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

[itfitzme]

You need to do a LONGER time series and REMOVE the periodic components from the TSI..

Just like the yearly and multi-yearly variations are removed from you CO2 graph..

Also -- What did you use to normalize the functions? What was in the denominator?

And why do YOU think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature? Do you believe that all systems operate like that? Or just extremely simple ones.

TSI has approximated a step function.. Rose for 200 years and then flattened.. Good enough for a step function.. The existence of just ONE INTEGRAL in the transfer function of the behaviour of climate system will turn that step into a nice ramp or hockey stick.. True fact grasshopper...

Want an integral that's IN THE climate black box?? Heat storage in the oceans. That's an integrator function right there.

Create a TOA to Surface imbalance and the temperatures continue to climb. Even with a constant power balance diagram..
At least for awhile..

I don't have to do any of that. The variation that matches, matches and the variation that doesn't doesn't. TSI and CO2 are both known drivers of temp. They are all part of the same system. The sun warms the earth and atmosphere. CO2 absorbs IR. We already know, based on fundamental principles, that the will correlate. The only question is by how much. I can guarantee that when the sun is brighter, there is an immediate response. This is obvious to anyone that has been outside on a summers day and walked from shade to direct sunlight.

It doesn't take a year for the warming to accumulate. Obviously it doesn't, we have summers and winters. And those are yearly CO2, yearly TSI, and yearly temp averages. They don't even need to be yearly. They could be different month numbers for each data set. I am not trying to build a model, not trying to make precise predictions. The absolute values are irrellevant. The only interest is in the variability, the relative changes, indeed, the ratio of those relative changes. More formally, that regression is part of a large tool called "analysis of variance". All we are after here is how thing are varying. Any high frequency components that don't match just don't match. Like I said, Fourier transforms are correlation. Regression is correlation. It is all included.

Any further refinement isn't going to result in an appreciable change. CO2 os coming in at 40x greater as a driver. 2% for Sun, 80% for CO2. 18% is other stuff. There ain't no need to "think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature". I don't need to think that hitting my thumb with a hammer will hurt in order for the pain and hammer to correlate. I don't need to think that temp is responsive to CO2 and TSI for it to correlate. It either does or does not. Lo and behold, CO2 correlates. Gosh, grasshopper, so does TSI, just not as much.

This is the most fundamental aspects of scientific reasoning. a) if a physical law is true in one location, it is true in all locations b) if something is causal, it is correlated. These two axioms lead to a larger reasoning that if something is causal in one place and coorelated in another, then it is causal in that other place. It is the basis for sanity.

You can build as complicated a model as you like, refine it to monthly observations, time series lag some portion. Maybe volcanic ash will pick up some, other GHGs will pick up some. But that 40:1 is so huge that it is foolishness to believe that TSI is somehow going to miraculously swich with CO2 as being more highly correlated.

The reality is that CO2 isn't not correlated. The null hypothesis is the R^2 for CO2 is much less that R^2 for TSI. The null hypothesis is demonstratably false. Thats the thing. You can go about coming up with some more complex model. It won't change the fact that R^2-CO2 >> R^2-TSI. Some more complicated model that doesn't correlate simply proves the more complex model is wrong.

That is the biggest problem with the denialist argument. The argument being, "Because this complicated model doesn't prove CO2, then the simple model that proves CO2 is false". That is just plain stupid.

Starting from the false premise that mitigation techniques will cost you money, then trying to prove CO2 doesn't cause climate change is faulty reasoning. First off, economics isn't the correct science to apply in atmospheric physics.

But, hey, I found an online regression calculator for you. You are welcome to try. This, though, is the fundamental issue I have with con-deniers... laziness. They are all about watching other do the work while they stand around and complain about the work being done. It is "defining reality by fault finding". They all want to be on charge and tell people what to do instead of actually doing some work themselves.

You ain't presented any "true facts", grasshopper, because facts are specific, countable, measurable observations of the real world.

 

[Abraham3]

Bravo!

The board won't let me give you any rep points - says I have to spread it around first. I don't know what its problem is. I haven't given anyone any points one way or the other in weeks.

But, allow me to grant you my highest encomium. That was as close to perfect as we're likely to see for many a moon. Well said. Well done. Very well done.

 

[itfitzme]

Bravo!

The board won't let me give you any rep points - says I have to spread it around first. I don't know what its problem is. I haven't given anyone any points one way or the other in weeks.

But, allow me to grant you my highest encomium. That was as close to perfect as we're likely to see for many a moon. Well said. Well done. Very well done.

Thank you.

 

[flacaltenn]

You need to do a LONGER time series and REMOVE the periodic components from the TSI..

Just like the yearly and multi-yearly variations are removed from you CO2 graph..

Also -- What did you use to normalize the functions? What was in the denominator?

And why do YOU think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature? Do you believe that all systems operate like that? Or just extremely simple ones.

TSI has approximated a step function.. Rose for 200 years and then flattened.. Good enough for a step function.. The existence of just ONE INTEGRAL in the transfer function of the behaviour of climate system will turn that step into a nice ramp or hockey stick.. True fact grasshopper...

Want an integral that's IN THE climate black box?? Heat storage in the oceans. That's an integrator function right there.

Create a TOA to Surface imbalance and the temperatures continue to climb. Even with a constant power balance diagram..
At least for awhile..

I don't have to do any of that. The variation that matches, matches and the variation that doesn't doesn't. TSI and CO2 are both known drivers of temp. They are all part of the same system. The sun warms the earth and atmosphere. CO2 absorbs IR. We already know, based on fundamental principles, that the will correlate. The only question is by how much. I can guarantee that when the sun is brighter, there is an immediate response. This is obvious to anyone that has been outside on a summers day and walked from shade to direct sunlight.

It doesn't take a year for the warming to accumulate. Obviously it doesn't, we have summers and winters. And those are yearly CO2, yearly TSI, and yearly temp averages. They don't even need to be yearly. They could be different month numbers for each data set. I am not trying to build a model, not trying to make precise predictions. The absolute values are irrellevant. The only interest is in the variability, the relative changes, indeed, the ratio of those relative changes. More formally, that regression is part of a large tool called "analysis of variance". All we are after here is how thing are varying. Any high frequency components that don't match just don't match. Like I said, Fourier transforms are correlation. Regression is correlation. It is all included.

Any further refinement isn't going to result in an appreciable change. CO2 os coming in at 40x greater as a driver. 2% for Sun, 80% for CO2. 18% is other stuff. There ain't no need to "think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature". I don't need to think that hitting my thumb with a hammer will hurt in order for the pain and hammer to correlate. I don't need to think that temp is responsive to CO2 and TSI for it to correlate. It either does or does not. Lo and behold, CO2 correlates. Gosh, grasshopper, so does TSI, just not as much.

This is the most fundamental aspects of scientific reasoning. a) if a physical law is true in one location, it is true in all locations b) if something is causal, it is correlated. These two axioms lead to a larger reasoning that if something is causal in one place and coorelated in another, then it is causal in that other place. It is the basis for sanity.

You can build as complicated a model as you like, refine it to monthly observations, time series lag some portion. Maybe volcanic ash will pick up some, other GHGs will pick up some. But that 40:1 is so huge that it is foolishness to believe that TSI is somehow going to miraculously swich with CO2 as being more highly correlated.

The reality is that CO2 isn't not correlated. The null hypothesis is the R^2 for CO2 is much less that R^2 for TSI. The null hypothesis is demonstratably false. Thats the thing. You can go about coming up with some more complex model. It won't change the fact that R^2-CO2 >> R^2-TSI. Some more complicated model that doesn't correlate simply proves the more complex model is wrong.

That is the biggest problem with the denialist argument. The argument being, "Because this complicated model doesn't prove CO2, then the simple model that proves CO2 is false". That is just plain stupid.

Starting from the false premise that mitigation techniques will cost you money, then trying to prove CO2 doesn't cause climate change is faulty reasoning. First off, economics isn't the correct science to apply in atmospheric physics.

But, hey, I found an online regression calculator for you. You are welcome to try. This, though, is the fundamental issue I have with con-deniers... laziness. They are all about watching other do the work while they stand around and complain about the work being done. It is "defining reality by fault finding". They all want to be on charge and tell people what to do instead of actually doing some work themselves.

You ain't presented any "true facts", grasshopper, because facts are specific, countable, measurable observations of the real world.

You've got several major problems and misconceptions. I could correlate eating carrots with car accidents --- it is NOT a causal confidence maker..

But the main problem you have is that CO2 can NOT be a 76% contributor to the process if currrently we are measuring no change in temperature for 15 years. If the "relationship" can be swamped by other effects and forcings --- it's not the dominant causal relationship.

Don't care HOW MUCH warming is "hiding" outside the thermal exchange at the surface. The effect is being swamped currently or you don't have the correct one. In ADDITION, your analysis ALSO proves that Warming causes CO2 --- a proposition that has some cred.

You are also STILL assuming that the CAUSE has to look exactly like the effect.. An assertion that is NOT EXPECTED when the entire complex climate system is studied.

Take another "climate system" that is much simpler and more familiar. Your home HVAC system..

It's job is to provide an equal amount of ENERGY for the heat loss that the home experiences. It does that with a FIXED POWER SOURCE.

Even tho the temperature of the furnace igniters and flame doesn't vary much, the heat energy produced does because of integration over time. The more the inside/outside heat difference drives the energy heat loss, the more frequent and longer the fixed power furnace will stay on.

So -- when an energy IMBALANCE EXISTS on this planet.. The forcing function for it (power in W/m2) does not have track the surface temp either. If the sun switches to a higher level of insolation and STAYS THERE --- it can produce a long lasting "ramp" in temperature to a new thermal equilibrium..

Just the fact that sun is currently "on" compared to 300 yrs ago -- is enough to cause a ramp in temperature. It doesn't have to be rising because it's causing a POWER imbalance and over time will cause a hockey stick or other linear shape. And likely one that has measurable delays compared to your simplistic guess for CO2.

IN FACT -- the halt in rise of TSI --- is a better explanation for the current hiatus of surface temps. In that the rise of TSI did stall about 40 years ago. And with a 40 yr "stadium wave" of reaching a new thermal equilibrium for the planet --- that's about the right picture...

And why the fuck didn't you answer my questions? "I don't have to do that" doesn't fly in basic research..

 

[itfitzme]

You need to do a LONGER time series and REMOVE the periodic components from the TSI..

Just like the yearly and multi-yearly variations are removed from you CO2 graph..

Also -- What did you use to normalize the functions? What was in the denominator?

And why do YOU think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature? Do you believe that all systems operate like that? Or just extremely simple ones.

TSI has approximated a step function.. Rose for 200 years and then flattened.. Good enough for a step function.. The existence of just ONE INTEGRAL in the transfer function of the behaviour of climate system will turn that step into a nice ramp or hockey stick.. True fact grasshopper...

Want an integral that's IN THE climate black box?? Heat storage in the oceans. That's an integrator function right there.

Create a TOA to Surface imbalance and the temperatures continue to climb. Even with a constant power balance diagram..
At least for awhile..

I don't have to do any of that. The variation that matches, matches and the variation that doesn't doesn't. TSI and CO2 are both known drivers of temp. They are all part of the same system. The sun warms the earth and atmosphere. CO2 absorbs IR. We already know, based on fundamental principles, that the will correlate. The only question is by how much. I can guarantee that when the sun is brighter, there is an immediate response. This is obvious to anyone that has been outside on a summers day and walked from shade to direct sunlight.

It doesn't take a year for the warming to accumulate. Obviously it doesn't, we have summers and winters. And those are yearly CO2, yearly TSI, and yearly temp averages. They don't even need to be yearly. They could be different month numbers for each data set. I am not trying to build a model, not trying to make precise predictions. The absolute values are irrellevant. The only interest is in the variability, the relative changes, indeed, the ratio of those relative changes. More formally, that regression is part of a large tool called "analysis of variance". All we are after here is how thing are varying. Any high frequency components that don't match just don't match. Like I said, Fourier transforms are correlation. Regression is correlation. It is all included.

Any further refinement isn't going to result in an appreciable change. CO2 os coming in at 40x greater as a driver. 2% for Sun, 80% for CO2. 18% is other stuff. There ain't no need to "think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature". I don't need to think that hitting my thumb with a hammer will hurt in order for the pain and hammer to correlate. I don't need to think that temp is responsive to CO2 and TSI for it to correlate. It either does or does not. Lo and behold, CO2 correlates. Gosh, grasshopper, so does TSI, just not as much.

This is the most fundamental aspects of scientific reasoning. a) if a physical law is true in one location, it is true in all locations b) if something is causal, it is correlated. These two axioms lead to a larger reasoning that if something is causal in one place and coorelated in another, then it is causal in that other place. It is the basis for sanity.

You can build as complicated a model as you like, refine it to monthly observations, time series lag some portion. Maybe volcanic ash will pick up some, other GHGs will pick up some. But that 40:1 is so huge that it is foolishness to believe that TSI is somehow going to miraculously swich with CO2 as being more highly correlated.

The reality is that CO2 isn't not correlated. The null hypothesis is the R^2 for CO2 is much less that R^2 for TSI. The null hypothesis is demonstratably false. Thats the thing. You can go about coming up with some more complex model. It won't change the fact that R^2-CO2 >> R^2-TSI. Some more complicated model that doesn't correlate simply proves the more complex model is wrong.

That is the biggest problem with the denialist argument. The argument being, "Because this complicated model doesn't prove CO2, then the simple model that proves CO2 is false". That is just plain stupid.

Starting from the false premise that mitigation techniques will cost you money, then trying to prove CO2 doesn't cause climate change is faulty reasoning. First off, economics isn't the correct science to apply in atmospheric physics.

But, hey, I found an online regression calculator for you. You are welcome to try. This, though, is the fundamental issue I have with con-deniers... laziness. They are all about watching other do the work while they stand around and complain about the work being done. It is "defining reality by fault finding". They all want to be on charge and tell people what to do instead of actually doing some work themselves.

You ain't presented any "true facts", grasshopper, because facts are specific, countable, measurable observations of the real world.

You've got several major problems and misconceptions. I could correlate eating carrots with car accidents --- it is NOT a causal confidence maker..

But the main problem you have is that CO2 can NOT be a 76% contributor to the process if currrently we are measuring no change in temperature for 15 years. If the "relationship" can be swamped by other effects and forcings --- it's not the dominant causal relationship.

Don't care HOW MUCH warming is "hiding" outside the thermal exchange at the surface. The effect is being swamped currently or you don't have the correct one. In ADDITION, your analysis ALSO proves that Warming causes CO2 --- a proposition that has some cred.

You are also STILL assuming that the CAUSE has to look exactly like the effect.. An assertion that is NOT EXPECTED when the entire complex climate system is studied.

Take another "climate system" that is much simpler and more familiar. Your home HVAC system..

It's job is to provide an equal amount of ENERGY for the heat loss that the home experiences. It does that with a FIXED POWER SOURCE.

Even tho the temperature of the furnace igniters and flame doesn't vary much, the heat energy produced does because of integration over time. The more the inside/outside heat difference drives the energy heat loss, the more frequent and longer the fixed power furnace will stay on.

So -- when an energy IMBALANCE EXISTS on this planet.. The forcing function for it (power in W/m2) does not have track the surface temp either. If the sun switches to a higher level of insolation and STAYS THERE --- it can produce a long lasting "ramp" in temperature to a new thermal equilibrium..

Just the fact that sun is currently "on" compared to 300 yrs ago -- is enough to cause a ramp in temperature. It doesn't have to be rising because it's causing a POWER imbalance and over time will cause a hockey stick or other linear shape. And likely one that has measurable delays compared to your simplistic guess for CO2.

IN FACT -- the halt in rise of TSI --- is a better explanation for the current hiatus of surface temps. In that the rise of TSI did stall about 40 years ago. And with a 40 yr "stadium wave" of reaching a new thermal equilibrium for the planet --- that's about the right picture...

And why the fuck didn't you answer my questions? "I don't have to do that" doesn't fly in basic research..

You've got several major problems and misconceptions. I could correlate eating carrots with car accidents --- it is NOT a causal confidence maker..

And straight out of the box you are absolutly incorrect.

We could correlate eating carrots with car accidents and the likelihood of even finding a correlation by random chance is less that our chosen alpha. If, in fact, a correlation existed then the correct thing to do is go figure out w
what the causal connection is. (Or start buying lotto tickets because you are one lucky dude)

The fault with your analogy is that a) analogies aren't proof and b) CO2 is causal by lab experiment. I already pointed that out so why are you waisting time on bullshit arguments that I already covered?

Having an apriori causal connection isn't required. If it was, we wouldn't have basic laws of physics. It is the correlation that proves the causality between force, acceleration and mass. The causality is explained later, as gravitational attraction then the warping of spacetime.

I don't need to have an understanding of the process that causes you to be wrong all the time. I need only measure that the probability of being due to random change is nearly impossible.

Heck, a monkey randomly pushing buttons would br right more often than you.

I deduce thay the causal factor is that you have some other unstated bias against the obvious conclusion of AWG. What it is is a matter of abnormal psychology.

 

[mamooth]

The board won't let me give you any rep points - says I have to spread it around first.

There are both time limits and people limits for giving rep.

You have to wait a certain amount of time between repping the same person again.

And you have to have repped a certain number of other people before you can hit the same person again.

I'm not sure what the exact number is. Somewheres in the 10-20 range. Meaning you'll probably have to make the effort to wander around a give pos rep to various people. You could go the neg-rep-everyone route, but that's not very friendly. I only neg people who neg me first.

 

[itfitzme]

But the main problem you have is that CO2 can NOT be a 76% contributor to the process if currrently we are measuring no change in temperature for 15 years. If the "relationship" can be swamped by other effects and forcings --- it's not the dominant causal relationship.

Absolutely incorrect. And, I explained this. You need to study, not go about with your constant meaningless complaints. This is not an argument or debate. I am telling you what it is and how it works. Your job is to learn.

I am not building a model that yields a precise value for each and every moment of time. I am examining the contribution of each component over the span of 1960 thru 2012. TSI contributes 2% to the overall variability. CO2 contributes 80%. 18% are due to othe factors. And all of this is the best linear unbiased estimate of the contribution given the impact of 52 years of otherwise random processes.

The job now is to add in new processes that we know also contibute, such as volcanic ash, PDO, and ADO. These will effect the coefficients, increasing and decreasing them. None of it will negate the clear fact that CO2 is a major driver. This is already demonstrated. That some additional process should offset CO2 over a shorter span of 15 years at the end of the data set simply result in an increase to the CO2 coefficient. More realistically, any factor that has an oscillatory nature will offset over some half period then add over the next. And that will change nothing to the coefficient for CO2.

I've showed you haw to do it. So if you think you have something significant, go do it. Then we will examine how you've done. Because all your imaged factors mean nothing until you have bothered to take the time, make the effort, to actually count them and do the math. I also explained this. There is nothing that you can say that I haven't ready covered.

All your replies do now is demonstrate your dedication to ignore-ance.

 

[mamooth]

From AR5, a reminder of how insignificant the solar factor is as far as global warming goes.

Total anthropogenic forcing changes, compared to 1750 -- +2.29 W/m^2
Solar changes, compared to 1750 -- +0.05 W/m^2

Put another way ... if the sun goes into a full Maunder minimum, that just delays the warming a couple years. The greenhouse gas changes vastly overwhelm any realistically conceivable solar changes.

 

[flacaltenn]

From AR5, a reminder of how insignificant the solar factor is as far as global warming goes.

Total anthropogenic forcing changes, compared to 1750 -- +2.29 W/m^2
Solar changes, compared to 1750 -- +0.05 W/m^2

Put another way ... if the sun goes into a full Maunder minimum, that just delays the warming a couple years. The greenhouse gas changes vastly overwhelm any realistically conceivable solar changes.

There is a blatant lie in that chart.. I just showed you the TSI reconstruction since 1700 and the increase in solar irradiation is 10 TIMES what the IPCC states in that chart..

Why do they lie????

 

[flacaltenn]

Like I said --- TOTAL LIE...

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/TSI_longterm/reconstr_TSI_grl_rev_submitted.pdf

This reconstruction is based on a recently observationally derived relationship
between total solar irradiance and the open solar magnetic
field. Here we show that the open solar magnetic field can be
obtained from the cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice
cores. Thus, 10Be allows to reconstruct total solar irradiance much
further back than the existing record of the sunspot number which
is usually used to reconstruct total solar irradiance. The resulting
increase in solarcycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum
to the present amounts to (0.9±0.4)Wm−2. In combination with
climate models, our reconstruction offers the possibility to test the
claimed links between climate and TSI forcing.

Big diff between 0.9W/m2 which appears in all the accepted TSI reconstructions and the IPCC BULLSHIT number of 0.05W/m2 aint there?

THey have no cred left on this topic.. Go find me ONE solid TSI reconstruction that supports their BULLSHIT... Just ONE... And let's compare the credibility factor...

 

[Abraham3]

Like I said --- TOTAL LIE...

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/TSI_longterm/reconstr_TSI_grl_rev_submitted.pdf

This reconstruction is based on a recently observationally derived relationship
between total solar irradiance and the open solar magnetic
field. Here we show that the open solar magnetic field can be
obtained from the cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice
cores. Thus, 10Be allows to reconstruct total solar irradiance much
further back than the existing record of the sunspot number which
is usually used to reconstruct total solar irradiance. The resulting
increase in solarcycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum
to the present amounts to (0.9±0.4)Wm−2. In combination with
climate models, our reconstruction offers the possibility to test the
claimed links between climate and TSI forcing.

Big diff between 0.9W/m2 which appears in all the accepted TSI reconstructions and the IPCC BULLSHIT number of 0.05W/m2 aint there?

THey have no cred left on this topic.. Go find me ONE solid TSI reconstruction that supports their BULLSHIT... Just ONE... And let's compare the credibility factor...

Did you see this in the conclusion:

Our estimated difference between the MM and the present is (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2. This is smaller by a factor of 2-4 compared to records [Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 2000] that have been used in climate model studies

 

[flacaltenn]

Like I said --- TOTAL LIE...

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/TSI_longterm/reconstr_TSI_grl_rev_submitted.pdf

This reconstruction is based on a recently observationally derived relationship
between total solar irradiance and the open solar magnetic
field. Here we show that the open solar magnetic field can be
obtained from the cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice
cores. Thus, 10Be allows to reconstruct total solar irradiance much
further back than the existing record of the sunspot number which
is usually used to reconstruct total solar irradiance. The resulting
increase in solarcycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum
to the present amounts to (0.9±0.4)Wm−2. In combination with
climate models, our reconstruction offers the possibility to test the
claimed links between climate and TSI forcing.

