I've read that the sun radiates and heats the planet more during some years than others.
Probably a simple question, but do climate scientists measure this and release how much this affects climate warming?
Is there some figure about it?
Not the ipcc ones ,well not until they retire, quit or if they feel like getting burned at the stake.
Select to expand quotebjw said..
Are you sure? I just Googled them and id think theyd be all over it.
Wikiperia is a good place to start
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
So my interpretation of Wikipedia is that there is less sun spots now than for a while.
Sunspots reduce sun temperature.
So this would increase the earth's temp. Correct??
Select to expand quotebjw said..
So my interpretation of Wikipedia is that there is less sun spots now than for a while.
Sunspots reduce sun temperature.
So this would increase the earth's temp. Correct??
Less solar activity (less sun spots) = lower solar forcing.A solar minimum is not expeced till about 2035.It plays a part but there is no single control for climate .
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..bjw said..
So my interpretation of Wikipedia is that there is less sun spots now than for a while.
Sunspots reduce sun temperature.
So this would increase the earth's temp. Correct??
Less solar activity (less sun spots) = lower solar forcing.A solar minimum is not expeced till about 2035.It plays a part but there is no single control for climate .
I just reckon no scientist has ever thought about this area of science. 
Some say this lower solar output equates to around 0.3 of a degree global temp cooling ... Look up Maunder Min also - we are heading into a decade of LOWER solar output of the sun (less sun spots ) ... so maybe the SLIGHT up-creap of global temp will be offset ... I've been casually researching man induced climate for a while ... and Im for sure more and more leaning to natural variation and think the climate change group have become utterly 'cultist' .... There's 32,000 + scientists that have signed a document stating 'THEY DO NOT believe were heading for climate catastrophy , and claims of man-induced warming a WAY over hyped ...."
Did you here of the climate change sceptic calling out a published paper scientist (ipcc ) as a fraud - the climate change scientist took him to court for Libel (in canada I think) - and the climate sceptic won ! (ie the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud ) - because the climate change scientist REFUSED to release all his data points - which pretty much proved he had cherry picked his data to suit his bias .... (there is alot of funding / money to be made to keep pushing a climate change agenda )
The 32 computer models of future change are flawed beyond belief - and the closest model that has tracked temp increase over the last decades is the RUSSIAN model - which has modest global temp increases ....
The planet is the greenest its been in a century - and CO2 is not a demon gas (AS CLIMATE SCAREMONGERS would have you believe) - but essential and life promoting ....
Select to expand quotelog man said..I just reckon no scientist has ever thought about this area of science.
Climate scientists will be rushing to Wikipedia to look it up 
Select to expand quotelog man said..Foghorn said..bjw said..
So my interpretation of Wikipedia is that there is less sun spots now than for a while.
Sunspots reduce sun temperature.
So this would increase the earth's temp. Correct??
Less solar activity (less sun spots) = lower solar forcing.A solar minimum is not expeced till about 2035.It plays a part but there is no single control for climate .
I just reckon no scientist has ever thought about this area of science.
Please don't ever become an air crash investigator
Agree.but we do not reach absolute min for another decade.3 of approx 11 yr cycles starting 2020 .
Think what everyone can agree on ... we need to do urgently though is ...
Cut down on single use plastics that is killing our ocean life ... (maybe a tax on cheap chinese plastic crap going into countries )
Lessen needless consumer consumption ...
Build better quality products that last longer ...
Plant lots more trees ...
Create more enviromental sanctuaries / areas / respite for endangered animals
Look at what free trade and globalisation has done to consumer spending / loss of manufacturing to far east etc etc ... (ie stop giving money to totalitarian regimes that keep building ghost cities / exhausting all critical commodities , and inflating pyramid schemes that will take down the global economy with fraudulent money (rmb)
Select to expand quoteDelFuego said..
probably buffered by the protective layer
great post - that will keep it cooler haha .... on a serious note though - Smog is not CO2 ...
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..log man said..I just reckon no scientist has ever thought about this area of science.
Climate scientists will be rushing to Wikipedia to look it up
You've touched upon an inconvenient truth here .... ALL climate specialists are essentially clutching at straws - enviromental inputs / effects maybe number in 100 + components - and most climate scientists are specialised in analysing / experts in ONLY 2 or 3 of those components in their field , thats why the models are so 'off' ... How much say 'cloud cover ' and 'water vapour' in feedback loops in the atmosphere have on climate variation for instance is massively under-researched / under emphasised / not fully understood . So no 1 climate expert has anything more than a mere % of the total picture ...
Select to expand quoteDelFuego said..
so many deniers on this forum
I am a denier:
I am a denier of subscribing to any point of view that is horrendously (and stupidly) protected at all costs.
Then it becomes a belief and BELIEF is the mother of all Fark ups; and indeed the root of all problems including this suppose climate catastrophe WE are apparently creating.
there is always the clever foxes behind the curtains making money from the mass lemming fascination with one limited point of view ...
and if they don't make money, they wage war to make money...or create a religion...or...or ..or
Seeing multiple points of view with discernible wisdom is inconvenient....unlike the "inconvenient truth" which is entirely convenient really.
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
Some say this lower solar output equates to around 0.3 of a degree global temp raise ... Look up Maunder Min also - we are heading into a decade of LOWER solar output of the sun (less sun spots ) ... so maybe the SLIGHT up-creap of global temp will be offset ... I've been casually researching man induced climate for a while ... and Im for sure more and more leaning to natural variation and think the climate change group have become utterly 'cultist' .... There's 32,000 + scientists that have signed a document stating 'THEY DO NOT believe were heading for climate catastrophy , and claims of man-induced warming a WAY over hyped ...."
Did you here of the climate change sceptic calling out a published paper scientist (ipcc ) as a fraud - the climate change scientist took him to court for Libel (in canada I think) - and the climate sceptic won ! (ie the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud ) - because the climate change scientist REFUSED to release all his data points - which pretty much proved he had cherry picked his data to suit his bias .... (there is alot of funding / money to be made to keep pushing a climate change agenda )
The 32 computer models of future change are flawed beyond belief - and the closest model that has tracked temp increase over the last decades is the RUSSIAN model - which has modest global temp increases ....
The planet is the greenest its been in a century - and CO2 is not a demon gas (AS CLIMATE SCAREMONGERS would have you believe) - but essential and life promoting ....
Do you have a link to the above mentioned document ?
Select to expand quoteSkid said..seabreezer said..
Some say this lower solar output equates to around 0.3 of a degree global temp raise ... Look up Maunder Min also - we are heading into a decade of LOWER solar output of the sun (less sun spots ) ... so maybe the SLIGHT up-creap of global temp will be offset ... I've been casually researching man induced climate for a while ... and Im for sure more and more leaning to natural variation and think the climate change group have become utterly 'cultist' .... There's 32,000 + scientists that have signed a document stating 'THEY DO NOT believe were heading for climate catastrophy , and claims of man-induced warming a WAY over hyped ...."
Did you here of the climate change sceptic calling out a published paper scientist (ipcc ) as a fraud - the climate change scientist took him to court for Libel (in canada I think) - and the climate sceptic won ! (ie the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud ) - because the climate change scientist REFUSED to release all his data points - which pretty much proved he had cherry picked his data to suit his bias .... (there is alot of funding / money to be made to keep pushing a climate change agenda )
The 32 computer models of future change are flawed beyond belief - and the closest model that has tracked temp increase over the last decades is the RUSSIAN model - which has modest global temp increases ....
The planet is the greenest its been in a century - and CO2 is not a demon gas (AS CLIMATE SCAREMONGERS would have you believe) - but essential and life promoting ....
Do you have a link to the above mentioned document ?
btw - typing error - lower sun output might be equiv to 0.3 deg global COOLING (not rising in my orginal post) ... But maybe feedback loops propel this lower ...
What aspects SKid ? ... the document scientists signed ?
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
Some say this lower solar output equates to around 0.3 of a degree global temp raise ... Look up Maunder Min also - we are heading into a decade of LOWER solar output of the sun (less sun spots ) ... so maybe the SLIGHT up-creap of global temp will be offset ... I've been casually researching man induced climate for a while ... and Im for sure more and more leaning to natural variation and think the climate change group have become utterly 'cultist' .... There's 32,000 + scientists that have signed a document stating 'THEY DO NOT believe were heading for climate catastrophy , and claims of man-induced warming a WAY over hyped ...."
Did you here of the climate change sceptic calling out a published paper scientist (ipcc ) as a fraud - the climate change scientist took him to court for Libel (in canada I think) - and the climate sceptic won ! (ie the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud ) - because the climate change scientist REFUSED to release all his data points - which pretty much proved he had cherry picked his data to suit his bias .... (there is alot of funding / money to be made to keep pushing a climate change agenda )
The 32 computer models of future change are flawed beyond belief - and the closest model that has tracked temp increase over the last decades is the RUSSIAN model - which has modest global temp increases ....
The planet is the greenest its been in a century - and CO2 is not a demon gas (AS CLIMATE SCAREMONGERS would have you believe) - but essential and life promoting ....
Oooh careful! You're running the risk of being labeled a denier for which, by pronouncement of Saint Greta and her disciples, you may be burned at the stake!
As for Foghorn and Eppo I can already smell the burning flesh.
Logman has the lighter.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..DelFuego said..
so many deniers on this forum
I am a denier:
I am a denier of subscribing to any point of view that is horrendously (and stupidly) protected at all costs.
Then it becomes a belief and BELIEF is the mother of all Fark ups; and indeed the root of all problems including this suppose climate catastrophe WE are apparently creating.
there is always the clever foxes behind the curtains making money from the mass lemming fascination with one limited point of view ...
and if they don't make money, they wage war to make money...or create a religion...or...or ..or
Seeing multiple points of view with discernible wisdom is inconvenient....unlike the "inconvenient truth" which is entirely convenient really.
Okay; so what if the point of view is that there is no AGM? What if that point of view is horrendously and stupidly protected at all costs, even if that costs include potentially changing the climate disastrously?
What if the limited POV that fascinates the mass lemmings is that AGW is not a problem?
Following the money is reasonable. In this case, there are trillions of dollars in the fossil fuel industry, so we don't have to look too far.
Seabreezer your arguments are too rational and middle ground. You'll never get funding that way.
But yes the planet is what it is because of the life on it. Without life all the atmospheric oxygen would eventually fizzle out for instance. No doubt we've perturbed the climate, as all other lifeforms also do. I reckon the biggest problem is the room we take up pushing out the complexity of organisms that got the climate to what it is in the first place and who can correct for a bit of extra heat, ( whatever the main cause of the heat is) if given room to move.
Be a good idea to cut back on rubbish I suppose. The worst thing you can do with rubbish is use it to fill up the holes we make in the ground! A big hole, fresh rock, dark sides and warm sides too dangerous for people is the best thing for biodiversity. We should pile our rubbish into hills on some bleak flat part of the countryside.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332460-700-forget-pristine-habitats-for-biodiversity-save-abandoned-quarries/
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
Think what everyone can agree on ... we need to do urgently though is ...
Cut down on single use plastics that is killing our ocean life ... (maybe a tax on cheap chinese plastic crap going into countries )
Lessen needless consumer consumption ...
Build better quality products that last longer ...
Plant lots more trees ...
Create more enviromental sanctuaries / areas / respite for endangered animals
Look at what free trade and globalisation has done to consumer spending / loss of manufacturing to far east etc etc ... (ie stop giving money to totalitarian regimes that keep building ghost cities / exhausting all critical commodities , and inflating pyramid schemes that will take down the global economy with fraudulent money (rmb)
and definitely stop sending container loads of plastics from our rubbish tips to Indonesia. They will pick through the wanted items and throw the rest in the creek, hence the plastic problem in indo oceans. Better to just bury the rubbish in Australia and admit we cant recycle it than send to indo private recyclers under guise of recycling. Australia is to blame for the plastic in indo waters.
Select to expand quoteDelFuego said..seabreezer said..
Think what everyone can agree on ... we need to do urgently though is ...
Cut down on single use plastics that is killing our ocean life ... (maybe a tax on cheap chinese plastic crap going into countries )
Lessen needless consumer consumption ...
Build better quality products that last longer ...
Plant lots more trees ...
Create more enviromental sanctuaries / areas / respite for endangered animals
Look at what free trade and globalisation has done to consumer spending / loss of manufacturing to far east etc etc ... (ie stop giving money to totalitarian regimes that keep building ghost cities / exhausting all critical commodities , and inflating pyramid schemes that will take down the global economy with fraudulent money (rmb)
and definitely stop sending container loads of plastics from our rubbish tips to Indonesia. They will pick through the wanted items and throw the rest in the creek, hence the plastic problem in indo oceans. Better to just bury the rubbish in Australia and admit we cant recycle it than send to indo private recyclers under guise of recycling. Australia is to blame for the plastic in indo waters.
Well, yes, you can argue that we contribute, but we aren't directly responsible.
The idea that the sun,the source of all heat on earth could somehow influence a change in temperature is a conspiracy theory for most of the cultists.
Select to expand quoteseabreezer said..
Think what everyone can agree on ... we need to do urgently though is ...
Cut down on single use plastics that is killing our ocean life ... (maybe a tax on cheap chinese plastic crap going into countries )
Lessen needless consumer consumption ...
Build better quality products that last longer ...
Plant lots more trees ...
Create more enviromental sanctuaries / areas / respite for endangered animals
Look at what free trade and globalisation has done to consumer spending / loss of manufacturing to far east etc etc ... (ie stop giving money to totalitarian regimes that keep building ghost cities / exhausting all critical commodities , and inflating pyramid schemes that will take down the global economy with fraudulent money (rmb)
Everyone can agree with all of this, or at least most of it.
Good post
Deniers. Deniers as far as the eye can see. Mistrustful of science and preferring their own amateur analysis over that of trained researchers.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The idea that the sun,the source of all heat on earth could somehow influence a change in temperature is a conspiracy theory for most of the cultists.
Isn't it strange that the ignorant cult includes so many top scientists.
