# Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

Solar Spectral Shift and Earths Atmospherics.

Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.

So lets look at the solar down-welling spectrum. 







So we see that the sun has a very broad range with which to transmit its energy onto the earth. The Solar spectrum is generally 0.2um to 2.57um.  You  will also note the intensity of certain bandwidths which indicates the amount of heat generated by that bandwidth.

What would happen to the earth if just 3% of the heat intensity being delivered in the 0.2um -0.6um suddenly shifted to an area around 1.2um?  This question is a rather complex one as it now involves earths atmosphere and how it responds to the varying bands or wavelengths.

I've posted this before however, it is necessary to do it again.  Below is the major gases in earths atmosphere and how they pass energy in differing bands.



 

Please note that I have included the Black Body wave lengths in this graph. However, the graph shows how each area or wave length is affected by its passage through earths atmosphere.  It is important to understand that if we pass a wave at 0.38um there is little in our atmosphere that stops the energy above the earths surface except for clouds or dust which would stop it from hitting earths surface. The same can not be said for 1.2um where a spike in the CO2 and water vapor would stop this above the surface of the earth in the upper troposphere. Leaving this heat to be easily returned to space and never making it to the surface.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

IF the sun were to become hyper and the speed of the reaction increase the power being pushed above 0.2um would be blocked by several differing gases.

IF the sun were to become hypo and areas of the reaction slow causing the radiated wave length to lengthen. this then places the power in another band and subject to that band impediments. 

IN both instances the shift would place energy into another area of earths energy bucket near the top where it never reaches the surface and is lost rapidly to space.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

IN late August of 1998 two major solar arrays in the Nevada desert were perplexed by a three to five percent drop in their collected energy.  The usual suspects were checked, dirt, rain, clouds, smoke, etc. None of these were identified as the cause.

NASA's ACE space craft had registered a rather odd shift in the solar spectrum which was ignored. It was a shift in energy output drop from 0.2um-0.5um  and a corresponding increase around 1.0-1.2um. So subtle that no one even cared, except engineers of solar panels.  The band pass of PV panels, which it converts to energy, is primarily in the 0.3 to 0.6 um wave length.

The Cause was a SPECTRAL SHIFT originating on the sun. The energy was simply not making it to earths surface.

How will this type of change affect earths energy balance and its climate engine?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2014)

Golly Gee.. Are you suggesting that we do some basic Climate Science to understand the fundamental dynamics of the Earth's GreenHouse and potentially save the planet from being roasted or frozen like a TV dinner?

That'll never happen. It's all about Carbon man. Get a fuckin grip...
And furthermore --- haven't you heard? The science is settled. Nothing more to learn or explore..

THIS --- is just the floaty part of the iceberg of what we HAVEN'T learned about the Earth's climate despite the $$$$ BILLs  that have been wasted on a fairy tale of woes..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2014)

Nope.. Can't be the Sun.. Without the actual data, brilliant minds have already ruled on that.. Quit wasting your time and my tax money.. You're just a shill for Big Solar.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

First we must ascertain how much energy is being kept from the earths surface and how is it affecting the upper atmosphere.






When you consider that just 237-458W/M^2 makes it to the surface of the earth of the 1354.2 W/M^2 that hits the outer atmosphere  you can see just how important a 2-5% change becomes.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 10, 2014)




----------



## Pogo (Sep 10, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Golly Gee.. Are you suggesting that we do some basic Climate Science to understand the fundamental dynamics of the Earth's GreenHouse and potentially save the planet from being roasted or frozen like a TV dinner?
> 
> That'll never happen. It's all about Carbon man. Get a fuckin grip...
> And furthermore --- haven't you heard? The science is settled. Nothing more to learn or explore..
> ...



TWEEET

"Offsides -- Ignoring the OP's avatar message.  Fifteen yards."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Nope.. Can't be the Sun.. Without the actual data, brilliant minds have already ruled on that.. Quit wasting your time and my tax money.. You're just a shill for Big Solar.



I am almost scared to ask what else happened in 1998.... We began to cool globally as we had just peaked out the current solar cycle.  The sun decided it needed a Siesta.. And shut down.. like someone flicked a switch and the sunspots STOPPED!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2014)

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Golly Gee.. Are you suggesting that we do some basic Climate Science to understand the fundamental dynamics of the Earth's GreenHouse and potentially save the planet from being roasted or frozen like a TV dinner?
> ...




You believe the hubris of this BillyBob guy?? Actually wanting to understand and study the dependencies of the GreenHouse on the stability of Sun's Spectral output?? 

Why he should be silenced and blackballed and ridiculed immediately.
People might start to get the idea that this Global fairy tale is just the Sesame Street version of how the Climate REALLY works..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.. Can't be the Sun.. Without the actual data, brilliant minds have already ruled on that.. Quit wasting your time and my tax money.. You're just a shill for Big Solar.
> ...



So seriously now -- do we attribute this to repeating the initial sequence for the Maunder Min --- a signal to buy Glacier insurance -- or just some sketchy random shit going on in the furnace room?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



 The Ice recovery at the poles is the key.  Antarctica is still 1.7 million KL sq above the 1981-2000 mean and above +2 standard deviations.  A Maunder event is very likely and a Dalton is not out of the question. For that matter a shift into a glacial cycle is also possible. IF both poles continue thier rapid ice increase your going to need  a whole lot of long-johns.  Just looking at the paleo climate record and solar activity this currently mirrors the fall into the Maunder event.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

A spectral shift is magnified in the polar regions as the tilt of the earth exaggerates the heat in put loss.  Add to that the thinner atmosphere due to weak magnetic fields and you get rapid heat loss on top of low heat input. The thermal imbalance drives cooling to the mid latitudes..  And here we are today.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Then it's a damn good deal that we figured out how to warm the climate by 8 or 10degC just by burning shit.. We should be OK as long as we don't run out of lemons.. 

Did any of the solar panel companies actual ACKNOWLEDGE this observed shift in papers or studies? Not that the 2 or 3% matters to the general market. But it DOES matter to their calibration and quality control measurements I bet. Unless they rely on a lab synthesized source for the most part. 

Folks need to understand that the Global Warming forcing function everyone is panicked about is a just a couple Watts/m2. HERE -- we're talking about several times that change in direct surface heating LOSS.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Then it's a damn good deal that we figured out how to warm the climate by 8 or 10degC just by burning shit.. We should be OK as long as we don't run out of lemons..
> 
> Did any of the solar panel companies actual ACKNOWLEDGE this observed shift in papers or studies? Not that the 2 or 3% matters to the general market. But it DOES matter to their calibration and quality control measurements I bet. Unless they rely on a lab synthesized source for the most part.
> 
> Folks need to understand that the Global Warming forcing function everyone is panicked about is a just a couple Watts/m2. HERE -- *we're talking about several times that change in direct surface heating LOSS*.



And that is the issue here. CO2 is not the end all and water vapor didn't respond like they wanted. However, those same gases in the down welling realm do not rely on each other but do cause much of the heat to be expended at high altitude and released to space.

You can find excerpts of the problem in some of the old tech blogs still.  I will try and find you a link.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

Hey guys, great circle jerk based on ignorant twaddle. You reinforce each other's insanity in the most hilarious ways. Too bad you're all such clueless retards.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Hey guys, great circle jerk based on ignorant twaddle. You reinforce each other's insanity in the most hilarious ways. Too bad you're all such clueless retards.



Poor little alarmist cant find his way out of his shity diaper..   Cant even see how real science is done let alone the hypothesis and what OBSERVATIONS of the real world show.

I guess you been playing with failed models so long you couldn't grasp reality. Don't you get tired of being lied to by your alarmist friends, all their toys are broken..


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 11, 2014)

Naaaah Billy!!! What are the chances the sun could have anything to do with the earths's climate? Clearly a hail mary pass by the "clueless retards".

Is kinds funny though.............you post up a thread like this and the AGW Truthers come off the rails with the hysterical anger!!






Not sure about you Billy, but Id much prefer to be a "clueless retard" than hoplessly duped!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Naaaah Billy!!! What are the chances the sun could have anything to do with the earths's climate? Clearly a hail mary pass by the "clueless retards".
> 
> Is kinds funny though.............you post up a thread like this and the AGW Truthers come off the rails with the hysterical anger!!



I find that the closer I come to dead center of the target the more unhinged they become..  The more holes I rip through their CO2 security blanket the more violent they are to defend their failed hypothesis.

Its Just observable reassurance that I am on the right path...


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Naaaah Billy!!! What are the chances the sun could have anything to do with the earths's climate? Clearly a hail mary pass by the "clueless retards".
> ...


 


The only reason I stick on this stoopid-ass forum!! I get a pronounced hoot out of the perpetual anger in these people. These cheesdicks are like the ISIS of science.............a perfect analogy, no??!!

Take Rolling Thunder for example................every single damn post this meathead does, he's spitting and stripping his teeth as he types! A perpetual state of rage that follows epic levels of misery!! Yellow jackets on crack have more poise.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Hey guys, great circle jerk based on ignorant twaddle. You reinforce each other's insanity in the most hilarious ways. Too bad you're all such clueless retards.


 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 11, 2014)

"You Deniers crack me up. The Settled Science Consensus Boys already eliminated the Sun as a contributor to ManMade Climate Global CoolerWarmering Disruption Change.

Check my tree Rings

The Sun affects climate on Earth? I lol'd -- out loud"


----------



## mamooth (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.



Like almost all deniers, you suck balls at common sense. A long post saying "look what happens if the spectrum change?" is 'effin stupid, being that THE SPECTRUM HASN'T CHANGED. Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

Of course, maybe you're being dishonest instead of amazingly stupid. Is that the case? Being charitable, I always start out assuming deniers are simply raging dumbshits, walking examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, people too retarded to ever understand how retarded they are. I'm almost always correct on that count. However, I don't discount the possibility that they might instead be deliberately lying for the glory of their religious-political cult.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

A Google search on solar spectral shifts, selecting Google's standard "Scholarly articles" return, will produce reams of work studying such shifts and their effects regarding PV cells.  It appears that the primary cause of such shifts are simple Doppler effects and Stokes V profile asymmetries in the solar atmosphere as a result of magnetic flux concentrations.  Thus the idea that such changes are responsible for Earth's global warming will have difficulty correlating with the time spans involved.  The driving effects have periods on the order of days and in the long run are essentially random while the observed warming effects have been going on steadily in one direction for 150 years.

I find it interesting that many of you have repeatedly argued that the absorption of solar energy by CO2 and other GHGs is far less than mainstream science believes - until such absorption - or even more - is required to make use of spectral shifts as a new forcing factor.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.
> ...



Obviously -- you are ONE TARD that just hasn't had a real technical think on this topic. Because IF YOU HAD -- you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth. The very atmosphere that the Incoming insolation is coming thru is masking the true measurement. In the OLD days, they used to cart a spectrometer up the mountainside to 12,000 feet or so to make measurements that were SLIGHTLY more accurate. But STILL incapable of doing that CONTINUALLY or with the precision required to find solar spectral shifts.

So we only have about 15 or 20 years of "real-time" data to look at the variability from satellite. That's not even more than one solar cycle. We basically know NOTHING about shifts in insolation that could modulate the GHouse absorption spectra. All the early "orbiting solar observatories" concentrated on High Energy particle spectra because the "THREAT" was due to solar flares and storms. Very damn few UV/Visible/IR full spectrum instruments were EVER available. And OCCASIONALLY we'd get a Shuttle or Space Station experiment that did this ONE TIME. 

Shows how little thought has been given to declarations that the "science is settled". Especially when you realize that MINUTE shifts in spectral density could change the climate in catastrophic ways..

Tard on admiral..


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Would you care to explore the conflict between your claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is too low to have caused the warming we've observed by greenhouse effects but is simultaneously high enough (much higher than mainstream science has ever claimed it to be) in order to have caused the heating by way of minute spectral shifts into and out of the CO2 absorption bands?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?
> ...



And that's why scientists measure solar insolation with satellite instrumentation, you pathetic retard.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

Tards, Retards, -- nothing there that NEEDS a response is there? 
Folks that are following the premise already understand where the distracting baiting is coming from.. 

We know damn little about this most important aspect of GH theory. I TOLD you why. Not gonna engage at your level.. To have even the faintest confidence about theories, you would have to have had satellites up with these pkgs for a couple solar cycles. How long is a solar cycle Princess?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 blunderbomber, didn't he state that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation.. 

Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..

Glad to hear from BillyBob that this problem is being worked. Part of the "renaissance" of Climate Science that I'm seeing in the past year or so. Real stuff is gonna apparently gonna get more attention than the fables.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
> Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation..
> 
> Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..
> ...


This whole thread is nothing but retarded denier cult twaddle and pseudo-science. The Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, at its most stunningly stupid.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> Would you care to explore the conflict between your claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is too low to have caused the warming we've observed by greenhouse effects but is simultaneously high enough (much higher than mainstream science has ever claimed it to be) in order to have caused _that same_ heating by way of minute spectral shifts into and out of the CO2 absorption bands?



Eh?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.
> ...



To funny; Denying the spectral shift in 1998..  and then going on to call names and produce absolutely NO FACTS to support your rant..

Alarmist Drivel...


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy Bob, what was the source of these graphics and commentary?



Billy_Bob said:


> Solar Spectral Shift and Earths Atmospherics.
> 
> Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> First we must ascertain how much energy is being kept from the earths surface and how is it affecting the upper atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Billy Bob, what is the source of this graphic and commentary?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling.



> Abstract. The lack of long and reliable time series of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) measurements makes an accurate quantification of solar contributions to recent climate change difficult. Whereas earlier SSI observations and models provided a qualitatively consistent picture of the SSI variability, recent measurements by the SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment) satellite suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth's atmosphere. Motivated by these results, we summarize here our current knowledge of SSI variability and its impact on Earth's climate.
> 
> We present a detailed overview of existing SSI measurements and provide thorough comparison of models available to date. SSI changes influence the Earth's atmosphere, both directly, through changes in shortwave (SW) heating and therefore, temperature and ozone distributions in the stratosphere, and indirectly, through dynamical feedbacks. We investigate these direct and indirect effects using several state-of-the art CCM simulations forced with measured and modelled SSI changes. A unique asset of this study is the use of a common comprehensive approach for an issue that is usually addressed separately by different communities.



Some of the tards have issues with Google...  And our current study uses many of the same data sets  only we are looking at real time cause and effect..


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

FlaCalTenn said:
			
		

> Obviously -- you are ONE TARD that just hasn't had a real technical think on this topic. Because IF YOU HAD -- you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth. The very atmosphere that the Incoming insolation is coming thru is masking the true measurement. In the OLD days, they used to cart a spectrometer up the mountainside to 12,000 feet or so to make measurements that were SLIGHTLY more accurate. But STILL incapable of doing that CONTINUALLY or with the precision required to find solar spectral shifts.
> 
> So we only have about 15 or 20 years of "real-time" data to look at the variability from satellite. That's not even more than one solar cycle.



From Wikipedia's article on sunlight:
_"– the amount of solar radiation received at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere – has been measured since 1978 by series of overlapping NASA and ESA satellite experiments"_

So we have 36 years worth of data.  That would be more than 3, 11-year cycles.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Some of the tards have issues with Google.



The poster here with the greatest, apparent difficulty using Google would be you.  Otherwise I think we'd have seen either a great deal more supporting material for the claims you make here or, alternatively, less such claims.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> FlaCalTenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are a true WikiTard.  Measuring sunlight means what exactly?  Did they use a spectrometer or a photometer?  In 1980, they probably captured a single number for an entire band of frequencies.  And why the fuck dont you believe what I am telling you? You think I have to lie and cheat to post in this thread?  The type of tool you need was not permanently in orbit in the 80s....


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

I believe the invention of the spectrophotometer predates 1978.

BTW, I've just started a thread in the announcements and feedback forum about the use of the invective "tard".  I wouldn't have thought I'd need to explain my objections to the term but surely it's obvious that its use, no matter at whom it's aimed or what the perceived justification might be, is extraordinarily painful and offensive to a group of people who deserve our care and compassion rather than this sort of puerile abuse.  It is a term I would have thought you wouldn't hear from anyone who'd completed elementary school.

I'd like to ask all of you who've taken to using the term to think about who it is you're actually hurting by doing so.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob, what was the source of these graphics and commentary?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interesting, HTML killed the Source link, I wonder why?

Going to review the other graphs for attribution..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > First we must ascertain how much energy is being kept from the earths surface and how is it affecting the upper atmosphere.
> ...



Attributions added.  Commentary is mine.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Thanks


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> FlaCalTenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really do not understand solar variance in cycles.. I am not surprised..


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

36 years is more than 15-20.  

The spectral absorption of the greenhouse gases was well known before this as was the black body spectrum.  It would not be difficult to fill in the gaps of the solar spectra seen at the Earth's surface.  Not perfect, but enough to see major changes.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the absorption of IR by CO2 could be inadequate to cause the observed global warming but a shift of a few percent of signal from the visible spectrum into one of the many GHG absorption bands could.  Do you not see the conflict?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> 36 years is more than 15-20.
> 
> The spectral absorption of the greenhouse gases was well known before this as was the black body spectrum.  It would not be difficult to fill in the gaps of the solar spectra seen at the Earth's surface.  Not perfect, but enough to see major changes.
> 
> And I'm still waiting to hear how the absorption of IR by CO2 could be inadequate to cause the observed global warming but a shift of a few percent of signal from the visible spectrum into one of the many GHG absorption bands could.  Do you not see the conflict?



