'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

You might want to read up on the sunspots and the Maunder and Dalton minimum.


Care to quantify "over the years."?

 

Why? It does not apply. Irradiance is the output of the sun. Sunspots are just activity on the surface that roughly relates to the 11 year cycle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipation

physics, dissipation embodies the concept of a dynamical system where important mechanical models, such as waves or oscillations, lose energy over time, typically from friction or turbulence. The lost energy converts into heat, which raises the temperature of the system. Such systems are called dissipative systems.

For example, a wave that loses amplitude is said to dissipate. The precise nature of the effects depends on the nature of the wave: an atmospheric wave, for instance, may dissipate close to the surface due to friction with the land mass, and at higher levels due to radiative cooling.

Dissipating forces are those that can not be described by Hamiltonian formalism. Loosely speaking, this includes friction, and all similar forces that result in decoherency of energy—that is, conversion of coherent or directed energy flow into an indirected or more isotropic distribution of energy.

In computational physics, numerical dissipation (also known as "numerical diffusion") refers to certain side-effects that may occur as a result of a numerical solution to a differential equation. When the pure advection equation, which is free of dissipation, is solved by a numerical approximation method, the energy of the initial wave may be reduced in a way analogous to a diffusional process. Such a method is said to contain 'dissipation'. In some cases, "artificial dissipation" is intentionally added to improve the numerical stability characteristics of the solution.[1]

In water engineeringDissipation is the process of converting mechanical energy of downward-flowing water into thermal and acoustical energy. Various devices are designed in streambeds to reduce the kinetic energy of flowing waters to reduce their erosive potential on banks and river bottoms. Very often these devices look like small waterfalls or cascades, where water flows vertically or over riprap to lose some of its kinetic energy.

Sure it will, eventually. It just takes longer, and hence the discrepencies found in the timeline between TSI and temperature.

 

Q. Why are you using proxy TSI data since 1979, when honest-to-god satellite data is available?

A. Deniers always cherry-pick their datasets to conform to their arguments, rather than to conform to the truth.

 

Deniers now deny Conservation of Energy.

Brilliant.

 

Fool there is more energy in the system than just the temperature of the atmosphere. The energy contained within the atmosphere is an extremely small portion of the total energy of the system.

 

And... heat always travels from hot to cold.

Also...as ice melts,,, less heat is reflected back into space and more is absorbed by the darker water....so...the ocean gets warmer...melts more ice...absorbs more energy...melts more ice...etc.

The same thing happens on land.

When warm air meets cold air all h#ll can break loose.

 

Ahem

 

You let your bigotry get in the way of your intellect.

From the site the some of the info came from.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

 

Which will then dissipate to space...

My point being that Solar influences last longer than just the direct TSI number. The "heating" will be around longer than that which heated it, which points out, quite clearly, why there is a "lag" between the two.

 

Glad that you're claiming to use PMOD data now. But if you actually look at the data, you will find that TSI has declined since the 1958 peak, just as I have been saying all along.

Either you're lying, or you've been lied to.

 

No. The heat (content) hangs around. But heating (or cooling: a change in heat content) requires a change in energy equilibrium.

 

And we have proof that the there is less radiation from earth
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

BTW this link also explains ocean heating

 

Already have matey:

not "sine wave affair"

you are talking crap

Something that is happens to go up and down are varying intervals IS NOT "like a sine wave". It is the exact opposite really - since being sinusoidal implies periodicity. Not just going up and down due to a variety of different reasons.

I suggest you stop posting crap.

 

The "change" happens when the heated Ocean dissipates that heat back to the atmosphere. The Solar influences may not be as great as they were earlier, but the added heat can continue to push temperatures up, beyond the direct influence being experienced at that point. The "saved" energy adds back to the system at some point, and if the direct influence is not too far from the extreme, the added influence can in fact induce "heating"...

 

Because your original statement was:

So sunspot numbers most certainly do vary over time.

 

You still dont get it. Sun spots only tell us what the sun is doing. They are not an absolute representation. When you have a lot of sunspots it means TSI is high. How high however cannot be determined by the total number of sunspots. Sun sports are more a first order differential of TSI than an actual gauge of it.

 

You are not understanding the time scale I am talking about. Think past the 11 year cycle.

 

Which cannot happen unless the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean. In other words, if the ocean and atmosphere are at the same temp, in equilibrium, no heat transfer takes place.

Where does the added heat come from, when the Sun is not warming?

You're clearly out of your depth. Write again once you have learned about Conservation of Energy. Because this nonsense violates scientific law in about six different ways.

 

That is why I asked

From one of windy links:


So yeah. Sunspot numbers do vary of the 11 year cycle.

 

Yes, I already said that but what I said was that over time, sunspots don't just continue to increase as irradiance increase. Look on page 73 where I posted a long term irradiance output. The sun has gotten a little warmer over time.

 

Change in total solar irradiance since 1980 (11-year running mean) according to PMOD data:

-0.21 W/m².

Change in greenhouse gas forcing since 1980, according to NOAA:

+1.05 W/m².

The ¨Sun is causing it¨ story is a flat-out lie. Don´t be so gullible.

 

Someone doesn't understand the Svenmark hypothesis. It is not just the direct forcing of TSI that is effecting climate but also its effect on cloud formation. The warmmongers like to say that TSI isn't enough but that takes a very simplistic view. TSI's direct energy alone is only part of it. The coupled feedback of cloud formation and ocean currents is a rather new and very promising.

You are also playing games with endpoints. Trying to ignore that the present downward trend is because we are in a pronounced minimum. And with that pronounced minimum there has been a slight cooling or flattening of temperature depending on which source you chose to use.

It seems that all warmmonger arguments are dependent on either ignoring that we have not warmed over the last decade or drawing a trendline far enough back that its still positive and then pretending that the trendline represents present reality which it does not.

I can make a tendline say whatever by choosing my start point. But it has no bearing on present reality.

 

He just doesn't get it the graph even shows that and he still doesn't get it. The last cycle had fewer sunspots but higher TSI.