Yahoo 知識+ 將於 2021 年 5 月 4 日 (美國東岸時間) 停止服務，而 Yahoo 知識+ 網站現已轉為僅限瀏覽模式。其他 Yahoo 資產或服務，或你的 Yahoo 帳戶將不會有任何變更。你可以在此服務中心網頁進一步了解 Yahoo 知識+ 停止服務的事宜，以及了解如何下載你的資料。
Recent study regarding the Sun?
In a recent study, approved earlier this month, in PNAS uses diurnal temperature range to establish how much solar radiation is hitting the surface. They show that solar input reached a peak in the 1940s and 1950 and has steadily fallen since then. since the mid-1980s solar input has been relatively unchanged. Do you see any problems with this paper after reading it through? Note: this is different than data from sunspot cycles in that these measurements also take into account such things as aerosol activity.
Caliservative: You are making assumption about something without even looking at it. I didn't even state how I felt about it in the post. Poor logic? I'm afraid you seem to take the cake for the majority of that. Your constant use of fallacy arguments based on your own ignorance is very apparent to anyone knowledgeable in the actual science. Now how about you actually read the study first this time before writing it off?
338 Edge: Can you provide evidence for your claims? If you can provide actual evidence, that being what temperature sensors were used, data on each station, and so on, I would be willing to look at it. You can start here: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/groups/schaer/research/rad_... which was the source for their data. If you can't how can you come to any scientific conclusions at all? Do you think that is how science works?
Kano: Again, you seem to be writing it off according to your predefined beliefs. They are not 'proxies'. If you look at the database description it states "The GEBA is a project of the World Climate Programme-Water (WMO, UNESCO, ICSU) and is aimed at assimilating the instrumentally measured surface energy fluxes into a database."
4 個解答
- 匿名8 年前最愛解答
The paper does support the fact that the Sun caused the warming in the Early 20th Century, but not in the late 20th Century. A surprising conclusion is that Rs, which would include not only the effects of the Sun, but of aerosols, including the Asian Brown Cloud, did not cause the recent slowdown in the warming. I await to see if other papers concur with this finding. A new theory which would explain the slowdown also needs to explain the rapid warming since the 1970s.
- 338 edgeLv 68 年前
How much error is there? A slight amount of error in the data (likely or at least not complete data) or a slight difference between theory and reality (very likely) means that the results are meaningless. A very minor difference means that their results don't support Global warming. There will be people who go back and redo this study to show that global warming doesn't exist.
There aren't enough temperature sensors. Of the ones there are (i.e. Fig 1 from the study) many are in urban areas that are likely to have higher temps due to being in an area that absorbs the sunlight. That skews the data. I think the study showed exactly what the they expected it to show because that was how they interpreted their data.
- KanoLv 78 年前
Totally crap research, quote Direct measurements of
Rs cannot be quanti-tatively related to such variability because they have been limited
in their geographical coverage. The approach used here is to
examine a global land dataset of diurnal temperature range(DTR). This concept is not new, indeed, Wild et al. (7) noted
Another **** proxy research paper, not worth the paper it is printed on.
- ?Lv 58 年前
Since you posted the link to it, it is unlikely to be objective, and thus not worth the time it would take to read it.
資料來源： Your history of poor logic and emotional hostility towards anyone who does not agree with you.