Conflicts exist only in your head. Different mechanisms. The magnitude of climate change is FAR MORE devasting than a 1degC/doubling of CO2 -- any way you look at it.. Incoming solar irradiance is over a 1000W/m2 at TOA.. Just a small fraction of a percent change in the amount hitting the surface (or NOT hitting the surface) is FAR bigger than 2W/m2 of back radiation..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> 36 years is more than 15-20.
> 
> The spectral absorption of the greenhouse gases was well known before this as was the black body spectrum.  It would not be difficult to fill in the gaps of the solar spectra seen at the Earth's surface.  Not perfect, but enough to see major changes.
> 
> And I'm still waiting to hear how the absorption of IR by CO2 could be inadequate to cause the observed global warming but a shift of a few percent of signal from the visible spectrum into one of the many GHG absorption bands could.  Do you not see the conflict?



The point of heat integration is paramount. if the heat is absorbed at 60,000 feet, the heat is lost to space in seconds.  If it is absorbed on the surface, that heat may take days or months to reach space.

The spectral shift is about where in the atmosphere the energy exchange takes place and the duration loss if that heat is lost high in the atmosphere.  I have but scratched the surface as to why this is so important.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Keep scratching


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> Keep scratching


Ok Genius.  Tell me why the durational loss is so important. Lets see if you have any concept of the problem.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.

Your turn.  Explain how random fluctuation in solar spectra have produced the warming observed over the last 150 years, particularly when the spectral shifts (randomly) move energy into only one of the many absorption bands that folks on your side of the argument have been characterizing as inadequately sensitive in toto to have caused the observed warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.
> 
> Your turn. * Explain how random fluctuation in solar spectra have produced the warming observed over the last 150 years, *particularly when the spectral shifts (randomly) move energy into only one of the many absorption bands that folks on your side of the argument have been characterizing as inadequately sensitive in toto to have caused the observed warming.



Your answer is only partially correct. Heat latency is the duration the heat has to further move into those objects. So the build up of heat is severely diminished.  GHG's can not effect that which is outside of their range of influence.

The removal of 2.4W/M^2 is all that it takes at earths surface to cause cooling to occur. The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2. add to this the thinning of the atmosphere due to earths natural magnetic field shift (which we are at historically recorded lows) and the heat loss is massive.  One need only look to current polar regions to see how this  affects them.  Polar lows increase in size, ambient air temps become lower, etc.  All of which we are currently observing in these regions.

TO answer your question, YES this simple sift can place the earth into not only a glaciation phase if it lasts long enough or it could warm us to prehistoric levels again. All despite CO2 or its concentration levels. Changing where energy is being spent in our atmosphere can have devastating effects.

This is why it is a complex problem.  There are individual sinodal cycles and when they fall all at the same time the result can be sever.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.
> ...



My answer was completely correct - you added nothing to what I already said.

I would like to see a source for your claimed loss of 6.2 W/m^-2 for the poles.  Currently, the net global transfer is positive.  The earth is taking in more than it releases to space so you will have to explain the value of your hypotheticals.

And, again, the shifts in solar spectra have not been systematic or long term.  They have been either random or rapidly cyclical - no long term trend that might support the idea that they are responsible for the observed warming over the last century and a half.

The causes of the ice ages, glaciations and interglacials have been widely discussed but I see few voices suggesting that spectral shift are the primary causes.  What are the voices you hear saying such things?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2014)

The "little ice age" was a shift of only 0.1% of solar insolation NOT impinging on the surface.. Most likely due to OVERALL solar power and not spectral shifts -- but that's the point. We have no way of actually knowing --- do we?  All we know is that is that it never got to the surface.

And no one Bullwinkly is making statements about the 0.5degC rise in temperature that you are hysterical about here. This is about LARGER Climate Science knowledge which currently is sorely lacking..  Only assertion being made here is that the science is FAR from being settled..


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

AGW in the last 150 years is settled science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> AGW in the last 150 years is settled science.



in a word... *NO*   Anyone who claims it is, is not practicing true science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


These are not hypothetical. These are direct measurements at 3 points in each hemisphere.



Crick said:


> *And, again, the shifts in solar spectra have not been systematic or long term.  They have been either random or rapidly cyclical - no long term trend that might support the idea that they are responsible for the observed warming over the last century and a half.*
> 
> The causes of the ice ages, glaciations and interglacials have been widely discussed but I see few voices suggesting that spectral shift are the primary causes.  What are the voices you hear saying such things?




Your supposition is incorrect.  There is indeed a great body of evidence which supports this hypothesis.  From Paleo climate records, to frozen foliage removed from glaciers, to sediment samples of life forms.  Sun light is a necessity for most all life on earth and solar activity can been rendered from these proxies.

Many things can affect the sun.  The fusion reaction itself has a cycle  of clean burn and as expended material clouds the reaction it slows and as it cools the matter falls from the reaction to the suns core until the sun then accelerates its reaction with clean materiel.  Some physicists estimate that this reaction time is our 90,000 years of a cool cycle followed by a rapid ignition  and 11,000 to 16,000 years of higher solar output. Evidenced by the rapid rise from a cold phase to slowly fall until the reaction again goes cold.  This phase is evidenced by the output wave lengths and their shifts.  There are mountains of evidence to support this even though many other things are given 'attribution' without fully exploring other potential causes using the scientific method.

CO2 should have been thrown out right from the start as the paleo climate records show the levels way above 7,000 ppm without runaway warming. The physical evidence simply disproves the hypothesis from the start.  And then they say it cant be the sun because in the short 700 years of observations they have never seen the cool cycle of the sun. Yet the physical evidence is staring them in the face. This is the problem with agenda driven pseudoscience.

The main point, The science is not settled by any means....  We have just scratched the surface.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 12, 2014)

BillyBob, we notice your failure to back up your claims of reduced solar flux at the poles. Or any of your claims. But then, our resident Ph.D geologist wouldn't ever back up his crazy pronouncements either.

Oh, the solar scientist here also doesn't seem to know that when CO2 was at 5000 ppm, the sun was significantly cooler. Combined forcing of the sun and CO2 was similar to today. Essentially, the paleorecord proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, otherwise it would have been snowball earth. Poor Billybob, alas, doesn't understand such basics, and declares CO2 is meaningless.

BillyBob, if you ever want to publish, I suggest you fix such glaring errors in your logic first. Unless you're aiming for a denier pal review junk science journal. No reputable scientists would let your twaddle pass.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > AGW in the last 150 years is settled science.
> ...



Feel free to do research challenging any part of AGW - no one is saying you cannot. But the size of the consensus among the experts do make this science settled.  For policy makers, for teachers, for the lay public, this is a done deal.  For those of you who insist it must be wrong, you've attained fringe-hood. Congtatulations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> BillyBob, we notice your failure to back up your claims of reduced solar flux at the poles. Or any of your claims. But then, our resident Ph.D geologist wouldn't ever back up his crazy pronouncements either.
> 
> Oh, the solar scientist here also doesn't seem to know that when CO2 was at 5000 ppm, the sun was significantly cooler. Combined forcing of the sun and CO2 was similar to today. Essentially, the paleorecord proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, otherwise it would have been snowball earth. Poor Billybob, alas, doesn't understand such basics, and declares CO2 is meaningless.
> 
> BillyBob, if you ever want to publish, I suggest you fix such glaring errors in your logic first. Unless you're aiming for a denier pal review junk science journal. No reputable scientists would let your twaddle pass.



Nice try Sylvester.. CO2 warming is an impedance to surface cooling, not a heat source. So it is INDEPENDENT of solar input flux. It will raise thermal equilibrium by approximately the same amount REGARDLESS of the state of the sun.. So if the Atmos reached those levels before, the trigger condition for your imagined "thermal runaway" was met -- UNLESS of course that period of time WAS a snowball earth.

And what is this ridiculous denial of "reduced solar flux" at the poles? You think the winters there are sunny? I didn't hear BillyBob say that. What I heard him say was that the effect of spectral shifts would be magnified at the poles because of reduced atmos thickness. And if you've done ANY work at all at understanding the science, you'd understand that the CO2 forcing function does indeed have a very different atmos profile at the poles..


----------



## Crick (Sep 13, 2014)

Do you buy Billy Bob's reduced atmospheric thickness at the poles?  You might want to look into that before you shove that foot too awful far down your own gullet.

I've got a good piece of advice for you... for anyone reading these discussions: don't take Billy Bob's word for jack shit.  Go check it out yourself.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 13, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Nice try Sylvester.. CO2 warming is an impedance to surface cooling, not a heat source. So it is INDEPENDENT of solar input flux. It will raise thermal equilibrium by approximately the same amount REGARDLESS of the state of the sun.. So if the Atmos reached those levels before, the trigger condition for your imagined "thermal runaway" was met -- UNLESS of course that period of time WAS a snowball earth.



You're the only one here talking about "thermal runaway". That's your imaginary theory, not mine, and I'm not obligated to defend what your voices told you I believe.

Back on planet earth, solar output was 4% lower, but there was much more CO2, so more heat was held in, so temperatures were about the same. Then CO2 levels did drop, and there was a snowball earth, which didn't thaw until CO2 levels rose again. Hence, the paleorecord confirms both ways that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.



> And what is this ridiculous denial of "reduced solar flux" at the poles? You think the winters there are sunny? I didn't hear BillyBob say that.



His exact words were "The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2.", post #51.



