## Climate Change

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Aardwolf wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.
The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?
The temp data is the degree of + or - deviation from the average sea-land temperature between 1951-1980.
Source: NASA GISS.

Regarding the TSI data that you're seeing of 1366, I am assuming it is the average for the 1951-1980 period but not fully confirmed this. You can read about the origin of that data here:-
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant

And here:-
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-clim ... i_1611.txt

You can probably work out the average TSI for 1951-1980 there.
Where's the evidence that 1366 TSI is equivalent to 14C? That's the arbitrary element I'm interested in. What empirical evidence is driving the placing of the scales on each y-axis? If you dont have the answer just say so and then we can agree it's arbitrary and of limited scientific value. It's certainly not good enough to prove a specific timing of causation.
I have explained it already. These are not arbitrary values - they are recordings from land and sea over the time-period that I stated. Are you assuming they are false? Fine. Then you need to present extraordinary evidence that they are false. The 1951-1980 average temperature is used, but a longer temperature series could've equally been used. The point is, that after 1979 - the temperature exceeds the average value for this period, while solar activity/sunspots (which formerly showed a closer trend with temp) remains high but does not keep in line with the temperature. This is the "30 year" issue which is brought up by climate scientists when talking about the relationship between the sun and temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Aardwolf wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.
The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?
The temp data is the degree of + or - deviation from the average sea-land temperature between 1951-1980.
Source: NASA GISS.

Regarding the TSI data that you're seeing of 1366, I am assuming it is the average for the 1951-1980 period but not fully confirmed this. You can read about the origin of that data here:-
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant

And here:-
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-clim ... i_1611.txt

You can probably work out the average TSI for 1951-1980 there.
Where's the evidence that 1366 TSI is equivalent to 14C? That's the arbitrary element I'm interested in. What empirical evidence is driving the placing of the scales on each y-axis? If you dont have the answer just say so and then we can agree it's arbitrary and of limited scientific value. It's certainly not good enough to prove a specific timing of causation.
I have explained it already. These are not arbitrary values - they are recordings from land and sea over the time-period that I stated. Are you assuming they are false? Fine. Then you need to present extraordinary evidence that they are false. The 1951-1980 average temperature is used, but a longer temperature series could've equally been used. The point is, that after 1979 - the temperature exceeds the average value for this period, while solar activity/sunspots (which formerly showed a closer trend with temp) remains high but does not keep in line with the temperature. This is the "30 year" issue which is brought up by climate scientists when talking about the relationship between the sun and temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm
You haven't explained anything at all. It's not the specific values themselves that I am questioning. I am questioning why 1366 TSI is the equivalent to 14 degrees centigrade? This is required because if you wish to state there is a divergence from 1980 onward then the author of the graph has decided that from 1880 to 1980 they are equivalent measurements. Where is the proof/study/evidence that this is so?

I suspect you just fundamentaly cannot understand what that graph is showing.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Here is a more accurate representation of that data where I assume 0 TSI is equivalent to 0 Kelvin (seems fair) and the increments on each y axis have a linear relationship. Although that may not be correct, it's no less correct than the arbitrary incremental spacing used by the original source.

Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Aardwolf wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.
The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?
The temp data is the degree of + or - deviation from the average sea-land temperature between 1951-1980.
Source: NASA GISS.

Regarding the TSI data that you're seeing of 1366, I am assuming it is the average for the 1951-1980 period but not fully confirmed this. You can read about the origin of that data here:-
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant

And here:-
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-clim ... i_1611.txt

You can probably work out the average TSI for 1951-1980 there.
Where's the evidence that 1366 TSI is equivalent to 14C? That's the arbitrary element I'm interested in. What empirical evidence is driving the placing of the scales on each y-axis? If you dont have the answer just say so and then we can agree it's arbitrary and of limited scientific value. It's certainly not good enough to prove a specific timing of causation.
I have explained it already. These are not arbitrary values - they are recordings from land and sea over the time-period that I stated. Are you assuming they are false? Fine. Then you need to present extraordinary evidence that they are false. The 1951-1980 average temperature is used, but a longer temperature series could've equally been used. The point is, that after 1979 - the temperature exceeds the average value for this period, while solar activity/sunspots (which formerly showed a closer trend with temp) remains high but does not keep in line with the temperature. This is the "30 year" issue which is brought up by climate scientists when talking about the relationship between the sun and temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm
You haven't explained anything at all. It's not the specific values themselves that I am questioning. I am questioning why 1366 TSI is the equivalent to 14 degrees centigrade? This is required because if you wish to state there is a divergence from 1980 onward then the author of the graph has decided that from 1880 to 1980 they are equivalent measurements. Where is the proof/study/evidence that this is so?

