Re: The Sunspot Scapegoat
qqq_qqq
[snip]
> http://www.umweltluege.de/images/ipcc2007rfgraph.gif
This is a k0000000ksite.
> And then compare it with the CO2 component in the chart:
>
> Sun range: 1.1 - 2.3 Wm-2
Apparently you have even trouble reading graphs that you quote, the
variability of the flux of the Sun is called the Solar irradiance, and
it is +0.12 (0.06--0.30) W/m^2
> CO2 range: 1.49 - 1.83 Wm-2
You quoted that right, one of your accomplishments on D-Day anniversary.
> So CO2 is only a partial subset of sun's radiative forcing.
Remember you D-Day anniversary accomplishments?
> All other components in the chart show a total positive forcing of 1.5 Wm-2,
> as a quid pro quo to 1.45 Wm-2 for a total negative forcing.
Again, you need new spectacles and a new hearing aid, the total net
forcing is 1.6 (0.6-2.4) W/m^2.
> This leaves a total of negligible 0.05 Wm-2 in favor of positive radiation
> forcing, but there are huge deficiencies of approved science just at the minor
> divisions in the IPCC chart marked as "LOSU LOW".
This is a lie or a misinterpretation.
> It's almost safe to assume that there is NO residual total radiative forcing
> by now.
Lie, you even contradict yourself you dumbkopf.
> Quite the contrary, if all the "LOSU MED or LOW" marked divisions will be
> scrutinized, it will give an additional negative RF that would destroy the
> IPCC card house *and* the political lies.
You can only draw this conclusion AFTER you've investigated them, but
again you show your typical bias of turning down science BEFORE the
causes are investigated.
> If climate is getting colder, as it can be seen in the last years, the IPCC
> chart *must* be logically incorrect in some divisions.
There is no evidence for this statement, therefore we call it denial.
> Feel free now to post another ad hominem.
> I get a kick out of it and I don't care, nutcase.
Why don't you go the NG alt.shut.the.hell.up.geek or alt.flame or
equivalent newsgroups. It may be a lot more fun to talk with some of
your peers over there?
Q
--
Ultimately to survive we should blow up our Moon, the particles
in orbit that remain help to combat global warming.
qqq_qqq
> qqq_qqq <q@q.q> wrote:
>
>> Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Yeah, I knew it.
> Snipping the relevant parts makes you a moron... A MORON!
>
> For restoring the context:
>
>
> http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf
>
> "Since the beginning of the industrial era (~ 1750), nonsolar
> sources contributed a net forcing of 0.85 � 1.3Wm-2
> [IPCC, 2001] (assuming the errors are Gaussian). Over the
> past century alone, this number is 0.5 � 1.3Wm-2. The
> main reason why the error is large is because of the uncertain
> "indirect" contribution of aerosols, namely, their effect
> on cloud cover. It is currently estimated to be in the range
> -1 � 1Wm-2 [IPCC, 2001]. Thus, anthropogenic sources
> alone contributed to a warming of 0.14 � 0.36�K since the
> beginning of the 20th Century.
> The sensitivity result can also be used to estimate the
> solar contribution towards global warming. Over the past
> century, the increased solar activity has been responsible for
> a stronger solar wind and a lower CRF. Using results of �3.6,
> the reduced ionization and LACC were responsible for an
> increased radiative forcing of 1.3 � 0.5Wm-2. In addition,
> the globally averaged solar luminosity increased by about
> 0.4�0.1Wm-2 according to Solanki and Fligge [1998]; Hoyt
> and Schatten [1993]; Lean et al. [1995]. Thus, increased solar
> activity is responsible for a total increase of 1.7�0.6Wm-2.
> Using our estimate for lambda, we find DeltaTsolar = 0.47 � 0.19�K.
> We therefore find that the combined solar and anthropogenic
> sources were responsible for an increase of 0.61 � 0.42�K.
> This should be compared with the observed 0.57 �0.17�K
> increase in global surface temperature [IPCC, 2001].
>
> In other words, the result we find for the sensitivity and
> drivers are consistent with the observed temperature increase.
> This conclusion, about the relative role of solar vs.
> anthropogenic sources was independently reached by comparing
> the non-monotonic temperature increase with the
> non-monotonic solar activity increase and the monotonic increase
> in GHGs [Soon et al., 1996b]."
>
>
> And for CO2:
>
> Attent to
>
> "This should be compared with the observed 0.57 �0.17�K
> increase in global surface temperature [IPCC, 2001]."
>
> "Thus, increased solar activity is responsible for a total
> increase of 1.7�0.6Wm-2."
>
> and compare it with the "Total net anthropogenic"
> at the bottom of
>
> http://www.umweltluege.de/images/ipcc2007rfgraph.gif
>
> And then compare it with the CO2 component in the chart:
>
> Sun range: 1.1 - 2.3 Wm-2
>
>
>
>
> Ah, no, then this must be a k0000000ksite too.
>
>>> And then compare it with the CO2 component in the chart:
>>>
>>> Sun range: 1.1 - 2.3 Wm-2
>> Apparently you have even trouble reading graphs that you quote, the
>> variability of the flux of the Sun is called the Solar irradiance, and
>> it is +0.12 (0.06--0.30) W/m^2
>
>
> "Thus, increased solar activity is responsible for a total
> increase of 1.7�0.6Wm-2."
>
> This makes
>
>> You quoted that right, one of your accomplishments on D-Day anniversary.
>>
>>> So CO2 is only a partial subset of sun's radiative forcing.
>> Remember you D-Day anniversary accomplishments?
>
>
>>> All other components in the chart show a total positive forcing of 1.5 Wm-2,
>>> as a quid pro quo to 1.45 Wm-2 for a total negative forcing.
>> Again, you need new spectacles and a new hearing aid, the total net
>> forcing is 1.6 (0.6-2.4) W/m^2.
>
>
>>> This leaves a total of negligible 0.05 Wm-2 in favor of positive radiation
>>> forcing, but there are huge deficiencies of approved science just at the minor
>>> divisions in the IPCC chart marked as "LOSU LOW".
>> This is a lie or a misinterpretation.
>
>
>>> It's almost safe to assume that there is NO residual total radiative forcing
>>> by now.
>> Lie, you even contradict yourself you dumbkopf.
>
> If you want to flame in a foreign language, then do it precisely.
> Otherwise you expose yourself to ridicule.
>
>>> Quite the contrary, if all the "LOSU MED or LOW" marked divisions will be
>>> scrutinized, it will give an additional negative RF that would destroy the
>>> IPCC card house *and* the political lies.
>> You can only draw this conclusion AFTER you've investigated them, but
>> again you show your typical bias of turning down science BEFORE the
>> causes are investigated.
>
> A clear NO!
> Own-goal again for you, AGWs and IPCC.
> You are riding a double-edged sword, which makes you kick yourself in the ass.
>
>>> If climate is getting colder, as it can be seen in the last years, the IPCC
>>> chart *must* be logically incorrect in some divisions.
>> There is no evidence for this statement, therefore we call it denial.
>
> But that's typical for a birdbrain like you.
>
>>> Feel free now to post another ad hominem.
>>> I get a kick out of it and I don't care, nutcase.
>> Why don't you go the NG alt.shut.the.hell.up.geek or alt.flame or
>> equivalent newsgroups. It may be a lot more fun to talk with some of
>> your peers over there?
>
> At home there, I think.
>
> Resume:
> Nothing but hot air from you... again.
Dummkopf Dummkopf Dummkopf Dummkopf Dummkopf Dummkopf Dummkopf Dummkopf
Translation: Mr Peter Muehlbauer alias Dummkopf has nothing to refute
Lockwood and Frohlich paper. Furthermore he does not understand the
changes in the forcings listed in the latest IPCC report. I rest my case.