> What I heard him say was that the effect of spectral shifts would be magnified at the poles because of reduced atmos thickness.



"Would?" He used past tense, which means he is claiming such shifts have already happened. That's why we're asking him to show us the data. Or if he made an error in tense, he needs to state that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> BillyBob, we notice your failure to back up your claims of reduced solar flux at the poles. Or any of your claims. But then, our resident Ph.D geologist wouldn't ever back up his crazy pronouncements either.



Any first year solar physicist student understands axiel tilt and solar angle. Your premise fails to understand that the sun has to travel through approximately 1.6 or greater earth atmosphere layers to reach the poles for 80% of the year. the other 20% the thinner atmosphere allows faster heat absorption at earths surface. However the inverse is true during black body emitence phase at night where the lack of atmosphere allows faster heat loss to space. This is basic traning for all persons.



mamooth said:


> Oh, the solar scientist here also doesn't seem to know that when CO2 was at 5000 ppm, the sun was significantly cooler. Combined forcing of the sun and CO2 was similar to today. Essentially, the paleorecord proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, otherwise it would have been snowball earth. Poor Billybob, alas, doesn't understand such basics, and declares CO2 is meaningless.



 You fail to recognize that earth was closer to the sun during this phase of our solar systems expansion. IF we compare W/M^2 at earths surface then and now there was greater received energy. CO2 in our atmosphere is less than a 1 to 1 LOG reference. The fantasy positive forcing has been shown nonexistent.



mamooth said:


> BillyBob, if you ever want to publish, I suggest you fix such glaring errors in your logic first. Unless you're aiming for a denier pal review junk science journal. No reputable scientists would let your twaddle pass.



Glaring errors in my logic?  Is that because they do not match what people are told to believe or do they have basis in empirical evidence? This is the problem with group think of the alarmists, they pal review their own work and if someone tries to get published and do not meet the demanded point of view, they do not get published. This is precisely the problem that Climategate exposed. 

So who has issues with their point of view again?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you buy Billy Bob's reduced atmospheric thickness at the poles?  You might want to look into that before you shove that foot too awful far down your own gullet.
> 
> I've got a good piece of advice for you... for anyone reading these discussions: don't take Billy Bob's word for jack shit.  Go check it out yourself.



Jack Shit talking Shit... You really need to look in the mirror.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you buy Billy Bob's reduced atmospheric thickness at the poles?  You might want to look into that before you shove that foot too awful far down your own gullet.
> 
> <snip>.



Let me see.. All molecules have weight, The earth is spinning. Physics tells us that a spinning object will elongate if not a solid object. Simple physics..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 14, 2014)

interesting paper..

Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age. (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2012, Applied Physics Research)
At Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age Abdussamatov Applied Physics Research
Dr. Abdussamatov writes:


> From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
> The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
> Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
> The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
> The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Hey guys, great circle jerk based on ignorant twaddle. You reinforce each other's insanity in the most hilarious ways. Too bad you're all such clueless retards.



Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 14, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
> Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation..
> 
> Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..
> ...




Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents


This is a small list  of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"


----------



## mamooth (Sep 14, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Any first year solar physicist student understands axiel tilt and solar angle. Your premise fails to understand that the sun has to travel through approximately 1.6 or greater earth atmosphere layers to reach the poles for 80% of the year. the other 20% the thinner atmosphere allows faster heat absorption at earths surface. However the inverse is true during black body emitence phase at night where the lack of atmosphere allows faster heat loss to space. This is basic traning for all persons.



It's a habit you have, babbling about some side tangent when you get asked a direct question. You were asked to show that "The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2." If you can't do that, just say so. It's not like you're fooling anyone by evading. Everyone is quite aware that you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.



> You fail to recognize that earth was closer to the sun during this phase of our solar systems expansion.



Say what?

You keep getting nuttier. Expanding solar system? Wow. And here everyone else thought earth had been in the same orbit for at least the past 4 billion years. Nice of you to set them all straight.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 14, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> This is a small list  of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"



You mean the WUWT kooks? Those are the only nutters using the "CAGW" term, so those would be the only CAGW theorists around. By using that term yourself, you revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT loon, someone impossible to take seriously.

So did some crybaby go weeping to WUWT that they were getting their asses kicked here and needed reinforcements? I'm wondering why we got this recent invasion of WUWT cult morons.


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > This is a small list  of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"
> ...



Actually, I'm more interested in the science. If you don't have any, then feel free to carry on with the grade school attempt at riling me up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > This is a small list  of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"
> ...



You were not kicking any ones ass but your own, and from inside a wet paper bag..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 14, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...


 they are not interested in science. they want agenda!


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 14, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



That's the impression I'm getting from at least one poster. Lets see where this goes.


----------



## Crick (Sep 14, 2014)

Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents

I assume you want to discuss the relationship between these parameters and activities and global warming.

Why don't you tell us what effect you believe these various processes are having on the Earth's climate.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try Sylvester.. CO2 warming is an impedance to surface cooling, not a heat source. So it is INDEPENDENT of solar input flux. It will raise thermal equilibrium by approximately the same amount REGARDLESS of the state of the sun.. So if the Atmos reached those levels before, the trigger condition for your imagined "thermal runaway" was met -- UNLESS of course that period of time WAS a snowball earth.
> ...



Really don't understand your own theory do ya? The warming power of man-spewed CO2 is insufficient to cause the "model and projected" increases of 4 to 8degC that your high priests were predicting. The warming power of CO2 alone is more in the range of 1degC per doubling and we aint even done with  the FIRST "man-caused" doubling.

So YOUR theory says that Earth Climate's is a lemon and will destroy itself with positive feedbacks and other "Magic Multipliers" if ANY thermal trigger exceeds a certain amount... That's the Ju Ju dust part of the Religious Rite of Recital of the Fable. Are you really that dense? Or just being pissy? Because there's no way in HELL ANY scientist is gonna tell you that CO2 ALONE will change the surface temperature by 4 to 8degC within 100 years WITHOUT all the Magic and incantations..

Of course -- the Magic has diminished somewhat in the last couple decades but you and Bullwinky are still believing the 1990 projections of doom and destruction.. Aren't ya?


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> Orbital eccentricity
> Axial obliquity
> Axial precession
> Apsidal precession
> ...




I would love to discuss such topics. I'm no scientist, and I don't pretend to be. The only scientist here that I know of, is the OP in this thread.

It is *you*, who must try to convince me of the honest merits pertaining to the CAGW theory. I'm not convinced, but I assure you, I'm the most open-minded Conservative anyone here is likely to meet.

The only thing I'm required to do is keep my farm running and my family fed. Not to sound combative, but I'm probably more "green" than you are.

I can survive, thrive, and gain weight without electricity, grocery stores, or automobiles, due to the life and land that I've carved out of my own blood, sweat, and tears....................Can *you*?

Teach me something about the topics I listed, and I'll teach you how to become self-sufficient (provided you don't already know how).


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> Orbital eccentricity
> Axial obliquity
> Axial precession
> Apsidal precession
> ...



Maybe SOMEONE should study them -- dontcha think? Because they are best explanations for ALL the drastic changes in the climate before man.. But today's Climate Scientists don't get paid unless they study CO2 as the primary control knob of the GreenHouse.. We've wasting a lot of brain, time and money..


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

Do you really think no one is studying all those factors?  Vulcanism?  Ocean currents?  Orbital mechanics?  That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you really think no one is studying all those factors?  Vulcanism?  Ocean currents?  Orbital mechanics?  That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.


NO THERE NOT!  165 billion dollars to climate science to study global warming, a political hack job.   Those who do real science are being ignored for the ones who sell snake oil without basis in reality,


----------



## jc456 (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> I believe the invention of the spectrophotometer predates 1978.
> 
> BTW, I've just started a thread in the announcements and feedback forum about the use of the invective "tard".  I wouldn't have thought I'd need to explain my objections to the term but surely it's obvious that its use, no matter at whom it's aimed or what the perceived justification might be, is extraordinarily painful and offensive to a group of people who deserve our care and compassion rather than this sort of puerile abuse.  It is a term I would have thought you wouldn't hear from anyone who'd completed elementary school.
> 
> I'd like to ask all of you who've taken to using the term to think about who it is you're actually hurting by doing so.


 Can you say 'Tard'?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Really don't understand your own theory do ya?



I understand you're making up all kinds of crazy stuff and calling it my theory. Your cult is helpless to address actual AGW theory, so it's forced to make up such crazy strawmen.

Feel free to declare victory because you've so decisively defeated those imaginary bogeymen. Meanwhile, the world has moved on without you. Enjoy the your irrelevance, being you've worked so hard to earn it.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> Actually, I'm more interested in the science.



Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. The level of volcanic activity isn't any different than it's been for the past century. Anyone claiming that such things haven't been examined is putting forth a conspiracy theory.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Really don't understand your own theory do ya?
> ...



Your better choice at this point -- rather than goin postal -- would be to admit that the BASIC PREMISE of the AGW theory that you defend -- *embarrasses you*. And you want to deflect and attack rather than defend the fact that you believe the Earth's climate system is defective and inherently unstable.. 

