Average Solar System Warming Statistics! Suck It Libs

[squealpiggy]

Why should the sun be cooling when it has a plentiful supply of Hydrogen to fuse?

The "Universe" is also only cooling due to it's expansion. Not to mention when people say that "The Universe is cooling" they just mean the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is increasing in wavelength. This is due to red-shifting from Universal expansion. The total heat energy of the Universe should actually grow as kinetic energy and other forms are constantly transferred into heat (through friction and other phenomenon). This leads to the entropic heat death of the Universe as everything eventually enters thermodynamic equilibrium and there is no other forms of energy to use. So nothing can happen.

The sun's output has been declining over the last fifty years. It's possible that this is part of a much longer cycle of course, half a century is the blink of an eye to a stellar body that has been burning for 4.5 billion years, but it is an observed fact that the sun's output has lessened over the time that the earth has experienced its most dramatic warming.

[Barn]

That's strange. I just assumed it would be consistently changing but would average out to a steady value. As you said though, maybe that is the case and the fluctuations just last for a long time.

I think that is the case after doing some research. I seen an article from the MET Office stating that the sun is predicted to cool for the next 90 years but:

During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a 'grand maximum' and recent studies have suggested this level of activity is at or nearing its end.

So I'm guessing from that it climbed to a Maximum and is now falling to a Minimum and the cycle will repeat for whatever reason, just like a longer version of the classic 11 year sun cycles.

I'm no expert though.

[Canelo Phresh]

Rebuttal.



Has nothing to do with climate change or science.



I think you need to look up the definition of the word "semantics" because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.



Citing.



Mars and Jupiter are cooling and the sun's output has also been cooling over the past fifty years. This directly refutes your assertion that he rest of the solar system is warming. Temperature change on other planets does not correlate with the temperature change on earth.



Actually it's because there was a graph produced by a liar who carefully selected the start and end date of the graph to show a decline in temperature, making sure to include 1998 but end it before 2005.



You said there hadn't been any. There has, by over a tenth of a degree on average.



There clearly has been a warming trend. You're back to denying what is on the graph again and pretending that reality conforms to your politics. "Quite the opposite"? So you're now saying that the temperature is going down? You're suggesting that even though the very warmest temperatures are warmer in the 2000s than they were in the 90s, even though the coolest temperatures are warmer than the coolest temperatures in the 1990s and even though the average temperatures are warmer than the average in the 90s and show a steady increase towards the end of the decade, you're now saying that the opposite is true?



Why would you say that? I don't think there's any need to move on in the conversation while you continue to be wrong about the very basic numbers!



No, it's because you are still insisting that there was no increase since the 90s despite clear data showing that you are wrong.

So link your sources for mars and jupiters cooling ill have a usc paper from 2012 waiting to silence this lie.



Nobody is interested in talking to you.

so link you're sources on mars and jupiters cooling I have a usc study from 2012 waiting.

[Jim Jeffries]

Mars and Jupiter are cooling and the sun's output has also been cooling over the past fifty years. This directly refutes your assertion that he rest of the solar system is warming. Temperature change on other planets does not correlate with the temperature change on earth.

Source?

During its life in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years) and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in its early past. The increase in solar temperatures is such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will probably become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Actually it's because there was a graph produced by a liar who carefully selected the start and end date of the graph to show a decline in temperature, making sure to include 1998 but end it before 2005.

If a graph was started in 1998, why would you need to end it before 2005 to show cooling? Since that start date there has clearly been a cooling trend through today.

You said there hadn't been any. There has, by over a tenth of a degree on average.

Since 1998? Nonsense.

There clearly has been a warming trend.

Not in average global temperatures since 1998.

You're back to denying what is on the graph again and pretending that reality conforms to your politics. "Quite the opposite"? So you're now saying that the temperature is going down? You're suggesting that even though the very warmest temperatures are warmer in the 2000s than they were in the 90s, even though the coolest temperatures are warmer than the coolest temperatures in the 1990s and even though the average temperatures are warmer than the average in the 90s and show a steady increase towards the end of the decade, you're now saying that the opposite is true?

As you know, I never mentioned the temperature change from "the 90's" until today. I made a statement regarding the "late 90's" through today in response to your disregarding 1998 as too old a data point in comparing global temperature changes to those elsewhere.

Why would you say that? I don't think there's any need to move on in the conversation while you continue to be wrong about the very basic numbers!

There has clearly been a cooling trend in average global temperatures since 1998. That much you can't deny.

No, it's because you are still insisting that there was no increase since the 90s despite clear data showing that you are wrong.

Now you're back to this "the 90's" nonsense.

[Welter_Skelter]

Rebuttal.



Has nothing to do with climate change or science.



I think you need to look up the definition of the word "semantics" because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.



Citing.



Mars and Jupiter are cooling and the sun's output has also been cooling over the past fifty years. This directly refutes your assertion that he rest of the solar system is warming. Temperature change on other planets does not correlate with the temperature change on earth.



Actually it's because there was a graph produced by a liar who carefully selected the start and end date of the graph to show a decline in temperature, making sure to include 1998 but end it before 2005.



You said there hadn't been any. There has, by over a tenth of a degree on average.



There clearly has been a warming trend. You're back to denying what is on the graph again and pretending that reality conforms to your politics. "Quite the opposite"? So you're now saying that the temperature is going down? You're suggesting that even though the very warmest temperatures are warmer in the 2000s than they were in the 90s, even though the coolest temperatures are warmer than the coolest temperatures in the 1990s and even though the average temperatures are warmer than the average in the 90s and show a steady increase towards the end of the decade, you're now saying that the opposite is true?



Why would you say that? I don't think there's any need to move on in the conversation while you continue to be wrong about the very basic numbers!



No, it's because you are still insisting that there was no increase since the 90s despite clear data showing that you are wrong.



Nobody is interested in talking to you.

No Piggy.. YOU don't want to talk to me. Shit dawg.. All you gotta do is cut and paste someone else's words to answer my query.. Of course I have been owning your taxi driving pseudo intellectual ass for the better part of a decade now.. You can be forgiven for ducking my simple question.
But try no to speak for others.. You look like an even bigger ****** when you do.
You love Fallacy and your posts are loaded with them.. I find it amusing since you also love phallus and are probably clever enough to have noticed that they sound very similar.

[squealpiggy]

so link you're sources on mars and jupiters cooling I have a usc study from 2012 waiting.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=39
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=40

Source?

During its life in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years) and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in its early past. The increase in solar temperatures is such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will probably become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Total solar irradiance declining over the last fifty or so years (peaked in the early 60s) including the period of time between the late 90s and 2010 that is in question right now.

If a graph was started in 1998, why would you need to end it before 2005 to show cooling? Since that start date there has clearly been a cooling trend through today.

We're back to claiming there's a cooling trend now? It would have to stop before 2005 because 2005 showed a higher temperature than 1998 and you're claiming that this never happened. 2010 showed a higher temperature still. Average temperatures from 2000 to 2009 are about 0.15 degrees higher than they were between 1990 and 1999 and indications are that average temperatures will increase by the same or greater rate this decade as well.

Since 1998? Nonsense.



Not in average global temperatures since 1998.

You're cherry-picking the data. 1998 was an anomalously hot year. It was the hottest year on record at the time and the following year temperatures dropped by 2/10 of a degree. In fairness 1999 was a la nina year, as was 2000 on which the temperature dropped further. Since 2001 the temperature in La Nina years is over .1 degree hotter.

You cherry picked one of the most anomalously hot years ever and it still isn't as hot as a non El Nino year under a decade later! The trend is warming, and this is the issue with you: You think that you can argue away the data rhetorically. The data is still the data no matter how much you convince yourself it isn't.

As you know, I never mentioned the temperature change from "the 90's" until today. I made a statement regarding the "late 90's" through today in response to your disregarding 1998 as too old a data point in comparing global temperature changes to those elsewhere.

If you follow the thread you will see that it was framed as an infantile "gotcha", implying that there was some new data discovered that disproved athropogenic climate change. I pointed out that the data was not new, so there was no gotcha, then you started banging on about 1998.

When looked at in terms of decades the warming trend is immediately apparent. When looked at since 1998 the warming trend is also apparent unless you end your graph in 2004 then you can make the claim that there has been cooling. It would be a silly claim to end your graph there, but I'm not the one making it.

There has clearly been a cooling trend in average global temperatures since 1998. That much you can't deny.

Can you even see? 1998 marked a high temp year. Since then there have been two years that have been hotter, 2005 and 2010. If you plot the points on a graph then draw a line intersecting them the end of the line is higher than the beginning. This means that the y axis is heading up. You do know what a graph is don't you?

No Piggy.. YOU don't want to talk to me.

Well you're right on one thing.

[Welter_Skelter]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=39
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=40





Total solar irradiance declining over the last fifty or so years (peaked in the early 60s) including the period of time between the late 90s and 2010 that is in question right now.



We're back to claiming there's a cooling trend now? It would have to stop before 2005 because 2005 showed a higher temperature than 1998 and you're claiming that this never happened. 2010 showed a higher temperature still. Average temperatures from 2000 to 2009 are about 0.15 degrees higher than they were between 1990 and 1999 and indications are that average temperatures will increase by the same or greater rate this decade as well.



You're cherry-picking the data. 1998 was an anomalously hot year. It was the hottest year on record at the time and the following year temperatures dropped by 2/10 of a degree. In fairness 1999 was a la nina year, as was 2000 on which the temperature dropped further. Since 2001 the temperature in La Nina years is over .1 degree hotter.

You cherry picked one of the most anomalously hot years ever and it still isn't as hot as a non El Nino year under a decade later! The trend is warming, and this is the issue with you: You think that you can argue away the data rhetorically. The data is still the data no matter how much you convince yourself it isn't.



If you follow the thread you will see that it was framed as an infantile "gotcha", implying that there was some new data discovered that disproved athropogenic climate change. I pointed out that the data was not new, so there was no gotcha, then you started banging on about 1998.

When looked at in terms of decades the warming trend is immediately apparent. When looked at since 1998 the warming trend is also apparent unless you end your graph in 2004 then you can make the claim that there has been cooling. It would be a silly claim to end your graph there, but I'm not the one making it.



Can you even see? 1998 marked a high temp year. Since then there have been two years that have been hotter, 2005 and 2010. If you plot the points on a graph then draw a line intersecting them the end of the line is higher than the beginning. This means that the y axis is heading up. You do know what a graph is don't you?



Well you're right on one thing.

Yes ..it's called dodging the tough questions.. It's called being a chicken..
Why don't you cut and paste all the harm this warming is bringing to the Earth? Not projections or best guesses. Proof.
I want to see the numbers backing up the flooding and the species extinctions cause by man made Co2.
Good luck.

[squealpiggy]

Yes ..it's called dodging the tough questions.. It's called being a chicken..
Why don't you cut and paste all the harm this warming is bringing to the Earth? Not projections or best guesses. Proof.
I want to see the numbers backing up the flooding and the species extinctions cause by man made Co2.
Good luck.

Go away.

[Barn]

Potholer54 does some awesome videos on Climate Change denial. If anyone prefers information in video format.

[Welter_Skelter]

Go away.

It's so cute the way you fear me.