What has caused our global warming?

[R.D.]

A thread with "Global Warming" in the title, but "Climate Change" in the body.

Which the fuck is it?

Who the fuck cares? I REALLY hope you have more of an argument than that.

Um, like, because they refer to two different physical phenomena

 

[editec]

I doubt there is only one source of GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Many things create the state of a planet's climate and I suspect that many things are probably effecting ours right now, too.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ever looked up to see that big, warm, yellow thingamajig in the daytime sky?

I hear it told that it is 99.5% of the total mass of the entire solar system.

When it changes, we change.

Tell me, do you like displaying your ignorance publically? The TSI has been declining as of late, but we are still warming.

Changed relation between sunspot numbers, solar UV/EUV radiation and TSI during the declining phase of solar cycle 23

Abstract
We study the mutual relation of sunspot numbers and several proxies of solar UV/EUV radiation, such as the F10.7 radio flux, the HeI 1083 nm equivalent width and the solar MgII core-to-wing ratio. It has been noted earlier that the relation between these solar activity parameters changed in 2001/2002, during a large enhancement of solar activity in the early declining phase of solar cycle 23. This enhancement (the secondary peak after the Gnevyshev gap) forms the maximum of solar UV/EUV parameters during solar cycle 23. We note that the changed mutual relation between sunspot numbers and UV/EUV proxies continues systematically during the whole declining phase of solar cycle 23, with the UV/EUV proxies attaining relatively larger values for the same sunspot number than during the several decennia prior to this time. We have also verified this evolution using the indirect solar UV/EUV proxy given by a globally averaged f0(F2) frequency of the ionospheric F2 layer. We also note of a simultaneous, systematic change in the relation between the sunspot numbers and the total solar irradiance, which follow an exceptionally steep relation leading to a new minimum. Our results suggest that the reduction of sunspot magnetic fields (probably photospheric fields in general), started quite abruptly in 2001/2002. While these changes do not similarly affect the chromospheric UV/EUV emissions, the TSI suffers an even more dramatic reduction, which cannot be understood in terms of the photospheric field reduction only. However, the changes in TSI are seen to be simultaneous to those in sunspots, so most likely being due to the same ultimate cause.

So, while the TSI, total solar irradiance is declining, we get 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. So the sun is not a factor in the increasing heat here on earth. And since that heat is controlled by two factors, how much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy we retain, something has changed in the way we retain heat. And that is the amount of heat retaining gases in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4, and a bunch of industrial gases which have no natural analog. Some of which are thousands of times as effective GHGs as CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

I doubt there is only one source of GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Many things create the state of a planet's climate and I suspect that many things are probably effecting ours right now, too.

In the short run, there are many factors that control how warm or cool the earth is from year to year. In the long run, only two. How much heat we get from the sun, and how much we retain. Right now, the amount of heat from the sun is declining slightly. However, we have added major amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. And that has changed how much heat is being retained.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

 

[westwall]

So, you guys have gone to the pure-graphic-strategy.

A picture IS worth a thousand words......though in your case it's worth 10,000 words.

 

[westwall]

I doubt there is only one source of GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Many things create the state of a planet's climate and I suspect that many things are probably effecting ours right now, too.

A phrase right out of Art Bell.

 

[westwall]

I doubt there is only one source of GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Many things create the state of a planet's climate and I suspect that many things are probably effecting ours right now, too.

In the short run, there are many factors that control how warm or cool the earth is from year to year. In the long run, only two. How much heat we get from the sun, and how much we retain. Right now, the amount of heat from the sun is declining slightly. However, we have added major amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. And that has changed how much heat is being retained.

Mans TOTAL contribution is less than 5%. A few billion tons added to an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons is laughable.

Save in the fevered imaginations of the science fiction crowd.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What has caused our global warming?

Altered data fed into computer models that can only give the result "ManMade Global Warming!"

 

[flacaltenn]

Ever looked up to see that big, warm, yellow thingamajig in the daytime sky?

I hear it told that it is 99.5% of the total mass of the entire solar system.

When it changes, we change.

Look it up. It's in the graph. TSI data is available many places. It simply has not provided enough excess energy to come anywhere NEAR the amount of warming we've experienced. Why do you think FlaCalTenn had to hypothesize some magical 30 year, non-linear, non-thermal (and so far completely, by-him-uncharacterized) delay mechanism in order to build up enough forcing to suddenly push temperatures up?

And, really, do you really think that out of thousands of PhD climate scientists, not one thought to check the sun?

That's damn cheap shot clearly indicating that you didn't understand the subject.. That idea of thermal inertia that was OBVIOUS to anyone with science skills is NOW TODAY being validated in paper after paper and YOU KNOW THAT --- But yet you DENY IT..

We just discussed the Max Planck paper LAST WEEK.. The one making excuses for the HIATUS in warming by claiming that a big ball of stuff like the Earth with complicated HEAT STORAGE and flows might take ONE HUNDRED years to reach an environmental equilibrium from a spike in any warming source.. Doesn't MATTER whether it's the sun or CO2. What did those old tired warmers at Max Planck cite as the Technical Term for these delays???

I believe they called it "thermal inertia".... BullWinkle.

Ole FlaCalTenn was just 8 or 10 years AHEAD of what REAL climate science is being done. And you are still channeling Wikipedia and SkepticalScience..

 

[flacaltenn]

Wikipedia is one of the best parts of the internet. A ton of knowledge that is easy to find in one spot

Legitimate institutions of education dissuade their student from using it as a source.

But then you don't believe in education do you?

They do. But, we're not an educational institution, are we. Wikipedia has been demonstrated to be at least as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

That's True.. I was skeptical about Wikis and Wikis can be abused, but THE WIKIPEDIA is very good.. (other wikis suckk) However -- that is all consensus knowledge like an encyclopedia and is NOT designed to be tutorial or comprehensive or even highly technical.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What happened to "The Pacific Ocean ate all the global warming"?

 

[flacaltenn]

I doubt there is only one source of GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Many things create the state of a planet's climate and I suspect that many things are probably effecting ours right now, too.

That's the main problem here. So much focus on ONE forcing and a purposeful underestimation of others..

Asking this OP question is based on the CONSTRUCT of a GLOBAL AVERAGE of temperatures. It really tells us almost NOTHING about how the Climate System DISTRIBUTES that heat or what the impacts will be. The Earth doesn't even have ONE UNIFIED climate system.

So these "averages" are a bad place to start looking for the CAUSES of the warming.. This OP question is like me knowing the AVERAGE historical temperature for Hillbilly Hollywood on March 10th and PANICKING because the ACTUALS are never even CLOSE to the average.

We've been bamboozled by looking at ancient records of PROXY temperatures. These are not thermometers.. They are tree rings, ice cores, mud bugs and isotope counts. And they CANNOT SHOW the REAL historical variances over such short a time as Abe is panicked about. CERTAINLY not globally.. So we have been conditioned to believe that the climate system SHOULD BE flatlined in temperature and that there rreally is a CONSTANT sun.

That's 18th century belief.. And folks that can't imagine how natural variance can induce a half degree spike here and there are the real deniers..

 

[flacaltenn]

Ever looked up to see that big, warm, yellow thingamajig in the daytime sky?

I hear it told that it is 99.5% of the total mass of the entire solar system.

When it changes, we change.

Tell me, do you like displaying your ignorance publically? The TSI has been declining as of late, but we are still warming.

Changed relation between sunspot numbers, solar UV/EUV radiation and TSI during the declining phase of solar cycle 23

Abstract
We study the mutual relation of sunspot numbers and several proxies of solar UV/EUV radiation, such as the F10.7 radio flux, the HeI 1083 nm equivalent width and the solar MgII core-to-wing ratio. It has been noted earlier that the relation between these solar activity parameters changed in 2001/2002, during a large enhancement of solar activity in the early declining phase of solar cycle 23. This enhancement (the secondary peak after the Gnevyshev gap) forms the maximum of solar UV/EUV parameters during solar cycle 23. We note that the changed mutual relation between sunspot numbers and UV/EUV proxies continues systematically during the whole declining phase of solar cycle 23, with the UV/EUV proxies attaining relatively larger values for the same sunspot number than during the several decennia prior to this time. We have also verified this evolution using the indirect solar UV/EUV proxy given by a globally averaged f0(F2) frequency of the ionospheric F2 layer. We also note of a simultaneous, systematic change in the relation between the sunspot numbers and the total solar irradiance, which follow an exceptionally steep relation leading to a new minimum. Our results suggest that the reduction of sunspot magnetic fields (probably photospheric fields in general), started quite abruptly in 2001/2002. While these changes do not similarly affect the chromospheric UV/EUV emissions, the TSI suffers an even more dramatic reduction, which cannot be understood in terms of the photospheric field reduction only. However, the changes in TSI are seen to be simultaneous to those in sunspots, so most likely being due to the same ultimate cause.

So, while the TSI, total solar irradiance is declining, we get 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. So the sun is not a factor in the increasing heat here on earth. And since that heat is controlled by two factors, how much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy we retain, something has changed in the way we retain heat. And that is the amount of heat retaining gases in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4, and a bunch of industrial gases which have no natural analog. Some of which are thousands of times as effective GHGs as CO2.

TSI has a large 22 year cycle imposed on top of the AVERAGE.. The GWarmers have ABUSED this fact to HIDE the absolute fact that Solar Irradiation reached a 200 YEAR HIGH back in the 70s and the AVERAGE TSI has virtually remained there since. Quit drinking the KoolAid and go see for yourself..