I suspect you just fundamentaly cannot understand what that graph is showing.
I have no idea what you're going on about. Clearly it is you who has misunderstood it, whereas virtually everybody else on the internet and serious scientific community knows exactly what it states. You're questionning something being "14C", yet you don't bother looking at the fact that the graph is based on actual empirical data and the averages of which I stated for the period. From 1980 onwards, temperatures exceeded the 1950-1980 period by a x+ anomaly while TSI (which was formely rising with temperature) no longer rose with temperature. There is no "author decided here". Only in your conspiratorial head.

I suspect you haven't read the link I provided for you either.

Thanks for taking this thread off-topic. I was having a constructive discussion with orrery as to formulating an understanding of how our sun warms this climate, some answers regarding ionization in the upper atmosphere (and HOW it can lead to warming rather than cooling), cosmic rays and their role and dynamics, SIM/TIM issues, etc. I intend to continue that discussion with him once I get the time, rather than waste time with fudging stats with you.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

PersianPaladin wrote:I have no idea what you're going on about. Clearly it is you who has misunderstood it, whereas virtually everybody else on the internet and serious scientific community knows exactly what it states. You're questionning something being "14C", yet you don't bother looking at the fact that the graph is based on actual empirical data and the averages of which I stated for the period. From 1980 onwards, temperatures exceeded the 1950-1980 period by a x+ anomaly while TSI (which was formely rising with temperature) no longer rose with temperature. There is no "author decided here". Only in your conspiratorial head.
Again, I'm not questioning the figures provided, only the positioning of the data on the 2 y-axis's. The 14C figure is the equivalent of the 0 movement as taken from NASA GISS meta data for the graph at the following link;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt
Extract:
NASA wrote:Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C or 57.2 deg-F,
so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale
By the the way, is that the same "serious scientific communilty" that doesn't accept electricity is present in space?
I try to avoid science advocacy sites as much as possible if I can, although there's nothing there answering my question.
PersianPaladin wrote:Thanks for taking this thread off-topic. I was having a constructive discussion with orrery as to formulating an understanding of how our sun warms this climate, some answers regarding ionization in the upper atmosphere (and HOW it can lead to warming rather than cooling), cosmic rays and their role and dynamics, SIM/TIM issues, etc. I intend to continue that discussion with him once I get the time, rather than waste time with fudging stats with you.
It would probably help if you understood the graphs you are supplying and their limitations.

orrery
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

I am still here, I have been waiting for the weekend. Week before Christmas and have been busy. I have been keeping my brain tuned to the subject matter and will dive back in over my Christmas break as family activities allow.

I have been looking for a chart or graph that might indicate the intensity or rate of occurrence of the Aurora. Perhaps a trending measurement for auroral activity for the past 100 years may provide some perspective data.

I found this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/a ... un-blamed/

But if anyone else can help look for graphs and such that would be great. I am swamped with work and am pushing it just squeezing in this short post
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Aardwolf wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:I have no idea what you're going on about. Clearly it is you who has misunderstood it, whereas virtually everybody else on the internet and serious scientific community knows exactly what it states. You're questionning something being "14C", yet you don't bother looking at the fact that the graph is based on actual empirical data and the averages of which I stated for the period. From 1980 onwards, temperatures exceeded the 1950-1980 period by a x+ anomaly while TSI (which was formely rising with temperature) no longer rose with temperature. There is no "author decided here". Only in your conspiratorial head.
Again, I'm not questioning the figures provided, only the positioning of the data on the 2 y-axis's. The 14C figure is the equivalent of the 0 movement as taken from NASA GISS meta data for the graph at the following link;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt
Extract:
NASA wrote:Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C or 57.2 deg-F,
so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale
By the the way, is that the same "serious scientific communilty" that doesn't accept electricity is present in space?
I try to avoid science advocacy sites as much as possible if I can, although there's nothing there answering my question.
PersianPaladin wrote:Thanks for taking this thread off-topic. I was having a constructive discussion with orrery as to formulating an understanding of how our sun warms this climate, some answers regarding ionization in the upper atmosphere (and HOW it can lead to warming rather than cooling), cosmic rays and their role and dynamics, SIM/TIM issues, etc. I intend to continue that discussion with him once I get the time, rather than waste time with fudging stats with you.
It would probably help if you understood the graphs you are supplying and their limitations.
You're the only one questionning it.

Look at the data again, and do the math for the period 1950 to 1980, taking each decimal increment per annum. Also look at the figures post 1980 and notice how many positive values there are compared to before. That's the only argument I need to make here. From 1980 onwards - for a 30 year period there is a higher average temp than the 1951-1980 period. During the 1950-1980 period the solar data generally follows the temperature fluctuations - but that relationship cuts off from 1979/80 as the graph shows.

I don't want to argue over your "14C" point anymore. It's a waste of time really.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Aardwolf wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:I have no idea what you're going on about. Clearly it is you who has misunderstood it, whereas virtually everybody else on the internet and serious scientific community knows exactly what it states. You're questionning something being "14C", yet you don't bother looking at the fact that the graph is based on actual empirical data and the averages of which I stated for the period. From 1980 onwards, temperatures exceeded the 1950-1980 period by a x+ anomaly while TSI (which was formely rising with temperature) no longer rose with temperature. There is no "author decided here". Only in your conspiratorial head.
Again, I'm not questioning the figures provided, only the positioning of the data on the 2 y-axis's. The 14C figure is the equivalent of the 0 movement as taken from NASA GISS meta data for the graph at the following link;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt
Extract:
NASA wrote:Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C or 57.2 deg-F,
so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale
By the the way, is that the same "serious scientific communilty" that doesn't accept electricity is present in space?
I try to avoid science advocacy sites as much as possible if I can, although there's nothing there answering my question.
PersianPaladin wrote:Thanks for taking this thread off-topic. I was having a constructive discussion with orrery as to formulating an understanding of how our sun warms this climate, some answers regarding ionization in the upper atmosphere (and HOW it can lead to warming rather than cooling), cosmic rays and their role and dynamics, SIM/TIM issues, etc. I intend to continue that discussion with him once I get the time, rather than waste time with fudging stats with you.
It would probably help if you understood the graphs you are supplying and their limitations.
You're the only one questionning it.
Rubbish. Numerous sites critic graphs like that and what its supposed to represent; genuinely skeptical ones not fake skeptical ones. Here's a couple;

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/04/ ... e-sun.html
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/ ... gence-lie/
PersianPaladin wrote:Look at the data again, and do the math for the period 1950 to 1980, taking each decimal increment per annum. Also look at the figures post 1980 and notice how many positive values there are compared to before. That's the only argument I need to make here. From 1980 onwards - for a 30 year period there is a higher average temp than the 1951-1980 period. During the 1950-1980 period the solar data generally follows the temperature fluctuations - but that relationship cuts off from 1979/80 as the graph shows.
What relationship? As I pointed out there isnt a relationship between these 2 independent data sets that isn't arbitrarily created. Just because notsoskepticalscience says there was a linear relationship between 1950-1980 doesn't make it empirically true. They are just assuming it because it suits then to refuse to acknowledge there is any ocean multiple decade lagging effect. Place a pot of cold water over a gas stove on number 9 and, while its warming up, turn down to 8. Do you think the water will immediately start to cool?
PersianPaladin wrote:I don't want to argue over your "14C" point anymore. It's a waste of time really.
You mean since I pointed out that NASA says it was equal to 0 change which you couldn't understand.

orrery
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Check this out:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/s ... confirmed/

Typical water vapor clouds are your #1 driver for global warming gases. How cloud levels affect global warming and how cosmic rays affect clouds is a nexus of activity here.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

Corona
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:10 am

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Great thread so far; lots of presented data was new to me. However, something which has not been addressed yet is global dimming.
“Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

The 4% reduction is actually a very conservative value. An Israeli scientist stated that
"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

As for the cause it is believed that aerosols are mainly to blame and when one thinks of smog in cities it is not hard to see why. However, I also believe that contrails are largely to blame: some 50 years ago there was rarely ever seen a contrail in the sky, but nowadays they almost cover the whole sky!

