Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[flacaltenn]

Butt, butt..... butt...

When I said you had not proposed any mechanism, I was talking about a physical mechanism that would produce the behavior you suggest exists.

And I admitted there is oscillation in the temperature record that would produce fundamental frequencies, but said their amplitude would be inadequate to produce the long term pattern of heating we have observed.

I got 0.07 W/m^2 increase in TSI from what appears to be the most thorough record of TSI available. Again, if you have other data, please post it.

I am aware that CO2 is not an energy source. It is a radiative forcing factor with significant influence in the creation of the ToA imbalance.

I again suggest that if we determine and monitor global heat content rather than temperature, all these nonlinear relationships drop away. It will simply be the integration of the ToA imbalance over time. No more complexity.

Every one of the six climate characteristics I listed HAS KNOWN physical mechanisms and are UNIVERSALLY accepted to be "in the box".. I did not invent a thing.

Their PRESENCE in the box virtually guarantees that what I tell you is true when I say that the INPUT STIMULUS is not required, and almost certainly is not --- a curve fit excersize to the temperature output.. Shouldn't spend another JOULE of brain power by warmers or skeptics trying to find (or synthesize) that magic twin graph.

Don't toss that phoney 0.07 at me again with a cite..

It's NOT the simple integration of ToA over time.. Because you now know that TOTAL heat content includes heat sequestered temporarily OUT of the Atmos exchange (like in the deep oceans or even stored as latent heat in water vapor). And many of the variables involved change over time and conditions because of the feedback. In fact, CO2 insulation values change exponentially with concentration in the Atmos. And SOME of the periodic forcings can interact on a "global average" to give time varying results..

 

[itfitzme]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Here's an alternate response to this question...

I HAVE REPEATEDLY shown you the diff between TSI and Sunspot Number.. Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

The first one below is sunspot numbers. The second and third is TSI.

It appears that Flatulance is misrepresenting the sunspot number as being TSI. That or everyone else is wrong.

Hmmm........ Isn't that interesting.

 

[flacaltenn]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Here's an alternate response to this question...

I HAVE REPEATEDLY shown you the diff between TSI and Sunspot Number.. Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

The first one below is sunspot numbers. The second and third is TSI.

It appears that Flatulance is misrepresenting the sunspot number as being TSI. That or everyone else is wrong.

Hmmm........ Isn't that interesting.

You can't read --- what a shame..

 

[flacaltenn]

Abraham..

Something for you to ponder.. Do we want REAL Climate Models? Or just attempt to prove ad hoc a theory about CO2 being the principle driver of the system?

The uncontestable evidence is that the climate black box is currently oscillating or extremely unstable. We have not one or two ---- but three or four ice ages in our recent history.. ALL without any reliance on man-made CO2 and generally acknowledged to be driven by the "small trivial" forces that you say --- aren't important. A REAL climate model would help us understand the bigger picture of how it works and where we're going.

A system that can oscillate like that and bring us in and out 4 ice ages in 800,000 yrs is NEVER gonna be explained by focusing on CO2. NONE of the current rinky dink models can approach that level of understanding the climate as a whole. The fact that we are sitting at relative "climate optimum" in our history on the earth is pure serendipity. Until we can model that black box to point of UNDERSTANDING why we are sitting on an edge overlooking another ice age from historical evidence --- I'm not comfortable.

You shouldn't be so smug either..

This observation about historical observation also PROVES my point about the forcing functions looking nothing like response output from the system..

 

[itfitzme]

Here's an alternate response to this question...

I HAVE REPEATEDLY shown you the diff between TSI and Sunspot Number.. Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

The first one below is sunspot numbers. The second and third is TSI.

It appears that Flatulance is misrepresenting the sunspot number as being TSI. That or everyone else is wrong.

Hmmm........ Isn't that interesting.

You can't read --- what a shame..

Can't read what? That your graph is point for point exactly like the one presented as SUNSPOT NUMBER? And that the other two which are in Watts per Meter^2, one of which is labeled "Total SolarIrradiance" has absolutely no similarity to the one you posted?

Yes, I can read, both English and graphs.

The question is, what is it that you have convinced yourself of?

I am quite confident that if there is something I am missing, someone with actual intelligence will point it out.

And, I see, you have nothing specific to point out.

Of late, you have become more and more desperate, presenting more and more that demonstrates ignore-ance.

What you are missing is that I don't have to convince you of anything. Nor do you have to agree with it. All I have to do is present information that the intelligent and undecided judge for themselves as correct.

