global temperature very quickly responded. And when the solar irradiance stabilized, so did the global average temperature. Until, that is, some thirty years later.

So, if it wasn't CO2 that caused the warming since the 70's, what was it? Because there's no conceivable way that it's the Sun: the Sun's contribution has been nearly constant.[/quote

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor

I urge you to read the above file hailing the Sun as the primary driver of climate change.


The warming since the seventies was caused by the sun. The sun had a build up increase by baking the earth which caused a feedback from the earths surface. If TSI was not constant there would be no feedback.

 

[atomweaver]

THAT'S what I'm talking about!!!11!!

Op-Ed Cartoons

 

[Chalnoth]

I urge you to read the above file hailing the Sun as the primary driver of climate change.

No. Post the argument in your own words or don't bother.

The warming since the seventies was caused by the sun. The sun had a build up increase by baking the earth which caused a feedback from the earths surface. If TSI was not constant there would be no feedback.

As I said, this is impossible. You cannot have a delayed reaction to the heating if the Sun is the cause: its effect is immediate.

 

[Greatcloud]

As I said, this is impossible. You cannot have a delayed reaction to the heating if the Sun is the cause: its effect is immediate.

The effect is not immediate in the ocean or on rain Forrest's. El nino and La Nina build up over time. Feed backs are the answer.

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor

I urge you to read the above file hailing the Sun as the primary driver of climate change.

The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from both 29 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena. Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovich cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales. TSI monitoring, cosmogenic isotope analyses and correlative climate data indicate that variations of the TSI have been a significant climate forcing during the current inter-glacial period (the last ~ 10 Kyrs.). Phenomenological analyses of TSI monitoring results during the past (nearly) three decades, TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era. The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future.


CO2

 

[Deamiter]

El nino and La Nina build up over time.

What the heck? Show me ONE climate model that predicts this! Just ONE! You're just making this up right?

For the fourth (fifth) time, why should I read your op-ed articles and respond in detail when you haven't shown even the slightest interest in reading QUOTES of scientific articles much less the actual article I've posted repeatedly?

Is it because you're more easily swayed by cartoons than actual physical models and data? I suppose that would account for it.

 

[Vene]

GC, have you sent this information in to any peer review journals yet? No?! Then what are you doing on an internet forum. We aren't the people you need to convince. Go, enlighten the people who actually matter. Or are you afraid they will call you a fool?

 

[Greatcloud]

Global Cooling:

"A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." - The New York Times, 1975

 

[Chalnoth]

Global Cooling:

You know, you really shouldn't pay attention to misleading plots. And this one is grossly misleading. 1998 was an extraordinarily warm year, due to an unusually strong El Nino event. It shows up as a huge spike in the temperature data if you stretch back before 1998.

Furthermore, 2007 was an unusually cold year due to the exact opposite effect, a La Nina event (the peak was in the winter of 2007, hence why early 2008 was actually the coldest). Remove these events, events which do not have much effect on long-term temperature trends, and there is a measured temperature increase that follows the CO2 increase quite well (though not perfectly: it's offset a bit to the low side because there's also been some increase in aerosols that has cooled things off a bit...not enough to offset the increase in temperature due to CO2, but enough to make the trend not increase quite as rapidly).

"A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." - The New York Times, 1975

Yes, a popular news article. The reality is that global cooling in the near future (i.e. the next couple of centuries) never gained scientific acceptance. In the 60's and 70's there was some question as to whether it was cooling or warming, but there has always been more activity on the warming side.

 

[Deamiter]

Lol! Show from el nino (unusually warm) to la nina (unusually cool) and claim there's a long-term global trend!

The depths of this type of denialist dishonesty always amazes me.

 

[Greatcloud]

Lol! Show from el nino (unusually warm) to la nina (unusually cool) and claim there's a long-term global trend!

The depths of this type of denialist dishonesty always amazes me.

The sun was also at an all time high in TSI in 1998 with a large El nino. In 2007 the sun was at a low point with a regular sized La nina.

