More record temps

[IanC]

matt- last summer a paper came out describing the large increase in certain bands of SW radiation even though the TSI was decreasing. we have no way of knowing whether the solar output of today is the same as hundreds of years ago simply by counting sunspots.

 

[daveman]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle.

How do we know what wavelengths were radiated during the Holocene?

 

[daveman]

Remember last winter when people were freezing their asses off in NYC and DC, and when you pointed that out to the GW crowd, they shrugged and said "that's weather, not climate"?

Last summer was the coldest I have experienced in 15 years in southern california, I didn't go to the beach a single time, and people were calling it "the year without a summer". This year it has been too cold to do anything up to about the beginning of july. We had a few normal days, now it's back to cold. Is that "climate"?

Oh wait....wait.......I've got it: when it's unusually cold, that's "weather", when it's unusually hot, that's "climate".

Hot damn! The noob cracked the code!

 

[Chris]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years and yet we keep having record heat, and the polar ice cap continues to melt.

Why?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle.

How do we know what wavelengths were radiated during the Holocene?

Dave---The sun stays around the same wave length within the visible for most of its energy; fairly short wave, but the solar winds within a solar minimum or low maximum grand minimum like set up are "lower" too. More or less cloud formation=lower or higher reflection of energy within the mid to upper Troposphere.

The H.C.O or H.C.M was a period of maximum orbit that allows for the most solar energy throughout the year to make it to earth for one, and two studies have shown that the earth was more inclined in away that promotes warming of the poles. You didn't have as much warming at the equator, but you had a huge temperature shift at the poles, which melted those glacial.

Two and a half solar cycles of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), also called 'solar constant'. This composite, compiled by the VIRGO team at the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium / World Radiation Center Davos, Switzerland, shows TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The difference between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles. Image courtesy of SOHO consortium a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.

Because there is a "slight" decrease within the output doesn't mean it changes wave length.

 

[daveman]

We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle.

How do we know what wavelengths were radiated during the Holocene?

Dave---The sun stays around the same wave length within the visible for most of its energy; fairly short wave, but the solar winds within a solar minimum or low maximum grand minimum like set up are "lower" too. More or less cloud formation=lower or higher reflection of energy within the mid to upper Troposphere.

The H.C.O or H.C.M was a period of maximum orbit that allows for the most solar energy throughout the year to make it to earth for one, and two studies have shown that the earth was more inclined in away that promotes warming of the poles. You didn't have as much warming at the equator, but you had a huge temperature shift at the poles, which melted those glacial.

Two and a half solar cycles of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), also called 'solar constant'. This composite, compiled by the VIRGO team at the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium / World Radiation Center Davos, Switzerland, shows TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The difference between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles. Image courtesy of SOHO consortium a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.

I'm vastly skeptical of definitive statements based on indirect observation, especially at such a great distance in time.

There are so many things we simply don't know much about. What's going on with the climate right now is one of them. What went on with the climate before man took direct measurements is another.

Guess it's just one of those things you have to take on faith.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How do we know what wavelengths were radiated during the Holocene?

Dave---The sun stays around the same wave length within the visible for most of its energy; fairly short wave, but the solar winds within a solar minimum or low maximum grand minimum like set up are "lower" too. More or less cloud formation=lower or higher reflection of energy within the mid to upper Troposphere.

The H.C.O or H.C.M was a period of maximum orbit that allows for the most solar energy throughout the year to make it to earth for one, and two studies have shown that the earth was more inclined in away that promotes warming of the poles. You didn't have as much warming at the equator, but you had a huge temperature shift at the poles, which melted those glacial.

Two and a half solar cycles of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), also called 'solar constant'. This composite, compiled by the VIRGO team at the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium / World Radiation Center Davos, Switzerland, shows TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The difference between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles. Image courtesy of SOHO consortium a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.

I'm vastly skeptical of definitive statements based on indirect observation, especially at such a great distance in time.

There are so many things we simply don't know much about. What's going on with the climate right now is one of them. What went on with the climate before man took direct measurements is another.

Guess it's just one of those things you have to take on faith.

Your right, a lot of science is faith within idea's that have huge holes or missing parts within them. As we study and discover new idea's and "things" we learn more and more, but there is a lot of faith. We argue and for the same reason why people have done that since the dawn of time. 120 years ago we didn't think that the continents moved on plates or planet tectonics or even what the brents floods where all about. Hell most people thought we would never be able to fly within airplanes let alone go into space.

