An Inconvenient Scientist

[Rsak]

Partha,

Stop dishonestly arguing your own point and actually prove me wrong. Stars age and their masses change thus the shifts in color, mass, and transitions to red giants, white dwarfs, and black holes or supernovas at the extremes. Of course I saw the core temperature and pressure changing which is proof that stars are not fixed engines like you would believe.

Also the power output at the core of the Sun is immaterial to the conversation since we are talking about the Earth's climate and only the energy received by the Earth is pertinent which is effected by the fluctuation of radiation/convection layers.

You want to believe that no matter how much the Sun's energy fluctuates the Earth's climate is not effected, but that is just ludicrous when it is the largest engine in our ecosystem.

[Lurker]

When I posted earlier that now the catch phrase is "climate change" instead of "global warming", I should have pointed out the obvious, which many of you seem to have missed. The climate is ALWAYS changing. It has been changing long before humans evolved, and it will be changing long after humans are gone. Climate is dynamic, its always in flux.

Duh. We got that, Embar. My first response made that perfectly clear, as did our pages long discussion in the prior threads. Again, human caused CO2 isn't always the main driver of global warming, but it is the major driver now.

This is like watching people argue over the world being flat or round. It looks like Rsak would be on the "world is flat" side of the argument.

Embar as well.

He really is a striking example of someone that can hold onto a belief no matter what the evidence shows. His ability to continuously shift his argument, to filter out information that doesn't fit his world view, to always return to the same conclusion as each of his assertions are shot down, is really remarkable. Common, but remarkable.

[Partha]

Partha,

Stop dishonestly arguing your own point and actually prove me wrong. Stars age and their masses change thus the shifts in color, mass, and transitions to red giants, white dwarfs, and black holes or supernovas at the extremes. Of course I saw the core temperature and pressure changing which is proof that stars are not fixed engines like you would believe.

Also the power output at the core of the Sun is immaterial to the conversation since we are talking about the Earth's climate and only the energy received by the Earth is pertinent which is effected by the fluctuation of radiation/convection layers.

You want to believe that no matter how much the Sun's energy fluctuates the Earth's climate is not effected, but that is just ludicrous when it is the largest engine in our ecosystem.

Look, dumbass, the Sun will not run out of hydrogen for 5.5 billion years. That means the reaction that drives it today is the same as the reaction that drove it yesterday and 10,000 years ago.

There's no correlation between sunspot activity and temperature change. Zero. The graph I linked showed you that. The reaction driving the energy is the same, therefore the initial energy is the same. Now why don't you show us data that supports what YOU claimed at the beginning.

However we do know that the our Sun is aging and the energy output is different because of that. I agree that the Sun hasn't suddenly changed over the last 40 years, but it could be a gradual thing that has reached a tipping point.

[Rsak]

Stop channeling Embar, Partha. Stop with your silly Gotcha games and actually use your fucking brain.

The variance or lack of variance of energy output at the core of the Sun is completely immaterial to the energy that the Earth receives. That the sun use CNO cycle now and will change to Proton-proton chain later doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Sun is constantly fluctuating its internal makeup.

If you didn't have such a hardon for your leet MS paint skills you could actually use your puny little brain and see that you haven't proven any of my comments about the Sun's effect on the Earth's ecosystem wrong. You could, but I wouldn't place money on it.

[Partha]

The IPCC already did.

[Harlowe]

The IPCC already did.

This.

[Rsak]

And Partha runs away with his tail between his legs just as predicted.

[Partha]

I see you never read the IPCC report that Lurker linked, or otherwise you'd know that worse case estimates of such 'solar fluctuation' (which is far from proven, btw) would be less than .5 C.

Go look. I'll wait here.

[Rsak]

Partha,

Why would I need to read the IPCC report when you clearly stated that basic science books are all that are necessary to determine how much energy the earth receives from the Sun. Are you going back on your claim now or are you acknowledging that your "Global Warming" preacher used something else during your home schooling?

[Lurker]

Is it just me, or is Rsak getting stupider before our very eyes?

[Rsak]

Its just you... the garish sight of Partha's art skills has damaged us all in one way or another.

[Ddrak]

Partha's incorrect - the sun's energy output does change significantly over various cycles. Wiki has an excellent article here:

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

The graph he linked also showed a strong correlation between sunspot activity (which is a measure of solar output) and temperature over the past 10,000 years. Where Rsak's argument falls down is it's currently thought that solar variation isn't sufficient to account for measured changes in the mean temperature changes in the planet. The TPCC report does deal with this idea though.

Dd

[Rsak]

Waits for the basic science books that will prove it wrong or the retractions of craptastic ms paint images... Somehow I think I will be waiting a long time.

[Partha]

Partha's incorrect - the sun's energy output does change significantly over various cycles. Wiki has an excellent article here:

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

The graph he linked also showed a strong correlation between sunspot activity (which is a measure of solar output) and temperature over the past 10,000 years. Where Rsak's argument falls down is it's currently thought that solar variation isn't sufficient to account for measured changes in the mean temperature changes in the planet. The TPCC report does deal with this idea though.

Dd

Um, you really consider 0.1% significant?

Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%[1][2] or about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-trough during the 11 year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere varied little from an average value of 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²).[3] There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ; recent results suggest about 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years,[4] although other sources suggest a 0.2% increase in solar irradiance since 1675.[5] The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects has very likely been the cause of some climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum.

Oh, and that correlation? It falls down because if it was a true correlation, it would have also existed more than 10,000 years ago. Matter of fact, if you look at my posted chart again and only considered the time between 10k and 5k years ago, you'd be arguing that the two phenomena were inversely related, rather than directly linked.

[Ddrak]

Um, you really consider 0.1% significant?

Hell, yes!

After all, a 0.2% rise in temperature is about a 0.5 degree C rise, which is pretty significant.

Oh, and that correlation? It falls down because if it was a true correlation, it would have also existed more than 10,000 years ago. Matter of fact, if you look at my posted chart again and only considered the time between 10k and 5k years ago, you'd be arguing that the two phenomena were inversely related, rather than directly linked.

Not really. I'd argue there's a correlation from that graph.

Dd

[Partha]

Dd, your own link says that solar radiation reaching the atmosphere is practically a constant. How's a constant going to change temperature by that much?

[Klast Brell]

There is no use arguing with people who think that god made the earth for mankind and will make everything OK. (unless he doesn't, in which case that's OK too because it's gods will).

You can demonstrate that cause and effect are real, and they will still put their fingers in their ears and sing La La La I cant hear you. Because in their hears god's gonna make everything alright and you are just a silly billy.

[Embar Angylwrath]

There is no use arguing with people who think that god made the earth for mankind and will make everything OK. (unless he doesn't, in which case that's OK too because it's gods will).

You can demonstrate that cause and effect are real, and they will still put their fingers in their ears and sing La La La I cant hear you. Because in their hears god's gonna make everything alright and you are just a silly billy.

Heavy on the hyperbole there Klast. And the thing is, regarding "climate change" no one has determined cause and effect.

[Klast Brell]

99.9% of scientists have determined cause and effect. You just prefer to listen to industry shills who tell you otherwise.

[Embar Angylwrath]

99.9% of scientists have determined cause and effect. You just prefer to listen to industry shills who tell you otherwise.

No Klast, they haven't

First, there have been no determinations, only correlations. Second, your remark that 99.9% of scientists are in agreement is unsubstantiated and untrue. There are numerous prominant scientists who still say the jury is out on man-made climate change. And an even bigger set of scientists that, even though they think the current climate variations are anthropogenic in cause, they aren't very sure what the results of the change may be.