2008 the sun has shut down the currents of the sun have slowed down. We had no sunspots in the whole month of Aug. 2008,the sun is shutting down. The last time we had an extended period of no sunspots was the LIA. Do you see the import and why I am writing ?

 

[Chalnoth]

The sun was also at an all time high in TSI in 1998 with a large El nino. In 2007 the sun was at a low point with a regular sized La nina.

So, you recognize that your logic is really, really poor, then? Why continue to post this ridiculous nonsense?

2008 the sun has shut down the currents of the sun have slowed down. We had no sunspots in the whole month of Aug. 2008,the sun is shutting down. The last time we had an extended period of no sunspots was the LIA. Do you see the import and why I am writing ?

Shutting down? Hardly. It's just near the minimum of its 11-year cycle, and it happened to be unusually quiet for one month around the minimum. So what?

 

[Greatcloud]

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/actually-its-71-days-without-a-sunspot/

The sun currents are shutting down this is no ordinary minimum between cycles. It is in fact a signal for a maunder minimum. Only time will tell but we are in record setting territory.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.

Plant life or flora if you will does NOT produce CO2, to the contrary, it removes CO2 from the atmosphere.



Photosynthesis is the process in which carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) are used to produce carbohydrates and evolve oxygen (O2) in the presence of light and chlorophyll; the net result is light energy (radiant energy) is converted into chemical energy in the form of fixed carbon compounds (carbohydrates).

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, some bacteria, and some protistans use the energy from sunlight to produce sugar, which cellular respiration converts into ATP, the "fuel" used by all living things. The conversion of unusable sunlight energy into usable chemical energy, is associated with the actions of the green pigment chlorophyll. Most of the time, the photosynthetic process uses water and releases the oxygen that we absolutely must have to stay alive. Oh yes, we need the food as well!
We can write the overall reaction of this process as:

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
​

For those whose chemistry is limited, the above chemical equation translates as:
Six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen

 

[Greatcloud]

Originally Posted by Greatcloud

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.


What is ment by that statement is that the more plants grow the more CO2 is produced when those plants die out.

[FONT=AdvPS_TII][FONT=AdvPS_TII]

Solar Output Variation Hypothesis
​

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=AdvPS_TIR][FONT=AdvPS_TIR]

Many serious scientists cite evidence that variations in solar output, solar
distance and number of sunspots are primarily responsible for temperature
changes on Earth. Various cycles from 21 years to 1500 years have been noted
(Alexander et al., 2007; Singer & Avery, 2007). The group of serious scientists
includes about 20,000 in all who have expressed doubts or disbelief in the AGW
Hypothesis. This includes 19,000 signers of a petition from the Oregon Institute
of Science and Medicine (1998 and after), all with degrees in science or engineering,
and includes 2600 with climate science credentials. Signatures may be
viewed at http://www.oism.org/ using the link:​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]‘‘[FONT=AdvPS_TIR][FONT=AdvPS_TIR]Global Warming Petition
Project[/FONT][/FONT]’’[FONT=AdvPS_TIR][FONT=AdvPS_TIR]. In 1997 fully 90% of State Climatologists did not agree with the AGW​

Hypothesis (Singer & Avery, 2007: 65–66).
[/FONT][/FONT]​

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Originally Posted by Greatcloud

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.


What is ment by that statement is that the more plants grow the more CO2 is produced when those plants die out.

​

It is true that when plants die they give off CO2, but they never give off more than they absorbed from the atmosphere in the first instance, i.e. the maximum amount of CO2 produced by the decay of plant matter is never more than that absorbed from the atmosphere during their growth (life time).

Very often plant material is not completely decayed, leading to the formation of soils, bogs, swamps etc composed of organic material; this material is then often buried and stored long term in the earths crust. Coal is a fine example; therefore the trend is for flora with the aid of geological processes, to REMOVE CO2 from the atmosphere and not to increase it, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

​