Why would you expect that something the size of the Earth would REACT thermally and reach equilibrium in just a matter of years accounting. See my comments above about Thermal Inertia and Max Planck et al.....


SUNSPOT COUNTS donot equal Total Solar Irradiance..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I doubt there is only one source of GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Many things create the state of a planet's climate and I suspect that many things are probably effecting ours right now, too.

In the short run, there are many factors that control how warm or cool the earth is from year to year. In the long run, only two. How much heat we get from the sun, and how much we retain. Right now, the amount of heat from the sun is declining slightly. However, we have added major amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. And that has changed how much heat is being retained.

The heat we get from the Sun is declining slightly....and there's been no global warming these past 15 years

Hmmm.

You don't suppose the 2 are linked, do ya?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ever looked up to see that big, warm, yellow thingamajig in the daytime sky?

I hear it told that it is 99.5% of the total mass of the entire solar system.

When it changes, we change.

Tell me, do you like displaying your ignorance publically? The TSI has been declining as of late, but we are still warming.

Changed relation between sunspot numbers, solar UV/EUV radiation and TSI during the declining phase of solar cycle 23

Abstract
We study the mutual relation of sunspot numbers and several proxies of solar UV/EUV radiation, such as the F10.7 radio flux, the HeI 1083 nm equivalent width and the solar MgII core-to-wing ratio. It has been noted earlier that the relation between these solar activity parameters changed in 2001/2002, during a large enhancement of solar activity in the early declining phase of solar cycle 23. This enhancement (the secondary peak after the Gnevyshev gap) forms the maximum of solar UV/EUV parameters during solar cycle 23. We note that the changed mutual relation between sunspot numbers and UV/EUV proxies continues systematically during the whole declining phase of solar cycle 23, with the UV/EUV proxies attaining relatively larger values for the same sunspot number than during the several decennia prior to this time. We have also verified this evolution using the indirect solar UV/EUV proxy given by a globally averaged f0(F2) frequency of the ionospheric F2 layer. We also note of a simultaneous, systematic change in the relation between the sunspot numbers and the total solar irradiance, which follow an exceptionally steep relation leading to a new minimum. Our results suggest that the reduction of sunspot magnetic fields (probably photospheric fields in general), started quite abruptly in 2001/2002. While these changes do not similarly affect the chromospheric UV/EUV emissions, the TSI suffers an even more dramatic reduction, which cannot be understood in terms of the photospheric field reduction only. However, the changes in TSI are seen to be simultaneous to those in sunspots, so most likely being due to the same ultimate cause.

So, while the TSI, total solar irradiance is declining, we get 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. So the sun is not a factor in the increasing heat here on earth. And since that heat is controlled by two factors, how much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy we retain, something has changed in the way we retain heat. And that is the amount of heat retaining gases in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4, and a bunch of industrial gases which have no natural analog. Some of which are thousands of times as effective GHGs as CO2.

TSI has a large 22 year cycle imposed on top of the AVERAGE.. The GWarmers have ABUSED this fact to HIDE the absolute fact that Solar Irradiation reached a 200 YEAR HIGH back in the 70s and the AVERAGE TSI has virtually remained there since. Quit drinking the KoolAid and go see for yourself..

Why would you expect that something the size of the Earth would REACT thermally and reach equilibrium in just a matter of years accounting. See my comments above about Thermal Inertia and Max Planck et al.....


SUNSPOT COUNTS donot equal Total Solar Irradiance..

You're right about temperature warming past "peak" as the typical day and warmest part of the year occurs after this point. This has to do with the surplus energy being more then enough to keep warming the system past that point until it crosses the point where the energy is moving out of the system more then warming the system. Imagine a graph with more energy going in then going out and then turning around to be the opposite as we start to cool.

This is why July and 3-4pm is warmer then June and 12pm.

This is why the warmers also talk about the warming lasting hundreds of years as the system keeps warming....

The rest of your post I don't know one way or the other. Looking at history and the way solar energy was measured would tell me the opposite...Many people would believe that the sun spots have a lot to do with the little ice age.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell me, do you like displaying your ignorance publically? The TSI has been declining as of late, but we are still warming.

