What's going on with the Sun?

On 7/4/11 11:55 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Here's a simple fact for you, Sam: If solar irradiance varies about
0.1%, that translates into about 3 degrees K.

The variation of 0.1 irradiance through solar sun-spot cycles
has *no significant changes* in global surface temperatures.

Perhaps you can cite data that global surface temperatures change
3° C every solar cycle, Orval.

On 04/07/2011 17:55, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
Sam wrote:

On 7/3/11 10:53 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
AGW wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner * and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.


--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

Solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent from solar min to solar
max. Greenhouse gasses currently causing the global warming of the
earth are a much larger effect.

The climatologists have an understanding of the effects of greenhouse
gasses, which you are ignoring.

The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
you to read, Orval:

Here's a simple fact for you, Sam: If solar irradiance varies about
0.1%, that translates into about 3 degrees K. You have to start at
absolute zero, BTW. Those 3K are an order of magnitude larger than the
alleged changes due to CO2.

*WRONG* on all counts!

Like all lying neocon dittoheads you have no grasp of the physics
involved in radiation emission from the sun. The solar radiation TSI
flux changes as T^4 so a 0.1% change in radiation output represents a
roughly 0.025% change in temperature or on Earth about 0.75K peak to
peak. The influence of the 11 year sunspot cycle on TSI is just about
measurable on climate with suitable low pass filtering.

See for example paragraph 2 in IPCC AR4 WG1 1.4.3 Solar Variability and
the Total Solar Irradiance for more accurate observational figures:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ch1s1-4-3.html

You can never trust a lying dittohead.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:07:17 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 7/3/11 10:53 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
AGW wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner – and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.


--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

Solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent from solar min to solar
max. Greenhouse gasses currently causing the global warming of the
earth are a much larger effect.

Yes, exactly; that is why =ALL= of the experts agree humans have
caused most, but not all, of the observed warming.

The climatologists have an understanding of the effects of greenhouse
gasses, which you are ignoring.

The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
you to read, Orval:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:53:53 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
AGW Facts wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner – and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance

.... which no solar physicist has said it will....

bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get
as warm as they did before.

.... except that our human-produced CO2 will still warm the planet
more than any possible "cooling of the sun."

On Jul 8, 3:55*pm, AGW Facts wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:53:53 -0400, Orval Fairbairn









wrote:
In article ,
*AGW Facts wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

* *http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.
Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance

... which no solar physicist has said it will....

bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get
as warm as they did before.

... except that our human-produced CO2 will still warm the planet
more than any possible "cooling of the sun."

I've tried to estimate the all-inclusive human created CO2 and NOx,
and it seems to be worth at least 100 billion tonnes/year (roughly
14.4 tonnes per human), and otherwise it could easily be worth a
trillion tonnes per year (144 tonnes per human). What's your best all-
inclusive swag?

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

"Brad Guth" wrote:
I've tried to estimate the all-inclusive human created CO2 and NOx,
and it seems to be worth at least 100 billion tonnes/year (roughly
14.4 tonnes per human), and otherwise it could easily be worth a
trillion tonnes per year (144 tonnes per human). What's your best all-
inclusive swag?

hanson wrote:
"Swag?"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swag&page=2
1. Scientific Wild Ass Guess.
2. opinions, or judgements, about
something with less evidence than would make the opinion certain,
but more than a simple opinion with no factual basis. -
3. making a guess with some information, but not enough to
make a clear and certain determination.

Brad, try again, you are swaggering, uselessly, as usual.
But, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson