flacaltenn
Diamond Member
- Jun 9, 2011
- 67,573
- 22,962
Here is a comparison of the IPCC lie with a bunch of different studies showing the full TSI
reconstructions..
First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..
This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...
And here is reference from Nasa scientist Judith Lean. Ya know,, one of dem dam gubmint scientists that you guys love..
0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?
reconstructions..
First chart is reconstruction using ONLY sunspot numbers. No radiative proxies.
Second chart is 4 different studies using MULTIPLE proxies including isotopic dating that preserve the long term trend and baseline..
This is from a landmark compendium of knowledge about TSI from 2 of the very top scientists in the field. Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean.. Figure 30...
And here is reference from Nasa scientist Judith Lean. Ya know,, one of dem dam gubmint scientists that you guys love..
Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)
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%.
0.002 * 1364 === 2.7W/m2 Shall we use that? or stick with the 1.2W/m2 that I use?
Last edited: