Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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*
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
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?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.[/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.
No. Post the argument in your own words or don't bother.I urge you to read the above file hailing the Sun as the primary driver of climate change.
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 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.
What the heck? Show me ONE climate model that predicts this! Just ONE! You're just making this up right?El nino and La Nina build up over time.
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.Global Cooling:
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."A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." - The New York Times, 1975
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.
So, you recognize that your logic is really, really poor, then? Why continue to post this ridiculous nonsense?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.
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?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 ?
AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?