Yes dave we do use some faith.

 

[westwall]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years and yet we keep having record heat, and the polar ice cap continues to melt.

Why?

Actually the sun is at it's lowest SUNSPOT activity not it's overall energy output. IR is normal but it is UV that can penetrate deep enough into the oceans to cause heating and that has dropped off dramatically recently. And once again, things take time on mother earth.

The poles have more ice at them now then they had in the 1960's why is that?

Glaciers are advancing all over the planet, why?

Multi year ice has increased in the Arctic for the last two years, why?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years and yet we keep having record heat, and the polar ice cap continues to melt.

Why?

Actually the sun is at it's lowest SUNSPOT activity not it's overall energy output. IR is normal but it is UV that can penetrate deep enough into the oceans to cause heating and that has dropped off dramatically recently. And once again, things take time on mother earth.

The poles have more ice at them now then they had in the 1960's why is that?

Glaciers are advancing all over the planet, why?

Multi year ice has increased in the Arctic for the last two years, why?

The overall ice between the poles have decreased. Sure you can make a case that the core of greenlands ice sheets have increased, but that is mostly because of a increase in moisture.

Figure 2: Ice mass changes for the Antarctic ice sheet from April 2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered for the seasonal dependence are red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic trend is shown as the green line (Velicogna 2009).

Mass of the antarctic ice sheet. What you see is sea ice increasing...

Sea ice

"If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009)."

The GRACE data offers a complete picture of the entire ice sheet, allowing comparisons of mass changes in coastal regions (eg - elevations below 2000 metres) with the Greenland interior (above 2000 metres). Over the period 2003 to 2008, the coastal regions were observed to be losing ice mass while the interior was in approximate mass balance. The overall result is that the Greenland ice sheet is losing ice mass (Wouters 2008).

Figure 1: Global sea ice extent since 1979. (Image source: Tamino. Data is from US National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

 

[Big Fitz]

... and the denial of debunking marches on.

 

[ScienceRocks]

... and the denial of debunking marches on.

Where has this data been debunked?

 

[gslack]

All of the record heat comes with the sun at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Why?

Quick review: The sun's position in our solar system and galaxy relative to other galaxies and their position in the universe, the relative activity of the sun and other nearby radiation emitting stars which may effect our solar system, and various other elements known or as of yet unknown, the amount of cloud cover we receive in various areas of the planet (like over a desert or ocean) can and will effect our own climate far more than a trace gas making up 0.0387% of our atmosphere.

The fact is you are not even touching the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to climate by pointing at CO2 like a hunting dog. Their are so many more things out there that effect our climate you are missing the forest view because the trees are in your way.

You can try and pretend you understand the big picture by posting one small part out of a 100 thousand parts until the planet does cool and we go into an ice age, but it will not make you any more correct or knowledgeable of it.

Now when you start looking at the big picture and stop looking at climate with your blinders on I may treat you algorians a little better, but until then you will get my scorn.

You did not answer the question.

All of the record heat comes with the sun at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Why?

YO TOOL! The statement was about you taking one part of a much bigger picture and blaming the climate on it. Sunspot activity alone is not evidence which was my entire point. Stop being obtuse.. Also can you show me where you get the idea the suns is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years? I know that is incorrect, and I will show you but first lets see your proof of the claim...

*warning severe spanking coming...

 

[gslack]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle.

Can we see some proof on those claims?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites

We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle.

Can we see some proof on those claims?

The solar cycle fits perfectly in with the climate cycles of the past 8,000 years within the Holocene, so your really going to tell me the strongest scientific support we have for the little ice age to med evil warm period is something you don't even support. Hell when I was a skeptic I would defend it to my death---still will. You people like to say ITS THE SUN!!! ITS the fucking SUN on all your boards. The roman, mid evil, little ice age, which was like 3 solar minimums over 500 or so years and the Dalton were all solar caused.

This shows that from 1860 about the end of the dalton straight up through 1940's-1950's time frame that much of the warming was caused by solar tsi increasing. Since the global temperature and tsi has been moving apart.

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

This my friends and wirebender is what I was saying about variable z. It is moving away from each other=natural forcing is not causing the warming today.

PMOD TSI

Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

This is where I got the data from 1880-1940 for the sun/natural climatic warming.

"We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations. From 1900 to 1950 the Earth's surface temperature warmed by about 0.4°C. Over that period, humans increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 20 parts per million by volume. This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of:

dT = λ*dF = 5.35*(0.54 to 1.2°C/[W-m-2]*ln(310/295) = 0.14 to 0.32°C with a most likely value of 0.22°C.

Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period."

Ok, Ok it was 40%, but I believe it maybe a lot more(60-70 percent in my opinion).

What turned me is the fact that I believed that the solar grand minimum that we're in---yes this is the lowest combined min and max since 1908-1913 event. In the first cycle as one of my charts posted on one of these threads show is following the first cycle of the dalton nicely.

Here is a sun spot graph showing the later part of the little ice age

Wow, this shows the as I said above with the little ice age and the med evil. The med evil warm period!!!

Finally for the past 10k years

Wow, holy crap it matches the temperature data we have for that period and it matches the sun cycles. You would have to be blind not to see sun cycles=temperature within the natural set up of things.

But back again to what turned me...
What turned me away from skepticism of any global warming---yes I was a total believer in the forces of natural forcing and laughed at any idea global warming, but past 5-6 years have shown me that it is NOT cooling when it supposed to be. You can't spit in the face of what I shown you above because that is the facts. Something is causing z. So I've slowly moved and joined the nut case warmers. The z is the moving away of the natural to temperature ratio.

 

[gslack]

We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle.

Can we see some proof on those claims?

The solar cycle fits perfectly in with the climate cycles of the past 8,000 years within the Holocene, so your really going to tell me the strongest scientific support we have for the little ice age to med evil warm period is something you don't even support. Hell when I was a skeptic I would defend it to my death---still will. You people like to say ITS THE SUN!!! ITS the fucking SUN on all your boards. The roman, mid evil, little ice age, which was like 3 solar minimums over 500 or so years and the Dalton were all solar caused.

This shows that from 1860 about the end of the dalton straight up through 1940's-1950's time frame that much of the warming was caused by solar tsi increasing. Since the global temperature and tsi has been moving apart.

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

This my friends and wirebender is what I was saying about variable z. It is moving away from each other=natural forcing is not causing the warming today.

PMOD TSI

Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

This is where I got the data from 1880-1940 for the sun/natural climatic warming.

"We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations. From 1900 to 1950 the Earth's surface temperature warmed by about 0.4°C. Over that period, humans increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 20 parts per million by volume. This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of:

dT = λ*dF = 5.35*(0.54 to 1.2°C/[W-m-2]*ln(310/295) = 0.14 to 0.32°C with a most likely value of 0.22°C.

Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period."

Ok, Ok it was 40%, but I believe it maybe a lot more(60-70 percent in my opinion).

What turned me is the fact that I believed that the solar grand minimum that we're in---yes this is the lowest combined min and max since 1908-1913 event. In the first cycle as one of my charts posted on one of these threads show is following the first cycle of the dalton nicely.

Here is a sun spot graph showing the later part of the little ice age

Wow, this shows the as I said above with the little ice age and the med evil. The med evil warm period!!!

Finally for the past 10k years

Wow, holy crap it matches the temperature data we have for that period and it matches the sun cycles. You would have to be blind not to see sun cycles=temperature within the natural set up of things.

But back again to what turned me...
What turned me away from skepticism of any global warming---yes I was a total believer in the forces of natural forcing and laughed at any idea global warming, but past 5-6 years have shown me that it is NOT cooling when it supposed to be. You can't spit in the face of what I shown you above because that is the facts. Something is causing z. So I've slowly moved and joined the nut case warmers. The z is the moving away of the natural to temperature ratio.

Looking at all of your charts I can see a few things.

1. You didn't address what I wanted to see proof of. Proof that his assertions were incorrect for one, and two that before satelites the measurements are reliable. Remember the post you responded to? His assertion was "I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites". You claimed the following "We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle." we all know a great many believe the sun was the main cause of those events no one disputed that. I disputed your claim that his assertion was wrong.

2. One of your charts shows solar heat increasing while sunspot activity decreasing. Where as you seem to keep agreeing with the other posts on here claiming that sunspot activity at a low proves the suns not warming the planet more. So which is it?

*edit: BTW, if the suns caused those instances of climate change, why is it not possible today?

 

[IanC]

so Matt- do you believe the land temps or the sea temps? are sea levels more indicative than arctic ice levels. perhaps equatorial temps are the best indicator because they drive the rest of the systems.

anyone can find evidence for their opinion by weighting their favourite indicator higher than the others. personally I think equtorial and ocean based changes are first order and therefore more important but hey- what do I know?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can we see some proof on those claims?

The solar cycle fits perfectly in with the climate cycles of the past 8,000 years within the Holocene, so your really going to tell me the strongest scientific support we have for the little ice age to med evil warm period is something you don't even support. Hell when I was a skeptic I would defend it to my death---still will. You people like to say ITS THE SUN!!! ITS the fucking SUN on all your boards. The roman, mid evil, little ice age, which was like 3 solar minimums over 500 or so years and the Dalton were all solar caused.

This shows that from 1860 about the end of the dalton straight up through 1940's-1950's time frame that much of the warming was caused by solar tsi increasing. Since the global temperature and tsi has been moving apart.

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

This my friends and wirebender is what I was saying about variable z. It is moving away from each other=natural forcing is not causing the warming today.

PMOD TSI

Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

This is where I got the data from 1880-1940 for the sun/natural climatic warming.

"We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations. From 1900 to 1950 the Earth's surface temperature warmed by about 0.4°C. Over that period, humans increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 20 parts per million by volume. This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of:

dT = λ*dF = 5.35*(0.54 to 1.2°C/[W-m-2]*ln(310/295) = 0.14 to 0.32°C with a most likely value of 0.22°C.

Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period."

Ok, Ok it was 40%, but I believe it maybe a lot more(60-70 percent in my opinion).

What turned me is the fact that I believed that the solar grand minimum that we're in---yes this is the lowest combined min and max since 1908-1913 event. In the first cycle as one of my charts posted on one of these threads show is following the first cycle of the dalton nicely.

Here is a sun spot graph showing the later part of the little ice age

Wow, this shows the as I said above with the little ice age and the med evil. The med evil warm period!!!

Finally for the past 10k years

Wow, holy crap it matches the temperature data we have for that period and it matches the sun cycles. You would have to be blind not to see sun cycles=temperature within the natural set up of things.

But back again to what turned me...
What turned me away from skepticism of any global warming---yes I was a total believer in the forces of natural forcing and laughed at any idea global warming, but past 5-6 years have shown me that it is NOT cooling when it supposed to be. You can't spit in the face of what I shown you above because that is the facts. Something is causing z. So I've slowly moved and joined the nut case warmers. The z is the moving away of the natural to temperature ratio.

Looking at all of your charts I can see a few things.

1. You didn't address what I wanted to see proof of. Proof that his assertions were incorrect for one, and two that before satelites the measurements are reliable.

So you think that the satellite measurements are fucked up?
Remember the post you responded to? His assertion was "I dont think we can be sure about the energy coming from the sun. there are a lot of different wavelengths and our ability to measure them varies. especially before satellites". You claimed the following "We know, because the Holocene climate optimum(Yes part of the warming was caused because of orbit and incline of the earth, but still) , roman warm period, mid evil warm period, little ice age and dalton events where within max's or mins of a solar cycle. From 1860-1950 60 percent of the .4 or so warming up to that time was because of the sun cycle." we all know a great many believe the sun was the main cause of those events no one disputed that. I disputed your claim that his assertion was wrong.


I really doubt that a slight .25% shift within the solar output causes much of a shift within the wave length. The wave length is fairly stable centered within the visible at near 5,500 kevlin or near it; may be there is a slight shift, but that wouldn't change a damn thing.

2. One of your charts shows solar heat increasing while sunspot activity decreasing. Where as you seem to keep agreeing with the other posts on here claiming that sunspot activity at a low proves the suns not warming the planet more. So which is it?

*edit: BTW, if the suns caused those instances of climate change, why is it not possible today?

So you don't trust the satellite data, so I can understand why you wouldn't trust the carbon data or any of the other crap that we use to tell climate of the past. Lets just throw it all the hell out because it is useless. How about that?

The first to second graph shows about what it should show; as the first graph is the trend(11 year avg'ed) and the second on is with the cycles them selfs. The trend is downwards.

3rd graph shows from 1600 to today with the little ice age and then rising out of it. It doesn't show the downslope so good the past 30 years, but it shows it slightly from the 1960s-1970 time frame. That is looking at a horizontal of over 400 fucking years, so what can you expect? The 4th is a even longer scale showing the whole little ice age and the med evil warm period.

If you throw out the sun causing the natural cycles then you throw out everything we understand about energy moving into the system its self. So you people want to say that the green house effect is A LIE, Satellite data is a lie, data that we get from tree rings, boar holes, carbon, ocean bed sediment, ect is useless. Why not just say that it all can't be trusted from the start? I don't understand. Be honest g.


As for your edited part---O'hell it was happening as I said up till 1950-1960, but remember how the red and blue chart how the lines moved away from each other...Guess what that shows, that natural forcing is not doing it; NOT NOW, but we can't trust satellite data let alone anything further down the line. This is unwinnable from a scientific stand point as all data is found to be a fraud and a crock. Over and over again...One big turning cluster fuck.

Hell why do I say that? Because I agree we're using some faith trusting any earlier then 1970. So that gives us 40 years of data to truly debate. But I try to give some faith to the longer term data to enhance our understanding. Yes there is faith in science and we must use what ever as a tool to enhance on our understanding. It is not 100 percent G.

What does faith tell me. It tells me to respect the solar cycles and the natural cycles, but when there is a divergence you then need to find out why that is occurring.

 

[ScienceRocks]

so Matt- do you believe the land temps or the sea temps? are sea levels more indicative than arctic ice levels. perhaps equatorial temps are the best indicator because they drive the rest of the systems.

anyone can find evidence for their opinion by weighting their favourite indicator higher than the others. personally I think equtorial and ocean based changes are first order and therefore more important but hey- what do I know?

I think your very knowledgeable, but here is a interesting graph based off of sea level. Shouldn't the mid evil have higher ocean levels?

RealClimate: 2000 Years of Sea Level (+updates)

Comparison of Mann et al (2008) global mean (land+ocean) temperature reconstruction with and without the 7 proxy records discussed in the text [shown in both cases is the low-frequency (>20 year timescale) component of the reconstruction]. Reconstruction is based on calibration against the HadCRUT3 series using the global proxy network
.

 

[IanC]

I like your style Matt. skeptical in the true meaning. I am more opinionated because I have gone through more cycles of public opinion and I cant find enough free thinkers like Feynman to lead us past arguement by authority. solar scientists like Lean have tried to clarify the picture but they get shouted down and everyone is supposed to ignore the uncertainty and make a stand one one side or the other.

the quest for accuracy in the speed of light brought amazing results in many fields of science. the quest for understanding climate science will also bring great knowledge to science in many areas.

 

[Chris]

Quick review: The sun's position in our solar system and galaxy relative to other galaxies and their position in the universe, the relative activity of the sun and other nearby radiation emitting stars which may effect our solar system, and various other elements known or as of yet unknown, the amount of cloud cover we receive in various areas of the planet (like over a desert or ocean) can and will effect our own climate far more than a trace gas making up 0.0387% of our atmosphere.

The fact is you are not even touching the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to climate by pointing at CO2 like a hunting dog. Their are so many more things out there that effect our climate you are missing the forest view because the trees are in your way.

You can try and pretend you understand the big picture by posting one small part out of a 100 thousand parts until the planet does cool and we go into an ice age, but it will not make you any more correct or knowledgeable of it.

Now when you start looking at the big picture and stop looking at climate with your blinders on I may treat you algorians a little better, but until then you will get my scorn.

You did not answer the question.

All of the record heat comes with the sun at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Why?

YO TOOL! The statement was about you taking one part of a much bigger picture and blaming the climate on it. Sunspot activity alone is not evidence which was my entire point. Stop being obtuse.. Also can you show me where you get the idea the suns is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years? I know that is incorrect, and I will show you but first lets see your proof of the claim...

*warning severe spanking coming...

First you will deny the facts. Then after I post the facts, you will deny that the facts matter.

Then when I post the facts again. You will insult me. I know the pattern of grief well.

Denial, anger, non acceptance of reality,

..................................................

U.S. solar physicists say the sun is experiencing the least sunspot activity since 1913 and activity is becoming less frequent.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration solar physicist Dean Pesnell at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said during 2008 there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days -- 73 percent of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go to 1913, which had 311 spotless days.

That has led some observers to suggest the solar cycle hit bottom last year. But Pesnell says that might not be the case, since, there were no sunspots on 78 of this year's first 90 days -- 87 percent of that period.

In addition, measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20 percent drop in solar wind since the mid-1990s -- the lowest since such measurements began in the 1960s. And NASA says the sun's brightness has dimmed 0.02 percent at visible wavelengths and 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996.

Solar activity lowest in nearly 100 years