Big diff between 0.9W/m2 which appears in all the accepted TSI reconstructions and the IPCC BULLSHIT number of 0.05W/m2 aint there?

THey have no cred left on this topic.. Go find me ONE solid TSI reconstruction that supports their BULLSHIT... Just ONE... And let's compare the credibility factor...

Did you see this in the conclusion:

Our estimated difference between the MM and the present is (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2. This is smaller by a factor of 2-4 compared to records [Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 2000] that have been used in climate model studies

I discounted that statement because there is NO BASIS for using values 2x or 4x.. And somehow this doesn't smell right.

Bigger problem is --- the IPCC is a lying sack of shit --- don'tcha think??

[[EDIT]] Here is copy of Lean 2004 that was referenced as earlier version..
The idiot making that statement didn't understand even the abstract..

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2004-035.html

Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,
reductions ... from contemporary levels are expected during the
seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral
irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to
spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope
of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range
of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675
are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared
and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.

The bolded part is the TOTAL change which is about twice the SORCE/TIM graph I used.

Makes me think I might like to lie a little myself and start quoting these studies..

But the 4X stems from a misinterpretation of how the SPECTRAL DISTRIBUTION of energy has changed.
Which is ANOTHER MASSIVELY important solar topic that your climate gurus and the IPCC have ignored.
Even MINUTE shifts in spectral distribution can skew the GreenHouse window and change the ENTIRE energy budget
as it's been stated.

The sun's ULtraviolet output has skyrocketed. This means more TSI makes it thru the atmos to heat the ground.

Seriously doubt that any important climate models have OVERESTIMATED TSI in any meaningful way.. Wouldn't matter because they are designed to show CO2 as the principal driver of the climate..

 

[itfitzme]

From AR5, a reminder of how insignificant the solar factor is as far as global warming goes.

Total anthropogenic forcing changes, compared to 1750 -- +2.29 W/m^2
Solar changes, compared to 1750 -- +0.05 W/m^2

Put another way ... if the sun goes into a full Maunder minimum, that just delays the warming a couple years. The greenhouse gas changes vastly overwhelm any realistically conceivable solar changes.

I got about 40x. The IPCC says 45x. Okay

 

[flacaltenn]

From AR5, a reminder of how insignificant the solar factor is as far as global warming goes.

Total anthropogenic forcing changes, compared to 1750 -- +2.29 W/m^2
Solar changes, compared to 1750 -- +0.05 W/m^2

Put another way ... if the sun goes into a full Maunder minimum, that just delays the warming a couple years. The greenhouse gas changes vastly overwhelm any realistically conceivable solar changes.

I got about 40x. The IPCC says 45x. Okay

You are such a BullShit artist.. That chart is in W/m2.. Do you have an orbiting solar observatory that you're not telling us about? What you got is an act.. Your numbers are dimensionless. You are specious..

And the IPCC is a lying sack of shit.. Still waiting for a reference that says that TSI has only increased by 0.05W/m2 since 1750...

BTW Abraham --- I pondered the comment about what was used in the models being 2x or 4x.. I figured out was meant..

No one can fudge the TSI numbers from the satellite era.. They all have to agree (although ACRIM is still an unsolved outlier). So by stating that increase used in models in 2X or 4X the 1.2W/m2 since Maunder Minimum -- they are stating the uncertainty in the HISTORICAL values determined by proxy back in the 1700s.. Meaning that some studies have values for 1700 lower by those factors. NO ONE is re-interpretrating the common era measurements..

 

[mamooth]

Look at flac here, incorrectly thinking the chart value should be a simple difference of TSI values.

After that, the usual happens. Since the smart people didn't make that error and thus disagree with him, flac declares they all must be frauds. The concept that he himself could be wrong never even occurs to him.

That's denialism, a whole lot of belligerent ignorance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look at flac here, incorrectly thinking the chart value should be a simple difference of TSI values.

