I don't like your words, so that if you walk in any way, I shall not follow your way, and if you like any way, I shall not like it. So away from my face and I shall be happy :grin: . Praise be to God that I don't hear your voice.
Do you want some first aid for the hole you just shot in your foot, yet again. Or should I help you pull the other one out of your mouth first?
That article is from 2003.
Despite being on the lower end of the solar cycle, global temperatures are still rising. That isn't to say that solar cycles do not have an effect, but that effect is truly minimal, and doesn't explain the increase in global temps for the last 30-40 years:
But the sun isn't right next door, doesn't the distance play some factor into when the radiation will be felt here?
Honestly, I have no idea what a lot of your views are on this. I don't know if you lean towards the unrealistic view of what science is like Captain Morgan. I don't know if you think the IPCC arrives at pre-made conclusions like he does. I don't know what you think on a whole host of issues relevant here.
Well, I knid of view the whole thing like the series Lost.
I don't even know where to start anymore.
Of course. At work we inject our control fish with saline, the same volume as the treatment groups get.
Modeling experiments use control runs too.
How can you find a consistent and constant on "climate"? It isn't an exact science.
That's good. If you take those each by themselves, there's all sorts of things which could cause them separately. Increase in solar could cause more tropospheric warming. But it wouldn't cause ocean acidification, and it wouldn't cause the stratosphere to cool.
Why wouldn't it cause ocean acidification. If I leave a glass of saline solution in the sun, it gets saltier as the water evaporates.
Many volcanoes erupting could cause ocean acidification, but it would cool the troposphere and warm the stratosphere. Enhanced greenhouse is the only cause which satisfies all of the parameters we are measuring. The so-called fingerprints of each suspect are distinct, because the physics of each, are different. A forcing of 1 watt per square meter is still adding the same amount of heat, but depending on what perturbation is causing that forcing, will determine the character of the climactic change we observe.
You keep trying to explain this to me, like we share a University degree.
I'm a welder/fabricator, not a scholar. Although I appreciate the assumption that I get it, lol.
The IPCC never dismissed solar, and the IPCC is reviewing the literature that is out there. Solar was a big part of the early warming in the 20th century. The climatologists have studied this in detail. The second half of the 20th century has seen a decrease in the solar forcing. In fact, as the last decade has been the warmest decade we've measured, the solar forcing has been in a deep minimum, the lowest of the past century. So, while solar has impacted our climate, and will continue to, at present it is actually damping the warming we would otherwise be experiencing.
And again, if solar were dominating the enhanced greenhouse, then we would not see a cooling stratosphere.
I'll have to take yours and Mentalfloss' word for it.
Yes, most people will admit the world is changing. Some don't. Some think the planet is cooling. Why they are wrong goes back to my rabble about statistics.
I hate stats. I like things I can touch and feel. I'm rudimentary like that.
Sure. Paleoclimate studies are very important. They help to constrain our estimates of how sensitive the climate is to forced changes. Which helps us narrow the bounds when we look to the future. A remarkable detail is that large changes, are more likely than very small changes. Or going back to the statistics, there have been climate changes that are way, way out on the tail end of the distribution. Highly significant. Outliers, sure, but highly significant.
Isn't that sort of contradicting what you said about the fringe of the bell curve model?
Those times in the past where the climate has responded extremely to changes, that's not comforting, and if anything the uncertainty with regards to the future should be an impetus to act, not to wait and see.
No arguments there, from the very beginning I've said we need to stop pollution as a whole, full stop.
No. I'll explain.
A correlation by itself is meaningless. But that's not all we have. We have experiments that prove that some gases will become excited, and the bonds between the atoms in a greenhouse molecule will vibrate and rotate, and contort. This increases the energy stored in the molecule, chemists would call the molecule excited. Molecules will release energy to go back to their rest state. So when the infrared energy is bounced off our planet, and up into the atmosphere, the greenhouse bonds resonate as the infrared hits them. They absorb that energy, become excited, and release that energy.
We have measured less energy escaping to space. If the planet warms because of more solar, then the energy leaving goes up, as our planet warms. If the planet warms because we have a stronger greenhouse effect, then less energy returns to space, which also means the stratosphere cools.
So, we have observations, experimental data, and a theory which is agreeing with the observed evidence.
OK, I actually get that, thanx.
I'll say then, that we are very much part of the issue.
So where do we go from here?
