Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Bump the avoided question.

 

That 0.00001% is a variance, not an amount, is it not? You obviusly don't even know what you are talking about.

I already explained why that variance is not a reason to dismiss other factors.

Oh by the way, I typed all of my info on my last sun spot post not copied and pastes. If I post it you claim agenda, if I cite work, you call them copy and pastes, and totally ignore them, not even read them, imagine scientists were like you, we'd still think the earth was flat. You dismiss the dissent without even understanding what is being disagreed with, and also, you don't even want to read the dissenting side's evidence. So religious it's funny

Also, I like the way you call cited experts in their fields and respectable sources and quotes as "copys and pastes".

 

Global warming started in the 50s we are told.

We now know that the planet is not warming as claimed since about 1998, it just happens to line up with a solar maunder minimum does this "pause" in AGW. Just like it lined up perfectly in the 1500s.

please log in to view this image

notice the line up of the large sunspot activity around 1800 and the following drop in the above chart before the rise again by 1850.

please log in to view this image

Here's what it looks like if you offset temp data by 50 years to overlay the trend lines to correlate.

please log in to view this image

With just a 50 year offset you can see global temp following what sun spots were doing 50 years approx before.

This would line up the current pause in warming with the low solar activity in the 70s, meaning our current low activity is not to be felt for another 50 years or so, which should be concerning as we are at extremely low solar activity atm. This also explains why around the mid to late 90s were warm, given the sun spots 50 years earlier in 1950s

The 1920s had the hottest day ever on record, 1935 the hottest year ever on record, and look at the sun spot spikes 50 years prior at about 1870. again 50 years later global temp changes match up.

The reason it takes 50 years or so for the changes to ocurr because obviously our climate alters and that takes decades to proceed to colder or hotter climates.

 

NASA solar sunspot cycle records.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt


The temp increases line up with sun spot activity with approximately a 50 year offset to global temp rises and falls.

 

That's not a reason, that's just a long way of avoiding saying you have no idea what the reason is.

So, any actual physics behind this, or is it just "match up the lines" time in playschool?

 

Can you also explain again the point of linking to an article about a large geomagnetic storm followed by a rant about the IPCC if you now agree that these storms aren't relevant for modelling climate change?

 

Isn't it healthy though to 'attack' or question the IPCC. In Wrong by David H. Freedman, he accuses the IPCC of producing what academics call “post-normal science”, while an alternative set-up calling themselves NIPCC [Nongovernmental International ....] are producing 'real science'. For example, the final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers [2014] identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC did a report addressing each point too, also summarising their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers.

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity

 

Not the way Sisu does it.

He posts articles he then admits he doesn't understand or didn't even read just because the headline could be be wrongly twisted to form an incorrect argument to attack the IPCC.

No good comes out of that. Better science not #witchhunts

The level of BS and speculation in the arguments he presents is even greater than that he claims to be opposed to when done by the IPCC

 

can you back anything you have made as an argument or shut up? All you have done is talk utter ****e and claim others are doing exactly what you are doing.

You asked me if I think the miniscule variation in irradiance should be included in modelling even after I repeatedly said irradiance is theorised as not what drives the climate.


Everything I have said and posted is relevant to incomplete IPCC modelling.

Your irrational claim "I hate the IPCC" is yet more labeling by you, you thik you are clever enough to use language to make your points in lieu of a supported argument.
You boil it down to personal and emotional levels, could you be more unscientific, and that's without getting into your religious like fanaticism like defence of the IPCC, the IPCC you clearly know nothing about, and AGW which you clearly knew nothing about until this argument came up. You believed it before even knowing what it was and believe the IPCC without even knowing what they are.

What does the bible say about climate change?

Believe it or not, you act like a US conservate in defence of your beliefs

 

In Astro's world, we must not question science or beliefs, we should just believe what is claimed, because isn't one sided arguments and attacking dissent how science advances?


All currently perceived as correct theoretical science is right, but just mainstream ideas, cos it is important to Astro to show the headcount, of which he has referred to as proof of who is right.


Astro is especially sad cos he only learns a bit about a given suibject after he disagrees with someone about it. He then goes off looking for the first link that tells him what he wants to hear.

I can quote physicists and so on, and scientific sources but as long as they not fit with Astro's opinions, then it's all just an "agenda".

 

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for those quotes of me that you promised.

Yet another lie by Sisu.

 

Seeing as Astro likes to repeat himself over and over I will keep posting this until he debunks it. Isn't that what you are supposed to do Astro.

Also, go debunk the work cited on cosmic rays and earth's cloud formations while you are at it, space influence on our weathere system that is not included in IPCC modelling, yet clouds play a very important part in climate cycles

Global warming started in the 50s we are told.

We now know that the planet is not warming as claimed since about 1998, it just happens to line up with a solar maunder minimum does this "pause" in AGW. Just like it lined up perfectly in the 1500s.

please log in to view this image

notice the line up of the large sunspot activity around 1800 and the following drop in the above chart before the rise again by 1850.

please log in to view this image

Here's what it looks like if you offset temp data by 50 years to overlay the trend lines to correlate.

please log in to view this image

With just a 50 year offset you can see global temp following what sun spots were doing 50 years approx before.

This would line up the current pause in warming with the low solar activity in the 70s, meaning our current low activity is not to be felt for another 50 years or so, which should be concerning as we are at extremely low solar activity atm. This also explains why around the mid to late 90s were warm, given the sun spots 50 years earlier in 1950s

The 1920s had the hottest day ever on record, 1935 the hottest year ever on record, and look at the sun spot spikes 50 years prior at about 1870. again 50 years later global temp changes match up.

The reason it takes 50 years or so for the changes to ocurr because obviously our climate alters and that takes decades to proceed to colder or hotter climates.

 

So astro you don't blindly follow what IPCC says do you?

 

He was blindly following the AGW mantra before he even learned anything about the IPCC or AGW as have most people who "just believe it" and I was one of those until I looked into it with an open critical mind". Astro's vitrolic defence of the IPCC is almost religious

The list of lies, fraud attacks and ruining of careers of anyone who dissents are all factual, another casualy Murry Salby, Atmospheric scientist who states that temp drives the CO2 amount, the reverse of the IPCC claim, was sacked and basically shut out, just because of this dissent.

Look up Murry Salby and unlike Astro, actually listen to his argument. He is one of thousands of scientists calling bullshit on the IPCC alarmist cack and hocus pocus models.

Any other scientific work regarding influences on our weather system\ climate system that is not part of the IPCC models, is just wrong according to the believers.

 

Contrary to Sisu's lies (ask him to quote me saying 97% and see how far you get ), I don't give any particular **** about what the IPCC says.

Whether the IPCC is right or wrong doesn't excuse Sisu talking absolute ****e about science.

Climate change is just one of the science topics on this thread he has a complete ignorance of, and in all cases he loves to worship exposed frauds as the heroic lone voice against the big evil conspiracy.

 

More than once you referred to everyone agreeing. I clearly stated to you that consensus is not science. Consensus has been your strongest defence, which shows how much you actually contributed to the discussion, as in **** all.


Any science that is offered as a way to indicate IPCC modelling (which is always wrong) is incomplete sends you off on a rant about agenda.

You refuse to accept they (IPCC) have been caught lying, frauding data and manipulating the public as well as trying to actively sabotage less alarmist institutions though impersonation and release of information.

 

If I said it more than once it should be easy to quote me then

 

I looked him up, it says he fiddled his time sheets and that's why he was sacked

I'm not on any side on this subject because as happens many times, there's always two sides, both convincing, so it comes down to what each individual thinks is the most convincing.

 

The global warming lie boils down to this.
.6 degrees in 100 years
man made IF and only If AGW is real, which has not been proven with empirical sceince at all, is 5%(or less, man's share of Co2 output of .6 degrees which is 0.03 degrees

So, if man made CO2 is causing AGW, IF, then it has caused less than 0.03 degrees cos that's over 100 years, whereas industrial output only ramped up since the 60s, meaning man made warming IF AGW is true, amounts to about 0.015 degrees.

So even if AGW is real, which it is most likely not, there is clear evidence that the planet is not on or near a runaway warming cycle as claimed by those nuts in the beginning.



But lets forget all that for a moment.

The IPCC have been wrong on everything, weather, temps, hurricanes floods, everything WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Now, If Astro was doing battle with the IPCC instead of me, one can imagine his reaction to IPCC posting wrong information and forecasts givven how he went off the deep end when I inadvertantly called coronal holes sun spots a few posts back.