After that, the usual happens. Since the smart people didn't make that error and thus disagree with him, flac declares they all must be frauds. The concept that he himself could be wrong never even occurs to him.

That's denialism, a whole lot of belligerent ignorance.

Sure is denialism --- but on YOUR part --- not mine..

Why don't you tell us what that 0.05W/m2 is and where it came from?
Because the chart is clearly LABELED AND PRESENTED to be

RADIATIVE FORCING RELATIVE TO 1750 in (Watts/m2)..

And cut the crap...
Just gave you TWO references stating that this is clearly a LIE.....

PROVE me wrong you jerk-off.

 

[Abraham3]

Chill, dude(s)

 

[flacaltenn]

Chill, dude(s)

Don't know if I want to chill until folks realize how the IPCC work is utterly corrupted.

THEN -- I might dig out some Joan Baez and promulgate peace and love thru-out the land.


Take 4 and call me in the morning.

 

[itfitzme]

From AR5, a reminder of how insignificant the solar factor is as far as global warming goes.

Total anthropogenic forcing changes, compared to 1750 -- +2.29 W/m^2
Solar changes, compared to 1750 -- +0.05 W/m^2

Put another way ... if the sun goes into a full Maunder minimum, that just delays the warming a couple years. The greenhouse gas changes vastly overwhelm any realistically conceivable solar changes.

I got about 40x. The IPCC says 45x. Okay

You are such a BullShit artist.. That chart is in W/m2.. Do you have an orbiting solar observatory that you're not telling us about? What you got is an act.. Your numbers are dimensionless. You are specious..

And the IPCC is a lying sack of shit.. Still waiting for a reference that says that TSI has only increased by 0.05W/m2 since 1750...

BTW Abraham --- I pondered the comment about what was used in the models being 2x or 4x.. I figured out was meant..

No one can fudge the TSI numbers from the satellite era.. They all have to agree (although ACRIM is still an unsolved outlier). So by stating that increase used in models in 2X or 4X the 1.2W/m2 since Maunder Minimum -- they are stating the uncertainty in the HISTORICAL values determined by proxy back in the 1700s.. Meaning that some studies have values for 1700 lower by those factors. NO ONE is re-interpretrating the common era measurements..

Your comment is meaningless. The magnitudes are still comparable as CO2 accounts for 80% of the variability and TSI for 2% of the variability. That means the CO2 compared to TSI has 80% divided by 2% or 40 times greater effect on the variability in global mean temperature from 1960 through 2013. The IPCC puts it at (2.29 W/m^2)/(0.05 W/m^2) or 45.8 times the effect. And, both of the ratios are dimensionless because they are simply ratios of to numbers with identical dimensions.

So, I get about 40x. The IPCC gets about 45x. That is the same order of magetudes and in perfect agreement given that I did a basic correlation while the IPCC does a more detailed model.

The fact is that you have absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion which is why you eventually fall to calling people liars.

I completely understand that you are intellectually deficient and unable to distinguish between science and the mindless crap you spout. Calling you a liar would be generous. Rather, you are simply ignorant. You have absolutely no science to back up your bullshit.

 

[itfitzme]

Look at flac here, incorrectly thinking the chart value should be a simple difference of TSI values.

After that, the usual happens. Since the smart people didn't make that error and thus disagree with him, flac declares they all must be frauds. The concept that he himself could be wrong never even occurs to him.

That's denialism, a whole lot of belligerent ignorance.

Sure is denialism --- but on YOUR part --- not mine..

Why don't you tell us what that 0.05W/m2 is and where it came from?
Because the chart is clearly LABELED AND PRESENTED to be

RADIATIVE FORCING RELATIVE TO 1750 in (Watts/m2)..

And cut the crap...
Just gave you TWO references stating that this is clearly a LIE.....

PROVE me wrong you jerk-off.

You do that very well all by yourself.