And obviously, your graph is sunspot numbers mislabeled as TSI.

(You can always fall back on your old favorite, that everyone else is lying.)

 

[itfitzme]

Abraham..

Something for you to ponder.. Do we want REAL Climate Models? Or just attempt to prove ad hoc a theory about CO2 being the principle driver of the system?

The uncontestable evidence is that the climate black box is currently oscillating or extremely unstable. We have not one or two ---- but three or four ice ages in our recent history.. ALL without any reliance on man-made CO2 and generally acknowledged to be driven by the "small trivial" forces that you say --- aren't important. A REAL climate model would help us understand the bigger picture of how it works and where we're going.

A system that can oscillate like that and bring us in and out 4 ice ages in 800,000 yrs is NEVER gonna be explained by focusing on CO2. NONE of the current rinky dink models can approach that level of understanding the climate as a whole. The fact that we are sitting at relative "climate optimum" in our history on the earth is pure serendipity. Until we can model that black box to point of UNDERSTANDING why we are sitting on an edge overlooking another ice age from historical evidence --- I'm not comfortable.

You shouldn't be so smug either..

This observation about historical observation also PROVES my point about the forcing functions looking nothing like response output from the system..

Now, that is laughable, that you think you are capable of creating a real climate model.

Wait, I understood that you don't like computer models.

 

[flacaltenn]

The first one below is sunspot numbers. The second and third is TSI.

It appears that Flatulance is misrepresenting the sunspot number as being TSI. That or everyone else is wrong.

Hmmm........ Isn't that interesting.

You can't read --- what a shame..

Can't read what? That your graph is point for point exactly like the one presented as SUNSPOT NUMBER? And that the other two which are in Watts per Meter^2, one of which is labeled "Total SolarIrradiance" has absolutely no similarity to the one you posted?

Yes, I can read, both English and graphs.

The question is, what is it that you have convinced yourself of?

I am quite confident that if there is something I am missing, someone with actual intelligence will point it out.

And, I see, you have nothing specific to point out.

Of late, you have become more and more desperate, presenting more and more that demonstrates ignore-ance.

What you are missing is that I don't have to convince you of anything. Nor do you have to agree with it. All I have to do is present information that the intelligent and undecided judge for themselves as correct.

And obviously, your graph is sunspot numbers mislabeled as TSI.

(You can always fall back on your old favorite, that everyone else is lying.)

Nope.. Everyone else isn't lying.. Just you.. SORCE/TIM is the go-to reconstruction of TSI. Not mislabled.. Go back and read my post to Abe on this page and don't bug me til you understand what I said about the DIFFERENCES between Sun Spot # and TSI and WHY the warmer zealots use the former to confuse and deflect from the increase in TSI...

BTW --- you're baffled because you don't understand data filtering and removing 22 year cycles.. TSI IS NOT COMPLETE OR USEFUL with the sun cycles completely removed..

 

[itfitzme]

You can't read --- what a shame..

Can't read what? That your graph is point for point exactly like the one presented as SUNSPOT NUMBER? And that the other two which are in Watts per Meter^2, one of which is labeled "Total SolarIrradiance" has absolutely no similarity to the one you posted?

Yes, I can read, both English and graphs.

The question is, what is it that you have convinced yourself of?

I am quite confident that if there is something I am missing, someone with actual intelligence will point it out.

And, I see, you have nothing specific to point out.

Of late, you have become more and more desperate, presenting more and more that demonstrates ignore-ance.

What you are missing is that I don't have to convince you of anything. Nor do you have to agree with it. All I have to do is present information that the intelligent and undecided judge for themselves as correct.

And obviously, your graph is sunspot numbers mislabeled as TSI.

(You can always fall back on your old favorite, that everyone else is lying.)

Nope.. Everyone else isn't lying.. Just you.. SORCE/TIM is the go-to reconstruction of TSI. Not mislabled.. Go back and read my post to Abe on this page and don't bug me til you understand what I said about the DIFFERENCES between Sun Spot # and TSI and WHY the warmer zealots use the former to confuse and deflect from the increase in TSI...

BTW --- you're baffled because you don't understand data filtering and removing 22 year cycles.. TSI IS NOT COMPLETE OR USEFUL with the sun cycles completely removed..

You have said nothing here, except "I don't agree".

I clearly am not "lying". I simply found three examples of the data floating around and presented them. The source is in the link. I didn't create the graphs.

Your graph has no reference. It is from your own folder "http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4620-tim-tsi-reconstruction-2012"

So, now who is most likely lying? The person who's info can be tracked to a source? Or the person who's info can't be tracked?

