So 2 studies and 1 summary (?) have come forth, which suggest a steadily increasing solar radiation during the 20th Century. The correlation (which is necessary but not sufficient to show a causal link) is quite high. In fact, it appears to be much higher than for CO2. The 1st appears to be out of Barcelona and Zurich and shows that Daily Temperature Range over Europe closely correlates with radiation European DTR corresponds to radiation at R:0.87 Another study (1st one was more like a presentation/summary) examined sunshine hours on the Iberian peninsula and found a dimming of sunshine from 1961-early 1980's which corresponds to when the earth was cooling. From the early 1980's-2004 sunshine increased. Journal of Geophysical Research 2009 the 3rd looked at dimming and brightening over Switzerland and once again found strong correlation with periods of Global Cooling (50-70's) and Global Warming (70's-2000's): Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: An Interactive Open Journal of the European Geosciences Union
Hey mop, maybe it was a slow day for the left when you pissed this (well, slower than the norm). So, TTT
I am guessing they just don't want to talk about it. After all, it is getting more and more awkward. Supposedly it is a "settled" topic with nothing to discuss. Yet new studies come out monthly that challenge the "consensus" view and allow for other factors that had not yet been considered. If all of those factors are added up, it adds up to FAR more than the warming. Logically, this means that not all of the factors are correct and I recognize that, but it does mean the question is open.
Does the word global confuse you? This is just more inane obfuscation by the king of inane obfuscation. Why would I bother discussing stupid **** that you can neither comprehend nor discuss? Is your claim with this bunch of unrelated gibberish that global solar brightness is responsible for the warming over the last thirty or one hundred years? You do realize that there are actual studies on this, right? There is like real science and satellites devoted to studying TSI. I seriously doubt you have ever read the real studies and realize that TSI has been and is studied. This is not some revelation and your efforts to spin minor papers into some challenge is just goofy. You are such a waste of protoplasm and my valuable time.
paso, your anger is fairly serious. you might consider taking a different angle on life. it must stink to get set off so easily! yes, i know there have been many studies on the subject. no, I have not read more than the abstracts. The studies I linked to ARE "real studies" and 2 of them were in reputable journals and peer-reviewed. So what was your problem with them again? (note: you should probably keep your promise and stop responding if my threads are so threatening to you.)
RIF - Global These are local studies that do not stand for much of anything. TSI is and has been studied and is included. TSI for the last 30 years is actually slightly down. Do you seriously think there is anything you and your lovable band of losers can "discover" that has not been considered and addressed by real scientists?
incidentally, a new study out in Geophysical Research Letters finds that clouds over the Pacific, contrary to models, provide a negative feedback. This should be very surprising news to those who credit clouds with being a positive feedback.
pasotex is smart, mop you're a loser (as are those who associate with or agree with you). If you provide documentation contrary to padotexs views or beliefs, you're guaranteed to be proven wrong by someone with far more knowledge and intellect. See, scientists study really hard to learn about what, where and why - just need to get in line and believe what they say.
Hey mop: Do you have the entire study from Geophysical Research Letters not just an abstract that neither you nor your blog understand? Thanks in advance (snicker). Your pal, pasotex
The rules of logic? The rules of logic (and human decency on the West Mall???) would dictate that you at least become modestly familiar with the area of science on which you post. This is again and again demonstrated by me to not be the case. You post a couple of studies about TSI in small regions (Spain and Switzerland) that show total solar irradiance ("TSI") connected to temperatures. Guess what? This is very, very well known. TSI has been measured since 1750 (in the first paper that I linked) and is hardly some mystery. TSI has been slightly negative over the last 30 years and its influence is relatively modest over the past 100 years. They already calculated it and considered it. And yet you post these three studies like (1) they mean something and (2) they somehow challenge the established science. They don't. I decide to ignore this stupid **** because it is beneath contempt. Does it just fall down the BBS? Nope. You have to post some inane "crickets chirping challenge" like a 7th grade boy about to get his *** kicked. You asked for it and I give it to you. I furnish you with three links to real peer reviewed papers covering the entire issue. Do you read any of them? Of course not. Why? I think it is because you are not interested in learning any of this or are just not capable of it (I actually suspect the later). So the rules of logic dictate that I should just ignore your nonsensical and inane postings on a subject that you neither comprehend nor understand.
I'll add that pasotex is also a very tough man..much tougher than you mop. So, pasotex is smarter, cooler (pardon the pun, as we are all hotter than ever) and tougher. But, he's never attempted to provide the truth about what happened many years before he was crowned King of West Mall . Simply tell us pasotex, if man wasn't around to perpetuate major climate change, how and why did our once ice covered earth lose all its "coolness"?
BTW the lovable band of losers remark was actually a really clever reference to Dodgeball. I am quite proud of that remark (and it was really funny too). I'll be here all week and don't forget to tip your waitresses.
And if you want me to be serious for a nanosecond, mop's claim is flat out wrong. TSI is not up for the last 100 years. It did increase at the beginning of the last century (accounting for a relatively small portion of the heating as indicated in my link) and then for the last 30 years it is slightly down (so it does not count for any of the heating as once again indicated by one of my links). Mop's papers do nothing to alter this. The only person making a false claim about global TSI is mop. I am arrogant as hell about this stuff because I actually have read the links and I actually understand them. You guys haven't even read the links and I doubt you even could understand them anyway.
Pasotex: You seem to know a lot about this. Are you SURE that MOP didn't just post the studies that reveal global warming was a hoax cooked up by drunken frat boys?
Well pasotex, as i expected, you're true colors (chicken **** brown) come out when you can't reference a ******** link (re: why did the ice age end).. All the harbored anger and **** you talk via keyboard is all you've got - no doubt you're the type to run or better yet call your mom or the po po when someone pulls your card. Hey, I attend quite a few games.. Are you ever in the neighborhood?
Paso, there is actually great imprecision and uncertainty in the TSI record as you well know. You are overstating the certainty. Furthermore, there is the same level of uncertainty on many of the major and known climate drivers. Cloud cover is still being debated hotly as are the roles of Multi-Decadal Oscillations. I know that your position is that whatever has been said in the past is the final word, but when it is easy to find great disagreement about these topics I question that view. This is from a 2011 study in the Geophysical Research Laters:
Did you read a single one of my three links? (snicker, this is rhetorical because you never read let alone understand my links) TSI particularly for the last 30 years is very well understood and calculated. The trend has been slightly negative. Do you understand what this means?
i perused all 3 of your links actually. I did not comprehensively read them. I do understand your other points. Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? (snicker) because if you do, then it is doubly odd that you would engage in them with such incredible frequency. Perhaps you are not able to make arguments on their own merit?
now let's see if you can read and understand a link. I am using the IPCC since that is your Holy Scriptures: IPCC on Total Solar Irradiance I found the following quotes of particular interesting in light of your incredible confidence in our understanding of TSI:
In addition to those points, the notion that the TSI is down over the past 30 years is a bit misleading. It is down FROM 30 years ago, but all the while that has been at a very high peak from the best we can tell. In fact, I can hardly find a reconstruction of TSI that attempts to go back over the entire 20th Century when the last 30 years were not at the top of TSI levels. Here is one such paper that goes back to the mid-19th Century: TSI Reconstructions from 1832 In fact, as I look around at papers on the subject there is almost always a mention of the uncertainty of measurements and data on TSI and the influence of TSI beyond what is currently known. Quite contrary to your very certain proclamations, there seems to be lots of room for doubt on this subject.
This article from 2005 in also contains similar language of uncertainty and possibility. Very interesting indeed: Advances in Space Research I found the following quote from the abstract very informative:
