CDZ Is the Climate changing?

[justoffal]

I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but. The question we are facing is not whether or not it's changing but whether we are causing it to change more rapidly than it has in the past. There are two major bones of contention here and I dare say nobody has enough expertise to select one over the other.

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide? 2.) Are we producing more carbon dioxide because we are retaining more heat? You do see the dilemma here yes?
T
The ocean's CO2 dissolution tolerance is a direct function of the water temperature. Since the world's ocean's form the largest CO2 sink on the planet even a slight change of temperature in some of those bodies would release trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Are we very certain that it is not the heat creating the excess CO2 rather than the other way around? I'm not sure that we can nail that one down 100%. I will add a link to this shortly.

jo

 

[justoffal]

For one thing, if you knew anything about me, you would know I am NO FUCKING LEFTIST. There hasn't been a president that has been conservative enough for me in my lifetime. Second, Just because you can cram 50 human beings into an oil drum doesn't mean it will support their life. Geeez, what a moron thing to say. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Fuck off you self agrandizing piece of shit.

well, your behavior at this moment is much like a demofk. You're treading on thin ice. you're wrong. And a demofk would never admit being wrong. A conservative is an honorable person, and as such concedes an argument they lost. And you lost this one.

Wait a minute, now you people are putting words in my mouth. The only point I was making was that the doubling of the population of the world means there are more people competing for the same finite limited resources. Are you claiming that we have somehow produced more water on this planet? I agree there is plenty if it is used correctly, and I outlined a couple of ways that could be done i.e. desalination. I also explained that because of the increased population we have to have more tillable land and range area for livestock. Do you deny that as well? I like my beef and I don't like these morons trying to force a plant based diet on me. You put all of these things together and yeah, there is a need for study and changes. The wise ass Chem Engineer seems to think you just keep cramming more people into the barrel and refuse to adapt and everything is going to be hunky dory. SMH.

11 countries are nearly out of water it's the major catastrophic event of the near future.

 

[Concerned American]

For one thing, if you knew anything about me, you would know I am NO FUCKING LEFTIST. There hasn't been a president that has been conservative enough for me in my lifetime. Second, Just because you can cram 50 human beings into an oil drum doesn't mean it will support their life. Geeez, what a moron thing to say. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Fuck off you self agrandizing piece of shit.

well, your behavior at this moment is much like a demofk. You're treading on thin ice. you're wrong. And a demofk would never admit being wrong. A conservative is an honorable person, and as such concedes an argument they lost. And you lost this one.

Wait a minute, now you people are putting words in my mouth. The only point I was making was that the doubling of the population of the world means there are more people competing for the same finite limited resources. Are you claiming that we have somehow produced more water on this planet? I agree there is plenty if it is used correctly, and I outlined a couple of ways that could be done i.e. desalination. I also explained that because of the increased population we have to have more tillable land and range area for livestock. Do you deny that as well? I like my beef and I don't like these morons trying to force a plant based diet on me. You put all of these things together and yeah, there is a need for study and changes. The wise ass Chem Engineer seems to think you just keep cramming more people into the barrel and refuse to adapt and everything is going to be hunky dory. SMH.

11 countries are nearly out of water it's the major catastrophic event of the near future.

I am not in favor of tearing down dams, indeed I am a proponent of building more. But there are areas of the world like the Gobi, Sahara, Mojave, Sonoran deserts that hold many people but do not provide enough water for them. For these people, I believe desalination is the answer. It is being done in the middle east but in this country, these desert areas are stealing the water from other water sheds i.e. the Snake R, Columbia R and Sierra Nevada range to name a few. I don't advocate for all of the cockamamie green bullshit, but to bury your head in the sand and pretend that increased human population has no effect is pure naivete.

 

[BS Filter]

Even the sun temperature varies, which means the earth's temperature will vary. Man certainly isn't affecting the temperature variation of the sun.

 

[ReinyDays]

The climate is always changing. Duh!

