Global Warming

Originally posted by tinnitus ↑

Ferro
You state it is time to get on another horse. Is TSI your horse?
Do you think for a moment that the TSI has not been included into the understanding of climate change?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

Here is a paper by Foster and Rahmstorf.
One section of the article states :
When the ﬂuctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global
warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of
global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). In other words, any deviations from an unchanging
linear warming trend are explained by the inﬂuence of ENSO, Volcanoes and Solar Variability.

Ferro
If you read the paper on page 6 you will see table 3. Table 3 shows the Trends in C/decade of the signal components due to
MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the ﬁve temperature records studied.

This may come as a shock to you Ferro, but the trend for TSI has a negative sign.

Do you want me to spell out what that means?

Your horse is tired and has run its race.

Expand

Tin

A favourite saying of mine is "ignorance is curable but stupidity is terminal".

Let me cure your ignorance by pointing out Foster and Rahmstorf's stupidity ...

Firstly, the Earth is on average a comfortable, warm, wet planet because it orbits the Sun at just the right distance - not too little not too much. The corollary is that for the distance at which the Earth orbits the Sun the Sun's irradiance is just right - not too little not too much.

Secondly, a negative TSI implies that if the Sun's irradiance increases the Earth will cool! The corollary is that if the Sun's irradiance decreases the Earth will warm. In which case I am just thankful we are not orbiting a Red Dwarf otherwise we will all have been vapourised by now.

You may have guessed what I am going to say next ...

Foster and Rahmstorf were so focussed on reinforcing the CO2 furphy, by discrediting TSI etc., that they did not even bother to perform a physical reality check on what the implications were for a negative TSI finding, being the result of an amateur analysis by MLR. This is the type of mistake that an under-graduate student would make in a class assignment. I would hope that even you would have anticipated that TSI should be positive, even if it was a very small positive number. Their analysis method should have at the very least constrained TSI to being not less than zero (a thermodynamic boundary condition).

I can but conclude that these guys are stupid, or at the very least grossly incompetent.