That's HOW the AGWarming theory MAGNIFIES the actual warming powers of CO2 to get those headlines.. Are you denying that?

Address the issue and cut the crap..


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I'm more interested in the science.
> ...



Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



You will find SixFoot, that there is very little "help" coming from the "warmers" on the board. They are treating this as some type of fantasy league season and relying on "consensus" and "settled science".

We actually know a lot about previous climate changes on the planet and the stuff you listed IS the best explanation for mile thick glaciers in Downtown Detroit. We also know that the climate system is pretty robust having swung thru all of these drastic eras before man. And doing so without the scary predictions that it will destroy itself thru runaway warming.. 

What we DON'T know is how heat is actually stored and moved thru the surface of the planet by interactions between tropics and poles. And the TIME it takes for the planet to assume new equilibrium temperatures after some type of shocking forcing.
We measure and study all kinds of semi-periodic ocean and atmos "natural cycles" but dont spend enough time understanding the mechanics of them for example. See the AMO and PDO and ENSO cycles of the oceans OR the the conveyors that run in deep oceans between poles and tropics. OR even the motions and cycles of the jet stream and arctic air containment. 

There is also a vast amount of confusion about the magnitude of temperature change to equilibrium because of "climate sensitivity". So if CO2 increases FORCE a change of 1deg at the surface --- will that be MAGNIFIED by feedback and heat transfer components? And if so how much?

Just take a look at the vast disagreement in the literature about a "GLOBAL" Climate sensitivity number. It's actually a stupid construct that the ENTIRE PLANET responds the same way to a change in temp. Empirically, the Earth has many climate zones that will respond drastically different to a 1deg change. YET --- because the gold standard in getting paid is "GLOBAL" warming -- instead of understanding the regional responses --- we've wasted TONS of money and science on arguing about ONE NUMBER for the entire planet --- instead of figuring out how different regions respond and interact.

Key characteristic of Global Warming science has been simplistic SINGLE NUMBER answers to complex problems. Like ONE Global temperature anomaly or ONE Global Climate Sensitivity number or "hockey stick" studies that pretend to estimate ONE Global temperature reconstruction over 1000 of years EVERYWHERE on the surface with scant information from tree rings, ice cores and mud bug hole depths.

Never NEEDED to address the complexities of a system as difficult as the thermodynamics and climate system of the Earth. These folks were paid to come up with simplistic single number answers that could validate the larger agendas of Global Warming..

Simplistic science for simplistic minds. That's why you find so many Cricks, OldieRocks, Mamooths and RollingThunders around claiming consensus and "settled science". Everyone else is still capable of useful skepticism and individual thought by doing some very simple investigation of their own..


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> You will find SixFoot, that there is very little "help" coming from the "warmers" on the board. They are treating this as some type of fantasy league season and relying on "consensus" and "settled science".
> 
> We actually know a lot about previous climate changes on the planet and the stuff you listed IS the best explanation for mile thick glaciers in Downtown Detroit. We also know that the climate system is pretty robust having swung thru all of these drastic eras before man.
> 
> ...




The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the complete and automatic dismissal of the things I listed, particularly the Milankovitch Cycles_*. *_If man is responsible for countering the Solar cooling cycles associated, then I say "*THANK YOU!*" to everyone contributing.

As a farmer, I depend on the warm weather to keep my family fed and my bills paid. Cooling is far more detrimental to the human race and always has been. Food becomes scarce and people end up starving. What happens if the arctic becomes ice-free? Well, Canada for one, is going to have a shit ton of fertile farmland and real estate.

This past winter was a detriment to my fruit trees and livestock. I lost years worth of future food and money thanks to the cold snaps and the late frosts. The coming winter isn't looking to be any better either. I'll be adding 12 more trees to my orchard next spring (red/golden apple, pear, peach, cherry and almond), and I'm hoping,  praying the young food bearers won't suffer a similar fate, lest I be out of another few thousand dollars.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Orbital eccentricity
> ...



They have been studied.  They are being studied.  The literature is filled with studies on all those topics and dozens more.  They are discussed quite thoroughly in the IPCC assessment reports.  Claiming that they are not is simply ridiculous.  Claiming that these are the best explanations for the warming observed over the last century is also ridiculous.  The magnitude of the affects these phenomena have had is simply inadequate to account for the observations.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the invention of the spectrophotometer predates 1978.
> ...



As I thought I made clear, I choose not to.  It would be nice if you did the same.  Surely we have enough insults to sling at each other that we can exclude a handful to protect the innocent.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think no one is studying all those factors?  Vulcanism?  Ocean currents?  Orbital mechanics?  That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.
> ...



You're being ridiculous.  Go to Google and enter "scholarly papers on vulcanism and climate change".  Then replace vulcanism with "ocean currents", then with orbital mechanics.  You will get pages and pages and pages of returns.  And on what do you base this comment that those doing "real science" are being ignored in favor of others selling "snake oil" with no basis in reality?  How could you believe that any charge, that extreme and that over-generalized, could have any demonstrable basis in reality?  Come back to Earth.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Pull me a reference on why the AMO has the period that it has. Or how to PREDICT the progression of Rossby waves.. OR better yet, Tell me how a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity number tells a scientist JackShit about how the Climate actually works.. 

THOSE are details that will explain SMALL changes in surface temperature. (YES --- I said SMALL).  And the topic of this thread is an area that COULD conceivably have a LARGER effect than Milankovich Cycles and we could not study it until just 20 yrs ago. Yet -- it doesn't warrant 1% of the money or attention that the phoney CO2 hoax has gotten.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You will find SixFoot, that there is very little "help" coming from the "warmers" on the board. They are treating this as some type of fantasy league season and relying on "consensus" and "settled science".
> ...



Did you notice the botched News Special from NBC this spring about the Maple Syrup guy in the NorthEast that got quoted out of context on Global Warming? Was a PURPOSEFUL edit to make it appear that last winter was TOO WARM for a good harvest. He was pissed. And he's a victim and an example of the PURPOSEFUL misrepresentation to the public. NBC completely destroys it's credibility on the topic --- and no one cares.. When  it smells bad -- throw it out.... Half the shit the public gets fed was NEVER even in a published science paper. Came out of the Press Release office INTENDED to misrepresent the work and confuse the public.

It would be ironic wouldn't it if the piddling amount of CO2 in atmos was the only thing delaying the NEXT of the past 4 Ice Ages. If there's one thing we KNOW about the recent climate on a Millenial scale, it's that there's been multiple periods of INTENSE glaciating cold, punctured by BRIEF periods of our kind of weather.
Look at the graph and it'll scare your pants off and you'll forget about "carbon".
It's about DUE in time. Several of the past inter-glacials (warm spikes) have been shorter than one we are currently in.. And they have been occurring on a pretty regular basis (give or take 20,000 years) !


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

Do either of you have any data to support the idea that the warming observed over the last century or so is due to Milankovitch cycles?


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Did you notice the botched News Special from NBC this spring about the Maple Syrup guy in the NorthEast that got quoted out of context on Global Warming? Was a PURPOSEFUL edit to make it appear that last winter was TOO WARM for a good harvest. He was pissed. And he's a victim and an example of the PURPOSEFUL misrepresentation to the public. NBC completely destroys it's credibility on the topic --- and no one cares.. When  it smells bad -- throw it out.... Half the shit the public gets fed was NEVER even in a published science paper. Came out of the Press Release office INTENDED to misrepresent the work and confuse the public.
> 
> It would be ironic wouldn't it if the piddling amount of CO2 in atmos was the only thing delaying the NEXT of the past 4 Ice Ages. If there's one thing we KNOW about the recent climate on a Millenial scale, it's that there's been multiple periods of INTENSE glaciating cold, punctured by BRIEF periods of our kind of weather.
> Look at the graph and it'll scare your pants off and you'll forget about "carbon".
> It's about DUE in time. Several of the past inter-glacials (warm spikes) have been shorter than one we are currently in.. And they have been occurring on a pretty regular basis (give or take 20,000 years) !



http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

Graphs like this? I have no idea who made them or where they came from, but of that is how the climate fluctuates, then I sure do hope we're preventing the next cold dip.


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do either of you have any data to support the idea that the warming observed over the last century or so is due to Milankovitch cycles?



I don't, but if anyone wants to discuss it, I'm open to the idea.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Did you notice the botched News Special from NBC this spring about the Maple Syrup guy in the NorthEast that got quoted out of context on Global Warming? Was a PURPOSEFUL edit to make it appear that last winter was TOO WARM for a good harvest. He was pissed. And he's a victim and an example of the PURPOSEFUL misrepresentation to the public. NBC completely destroys it's credibility on the topic --- and no one cares.. When  it smells bad -- throw it out.... Half the shit the public gets fed was NEVER even in a published science paper. Came out of the Press Release office INTENDED to misrepresent the work and confuse the public.
> ...



Absolutely my man.. See that last warm spike at the right? If you believe the odds that a system in oscillation is gonna keep oscillating ---- we are overdue for the cooling compared to the short width of some of those previous spikes. BUT --- as they are forced to say on Wall Street. 