Weather is always changing because it reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere. Climate change refers to long-term changes that occurs over centuries, millenniums, and millions of years.

Climate change” and “global warming” are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Global warming is the long-term heating of Earth’s climate system observed since the pre-industrial period (between 1850 and 1900).

So how is a weather event affecting climate?

Weather doesn't affect climate. Climate affects the weather.

Weather doesn't affect climate. Climate affects the weather.

Climate is average weather ... does the average test score for a class of 30 effect the individual scores ... of course not ... but the individual test score do effect the average, each has 1/30 weight in such a calculation ...

For our 100-year climate averages ... each daily average temperature effects our average 1/36,424 ... safely trivialized ...

"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we actually get" -- someone smart

 

[ChemEngineer]

For one thing, if you knew anything about me, you would know I am NO FUCKING LEFTIST. There hasn't been a president that has been conservative enough for me in my lifetime. Second, Just because you can cram 50 human beings into an oil drum doesn't mean it will support their life. Geeez, what a moron thing to say. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Fuck off you self agrandizing piece of shit.

well, your behavior at this moment is much like a demofk. You're treading on thin ice. you're wrong. And a demofk would never admit being wrong. A conservative is an honorable person, and as such concedes an argument they lost. And you lost this one.

Wait a minute, now you people are putting words in my mouth. The only point I was making was that the doubling of the population of the world means there are more people competing for the same finite limited resources. Are you claiming that we have somehow produced more water on this planet? I agree there is plenty if it is used correctly, and I outlined a couple of ways that could be done i.e. desalination. I also explained that because of the increased population we have to have more tillable land and range area for livestock. Do you deny that as well? I like my beef and I don't like these morons trying to force a plant based diet on me. You put all of these things together and yeah, there is a need for study and changes. The wise ass Chem Engineer seems to think you just keep cramming more people into the barrel and refuse to adapt and everything is going to be hunky dory. SMH.

11 countries are nearly out of water it's the major catastrophic event of the near future.

"I keep forgetting I'm president." - Joe Biden

Added to Bidenisms - Racism, ignorance, lies and incompetence

 

[jc456]

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but.

name an area where climate has changed.

 

[jc456]

The question we are facing is not whether or not it's changing but whether we are causing it to change more rapidly than it has in the past.

how much of the past?

 

[jc456]

It takes many many single events to effect the climate . A one year rise in global temperature doesn't mean much but when those yearly global temperature create a rising rising trend over decades, we should paying attention.

name an area where that has happened. with stats not a meme.

 

[jc456]

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide?

just tell us how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.
Is there a known temperature?
Why does it vary in its temperature magic from one place to another?
hahahahahaahahahahahaha too funny

 

[justoffal]

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide?

just tell us how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.
Is there a known temperature?
Why does it vary in its temperature magic from one place to another?
hahahahahaahahahahahaha too funny

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide?

just tell us how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.
Is there a known temperature?
Why does it vary in its temperature magic from one place to another?
hahahahahaahahahahahaha too funny

Yeah that's my point exactly we simply do not know enough about the entire system that we are trying to broad-brush to make any specifically accurate statements about any one part of it that are anything more than just educated guesses. There are so many different inputs into the final equation I cannot see how we could possibly track them all down and investigate them especially when some of them are located 90 million miles away.

I have pointed out here before that the sun is an M type star which follows the same pattern as all of the Other M types we observe. It slowly but steadily gains temperature over the course of its lifetime until it becomes a helium burning red giant which generally vaporizes all the planets in its orbit. The heat variation that we are experiencing may very well be due to an increase of solar energy that we have just not yet been able to measure in any other way.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but.

name an area where climate has changed.

Glaciers have retreated from many areas around the globe, including for example California.
Yosemite National Park was scoured by glaciers but is no more.
Greenland was named for its vegetation but is no longer green as it once was.

Climate expert whatsisname wrote a book "Global Warming Every 1500 Years."
He states that Mister Sun drives earth's climate. A reasonable scientific observation.
I read it and took notes.

