Remius said:
think of solar radiance as though the sun is space heater set to a certain temperature. The closer or further you are will change your temperature but the heat radiating from it remains constant.
The sun is not set to a certain temperature, however, and its output does not remain constant.
Remius said:
The study is just showing no increase in heat from the sun for a few decades now.
And there has been no measurable warming for about two decades.
Coincidence?
Remius said:
Solar cycles have roughly 11 year cycles and while it has been proven to have a small effect on climate change it doesn't explain why temperatures are much higher despite a decrease in solar activity in comparison to a century ago when solar activity was more intense.
There are longer cycles as well, although these do not yet seem to be well-understood (and the same is true of all climate-related matters - the "science" is far from "settled").
The Sunspot Cycle
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
"The Maunder Minimum
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."
The Weakest Solar Cycle in 100 Years
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-100-years/
Waiting For The Next Sunspot Cycle: 2019-2030
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/waiting-for-the-next-suns_b_11812282.html
"Forecasters are already starting to make predictions for what might be in store as our sun winds down its current sunspot cycle in a few years. Are we in for a very intense cycle of solar activity, or the beginning of a century-long absence of sunspots and a rise in colder climates?"
"The bad news is that some studies show sunspot magnetic field strengths have been declining since 2000 and are already close to the minimum needed to sustain sunspots on the solar surface. This is also supported by independent work in 2015 published in the journal Nature. By Cycle 25 or 26, magnetic fields may be too weak to punch through the solar surface and form recognizable sunspots at all, spelling the end of the sunspot cycle phenomenon, and the start of another Maunder Minimum cooling period perhaps lasting until 2100."
And those "hottest" claims...
2016 Global Temperature: The Pause Never Went Away - 'Hottest' Claims Within Margin of Error
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/19/2016-global-temperature-the-pause-never-went-away-hottest-claims-within-margin-of-error/
"Above graph shows the 2016 temperature without the El Nino contribution, as calculated by the Met Office. 2015 – a year with an equally strong El Nino effect – is interpolated. It shows that the pause hasn’t gone away. It has simply been interrupted by two very strong El Nino years. By removing this temporary El Nino contribution from the Met Office’s 2016 data, it becomes obvious that global average temperatures would be essentially identical to where they were in 2014. Without the El Nino 2016 would have been statistically in the same region as the previous 15 years.
According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious."
Observational Errors and Global Average Temperature Statistics
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/temperaturerrors.htm
Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The 'Hottest Year On Record'
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/
"They should have been in the first paragraph, but at least they’re in the third paragraph: “This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C—within the 0.1C margin of error—but….” There’s stuff after the “but,” but it’s just somebody’s evaluation. Even this report can’t give us a straight fact and leave it alone.
For the benefit of science reporters and other people who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, let me point out that the margin of error for these measurements is plus or minus one tenth of a degree Celsius. The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree - one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line - give or take a hundred yards."
Climate Change, Statistical Significance, and Science
http://www.senseaboutscienceusa.org/climate-change-statistical-significance-and-science/
Deceptive Temperature Record Claims
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/
"But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
"So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.
"Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest."
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz4lVcK2T6f
"Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged 'record' amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous 'warmest year', of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much."
It's not "hotter" than last year, or the year before, or the year before that. It's not even "warmer", by any noticeable amount, or even luke-warmer. This is merely withholding inconvenient information - like actual numbers - and carefully selecting words to frighten and deceive.
There are so many different data sets being bandied about, and so many interpretations, and so many agendae. Regardless, none of the dire predictions of the alarmists have come to pass, and history records previous warm and cold periods, and shows that the warm periods were far more conducive to human and other life than the cold ones.
There are indications of another Maunder Minimum cold period on its way, too, but that cannot be predicted with much more accuracy than death by sunlight.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Without getting into a (useless, as sceptics are sceptics as a unchangeable position, where climate change is concerned)
And the dogmatic believers hold equally-unchangeable positions.
Science, however, relies on sceptics in order to advance. If nobody ever questioned "accepted truth", we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
I question pretty much everything.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Every farmer in Canada will tell you that the climate IS changing and has been very noticeably modified in the past 15 years. I suspect that in a near (for agriculture) future, even the prairies will be able to start harvesting winter wheat.
Changes do not occur simultaneously around the planet. Arctic ice losses have been matched by Antarctic ice gains. Winters are generally warmer and shorter in Canada than in the seventies - noticeably so. There have been a few El Ninos/El Ninas during the past few years that influence our climate.
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs
Sorry. I do not conform to your model.
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week.
Some scientists are wrong, and
some scientists are right, to various degrees. Not all are pushing the warmista faith.
There is still far too little understanding of any of the variables that influence either long- or short-term climate fluctuations, and that is the
only certainty at present.
I do look at all sides of the argument, plus history, plus current events. I see the previous warm periods that cannot be explained by human activity yet match with solar cycles. I see the failure of alarmist models to reflect actual conditions.
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)
It's willful blindness to only look at one side and religiously follow the loudest and scariest without question. No scientist works for free. All need to court research grants. There is much money being poured into the warmista side by those who stand to profit, as this has become a huge wealth-redistribution programme. Al Gore, David Suzuki, Leonardo di Caprio and their ilk are getting richer by pushing this fraud.