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't read what? That your graph is point for point exactly like the one presented as SUNSPOT NUMBER? And that the other two which are in Watts per Meter^2, one of which is labeled "Total SolarIrradiance" has absolutely no similarity to the one you posted?

Yes, I can read, both English and graphs.

The question is, what is it that you have convinced yourself of?

I am quite confident that if there is something I am missing, someone with actual intelligence will point it out.

And, I see, you have nothing specific to point out.

Of late, you have become more and more desperate, presenting more and more that demonstrates ignore-ance.

What you are missing is that I don't have to convince you of anything. Nor do you have to agree with it. All I have to do is present information that the intelligent and undecided judge for themselves as correct.

And obviously, your graph is sunspot numbers mislabeled as TSI.

(You can always fall back on your old favorite, that everyone else is lying.)

Nope.. Everyone else isn't lying.. Just you.. SORCE/TIM is the go-to reconstruction of TSI. Not mislabled.. Go back and read my post to Abe on this page and don't bug me til you understand what I said about the DIFFERENCES between Sun Spot # and TSI and WHY the warmer zealots use the former to confuse and deflect from the increase in TSI...

BTW --- you're baffled because you don't understand data filtering and removing 22 year cycles.. TSI IS NOT COMPLETE OR USEFUL with the sun cycles completely removed..

You have said nothing here, except "I don't agree".

I clearly am not "lying". I simply found three examples of the data floating around and presented them. The source is in the link. I didn't create the graphs.

Your graph has no reference. It is from your own folder "http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4620-tim-tsi-reconstruction-2012"

So, now who is most likely lying? The person who's info can be tracked to a source? Or the person who's info can't be tracked?

Are you kidding me?? With all the shit you steal off the web to try and con people into thinking you have a command of this ----- you can't google SORCE TIM TSI reconstruction?

Grasshopper --- work smarter or go spit on someone else's leg..

 

[itfitzme]

Nope.. Everyone else isn't lying.. Just you.. SORCE/TIM is the go-to reconstruction of TSI. Not mislabled.. Go back and read my post to Abe on this page and don't bug me til you understand what I said about the DIFFERENCES between Sun Spot # and TSI and WHY the warmer zealots use the former to confuse and deflect from the increase in TSI...

BTW --- you're baffled because you don't understand data filtering and removing 22 year cycles.. TSI IS NOT COMPLETE OR USEFUL with the sun cycles completely removed..

You have said nothing here, except "I don't agree".

I clearly am not "lying". I simply found three examples of the data floating around and presented them. The source is in the link. I didn't create the graphs.

Your graph has no reference. It is from your own folder "http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4620-tim-tsi-reconstruction-2012"

So, now who is most likely lying? The person who's info can be tracked to a source? Or the person who's info can't be tracked?

Are you kidding me?? With all the shit you steal off the web to try and con people into thinking you have a command of this ----- you can't google SORCE TIM TSI reconstruction?

Grasshopper --- work smarter or go spit on someone else's leg..

Yes I can.

This is the actual source of your graph.

More specifically,

"Correlations of TSI measurements with sunspot observations allows historical extrapolations of solar activity."

"This historical reconstruction of TSI is based on that of Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (The Astrophysical Journal, 625:522-538, 2005 May 20) using a flux transport model to simulate the Sun’s magnetic flux, with those annual values provided courtesy of J. Lean. The values from their model have been offset -4.8741 W/m^2 to match the SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended or replaced using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. This more recently accepted TSI absolute value is described by Kopp & Lean (Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L01706, doi:10.1029/2010GL045777, 2011) based on new calibration and diagnostic measurements. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed by G. Kopp using TIM V.13 data in February 2013, and is updated annually as new TIM data are available"

Now we have an issue. Two separate sources presenting different information.

Unlike you, I don't make unqualified decisions as to the one I prefer, presenting only the one that I like better.

 

[itfitzme]

This is interesting as the graph, above, which is labeled TSI reconstruction on the colorado edu site and sunspot number on Wikipedia appears to be a reconstruction based on sunspot number as the proxy.

There is a comment, on Graphics Gallery

"TSI proxy models are not competitive in precision or accuracy with even the lowest quality satellite TSI observations. Most are regression models of TSI against one or more proxy solar spectral features or records of solar magnetic activity. Use of such models in constructing the PMOD composite convolutes their large uncertainties with the satellite TSI observational data. The resulting TSI composite is more likely to represent the modeler's preconception of what the TSI time series should look like than the reality conveyed by satellite TSI observational results published by the experiment science teams."

There is something more going on here than meets the eye.

 

[itfitzme]

More
Regarding the long historical TSI reconstruction:

"Correlations of TSI measurements with sunspot observations allows historical extrapolations of solar activity. This historical reconstruction of TSI is based on that of Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (The Astrophysical Journal, 625:522-538, 2005 May 20) adjusted to the TIM TSI values."

This appears as the full database using actual satellite measurements.

TIM begins in about 2003.

The Wiki labeled "solar activity proxy" is presented here for comparison

and the alternate TSI graph.

(curiously, the dislike of proxies and models seems to all depend on the resulting output)

 

[Abraham3]

Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

Actual? 300 years ago?

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

Actual? 300 years ago?

Blow me.. These proxies are more accurate than tree rings and snail shells.. Or tea leaves.

What you trying to do here? Counter the entire basis of your AGW theory?
You should also go google SORCE TIM tsi and see where this came from or read the stuff Mr SnowJob just cut and pasted.....

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

Actual? 300 years ago?

Blow me.. These proxies are more accurate than tree rings and snail shells.. Or tea leaves.

What you trying to do here? Counter the entire basis of your AGW theory?
You should also go google SORCE TIM tsi and see where this came from or read the stuff Mr SnowJob just cut and pasted.....

Ah, so now we are burrowed down to your bullshit.

Prove they are more accurate than tree rings and snail shells.

Oh my, "TSI proxy models are not competitive in precision or accuracy with even the lowest quality satellite TSI observations."

And we see how you pick and choose to fit your preferences. Wait, isn't that what you accuse everyone else of doing? Picking and choosing to suit themselves?

Oh, shit, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse everyone else of. Go figure, you are an arrogant and ignorant asshole.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is interesting as the graph, above, which is labeled TSI reconstruction on the colorado edu site and sunspot number on Wikipedia appears to be a reconstruction based on sunspot number as the proxy.

There is a comment, on Graphics Gallery

"TSI proxy models are not competitive in precision or accuracy with even the lowest quality satellite TSI observations. Most are regression models of TSI against one or more proxy solar spectral features or records of solar magnetic activity. Use of such models in constructing the PMOD composite convolutes their large uncertainties with the satellite TSI observational data. The resulting TSI composite is more likely to represent the modeler's preconception of what the TSI time series should look like than the reality conveyed by satellite TSI observational results published by the experiment science teams."

There is something more going on here than meets the eye.

Oh gee williky wizz.. A "COMMENT" on the ACRIM site about proxy studies? I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.

Did ya miss this??

Continuous time series of total solar irradiance (TSI) observations have been constructed from the set of redundant, overlapping total solar irradiance (TSI) measurements made by satellite experiments during the past 34 Years. One, the ACRIM composite [Willson & Mordvinov, 2003 (Fig. 1)], displays a significant upward trend in TSI of 0.04 percent per decade during solar cycles 21-23. Another, the PMOD composite [Frohlich & Lean, 1998 (Fig. 2)], displays no significant trend over this period using different combinations of TSI data sets, computational philosophy and assumptions. Both time series demonstrate no significant trend over the two decade period separating the first and third solar activity minima.

If ACRIM IS CORRECT --- the sun is actually building at a rate equal to or EXCEEDING the previous 300 yr period.

Welcome to REAL science.. Where NOTHING is ever "settled".. Guess we need 20 more yrs of satellite observation to even measure the power of the Sun... Never mind its spectral distribution.. That experiment is on another couple satellites..

 

[flacaltenn]

What a bunch of hypocrits..

 

[itfitzme]

This is interesting as the graph, above, which is labeled TSI reconstruction on the colorado edu site and sunspot number on Wikipedia appears to be a reconstruction based on sunspot number as the proxy.

There is a comment, on Graphics Gallery

"TSI proxy models are not competitive in precision or accuracy with even the lowest quality satellite TSI observations. Most are regression models of TSI against one or more proxy solar spectral features or records of solar magnetic activity. Use of such models in constructing the PMOD composite convolutes their large uncertainties with the satellite TSI observational data. The resulting TSI composite is more likely to represent the modeler's preconception of what the TSI time series should look like than the reality conveyed by satellite TSI observational results published by the experiment science teams."

There is something more going on here than meets the eye.

Oh gee williky wizz.. A "COMMENT" on the ACRIM site about proxy studies? I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.

Did ya miss this??

Continuous time series of total solar irradiance (TSI) observations have been constructed from the set of redundant, overlapping total solar irradiance (TSI) measurements made by satellite experiments during the past 34 Years. One, the ACRIM composite [Willson & Mordvinov, 2003 (Fig. 1)], displays a significant upward trend in TSI of 0.04 percent per decade during solar cycles 21-23. Another, the PMOD composite [Frohlich & Lean, 1998 (Fig. 2)], displays no significant trend over this period using different combinations of TSI data sets, computational philosophy and assumptions. Both time series demonstrate no significant trend over the two decade period separating the first and third solar activity minima.

If ACRIM IS CORRECT --- the sun is actually building at a rate equal to or EXCEEDING the previous 300 yr period.

Welcome to REAL science.. Where NOTHING is ever "settled".. Guess we need 20 more yrs of satellite observation to even measure the power of the Sun... Never mind its spectral distribution.. That experiment is on another couple satellites..

I don't know who your talking about with "I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.". The fact of the matter is that all measurements are "proxies". Even measurement of temperature with a mercury thermometer uses volume of the mercury, and the height of the column, as a proxy for heat content.

I haven't missed what you noted. I am still wondering why it is that the author of Wiki chose to not present the sunspots as a reasonable proxy for TSI. And, I am wondering how accurate and precise the TSI measures are, over the long term, given that database

What I am doing is, unlike you, being honest.

 

[itfitzme]

What a bunch of hypocrits..

No, dude, you are the hypocrit. The problem you have is you cannot tell one person from another, one source from another, one presentations from another.

You have created this fantasy, in your own mind, of this single "global warming cult", which doesn't exist, then you attribute everything to it.

You then create a complete bullshit strawman that you attribute to the cult then argue against it.

You have created your own problem.

And I can guarantee that you use the second person pronoun, in response to a post of mine, followed by some derogatory statement BEFORE I finally decided to call you a fucking asshole.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is interesting as the graph, above, which is labeled TSI reconstruction on the colorado edu site and sunspot number on Wikipedia appears to be a reconstruction based on sunspot number as the proxy.

There is a comment, on Graphics Gallery

"TSI proxy models are not competitive in precision or accuracy with even the lowest quality satellite TSI observations. Most are regression models of TSI against one or more proxy solar spectral features or records of solar magnetic activity. Use of such models in constructing the PMOD composite convolutes their large uncertainties with the satellite TSI observational data. The resulting TSI composite is more likely to represent the modeler's preconception of what the TSI time series should look like than the reality conveyed by satellite TSI observational results published by the experiment science teams."

There is something more going on here than meets the eye.

Oh gee williky wizz.. A "COMMENT" on the ACRIM site about proxy studies? I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.

Did ya miss this??

Continuous time series of total solar irradiance (TSI) observations have been constructed from the set of redundant, overlapping total solar irradiance (TSI) measurements made by satellite experiments during the past 34 Years. One, the ACRIM composite [Willson & Mordvinov, 2003 (Fig. 1)], displays a significant upward trend in TSI of 0.04 percent per decade during solar cycles 21-23. Another, the PMOD composite [Frohlich & Lean, 1998 (Fig. 2)], displays no significant trend over this period using different combinations of TSI data sets, computational philosophy and assumptions. Both time series demonstrate no significant trend over the two decade period separating the first and third solar activity minima.

If ACRIM IS CORRECT --- the sun is actually building at a rate equal to or EXCEEDING the previous 300 yr period.

Welcome to REAL science.. Where NOTHING is ever "settled".. Guess we need 20 more yrs of satellite observation to even measure the power of the Sun... Never mind its spectral distribution.. That experiment is on another couple satellites..

I don't know who your talking about with "I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.". The fact of the matter is that all measurements are "proxies". Even measurement of temperature with a mercury thermometer uses volume of the mercury, and the height of the column, as a proxy for heat content.

I haven't missed what you noted. I am still wondering why it is that the author of Wiki chose to not present the sunspots as a reasonable proxy for TSI. And, I am wondering how accurate and precise the TSI measures are, over the long term, given that database

What I am doing is, unlike you, being honest.

WHO ------ ever said sunspot numbers are a proxy for TSI?

You don't understand the meaning of the term proxy if you think an actual thermometer is a proxy measurement. That mercury will rise ONLY with a change in temperature (or I suppose gravity).. Not dependent on umteen other variables.

ALL of the major claims of AGW theory hysteria ARE BASED on proxy studies... The unprecendented RATE of rise, the AMOUNT of rise, ect..