Changed relation between sunspot numbers, solar UV/EUV radiation and TSI during the declining phase of solar cycle 23

Abstract
We study the mutual relation of sunspot numbers and several proxies of solar UV/EUV radiation, such as the F10.7 radio flux, the HeI 1083 nm equivalent width and the solar MgII core-to-wing ratio. It has been noted earlier that the relation between these solar activity parameters changed in 2001/2002, during a large enhancement of solar activity in the early declining phase of solar cycle 23. This enhancement (the secondary peak after the Gnevyshev gap) forms the maximum of solar UV/EUV parameters during solar cycle 23. We note that the changed mutual relation between sunspot numbers and UV/EUV proxies continues systematically during the whole declining phase of solar cycle 23, with the UV/EUV proxies attaining relatively larger values for the same sunspot number than during the several decennia prior to this time. We have also verified this evolution using the indirect solar UV/EUV proxy given by a globally averaged f0(F2) frequency of the ionospheric F2 layer. We also note of a simultaneous, systematic change in the relation between the sunspot numbers and the total solar irradiance, which follow an exceptionally steep relation leading to a new minimum. Our results suggest that the reduction of sunspot magnetic fields (probably photospheric fields in general), started quite abruptly in 2001/2002. While these changes do not similarly affect the chromospheric UV/EUV emissions, the TSI suffers an even more dramatic reduction, which cannot be understood in terms of the photospheric field reduction only. However, the changes in TSI are seen to be simultaneous to those in sunspots, so most likely being due to the same ultimate cause.

So, while the TSI, total solar irradiance is declining, we get 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. So the sun is not a factor in the increasing heat here on earth. And since that heat is controlled by two factors, how much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy we retain, something has changed in the way we retain heat. And that is the amount of heat retaining gases in the atmosphere. We have added 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4, and a bunch of industrial gases which have no natural analog. Some of which are thousands of times as effective GHGs as CO2.

TSI has a large 22 year cycle imposed on top of the AVERAGE.. The GWarmers have ABUSED this fact to HIDE the absolute fact that Solar Irradiation reached a 200 YEAR HIGH back in the 70s and the AVERAGE TSI has virtually remained there since. Quit drinking the KoolAid and go see for yourself..

Why would you expect that something the size of the Earth would REACT thermally and reach equilibrium in just a matter of years accounting. See my comments above about Thermal Inertia and Max Planck et al.....


SUNSPOT COUNTS donot equal Total Solar Irradiance..

You're right about temperature warming past "peak" as the typical day and warmest part of the year occurs after this point. This has to do with the surplus energy being more then enough to keep warming the system past that point until it crosses the point where the energy is moving out of the system more then warming the system. Imagine a graph with more energy going in then going out and then turning around to be the opposite as we start to cool.

This is why July and 3-4pm is warmer then June and 12pm.

This is why the warmers also talk about the warming lasting hundreds of years as the system keeps warming....

The rest of your post I don't know one way or the other. Looking at history and the way solar energy was measured would tell me the opposite...Many people would believe that the sun spots have a lot to do with the little ice age.

Sunspots are RELATED to the total output of the sun in that their activity coincides with the 22 yr cycle dynamics riding ON TOP OF the average total solar output.. But the number of sunspots does not MEASURE the actual Total Solar Irradiance. GW zealots love to confuse the two effects so that they can DISCOUNT the large increase in solar output since 1750.

I post this for the 30th time.. THIS is what the TOTAL output of the sun has done since 1700s... The little squigglies indicating the individual periodic solar cycles is NOT what matters to a big ball of stuff like the Earth.. Those are SHORT TERM variations in the scope of Climate...

 

[Abraham3]

The latest reconstruction

SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data

This historical reconstruction of TSI is based on that used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group’s Assessment Report and utilizes TSI reconstructions by N. Krivova et al. (see references below). The values from their SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) to match the latest SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014, and is updated annually as new TIM data are available.
References
1) N.A. Krivova, L.E.A. Vieira, S.K. Solanki (2010).
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Volume 115, Issue A12, CiteID A12112. DOI:10.1029/2010JA015431
2) Ball, W. T.; Unruh, Y. C.; Krivova, N. A.; Solanki, S.; Wenzler, T.; Mortlock, D. J.; Jaffe, A. H. (2012).
Astronomy & Astrophysics, 541, id.A27. DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/201118702
3) K. L. Yeo, N. A. Krivova, S. K. Solanki, and K. H. Glassmeier.
Astronomy & Astrophysics, “Reconstruction of total and spectral solar irradiance since 1974 based on KPVT, SoHO/MDI and SDO/HMI observations,” 2014, submitted

Inadequate to have caused more than a very small fraction of the observed warming. The dominant cause of the observed warming has been Greenhouse Warming from human GHG emissions and deforestation.

 

[flacaltenn]

What's the point?? All points shifted DOWN by a couple tenths.. Message recieved.. The INCREASE is still the same.. And it can be a SUBSTANTIAL portion of the observed warming in terms of ENERGY not POWER.

Don't expect you to get that subtle but IMPORTANT distinction --- but ponder it a bit.. Shouldn't hurt much.

 

[Abraham3]

No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.

PS: Graph reading 1.0: the increase is NOT the same.