Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Solar output is one of four major influences on the climate. And over the long term, it is increasing - like billions of years. The sun spots are a short term (22 year) cycle, and we recently came through a very unusual *low* sun spot activity (the nadir with almost no spots at all) and even with this lull, temperatures did not decline very much, and now that sun spots are on the upswing, we are seeing lots of new record high temperatures.
|
Actually its an appox 11 year cycle, it varries some. There are other cycles that varry at different time cycles, not just billions of years.
TSI Data
According to the TSI reconstruction there is an almost 1W/m^2 difference between 1880 and present, converting that energy change to forcing on a sphere gives approx 0.2w/m^2, the same that is accepted by the IPCC.
Quote:
We have our strong magnetosphere to thank for not being toasted. It prevents our atmosphere from being stripped away by the so-called solar wind. If our sun follows the typical pattern for medium sized stars, we will have it for another 5 billion years, or so, before it expands to the size of the whole solar system, and then collapses back down much smaller than before.
And how do we know that? Science - the same way we know about our climate.
Q: If 97% of all astrophysicists agreed that there is an asteroid the size of Alaska on a path to hit the earth in exactly 21 years 242 days 6 hours and *about* 7 minutes, and the remaining 3% where saying that the asteroid will miss us by a mile (passing through our atmosphere), and some saying no it is a gaseous object and we have nothing to worry about, and some saying it will pass well outside of the Moon's orbit, and a few say that it won't happen until 500 years from now on the next orbit, and some saying no the data doesn't support it at all - which group of scientists should we follow? What if some of the 3% are actually molecular physicists and a few are former astronauts, but all of the 97% are PhD's in astrophysics?
With all that doubt and uncertainty - do we trust any of them?
|
I would trust them. Astrophysisists have had a history of being honest and doing honest science. They are open to critisism of their work and other views and conclusions.
Apparent Problem With Global Warming Climate Models Resolved
They couldn't get the direct measurements they were looking for, so they ran another measurement through their model and viola!!! got the data they were looking for. That is not good science.
Another group after the historic low in arctic ice in 2007 went on an expedition to measure ice thickness during the winter. They found that it was only as thick as seasonal ice. But when you looked at their path they only went across areas that had melted the year before. That is not good science.
Dr Hansen from NASA has been caught several times adjusting the measured temperatures higher (he said it was an honest mistake). His data constantly shows the highest warming and the highest projected warming, far and above the other groups doing the same work. Now you want me to trust him, his work?
Al Gore, who is not even a scientist has admitted to exadgerating the facts to make a point. Only scientists involved?
Actual climate scientists who don't agree with the main conclusion loose their grants, jobs, silenced, and discredited.
I agree that there are groups on the other side of the issue really mudying the waters, but often when I try to find the core science on the subject all I can find is disinformation and fear mongering from both sides.
Similarly if I look into the orbit of say the asteroid apophis, I get what the current understanding is with the admission that there is still a lot of uncertainty about the projections.