"Past performance is no indication of future returns."


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



From the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OK, a lot of reading, but you stated that you wanted someone to show you the science. And science is not a simple one line bumper sticker.


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?



Well, I don't recall telling you that.



Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I know its not a one liner. That's why I'm waiting to have an in depth discussion about the topics. It doesn't have to be all at once.


Ain't nobody got time for that. lol


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2014)

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.
> 
> http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg



See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?
> ...



If you wish to have a discussion concerning the warming, you really need to have done the research concerning the science behind the warming. There are many, many discussions out there concerning this in peer reviewed literature. Even one in the PNAS that blames CFCs for the warming. None that are serious that deny the warming. That is left to morons on this board.

The physics of the warming was established before the Civil War. The first real quantification of the effects of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was done in 1896. The first continous measurement of CO2 increase in the atmosphere was done in the early '50s. There are reams of articles since this became an issue in peer reviewed journals. I know because I was first introduced to the subject in a geology class in the mid-60's. And I have watched the regression of the glaciers in the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.
> 
> http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg



Your postulation that GHG'S have greater forcing is BS. As the current cooling trend reenforces that link between CO2 and Temperature is not what they have been purporting.  Even the IPCC and EPA have walked back their forcing multipliers to 1 - 1.7 Deg C per doubling.  Given the current cooling trend the forcing actually lands at 0.0 - 0.4 deg C per doubling as water vapor is now acting as a negative forcing countering all the effects of CO2. The empirical evidence shows quite the opposite of the alarmist drivel.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.
> ...



Look at the graph again. It would take us over 20,000 years, by past performance, to reach the point that the cold would begin to affect agriculture. However, the increase in heat, because of the effect it has on the Arctic Ice and atmospheric circulation, is already affecting the agriculture.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.
> ...



That is not what the scientists that have studied this subject for a lifetime state. And the forcings have just started to push the temperature up. And there is no current cooling trend. August was the hottest August on record according the scientists.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> The physics of the warming was established before the Civil War. The first real quantification of the effects of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was done in 1896. The first continous measurement of CO2 increase in the atmosphere was done in the early '50s. There are reams of articles since this became an issue in peer reviewed journals. I know because I was first introduced to the subject in a geology class in the mid-60's. And *I have watched the regression of the glaciers in the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas*.



All of which is now trending the other way.  This is a cyclical event. it has happened before and it will happen again. There are areas of New forming glaciation  in the high mountains of the Rockies and other US ranges. The last sixty years has been a natural warming cycle and solar ramp up.  The next sixty years as the solar cycles cools will see the return of many of the things you cite lost.  Even the permafrost in the arctic has made a major comeback in the last three years.

I do not doubt what you observed what i doubt is the mechanism you claim made it disappear.

I am still waiting for someone to show how at 7,000ppm the earth glaciated, warmed, glaciated, warmed thousands of times despite the level of CO2.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The top of a sinodal wave giving the illusion of long durational increase. Again last August according to the Northern Hemispheres CRN shows cooling and no record.  Only the adjusted GISS/NASA data makes that assertion even despite the unadjusted data showing quite the opposite.


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The warmer it gets, the more food I produce. Carbon dioxide is food for my crops and trees. If the weather doesn't go below freezing, I don't have to worry about the eggs in the coop freezing and cracking open. Its also cheaper to cool my house than it is to heat it if I use electricity. Warmer winters would be a good thing for energy demands. But all that aside, if we prevent a steady decline into an ice age for 20,000 years, I still don't see why that's a bad thing, especially if millions of square miles of land thaw out and become more livable.

The biggest question on my mind concerning global warming is, "why should I care?"


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Now why should I go research the science behind all this instead of just asking you? You're very passionate and have a lot to say about the subject, so for me, its quicker and easier just to hear what you have to say with your sources to further expound on any key points you might not have mentioned.

Questions, answers, statements, opinions, etc., all the right ingredients for an in depth conversation/debate.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The Little Ice Age happened in 30 years and it affected crops within 5 years of its start.  the first  2-5 deg C Drop can happen in as little as 3 years.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

The Little Ice Age took 150 years to drop 0.5C


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Thats some mighty sloppy bullshit.  Expected better than that from you.  Two of those interglacials ended inlessthan 5000 yrs. With a delta in temp of close to 2degC.  And you babies are pissing about 10ths of a deg now driving Climate Change.  Wouldnt be surprised if the temporal resolution of those ice core readings are limiting the slopes.  In fact I KNOW that they are.. The prudent reading of that data COULD suggest you might reverse ALL the 20th century warming in a matter of a couple thousand years.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> The Little Ice Age took 150 years to drop 0.5C



As measured by proxies that have time resolutions of a hundred years.  Again for the 100th time Crick, those global hockey sticks DO NOT SHOW ACCURATE RISE AND FALL TIMES.  But the I DIVIDUAL proxy evidence and AMPLE written evidence from the 18th century TOTALLY backs up what BillyBob told you about the onset being far less than a decade.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

You're confused.  The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850.  The biggest resolution challenge is local variation.  the LIA was not a clearly global event.  The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



Considering the warming they are talking about is just .5 deg C i would suspect that cooling of just 1 or 2 years would lay that waste.  CRN shows that in just 12 years we have fallen 0.6 deg C in the northern hemisphere.  I think you were being kind.

As for the scope or view of that graph it is on 1,000 year averages. there could well be increases and drops within those that are much bigger than our current rise and falls that could scare the hell out of all of us.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're confused.  The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850.  The biggest resolution challenge is local variation.  the LIA was not a clearly global event.  The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.



 Love the revisionist history,,  The LIA was indeed global..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're confused.  The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850.  The biggest resolution challenge is local variation.  the LIA was not a clearly global event.  The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.



Say WHAT? WHEN did I ever mention WHEN it occurred?  I did mention 18th century anecdores because those are the ones im most familiar with. AND thats the middle of the period.  You have no yearly records to document what happened all over the world.  But there are ample INDIVIDUAL proxies from every corner of the globe and oceans that show some form of fingerprint for it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're confused.  The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850.  The biggest resolution challenge is local variation.  the LIA was not a clearly global event.  The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.



Lets clear this up for you shall we?





The little ice age started in the early 1300's and finished around1645..  roughly 380 years..

The makers of the graph pointed out that the depth of cooling is very important as it shows how close we are to glaciation.  The LIA  was a 5 deg F drop.. OR 2.2 Deg C  IF we were in a warming world those drops would become less and less.  the exact opposite is occurring.


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2014)

I'd be a little more impressed with your graphic had it* ANY VERTICAL SCALE*

From good ol' Wikipedia

The *Little Ice Age* (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1]While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.  It has been conventionally defined as* a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850*, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which _varied according to local conditions_.* NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850* and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeThird Assessment Report considered* the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation*. _At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period_.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> I am still waiting for someone to show how at 7,000ppm the earth glaciated, warmed, glaciated, warmed thousands of times despite the level of CO2.



Thousands of times?

You're just flat out making crap up now. Like your "expanding solar system" fable. You're not a scientist in any way, as you're far too stupid and dishonest for that. You're an idiot WUWT cultist who is in way over his head.

Oh,  I pointed out the sun was cooler in that era. So you've also directly lied about not getting a response. Son, drunk, stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life.

And we're _still_ waiting for you to back up your claim "The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2."


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Your better choice at this point -- rather than goin postal -- would be to admit that the BASIC PREMISE of the AGW theory that you defend -- *embarrasses you*. And you want to deflect and attack rather than defend the fact that you believe the Earth's climate system is defective and inherently unstable..



You just suck so badly at the science, you have to completely retreat from the real world.



> That's HOW the AGWarming theory MAGNIFIES the actual warming powers of CO2 to get those headlines.. Are you denying that?
> 
> Address the issue and cut the crap..



It's either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid of you to equate positive feedbacks with "thermal runaway". Those are two entirely different things. If you can't see a difference, you have no business speaking with the grownups.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

SixFoot said:


> Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?



Says the WUWT troll who came in here raving about "CAGW" and implying there was a conspiracy to ignore all non-greenhouse-gas related research.

Did you really think we haven't seen dishonest concern troll routines before? You're just angry because nobody fell for it. That's right, you're just a "concerned citizen". One using WUWT lingo. And when you "want information", instead of looking for it on the internet like a normal person, you come to a message board and demand people educate you. Yeah, that's convincing.



> See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.



That's just dumb, being that heat and drought are causing starvation now, while that ice age is at least 20,000 years away. Your logic is like saying that I should run my furnace full blast all summer long, because winter will eventually arrive.


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?
> ...



My logic comes from years of experience in farming. Perhaps you just didn't catch the full meaning of my statement/opinion.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

So your farming experience tells you to choose heat and drought soon so it won't freeze in 20,000 years?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?
> ...


 Naw we get to watch you on an almost daily basis post your nonsense.  And NONSENSE is what it is, make no MISTAKE!


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So your farming experience tells you to choose heat and drought soon so it won't freeze in 20,000 years?



I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Post count is not important to me so please give me something with subsistence and worthy of a reply to prevent either of us from wasting our time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Your better choice at this point -- rather than goin postal -- would be to admit that the BASIC PREMISE of the AGW theory that you defend -- *embarrasses you*. And you want to deflect and attack rather than defend the fact that you believe the Earth's climate system is defective and inherently unstable..
> ...



Not dishonest at all. One of my tools is System Analysis and a system response to stimulus is either Overdamped, Underdamped or Oscillatory. When  you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.






Those are charateristic responses of various systems to a step input in some critical variable.. *Which one LOOKS like every temperature projection ever produced from a climate model?* ACTUALLY -- that type of response only occurs in the simplest of systems. Which tells you something about the construction of "climate models" The response to miminal CO2 trigger event is MORE likely to ACTUALLY look more like the graph in lower right if the Earth has a death wish..

But in simple terms when you have models that use a SINGLE INVARIANT Climate Sensitivity and overstated POSITIVE feedbacks -- you GET simple results. And almost certainly they are wrong.

If it is not RUNAWAY WARMING --- show me ANY "climate model" output that does not exponentially MULTIPLY into the future..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2014)

BTW -- For closed loop systems like the Earth's Climate (not referring to a closed atmos, just the appearance of feedback elements in the process) if your response to stimuli DOESN'T exhibit some kind of natural ringing or "natural resonance" --- It's a dead giveaway that the model is too damn simplistic..

The middle TOP curve in my chart above is by FAR the most likely system type output for a "trigger event" on CO2 warming.. There is a lot "forensics" in looking at models and model behaviour. And it all stems from the Systems knowledge you can glean about "what's in the black box" that you are modeling. *So just by looking at general characteristics of an unknown systems response to step functions, ramps and other common stimulus -- you can tell a lot about what is "in the box" and maybe MORE IMPORTANTLY -- what SHOULD BE "in the box"*...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> When  you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.



You're assuming that water vapor positive feedback goes on forever, instead of being a short-term factor. That's an incorrect assumption, hence your results are invalid.

Why it doesn't go on forever ... that's rather complicated, and somewhat beyond the scope here.

Sugiyama 2005 is a very mathematical treatment of it.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/sugiyama_etal_2005.pdf

And Goldblatt 2012 is somewhat less technical.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1593.pdf


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > When  you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.
> ...


 
From your link:

"The warming that Earth is experiencing now due to emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning is unprecedented"  Where is it warming?  It ain't here in North America.  And if it isn't warming how can warming be on an unprecedented pace?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > When  you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.
> ...



My analysis isn't invalid.. The published performance of most EVERY climate model is invalid. From the simple forensic analysis of it's response to the CO2 trigger. If water vapor has a time variant effect on those curves -- it would add DAMPENING to the outputs. Not in evidence at all is it?

Let's just crush your hopes of impeaching my science knowledge and make this about what folks have been told..

Runaway climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> *Runaway climate change* or *runaway global warming* is hypothesized to follow atipping point in the climate system, after accumulated climate change initiates a reinforcing positive feedback. This is thought to cause climate to rapidly change until it reaches a new stable condition.[1]
> 
> The _runaway greenhouse effect_ has several meanings. At the least extreme, this implies global warming sufficient to induce out-of-control amplifying feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates. At the most extreme, a Venus-like planet with crustal carbon baked into the atmosphere and a surface temperature of several hundred degrees, an irreversible climate state.
> 
> Between these two is the _moist greenhouse_, which occurs if the climate forcing is large enough to make water vapour (H2O) a major atmospheric constituent.[8] In principle, an extreme moist greenhouse might cause an instability with water vapour preventing radiation to space of all absorbed solar energy, resulting in very high surface temperature and evaporation of the ocean.[9] However, simulations indicate that no plausible human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing can cause an instability and baked-crust runaway greenhouse effect.[10]



Did ya miss ole Hansen talking about boiling oceans?? Or the hype over the "LAST CHANCE TO SAVE PLANET" at the next climate conference?
I've actually seen press releases that say we have 268 days left to save the planet.. Never heard the words "tipping point"???

Get off my couch cat...


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth doesnt like informative acronyms like CAGW. one of the biggest problems with AGW is that the consensus meme demands that if someone agrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to agree with all of it. and conversely if someone disagrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to disagree with all of it. obviously this is not a correct description of the range of views on global warming but it is evident in the studies that proclaim 97%

the vast majority of skeptics believe that increased CO2 causes some warming. what they dont believe is that positive feedbacks multiply that slight warming into a catastrophic runaway warming that will destroy the world as we know it. the evidence of the last 15 years has decimated the CAGW predictions. it is time to rethink the assumptions built into the models that were designed 20+ years ago when the evidence coincidentally supported the alarmist view.

food for thought. if the last 15 years has had no warming because of natural conditions in spite of CO2, and the previous 15 years before that had warming that was increased by natural conditions, then the models that were based on assumptions made from 85-99 are wrong by half if the natural conditions even out between the two time periods. jus' sayin'.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2014)

IanC said:


> mamooth doesnt like informative acronyms like CAGW. one of the biggest problems with AGW is that the consensus meme demands that if someone agrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to agree with all of it. and conversely if someone disagrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to disagree with all of it. obviously this is not a correct description of the range of views on global warming but it is evident in the studies that proclaim 97%



Very well stated. Maybe we should ask Crick and Mammy what parts of the fabled CAGW really does embarrass them...  

I'm personally embarrassed by skeptics that attempt to overturn basic GreenHouse theory or claim that CO2 has no warming powers or is "tapped out". I also think it's a dangerous thing to base too much of your skepticism in "the pause".. And your arguments need to be much more comprehensive that that or a recent weather event. 

But what pisses me off the ABSOLUTE most -- Is quoting old and fundamentally flawed abortions of statistics that PURPORT to claim a consensus on ALL Global Warming issues by scientists who have "settled the science".. THAT to me is use of force and coercion rather than anything close to science, logic or reason..


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth doesnt like informative acronyms like CAGW. one of the biggest problems with AGW is that the consensus meme demands that if someone agrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to agree with all of it. and conversely if someone disagrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to disagree with all of it. obviously this is not a correct description of the range of views on global warming but it is evident in the studies that proclaim 97%
> ...


I find it insane to perpetuate something without any evidence that would suggest any catastrophic conditions exists.  And that all observed data is manipulated to achieve some confirmation in a model derived 20 years ago.  This is Ethically wrong.

And then to have the warmers state they don't use proof or evidence in science.  I just can't comprehend how that is at all possible. One can have a mathematical model but one should have evidence that supports it.  I haven't seen any since I've been on here.  I do know that September 13th I had my furnace on in Chicago when average temps ought to be in the 70s.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> My analysis isn't invalid.



Sure it is. You're out of your depth here, trying to apply controls theory to cases where it doesn't apply.

Did you really think that no AGW scientist knew what the result of endless positive feedback is? Or that they do know, and are lying about it? Either way, it's a kook conspiracy theory on your part.

Anyways, you didn't even look at the science involved. None of the deniers here would. You've got your conspiracy theories, and you're sticking with them, which means you're forced to ignore the actual science. Which, as Cook as many others so able proved, over 97% agree with. That proven fact that has you nearly pissing yourself with rage, going off into some Cook Derangement Syndrome that's a delight to behold. It's as if you think hating one man can make all the facts vanish and turn your fabricated statistics into truth.



> Let's just crush your hopes of impeaching my science knowledge and make this about what folks have been told.



Your misuse of controls theory is a sort of bad engineering pretending to be science. And your various cherrypicks reek of desperation. For example, Hansen's claim was qualified with the condition that every bit of fossil fuel on the planet gets burned, not to mention that most scientists still don't agree with it. And that the "tipping point" does not refer to runaway warming, showing your further ignorance of the topic.

In the end, all that you deniers have now is shrieking alarmism. It's either the world is doomed from "CAGW" that only you can define, or there's an ice age coming. You all need to make up your minds.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 16, 2014)

Back to the science ...

If warming was due to increased solar activity, we would have to see:
1. Stratospheric warming
2. More warming during the day
3. More warming in the summer

Instead, what we actually observe is:
1. Stratospheric cooling
2. More warming at night
3. More warming in the winter

That is, observed data shows the opposite of what you'd expect if the current warming was due to the sun. The data shows what's expected if warming is due to greenhouse gases.

That's why essentially no scientists think the warming is solar-caused, other than that single Russian guy the deniers love to reference. He called for an ice age beginning in 2014. It hasn't showed up so far.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > My analysis isn't invalid.
> ...


 Did you say something?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > My analysis isn't invalid.
> ...



There is not a process or a system where Linear/NonLinear/Stochastic Systems does not apply.. All the way from chemical/electrical signaling in nerve tissue to space flight systems. ALL climate models are using principles that MUST OBEY these mathematical constructs. And the lack of care in Modeling the climate explains a LOT about why the outputs all look similarly unstable and underdamped. 

You are on ignore.. NOT because you impugned my technical expertise, but for LYING about what Hansen said and denying the basic story of your own theory.. The "tipping point" is in a mere 200 days or so according to political experts all over the world bound for the next climate conference. That is the point where REGARDLESS if man placed a cork in EVERY SMOKESTACK --- the earth would reach the trigger point BY ITSELF and proceed to destroy itself.. THAT --- is the horseshit fable that you believe is "science"..


----------



## SixFoot (Sep 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Back to the science ...
> 
> If warming was due to increased solar activity, we would have to see:
> 1. Stratospheric warming
> ...




Interesting. So one "famous" guy said the arctic would be ice-free by 2014, and another "famous" guy said there would be an ice age by now.

Looks like both of them said something hyperbolic at best.


This is the kind of stuff that makes me just shake my head at every arm chair scientist on either side of the isle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'd be a little more impressed with your graphic had it* ANY VERTICAL SCALE*
> 
> From good ol' Wikipedia
> 
> The *Little Ice Age* (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1]While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.  It has been conventionally defined as* a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850*, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which _varied according to local conditions_.* NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850* and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeThird Assessment Report considered* the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation*. _At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period_.



You have some serious issues with the plots. All but one of these use 2 different sets of plot durations which give the illusion of rapid rise at the end of the data set.

Wow.. Using the Mann method of deception... If the three graphs were plotted in the 300 year time spans the massive spike at the end would not exist.  Now why would someone create a spike where one should not exist? Why would they do that? When someone uses two time spans (ie: 300 year plots in reconstructions and then splice 25 year time spans onto the end) its far worse than disingenuous.

I find it rather funny that so many use the Mann method.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're confused.  The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850.  The biggest resolution challenge is local variation.  the LIA was not a clearly global event.  The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.



Keep quoting wiki....  Garbage!


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2014)

The references to Wikipedia's "garbage".  Let's see yours Billy Bob.

*References*

*Jump up^* Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (1971). _Times of Feast, Times of Famine: a History of Climate Since the Year 1000_. Barbara Bray. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. ISBN 0-374-52122-0.OCLC 164590.
*Jump up^* Matthes FE (1939). "Report of the committee on glaciers". _Transactions of the American Geophysical Union_: 518–23. Matthes described glaciers in the Sierra Nevada of California that could not have survived the hypsithermal, in his opinion; his usage of "Little Ice Age" has been superseded by "Neoglaciation".
*Jump up^* Michael Mann (2003). "Little Ice Age" (PDF). In Michael C MacCracken and John S Perry. _Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, Volume 1, The Earth System: Physical and Chemical Dimensions of Global Environmental Change_. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
*Jump up^* Lamb, HH (1972). "The cold Little Ice Age climate of about 1550 to 1800". _Climate: present, past and future_. London: Methuen. p. 107. ISBN 0-416-11530-6. (noted in Grove 2004:4).
*Jump up^* _Earth observatory_ (Glossary L–N ed.). USA: Nasa.
*Jump up^* "1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science". Ipcc.ch. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
*Jump up^* "Glossary I-M". NASA. Retrieved 28 February 2011.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Retrieved 2 August 2007.
*Jump up^* AR4 WG1 Section 6.6: The Last 2,000 Years, 2007.
*Jump up^* Jones, Philip D. (2001). _History and climate: memories of the future?_. Springer. p. 154.
*Jump up^* According to JM Lamb of Cambridge University the little ice age was already under way in Canada and Switzerland and in the wider North Atlantic region in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Miller _et al_. 2012. "Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks" _Geophysical Research Letters_ *39*, 31 January:abstract and link on AGU website (accessed 31 January 2011)
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Was the Little Ice Age Triggered by Massive Volcanic Eruptions? ScienceDaily, 30 January 2012 (accessed 21 May 2012)
*Jump up^* "Worldwide glacier retreat". RealClimate. Retrieved 2 August 2007.
*Jump up^* Oerlemans, Johannes Hans Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". _Science_ *308* (5722): 675–7. Bibcode:2005Sci...308..675O.doi:10.1126/science.1107046. PMID 15746388. Retrieved 25 December 2009.
*Jump up^* Hendy, E.; Gagan, M.; Alibert, C.; McCulloch, M.; Lough, J.; Isdale, P. (2002). "Abrupt decrease in tropical Pacific sea surface salinity at end of Little Ice Age". _Science_ *295* (5559): 1511–1514. Bibcode:2002Sci...295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693.PMID 11859191. edit
*Jump up^* Ogilvie, A. E. J.; Jónsson, T. (2001). _Climatic Change_ *48*: 9.doi:10.1023/A:1005625729889. edit
*Jump up^* "About INQUA:Quaternary Science (By S.C. Porter)". INQUA. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Jonathan Cowie (2007). _Climate change: biological and human aspects_. Cambridge University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-521-69619-7.
*Jump up^* Stone, Richard (19 November 2004). "Iceland's Doomsday Scenario?". _Science_ *306*(5700): 1278–81. doi:10.1126/science.306.5700.1278. PMID 15550636.
*Jump up^* [1][_dead link_]
*Jump up^* "SVS Science Story: Ice Age". NASA Scientific Visualization Studio. Retrieved 2 August 2007.
*Jump up^* "Arquivo de eventos históricos - Página 4 - MeteoPT.com - Fórum de Meteorologia". MeteoPT.com. 17 July 2012. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Lamb, Hubert H. (1995). "The little ice age". _Climate, history and the modern world_. London: Routledge. pp. 211–241. ISBN 0-415-12734-3.
*Jump up^* Cullen, Karen J. (30 May 2010). _Famine in Scotland: The 'Ill Years' of The 1690s_. Edinburgh University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-7486-3887-1.
*Jump up^* Ewanu, Elizabeth; Nugent, Janay (2 November 2008). _Finding the Family in Medieval and Early Modern Scotland_. Ashgate. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-7546-6049-1.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Broecker WS (February 2000). "Was a change in thermohaline circulation responsible for the Little Ice Age?". _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A._ *97* (4): 1339–42.Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.1339B. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.4.1339. PMC 34299.PMID 10677462.
*Jump up^* National Park Service
*Jump up^* Cronin, T. M.; Dwyer, G. S.; Kamiya, T.; Schwede, S.; Willard, D. A. (2003). "Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and 20th Century Climate Variability from Chesapeake Bay"._Global and Planetary Change_ *36* (1–2): 17–29. Bibcode:2003GPC....36...17C.doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00161-3.
*Jump up^* Kenyon W.A., Turnbull J.R. (1971). _The Battle for James Bay_. Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada Limited.
*Jump up^* Whitehouse, David (17 December 2003). "Stradivarius' sound 'due to Sun'". BBC.
*Jump up^* TV series "Connections" by James Burke
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Fagan 2001
*Jump up^* Behringer, Wolfgang (1 September 1999). "Climatic Change and Witch-hunting: the Impact of the Little Ice Age on Mentalities". _Climatic Change_ (Springer Netherlands) *43* (1): 335–351. doi:10.1023/A:1005554519604.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Macdougall, Douglas (2004). _Frozen Earth: The Once and Future Story of Ice Ages_. University of California Press. p. 225. ISBN 0-520-24824-4.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _Earth Environments: Past, Present and Future_, by David Huddart & Tim Stott, p. 863 (quoted), 2010, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0470749601, 9780470749609
*Jump up^* _Earth Environments: Past, Present and Future_, by David Huddart & Tim Stott, p. 863 (quoted), 2010, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0470749601, 9780470749609; see also this 1980 article by Burroughs in the _New Scientist_
*Jump up^* John E. Thornes, John Constable (1999). _John Constable's skies: a fusion of art and science_. Continuum International. p. 32. ISBN 1-902459-02-4.
*Jump up^* "Kilsyth Curling". Retrieved 11 September 2010.
*Jump up^* "The Story so Far !!!". Gourock Curling Club. 2009. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Reiter P (2000). "From Shakespeare to Defoe: malaria in England in the Little Ice Age". _Emerging Infect. Dis._ *6* (1): 1–11. doi:10.3201/eid0601.000101. PMC 2627969.PMID 10653562.
*Jump up^* Kam-biu Liu; Caiming Shen; Kin-sheun Louie (2001). "A 1,000-Year History of Typhoon Landfalls in Guangdong, Southern China, Reconstructed from Chinese Historical Documentary Records". _Annals of the Association of American Geographers_ *91* (3): 453–464. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00253.
*Jump up^* David A. Hodella, Mark Brennera, Jason H. Curtisa, Roger Medina-Gonzálezb, Enrique Ildefonso-Chan Canb, Alma Albornaz-Patb, Thomas P. Guilderson (March 2005). "Climate change on the Yucatan Peninsula during the Little Ice Age". _Quaternary Research_ *63* (2): 109. Bibcode:2005QuRes..63..109H. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2004.11.004.
*Jump up^* Johnson, T.C., Barry, S., Chan, Y., Wilkinson, P. (2001). "Decadal record of climate variability spanning the past 700 yr in the Southern Tropics of East Africa". _Geology_ *29*: 83–6. Bibcode:2001Geo....29...83J. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0083ROCVS>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0091-7613.
*Jump up^* Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A., