Wild Cobra

I gave it to you. It doesn't matter to me what you believe of it.

It most certainly can if I were to use daily, or even hourly values instead of annual. However, the percentages would be smaller. The only claim I am making is that if there is a response, that if slow enough, can account for solar effect of warming into this century. I don't know if my low values of 3% or 4% is in the ballpark. I could be off. What annoys me is the certainty by you and others that it is so much higher. Maybe I incorrectly assumed what you meant. Sorry if so. Do you claim radioactive decay is linear as will, since it consistently reduced by 50% over a given number of years, and another 50% over the next step of the same number of years? It's simply an unquantified value. It only shows a relative change of energy change not yet quantified. Quantification, I would leave to those who have a better tool-set for such matters. I'm going by the approximate 10 meters seen in various works of spectral absorption in sea water. Here is a image and source I will assume you will accept: the image is from: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_10.htm It appears to me that around half the shortwave by this graph, penetrates past 10 meters. Most the ocean will fall into catagory I, II, and III. Didn't I elude to emissivity and re-emission of energy? If not, I meant to. It amounts to the absorbed energy being re-emitted with Planck's law of black-body radiation. this only happens at the immediate surface of the earths surface. It doesn't apply to energy absorbed meters deep in the water. Convection, conduction, and ocean currents, after the waters absorb the energy. Isn't it obvious? Why shouldn't I ignore people who misrepresent my views, and argue against them? As for your question, I have already spent too long responding today. Sometimes, i simply don't respond due to time restraints. I tell you though, I don't appreciate comments like this of yours: Really?: It appears you incorrectly concluded... --- OK, does this correction help: "Especially when longwave emitted by CO2 is absorbed and reflected within microns of the ocean surface and solar penetrates hundreds of meters." Add re emitted as the surface acts like a black body radiator too. I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary averaging period. Isn't it obvious I extrapolated a response to the changing annual data provided by SORCE? I am stating that skeptical science, and other sources indicate the effect of CO2 has a long equalization time. I am asking why such things are acceptable as CO2 increases, but not for solar variations. Does it only work when something is increasing, and not when it is more cyclical? It would appear nobody in the climate science will accept treating solar changes with equality of methodology for what appears as a lag for CO2. If heat changes from radiated down-forcing can have long term equalization, why not the sun?

I'm going to start ignoring everyone who starts off by misrepresenting my claims. Care to be serious?

Then tell me what you need me to elaborate on instead of incorrect assumption. When I see an argument against an incorrect assumption, I think you are building a straw man to tear down. I see. Even though there is no conclusive way to quantify the effect of CO2, you expect solar to be? What is not clear about linking the SORCE data set and specifying annual? Do you see why I get so annoyed with you guys? The excel formulas are very simple. From the start, I take the 1610 TSI value for both the TSI and equalized values. In more recent spreadsheets, I changed the results to "response" from "equalized." The formulation is: New response level = (TSI - starting response ) x percentage + starting response How about I explain the graph in post #8. I started with 1300 and did a single state change to 1400 and held it there. With 4.02%: First year at change: 1400 - 1300 = 100 100 x 0.0402 = 4.02 1300 + 4.02 = 1304.02 Second year: 1400 - 1304.02 = 95.98 95.98 x 0.0402 = 3.858 1304.02 + 3.858 = 1307.878 etc. etc. etc. Now when the data keeps changing year to year, the value added or subtracted continues to change with the TSI - response. It is similar as half-life of isotopes, but instead of assigning years to 50%, we assign a percentage for a one year period. It is exponential, and when the data is dynamic rather than fixed, it isn't immediately apparent. Like I said before, I would prefer to use daily values. How do we know most the energy show up "fairly quickly," and who are you to demand I "quantify effects" when you don't? What is your definition of "fairly quickly?" How does an exponential response peak? Is there some new science I'm unaware of? As for the latency, I don't think you understand what, at least to me, the graph clearly represents. Look closely at the graph in post 1. Any time the response signal (marked equalized) is lower than the TSI level, it increases. It increases by a constant percentage of the difference. Once they cross, and the response signal is greater than the TSI, the response now decreases. This constant dance of criss-crossing values continues to change as needed in an attempt to equalize, that will never actually happen. As for your concept of "fairly quickly," just how quickly do you think when approximately half the shortwave entering the oceans are absorbed more than 10 meters in depth? Doesn't a substantial part of this change in solar warming go deeper, mix, and flow with the ocean currents? By "bulk," you obviously mean most of the change, but seriously... Only a small fraction is delayed? I have never seen such an idea in all the works I read. Especially when leading author say it can take decades to see the results from CO2 changes, and longwave from CO2 only penetrates the waters a fraction of a millimeter. Fully absorbed energy is not the same as longwave, that with emissivity and albedo, are "very quickly" radiated back upward. The joules of energy may be smaller, but the accumulation is different when absorbed by a mostly transparent fluid, than that of a mostly solid opaque. Which do you think is more reflective to energy?

This isn't a science class. I'm not going to explain the basic sciences of spectral depths of shortwave, convection, conduction, etc. If these basics are not already understood, I would be wasting my time. As for CO2, it has effect too, and I am not quantifying a temperature value by anything solar or greenhouse gasses. Once again, I was only showing a mechanism that shows longer times involved in how the sun can influence climate. Why are you all making more of it than what it is?

You guys are impossible. Look at what I initially responded to. iNow states: I reply with a clarification, specifying the coupling between the solar-ocean-atmosphere, and never claim it to be more than one part of the whole: What type of bias does it take to continually twist what another says? Is it your method of confirmation bias? I am not specifying any particular period of time only stating that a annual value of equalization percentage for annual data conforms with both previous knowledge I have accumulated over more than a decade, and even with Hansen's 60% statement he once published. My 55 year for 90% belief is not necessarily true and I know that, but again, it is within Hansen's 60% for the what he has stated in the past. The 3% is even within his range. My point is that it is possible, that until recent times, the earth has still been warming from solar increases that ended in 1958. 3% puts the peak of response in 2004. People so readily dismiss the solar influence. I think it is unwise to do so when considering the change it has on the ocean mass. Again, this is one possibility for one the impact limited to the variables I spoke of, and still does not account for the modulating influence of other things like wind changes, ENSO, etc. It was never an attempt to be any magical explanation, other than showing the thermal inertia of systems is increasing more as their mass and size increases. The mass of the ocean surface and area coverage should not be discounted for its effect on the atmosphere, nor the fact that so much energy from the sun is absorbed into the ocean surface.. John... You also take what I say out of context. You really got carried away with your whole earth example. I have never implied the 90% would affect be the temperature effect by that much and especially not the whole of the earth. I did specify "ocean surface region" for its effect on the atmosphere. The equalization response units are unspecified. It is just the reaction of influence to the atmosphere from heat changes in the ocean surface. It is only relative to itself, but plotted with TSI and left there to make how it responds more clear. It is really annoying that the arrogance here has so many jumping to unfounded conclusions. If you guys call this science, then count me out. In science, one should be open and explore new ideas. Not find assumed reason to dismiss them. I repeatedly see forms of confirmation bias in these climate forums. That is not science. Will you guys ever start actually listening to people you disagree with? Is it really so hard to try to understand another person's perspective? Seriously, your responses look absolutely ignorant to me when you keep coming back with arguments that do not apply to my posts. I see no intellectual debate from you guys because you don't take the time to ask for clarifications. Instead, you attack my position out of ignorance. Then how does one model data that is in steps? The step is always changing with the delta of the response and new input value. Why is that wrong? Does it or does it not, properly create an exponential response?

I simply used the same excel sheet and changed to a two state for illustration purposes, that it is exponential. Sorry, I thought that would be obvious. I'm not writing a thesis or paper to be peer reviewed. Why complain about simplicity that I'm pretty sure everyone understands the intent? Is complete refinement necessary for purposes of illustration how something progresses? I have wanted to use daily and uncorrected TSI values, but couldn't find any. There is something like a 7% change in value from the eccentricity of the earths orbit alone, but all I can find are normalized to 1 AU. I found it easier to use data that is accepted, like SORCE. Seems you find any reason to nit-pic anyway. Why can others use annual SORCE TSI data except me? That's a stretch to invoke rule 2.7 when it is my own formulation of my Excel sheet that I uploaded to google docs. The graphics are mine too, generated on my computer, uploaded to my photobucket account. Again, how can one who assumes so many things as fact, be qualified as a moderator.

That there is spiteful bias. Anyone who disagree with consensus is treated so much different than those making looser statements that do support consensus. Now that I got my graph in on the other post, and said my piece. I just might not come back again. I'm tired of this "clique" like environment.

I gave a link to my formulation. It's exponential. If I do a single state change with my formulation we get this: 90% is at 55 years. Another thing when speaking of equalization, it is rarely stated at what percentage. One of Hansen's papers... says something to the effect that 60% of the equalization occurs in... I think 20 to 30 years. This too, matches. I haven't found that paper as I looked, but there is something to that effect. Any time equalization is mentioned, a percentage of equalization needs to be stated with it, else it's meaningless. After all, it takes infinity for exponential changes to reach 100% of the change.

I think you gave two examples just fine to support my contention. In the first "this," I stated what I thought I read by saying "If I read that correctly..." I then asked questions about it. In the second "this," I stated that some of this was very old. I used a 10 year reference. Can you find material from 10 years back with ease? And should I when I was being asked to source an opinion in a thread called "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" I have been hounded at every turn for any little reason. In a recent post in another thread, you assume incorrect facts and accuse me of assuming linear, when what I did is clearly exponential... that is when one is considerate enough to assess a persons works rather than ignore, and go into auto-deny mode as you have frequently done with me. You know, I don't care any more. Someone who assumes so incorrectly, so frequently, like you... should not be a moderator. Suspend me if you want. Ban me if you want. This forum has become beneath me because of people like you!

Why are you assuming? I never indicated a linear response. Did you look at my formulation? Since when does 0.0402 x 55 = 1?

I don't discount the two month apparent lag at all. We all witness that the two annual solaces are late June and late December, but the temperature peaks are usually August/September or January/February. I am simply saying that there are likely more changes, that are slower at responding as well. Now I have complained about using blogs, but in a short time frame, I didn't find what I was looking for except for this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html In this, there is a 40 year lag claimed and accepted by those of Skeptical Science. However, it is the CO2 effect. Not solar. I will ask, why is this lag OK for CO2, but not solar? Especially when CO2 is absorbed and reflected within microns of the ocean surface and solar penetrates hundreds of meters. There are past papers where Hansen speaks of various lag timeframes regarding CO2, I believe as far out as 60 years, but I would have to find it again for certainty. If pressed, I will find one of them, but is it necessary? It seems to me Skeptical Science is the "go to" place for many of the claims. Again, why not for solar as well if it is claimed for CO2? John... Maybe you disagree with the time involved, but do you see a problem in my formulation for equalization? Maybe my 3% or 4.02% is wrong. maybe it's 50% or 80%... Maybe more... Just the same, what about my methodology rather than percentages?

At the risk of responding to a moderator thread, I would be glad to have a proper thread to disuss this topic, without the fear of suspension. By all means Imatfaal. I welcome a proper thread.

I was taken out in my opinion for what ever angle I could be, because I can threaten consensus. Once I said i would show an example once I saw one again, I was hounded and hounded. I was baited into that suspension for holding firm. How about we discuss the science instead of such things as you bring up? Don't you get it? My viewpoint of science has been censored. If I'm not careful, I will be suspended again. Maybe banned. Strange... How about responding to my viewpoint on science instead. Do you agree or disagree that my methodology for the graph I made has merit? Maybe not the year to year percentage, but what about the methodology? If there is a better forum to discuss this, I will be glad to. Just start a thread and invite me. Otherwise, I would prefer to stick with the science instead of being baited into another suspension.

Suspended at least. That's how you guys set it up. You know the rules and how the moderators respond. I was suspended for a week for not digging into a claim I made before. I said I would provide it the next time it presented itself. My initial claim was not to believe any blog, including those from skeptics. It snowballed into a suspension for me of a week: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=838272 My offense was not allowing the thread to be sidetracked farther, and refusing repeated demands. Now here we are again...