I am not quite sure if global dimming has been accounted for in your TSI-Temperature chart, paladin. But could this not explain (some of) the discrepancy?

orrery
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Our solar system is located in a an unusual region of space called the Local Bubble. The Local Bubble is about 300 light years in radius and is filled with extremely low density gas (about 0.001 gas molecules per cubic centimeter) - this is much less dense than the average ISM surrounding it. The coffee mug that would contain about 500 hydrogen molecules in the ISM would only contain 1 hydrogen molecule (or maybe none at all!) if it were in the Local Bubble. This gas is also extremely hot - about one million Kelvin, or almost 200 times as hot as the surface of the sun! Astronomers believe that this bubble may have been created by a supernova explosion - that is, the explosion "blew" most of the gas and dust from the interstellar medium outward. It is this extremely diffuse gas, inside the Local Bubble, that the CHIPS mission is studying.

Inside this Local Bubble is a cloud of denser gas about 60 light years across. Currently, our sun and solar system, along with a few other nearby stars, and variety of small colder clouds are passing through this cloud - we are located about 4 light years from its edge.
source: http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/chips_epo/science.html

Voyager discovers Solar System inside of "Interstellar Fluff Cloud": http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... c_voyager/

CHIPS >> was an amazing mission that never got nearly as much attention as it should have imo.

We're Living in a Space Cloud: http://news.discovery.com/space/space-c ... 20201.html

Since our motion inside this cloud is relatively recent, going back to the 1978 article in the Astrophysical Journal, I am curious as to how it is effecting the Solar System, there could be some energy generating mechanism like rubbing your hands together.

A woman by the name of Susan Rennison appears to be collecting these stories here:
http://www.susanrennison.com/Joyfire_In ... _Index.php

and even includes a nifty "interstellar space weather" graphic:

It also seems that this book here:
Should be thoroughly included in any climate model

There is also a paper by the Legend himself Fred Hoyle that discusses climatic changes that entering "interstellar clouds" may have on the Earth here: http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1950JGlac...1..453H, which I unearthed while reading this blog here: http://starburstfound.org/superwaveblog/?p=207

Another more recent paper along the lines of effects on Earth and my personal favorite:

Terrestrial atmospheric effects induced by counterstreaming dense interstellar cloud material - http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... a1100.html

If anyone talks to katesisco be sure she sees this post.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

orrery
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

Corona
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:10 am

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

This is going slightly off topic, but where did you come across the notion that:
Since our motion inside this cloud is relatively recent, going back to the 1978 article in the Astrophysical Journal, I am curious as to how it is effecting the Solar System, there could be some energy generating mechanism like rubbing your hands together.
accoring to NASA this is actually not quite true as:
The Solar System is thought to have entered the Local Interstellar Cloud at some time between 44,000 and 150,000 years ago and is expected to remain within it for another 10,000 to 20,000 years.
Obviously one can disagree with NASA, and I do in that I do not believe that the cloud is comparable to the clouds we see in the skies. But that it is rather composed of magnetized filaments with higher density regions (i.e., the discovered ribbon by IBEX?). In other words, while we may have been imersed in this cloud for quite some time, we may encounter denser regions (interface region) which could affect our solar system in unforseen ways. However, this is largely speculation on my part.

orrery
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Corona, which cloud? There are clouds of "varying density" or rather "clouds within the cloud"

http://www.susanrennison.com/images/Cen ... iation.jpg

^ for some reason the img link keeps breaking in my browser. Not sure if that is happening to everyone or not.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

### Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Aardwolf - could you please stick to discussing the actual facts about the TSI data that was collected and the temperature data that was collected. You're saying there was no TSI and temp relationship (i.e. correlation co-efficient). Or that such a correllation co-efficient became weaker in the last 30 years by some form of wrong-doing or dishonesty. I'm not buying that. I think the co-rellation indicates an APPARENT weaker connection between the sun and temperature, and it is Orrery's argument which MAY convince me that the climate scientists have got this wrong.

You can't talk about ocean-lag as something just occuring in the last 30 years:-
http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/clima ... _basic.gif

Please prove me wrong. My ego isn't as big as some people on this forum.

Now, what I AM interested in talking about is the limitation of TSI and temperature fluctuation in terms of correlation or relationship. There may be periodic exceptions to a TSI/temp relationship which can perhaps be explained by other dynamics recorded by instruments such as SIM, for example.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests