Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.

How about...
Most Modern warming is due to solar forcing not CO2

and

Abdussamatov

Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 9th November 21:30

[turbobloke]

Amplified TSI (energy budget)
Solar eruptivity (Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo, Bucha auroral oval)

As posted N times...another attrition loop revs up.

[durbster]

dickymint said:

Blimey so much effort to write a load of garbage - keep it up your really showing your colours ... as did your comment the other day on the lines of not really being interested about climate change!

Crack on Durbs

I suppose we should acknowledge that you managed two words that were actually relevant to the discussion, so that's something, but unfortunately it's only served to show that when the bullying fails, you've got absolutely nothing else to say.

So here you are, reverting to type.

mondeoman said:

durbster said:

I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.

How about...
Most Modern warming is due to solar forcing not CO2

A No Tricks Zone article.

Pass.

mondeoman said:

and

Abdussamatov

I'll take a look, thanks.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

I'll take a look, thanks.

Actually it's no laughing matter...then again, it is.

In this very thread, back in the lazy hazy summer days of August, with seasonal warming in full flow, yiou were involved in an exchange with me over solar forcing.

The date was 08 August when I said "Abdusammatov" and more besides in nested quotes which included my reply to an offering from you.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Then on 09 August later in the exchange, and in reply to one of my posts, this is what you posted.

durbster said:

I've no intention of refuting it. I have no problem with the theory of solar forcing being responsible for climate change. The sun is by far the biggest influence on our climate so of course it's plausible, and there seems good evidence to support it.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1644675&i=3792

Then very recently, within scrolling distance in this thread, all coy and innocent you asked this:

durbster said:

What causes "natural warming"?

But durbster, you have no problem with the theory of solar forcing. You said so yourself in August. Why ask a question to which you already know, and accept, the answer?

Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful. BTW I don't mind you asking about Abdussamatov twice even though you clearly saw posts back in August, that's just forgetfulness, right?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Professor Stephen Hawkins has predicted that the end for the Earth is nigh (in approx 900 years apparently) citing over crowding as being one of the main reasons. I wonder how and what lead him to that conclusion?

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

What causes "natural warming"?

But durbster, you have no problem with the theory of solar forcing. You said so yourself in August. Why ask a question to which you already know, and accept, the answer?

Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful. BTW I don't mind you asking about Abdussamatov twice even though you clearly saw posts back in August, that's just forgetfulness, right?

Glacial period terminations appear to be orbital forcing amplified by albedo changes and greenhouse gases so it doesn't follow that the answer to Durbster's question question is 'solar forcing'. You're just trying to strong-arm him here into accepting your pet solar-climate theories.

Given the amount of contradicting solar-climate hobby-horses galloping around the field it would be wise to keep a sceptical head.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

What causes "natural warming"?

But durbster, you have no problem with the theory of solar forcing. You said so yourself in August. Why ask a question to which you already know, and accept, the answer?

Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful. BTW I don't mind you asking about Abdussamatov twice even though you clearly saw posts back in August, that's just forgetfulness, right?

Glacial period terminations appear to be orbital forcing amplified by albedo changes and greenhouse gases so it doesn't follow that the answer to Durbster's question question is 'solar forcing'. You're just trying to strong-arm him here into accepting your pet solar-climate theories.

Complete nonsense I'm doing no such thing, and as durbster has already accepted solar forcing - did you miss that? - why ask what causes natural warming later on? What a hoot!

durbster said:

I have no problem with the theory of solar forcing being responsible for climate change. The sun is by far the biggest influence on our climate so of course it's plausible, and there seems good evidence to support it.

Your comment about deglaciation was marvellous obfuscation, nobody mentioned it in this discussion. Solar eruptivity forcing is also visible in recent decadal data, as posted N+1 times.

Nice try, but a fail; lovin' the believer teamwork on show. Lovely, heart-warming stuff

Even so, desperate times eh..

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

What causes "natural warming"?

But durbster, you have no problem with the theory of solar forcing. You said so yourself in August. Why ask a question to which you already know, and accept, the answer?

Your posts are blatantly contradictory, appear vexatious, and can be seen to represent a troll at work. XM5ER was right. You've provided the evidence yourself. No doubt you'll want to thank me for noticing this facing-both-ways position, though you really need to be more careful. BTW I don't mind you asking about Abdussamatov twice even though you clearly saw posts back in August, that's just forgetfulness, right?

Glacial period terminations appear to be orbital forcing amplified by albedo changes and greenhouse gases so it doesn't follow that the answer to Durbster's question question is 'solar forcing'. You're just trying to strong-arm him here into accepting your pet solar-climate theories.

Complete nonsense I'm doing no such thing, and as durbster has already accepted solar forcing - did you miss that? - why ask what causes natural warming later on? What a hoot!

durbster said:

I have no problem with the theory of solar forcing being responsible for climate change. The sun is by far the biggest influence on our climate so of course it's plausible, and there seems good evidence to support it.

Your comment about deglaciation was marvellous obfuscation, nobody mentioned it in this discussion. Solar eruptivity forcing is also visible in recent decadal data, as posted N+1 times.

Nice try, but a fail; lovin' the believer teamwork on show. Lovely, heart-warming stuff

Even so, desperate times eh..

Yeah planet warming, the putative pause is dead, model-obs gap narrowed - all as solar activity is declining. Desperate times indeed, I'm really on the backfoot here

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 10th November 16:43

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

Yeah planet warming, the pause is dead, model-obs gap narrowed - all as solar activity is declining. Desperate times indeed, I'm really on the backfoot here

Ooo what pause are you agreeing to?

[turbobloke]

Pause for thought probably, about whether any directly opposing statement has been made in recent months. There's form on that score

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

Yeah planet warming, the pause is dead, model-obs gap narrowed - all as solar activity is declining. Desperate times indeed, I'm really on the backfoot here

What is delay between peak TSI and observed warming? From what I have read it seems to be around 11-13 years. That pegs this year as the beginning of the cooling. I guess we can revisit this in a couple of years?

[XM5ER]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah planet warming, the pause is dead, model-obs gap narrowed - all as solar activity is declining. Desperate times indeed, I'm really on the backfoot here

What is delay between peak TSI and observed warming? From what I have read it seems to be around 11-13 years. That pegs this year as the beginning of the cooling. I guess we can revisit this in a couple of years?

Oh yes and i forgot to mention this

From AR5 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/...
"Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing
The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive.
Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is
43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued
growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}"

If that prediction in the graphic is correct then the drop in TSI will completely overwhelm the total anthropogenic ERF inside a decade.

[Lotus 50]

durbster said:

I'll take a look, thanks.

I wouldn't worry too much, it doesn't appear to be sound:

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/artic...

[Lotus 50]

XM5ER said:

Oh yes and i forgot to mention this

From AR5 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/...
"Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing
The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive.
Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is
43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued
growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}"

If that prediction in the graphic is correct then the drop in TSI will completely overwhelm the total anthropogenic ERF inside a decade.

I wouldn't worry, have a read of the response to the paper that graph comes from in my post above. Besides which where's the cooling over the last few years that should already have happened according to the graph?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 10th November 16:37

[kerplunk]

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah planet warming, the putative pause is dead, model-obs gap narrowed - all as solar activity is declining. Desperate times indeed, I'm really on the backfoot here

Ooo what pause are you agreeing to?

Ach forgot to include the usual 'putative' in front of pause. Fixed now, thanks for point it out.

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah planet warming, the pause is dead, model-obs gap narrowed - all as solar activity is declining. Desperate times indeed, I'm really on the backfoot here

What is delay between peak TSI and observed warming? From what I have read it seems to be around 11-13 years. That pegs this year as the beginning of the cooling. I guess we can revisit this in a couple of years?

Oh yes and i forgot to mention this

From AR5 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/...
"Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing
The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive.
Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is
43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued
growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}"

If that prediction in the graphic is correct then the drop in TSI will completely overwhelm the total anthropogenic ERF inside a decade.

Your own graph shows solar activity declining since the 90's, and some would say since the 50s:



We're gonna need a bigger lag!

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

model-obs gap narrowed I'm really on the backfoot here

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 10th November 16:43

you will be when la nina is in full swing next summer,let's revisit the model-obs gap then. to be fair as everyone including the modelers know the models bear no relation to the real world the gap either way proves nothing .

Edited by wc98 on Friday 10th November 18:50

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

Your own graph shows solar activity declining since the 90's, and some would say since the 50s:



We're gonna need a bigger lag!

sunspots aren't the whole story in solar output though are they ? the uv/ozone interaction is of far more interest ,imo .

[Ali G]

New model you say?

https://news.yale.edu/2017/04/26/el-ni-o-and-end-g...

What answer do you want?