Will global warming be reversed by human's effort?

Gee parmalee:
Let us proceed:
The first sentence in your Bork quoted is grossly in error. Starting with that gross misstatement of my position on this subject, why read on?

That being "said"
Let us proceed with the sun:
From Nasa:
"Climate is the state of the weather over long periods of time, tens to thousands of years. Long-term effects of the Sun on the Earth's weather are called climate effects.

If the total output of radiant heat and light from the Sun (the solar constant) changed with time, rather than just the X-rays, ultraviolet and other fringe effects of solar activity, the variations would affect the lower atmosphere directly and surely would change the Earth's weather and climate. But we still do not know whether the solar constant has changed in the past or even if it is changing today. The necessary measurements are very hard to make with the required accuracy. Because of absorption and scattering of sunlight in the Earth's atmosphere, these measurements are unreliable if made from the ground. Recently, techniques have been developed to measure the solar constant from space vehicles. There are now several instruments in orbit that are measuring the Sun's output with an accuracy that should be sufficient to detect variations capable of changing the climate.

The spacecraft measurements of the solar constant that we are accumulating now will enable us to determine the day-to-day and month-to-month changes in solar output. It should eventually be possible to find out whether the Sun varies, not only during its 11-year sunspot cycle, but perhaps even over longer periods as well."

In any problem solving procedure we must address our
Known knowns
Known unknowns
and
Unknown unknowns
OK Now
We have one of our known unknowns.
...............
If you are into the math
the equations you seek might well be found by looking int the work of Laskar
If not:
stick with the graphs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For your edification, may I suggest looking for patterns.
or
look up Laskar's work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We do know that the solar constant has not changed enough or in the necessary pattern - by an order of magnitude in the "enough", by the basic direction (up or down) in the pattern - to account for the measured changes in the climate and energy balance.

Those would be small changes. Tweaks.

We already know there have been no variations either large enough or aligned well enough to account for the bulk of the measured changes in the planet's climate. They aren't even close.
For starters, solar variation itself - at any scale - fails to produce the major pattern we have measured in the atmospheric warming: it hits hardest at night and during the winter in the high latitudes.
Need another?

1) That's already been done, by the AGW researchers.
2) You will find correlations in almost any data set that large. That's a famous way to screw up using statistics.
What you need are mechanisms - actual mechanisms, not typewritten copies of the word "feedback" - and they have to account for the scale.
3) When you are all finished supporting some vague claim that the sun did it, you will have to explain what happened to the CO2 influence - we have a large and very rapid increase in CO2 levels firmly established and measured, and it should (according to physics and specific feedbacks such as water vapor increases and methane release and so forth) be producing stuff very like what we see and measure in the climate.

If you are trying to claim the sun is doing that, sooner or later you will have to explain what happened to the CO2 effects. It's not like the CO2 went away.

I did that the last time you attempted to bullshit this topic by handwaving at that guy and his astronomical cycles. Do you remember what I found, and posted for you? Seems like you might - I was pretty direct, made simple and easily comprehended assertions, and linked.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps nothing changed---(not likely)
Perhaps something changed
You might find this interesting
Climate evolution across the Mid-Brunhes Transition
(pdf)
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_evolution_across_the_Mid-Brunhes_Transition

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hubris?
I'm fairly confident that if NASA does not know that, then neither do you.

 

But we do know that if you assume the sun's output is set to what it's generally measured as using present techniques, and you combine that with information about human CO2 output and other variables, you get a precise match between theory and data for the past 100 years, which doesn't occur if you neglect the manmade CO2 with the significant and rapid alterations it makes to the result. Once again, do you think that's just a lucky coincidence?

 

And doctors don't know if smoking is bad for you.

 

Do you?

 

What makes you think solar input and its possible variations aren't already factored into the climate models showing a catastrophic human contribution?

 

What makes you think that they are?

 

I don't think it's a coincidence that the last 100 years of climate data matches modern theoretical predictions and hindsight almost perfectly. Do you know of anyone who's able to do that without accounting for the human impact and without violating any known laws of physics?

Based on your comments here, I don't think you understand the way mathematical physics works. You have to at least attempt to take account of anything we know of that could make a significant difference to the outcome. There are thousands of world-leading academics whose entire lives are dedicated specifically to understanding Earth's climate and planetary climates in general, and creating models to accurately predict them. Their numbers and expertise are further augmented by an even larger community of experts with related specialties. Do you honestly think none of these people have heard or spoken of Milankovitch cycles and every other kind of solar or orbital effect that might be a factor to consider?

 

Because in reality they are.

 

NASA does know that.
The solar flux has been measured and used in climate research and calculations for a long time now. Even backyard solar panel installers have access to canned formulas and variable estimates of it.

Lots of people find stuff like that interesting.
In your posts, it's interesting mainly as a step up in the bullshit quality from your semi-comical repetition of local weather changes around Greenland during the last great melt.

Thing is: the solar flux is a measurable physical thing, and researchers have been measuring it with reasonable and sufficient accuracy for quite a while now. The weather reports on your TV include it.

 

Ok
100 years ain;t even one full suess-devries cycle
nor a gleissberg cycle
nor a hallstatt cycle
nor the aforementioned 405kyr cycle
(not to mention likely cycles of longer terms of which we have scant evidence)

I have yet to see a model wherein those cycles are clearly evident
and
that is a problem
.........................
It remains unknown why the gleissberg cycle in of varying lengths
...........................
psyc
often, it is difficult for people to admit to what they do not know
(there was a running joke about that on the red-green show from canada.)

 

Buggy duplicate post

 

This is like saying we can't understand the mechanics of the solar system until we understand everything in the universe down to the Big Bang. I have no doubt there are many unanswered questions in climate science when it comes to the big long-term picture over hundreds of thousands and millions of years, both in terms of gathering data as well as theoretically explaining it. We're not talking about those time frames though, we're talking about measurable changes that have occurred over the last 1000 years and in particular over the last 100.

We know that drastic climate changes have been occurring over the last 100 years, and we know that our current understanding of science is sufficient to accurately model and predict those changes. On the other hand, no one has been able to do that by neglecting human activity and positing some alternate mechanism instead. Once again, do you think it's just a coincidence that current climate trends were accurately predicted decades in advance and that present models and computational power would have made those predictions even more accurate? If it's not a coincidence, then do you not feel that it's an extreme risk to assume that the trends we currently understand will no longer be understandable just in time to avoid a manmade climate disaster in the coming decades?

Basic science says increasing CO2 levels leads to increased heat retension. Like Iceaura says, what do you think all that manmade CO2 and other pollutants are doing in the atmosphere other than producing such effects? If we don't know the exact details of what's going to happen 100,000 years from now but we're accurately hindcasting the last 100 years, are we supposed to pretend that it's all a fluke and we really know nothing about the years to come until shit actually hits the fan?

 

Really? Could it be that we are experiencing a model unprecedented in history? That the models you refer have nothing to do with the current crisis? Or, are you actually starting to realize the obvious?

Then, explain yourself?

 

Exactly - which is precisely what creationists do. "See? Scientists don't understand what happened before the first 10e-43 seconds of the Big Bang - so the Big Bang theory is invalidated! God created the Earth 6000 years ago; it's the only provable fact."

 

Strawman, it's more like 10,000 years. I have yet to see you prove that the Al Yankovic equations don't explain global warming.

 

You have never "seen" what's "evident" in these models at all.
They aren't fooling around, the model builders - seeing inside them is not a trivial pursuit.

Meanwhile, you have seen the output of several of them - and so you have seen a pretty close match with the behavior of the climate over the eons, as well as the recent unprecedented changes of AGW. If as you claim they managed that without including those cycles, how important could they be?

It remains unknown why people keep trying to bring in hundred thousand year cycles of slow and small variation, barely detectable at resolutions of a thousand years let alone a hundred, to explain the dramatically large and rapid changes in the climate we are measuring outside in the real world,

when there's a dramatically large and rapid CO2 boost right over head that accounts for them so well - and needs to be included anyway, since it's an obviously dominating and undeniably observed factor, in any analysis of the effects of astronomical cycles on the climate.

The CO2 is not going away, regardless of the astronomical cycles. Its effects are not going away, its consequences are going to remain consequential, and the astronomical cycles are going to have to content themselves with whatever is left over for them to explain if they can.

 

Water vapour matters more .

The warmer the Planet becomes the more water vapour in our atmosphere .

Hence the warmer our planet becomes .

Water vapour traps more heat than CO2 .