Looked it up. S. Fred Singer. Here are some of my notes:

Prologue​

Page xii Today, 150 years into the Modern Warming... The ice cores and seabed sediments tell us of six hundred natural 1,500-year climate cycles over the past one million years.

Modern Climate History​

Page xv

1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940

1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.

1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt

1979 to present: A large disparity...

Chapter One

Is Humanity Losing the Global Warming Debate?​

Page 1 ... warming from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 600

...Medieval Warming from about 900 to 1300

..the Little Ice Age, from about 1300 to 1850

Page 5 ... overall world temperatures are only modestly warmer than they were in 1940, despite a major increase in CO2 emissions.

Page 6 There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but he was right!

Page 8 ...elegant research, done by unimpeachable scientists... ... solar variability is now the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year oscillation of the climate seen since the last ice age... [Science, November 16, 2001]

 

[justoffal]

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but.

name an area where climate has changed.

Glaciers have retreated from many areas around the globe, including for example California.
Yosemite National Park was scoured by glaciers but is no more.
Greenland was named for its vegetation but is no longer green as it once was.

Climate expert whatsisname wrote a book "Global Warming Every 1500 Years."
He states that Mister Sun drives earth's climate. A reasonable scientific observation.
I read it and took notes.

Looked it up. S. Fred Singer. Here are some of my notes:

Prologue​

Page xii Today, 150 years into the Modern Warming... The ice cores and seabed sediments tell us of six hundred natural 1,500-year climate cycles over the past one million years.

Modern Climate History​

Page xv

1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940

1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.

1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt

1979 to present: A large disparity...

Chapter One

Is Humanity Losing the Global Warming Debate?​

Page 1 ... warming from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 600

...Medieval Warming from about 900 to 1300

..the Little Ice Age, from about 1300 to 1850

Page 5 ... overall world temperatures are only modestly warmer than they were in 1940, despite a major increase in CO2 emissions.

Page 6 There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but he was right!

Page 8 ...elegant research, done by unimpeachable scientists... ... solar variability is now th8e leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year oscillation of the climate seen since the last ice age... [Science, November 16, 2001]

Well when you stop to consider that the Sun is the largest variable input into the equation by what..... a million times over? It is not unreasonable to at least suspect that it is the main driver behind out temperature variations ( slight as they are at this point ) I mean...look at Venus!....Is Venus possessed of 800f degrees surface temp because it has a huge density of atmospheric CO2 or is it the other way around??? Was it industry that caused Venus to have this warming? I think not. Most likely it was solar proximity. If we do a simple radiative equation based on the square of the distance....Venus receives at least 1AU/.7AU 1.428 more energy density per square meter of exposed surface than does the Earth and I'm sure the entire process is not as simple as radiative density, there are probably other things involved too like the weakness of that planets' magnetic field and so on.

JO

 

[ChemEngineer]

I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but. The question we are facing is not whether or not it's changing but whether we are causing it to change more rapidly than it has in the past. There are two major bones of contention here and I dare say nobody has enough expertise to select one over the other.

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide? 2.) Are we producing more carbon dioxide because we are retaining more heat? You do see the dilemma here yes?
T
The ocean's CO2 dissolution tolerance is a direct function of the water temperature. Since the world's ocean's form the largest CO2 sink on the planet even a slight change of temperature in some of those bodies would release trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Are we very certain that it is not the heat creating the excess CO2 rather than the other way around? I'm not sure that we can nail that one down 100%. I will add a link to this shortly.

jo

My computations:

The Misrepresentation of Ocean Acidification​

CO2 (aq) ↔ H2 CO3 (aq) K1 = 1.70 x 10-3


H2 CO3 (aq) + H2O ↔ H3O+ + HCO3- K2 = 2.5 x 10-4

CO2 (aq) ↔ H3O+ + HCO3- K1 K2 = 4.25 x 10-7


Of this extremely small concentration of carbonic acid, only .00025 of it ionizes to form one hydronium ion, which is the acidic portion, and a bicarbonate ion.


If it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

It doesn’t’ matter how beautiful your guess is or how good it makes you feel.

It doesn’t matter how smart you are, or who made the guess or what his name is.

If it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.


Given the small value of Ka1 for carbon dioxide, less than 1% ionizes to form a hydronium ion. Moreover, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is trivial to the point of insignificance. So you have an insignificant increase of 1.36 parts per million annually, in the atmosphere, which has insignificant CO2 content compared to the oceans, and an insignificant 1% of that ionizes. School children are frightened of “ocean acidification” based on gross exaggeration which kids cannot hope to properly understand inasmuch as few adults can do so.


Compounding all these tempests in environmentalists’ tea pots is the decline of CO2 solubility in water with increasing temperature. So as the oceans allegedly get hotter, they give up more and more of their CO2.


Solubility of CO2 at mean ocean surface temperature of 23 degrees = .15 g/100 g water, or .15%.


Air has a specific heat cp of 1 kilojoule per kilogram at constant pressure, and 0.7 kilojoule per kilogram at constant volume cv.


Mass of the atmosphere is 5.148 x 10 18 kilograms.


1 calorie = 0.004184 kilojoules


A kilogram of water is 1,000 grams and has a specific heat of 1(calorie per gram), or 4.184 kilojoules per kilogram.


The mass of oceans is 1.4 X 10 21 kilograms, 200 times as massive as the atmosphere.


Water’s heat capacity is four times as great as air. Therefore, the oceans hold 800 times the heat of the atmosphere. And the addition of a miniscule fraction of carbon dioxide is somehow meaningful?


Water is 49 times as abundant in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, as well as being 7 times more powerful a greenhouse gas, i.e. absorbing infrared radiation.

 

[justoffal]

I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but. The question we are facing is not whether or not it's changing but whether we are causing it to change more rapidly than it has in the past. There are two major bones of contention here and I dare say nobody has enough expertise to select one over the other.

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide? 2.) Are we producing more carbon dioxide because we are retaining more heat? You do see the dilemma here yes?
T
The ocean's CO2 dissolution tolerance is a direct function of the water temperature. Since the world's ocean's form the largest CO2 sink on the planet even a slight change of temperature in some of those bodies would release trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Are we very certain that it is not the heat creating the excess CO2 rather than the other way around? I'm not sure that we can nail that one down 100%. I will add a link to this shortly.

jo

My computations:

The Misrepresentation of Ocean Acidification​

CO2 (aq) ↔ H2 CO3 (aq) K1 = 1.70 x 10-3


H2 CO3 (aq) + H2O ↔ H3O+ + HCO3- K2 = 2.5 x 10-4

CO2 (aq) ↔ H3O+ + HCO3- K1 K2 = 4.25 x 10-7


Of this extremely small concentration of carbonic acid, only .00025 of it ionizes to form one hydronium ion, which is the acidic portion, and a bicarbonate ion.


If it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

It doesn’t’ matter how beautiful your guess is or how good it makes you feel.

It doesn’t matter how smart you are, or who made the guess or what his name is.

If it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.


Given the small value of Ka1 for carbon dioxide, less than 1% ionizes to form a hydronium ion. Moreover, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is trivial to the point of insignificance. So you have an insignificant increase of 1.36 parts per million annually, in the atmosphere, which has insignificant CO2 content compared to the oceans, and an insignificant 1% of that ionizes. School children are frightened of “ocean acidification” based on gross exaggeration which kids cannot hope to properly understand inasmuch as few adults can do so.


Compounding all these tempests in environmentalists’ tea pots is the decline of CO2 solubility in water with increasing temperature. So as the oceans allegedly get hotter, they give up more and more of their CO2.


Solubility of CO2 at mean ocean surface temperature of 23 degrees = .15 g/100 g water, or .15%.


Air has a specific heat cp of 1 kilojoule per kilogram at constant pressure, and 0.7 kilojoule per kilogram at constant volume cv.


Mass of the atmosphere is 5.148 x 10 18 kilograms.


1 calorie = 0.004184 kilojoules


A kilogram of water is 1,000 grams and has a specific heat of 1(calorie per gram), or 4.184 kilojoules per kilogram.


The mass of oceans is 1.4 X 10 21 kilograms, 200 times as massive as the atmosphere.


Water’s heat capacity is four times as great as air. Therefoere, the oceans hold 800 times the heat of the atmosphere. And the addition of a miniscule fraction of carbon dioxide is somehow meaningful?


Water is 49 times as abundant in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, as well as being 7 times more powerful a greenhouse gas, i.e. absorbing infrared radiation.

Well I was about to search up a link but I see none is needed....lol.....yes....all good and accurate points. If anyone wishes to argue they need only grab any college chemistry text book and search out the appendices to see that you have made a very compelling argument.

 

[whoisit]

I think it is changing and it is a normal cycle but sure all the pollution is helping any.

 

[Stryder50]

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but.

name an area where climate has changed.

Glaciers have retreated from many areas around the globe, including for example California.
Yosemite National Park was scoured by glaciers but is no more.
Greenland was named for its vegetation but is no longer green as it once was.

Climate expert whatsisname wrote a book "Global Warming Every 1500 Years."
He states that Mister Sun drives earth's climate. A reasonable scientific observation.
I read it and took notes.

Looked it up. S. Fred Singer. Here are some of my notes:

Prologue​

Page xii Today, 150 years into the Modern Warming... The ice cores and seabed sediments tell us of six hundred natural 1,500-year climate cycles over the past one million years.

Modern Climate History​

Page xv

1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940

1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.

1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt

1979 to present: A large disparity...

Chapter One

Is Humanity Losing the Global Warming Debate?​

Page 1 ... warming from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 600

...Medieval Warming from about 900 to 1300

..the Little Ice Age, from about 1300 to 1850

Page 5 ... overall world temperatures are only modestly warmer than they were in 1940, despite a major increase in CO2 emissions.

Page 6 There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but he was right!

Page 8 ...elegant research, done by unimpeachable scientists... ... solar variability is now th8e leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year oscillation of the climate seen since the last ice age... [Science, November 16, 2001]

Well when you stop to consider that the Sun is the largest variable input into the equation by what..... a million times over? It is not unreasonable to at least suspect that it is the main driver behind out temperature variations ( slight as they are at this point ) I mean...look at Venus!....Is Venus possessed of 800f degrees surface temp because it has a huge density of atmospheric CO2 or is it the other way around??? Was it industry that caused Venus to have this warming? I think not. Most likely it was solar proximity. If we do a simple radiative equation based on the square of the distance....Venus receives at least 1AU/.7AU 1.428 more energy density per square meter of exposed surface than does the Earth and I'm sure the entire process is not as simple as radiative density, there are probably other things involved too like the weakness of that planets' magnetic field and so on.

JO

Venus is a bit more complex an example than most account for.
For a start, Venus' axial rotation is opposite the angular momentum of the Solar System. Viewing the Solar System from say the perspective of Polaris - the North Star, the planets orbit the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction and the Sun and planets also spin on their axis in counter-clockwise direction = system angular momentum.

Except for Venus which spins on it's axis in a clockwise direction, opposite from the angular momentum inertia of the Solar System. The one most logical (Occum's Razor) explanation would be that somehow, someway, some time in it's past history, the planet Venus got tipped over about 180 degrees while retaining it's spin direction, which is now rather slow compared to other planets.

The event causing the tip over is not known for sure but likely ones would be either an extreme impact event or a close passage by another and more massive body (planet, brown star, ???) who's gravitation mass effects pulled Venus over on it's rotational axis.

Whatever the mechanism, the process would create extreme surface disruptions and/or atmospheric distortions AND would involve massive amounts of energy transfer in the process. I'd propose that in the case of Venus, it's extremely thick atmosphere and very high temperatures are the residual effects of this close encounter that tipped that planet.

The high percentage of carbon dioxide - CO2 - in Venus' atmosphere (@96.5%) is a secondary consequence of the energy transfers absorbed in the pole flip, and more likely the result of the higher temperatures rather than a cause of such. Although, it's possible that the high percentage of CO2 has sustained the initial heat portion of the energy transfers involved in "flipping" that planet.

Venus ~ Wiki

Venus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NOTE: Many use Venus as a false example/comparison of effects of CO2 in an atmosphere. The problem with such is the vast differences in scale/numbers.
Venus has CO2 of 96.5% of it's atmosphere
Earth has CO2 of 0.04% of it's atmosphere (Earth ratio of CO2 to everything else in the atmosphere, minus water(H2O), is 1/2,500.)

 

[Stryder50]

I think it is changing and it is a normal cycle but sure all the pollution is helping any.

Term pollution needs better defining. It usually is applied by too many in broad and inaccurate usage. Particulates and some burning/combustion by-product, such as SO2=sulfur dioxide, may qualify as "pollution", but carbon dioxide, CO2, being essential need/requirement for about 99+% of life on this planet, the Flora~'green plants' is too much an essential to be classed as "pollution, especially when at such low levels as 0.04% of total atmosphere composition (ratio of 1/2,500).

 

[ReinyDays]

Of course the climate is changing it never does anything but.

name an area where climate has changed.

Supernova 2015bh in galaxy NGC 2207 ... just ten years ago, this was a great neighborhood to raise a family of fermions ... today it's nothing but relativistic plasma ...

 

[ReinyDays]

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide?

just tell us how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.
Is there a known temperature?
Why does it vary in its temperature magic from one place to another?
hahahahahaahahahahahaha too funny

1.) Are we retaining more heat because we're producing more carbon dioxide?

just tell us how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is.
Is there a known temperature?
Why does it vary in its temperature magic from one place to another?
hahahahahaahahahahahaha too funny

Yeah that's my point exactly we simply do not know enough about the entire system that we are trying to broad-brush to make any specifically accurate statements about any one part of it that are anything more than just educated guesses. There are so many different inputs into the final equation I cannot see how we could possibly track them all down and investigate them especially when some of them are located 90 million miles away.

I have pointed out here before that the sun is an M type star which follows the same pattern as all of the Other M types we observe. It slowly but steadily gains temperature over the course of its lifetime until it becomes a helium burning red giant which generally vaporizes all the planets in its orbit. The heat variation that we are experiencing may very well be due to an increase of solar energy that we have just not yet been able to measure in any other way.

I have pointed out here before that the sun is an M type star which follows the same pattern as all of the Other M types we observe. It slowly but steadily gains temperature over the course of its lifetime until it becomes a helium burning red giant which generally vaporizes all the planets in its orbit. The heat variation that we are experiencing may very well be due to an increase of solar energy that we have just not yet been able to measure in any other way.

<nitpick>
Our Sun is classified as a type G2 main sequence star, or a sub-dwarf star ... and she'll need about 3 to 5 times the mass to experience helium flash ... she's expected to burn up all her hydrogen and leave behind a chunk of compressed helium, also known as a white dwarf star ... and then she'll cool down over the next several hundred billion years into a black dwarf ...

Type M stars are the very smallest of stars ... so cool as to only emit red light in the visible spectrum ... the bare minimum of mass to ignite ...
</nitpick>

The confusion here is that we can measure solar output to an extremely high level of precision ... eight to ten significant digits ... but we only measure temperature on Earth to three significant digits (in Kelvins) ... the changes in solar output are too small to be measured with the thermometers we have in wide distribution ...

In this context, we treat solar output as a constant 1,360 (± 5) W/m^2 ... millions of years at least before we would use 1,370 W/m^2 ... albedo changes more than the Sun does ... considerably more ...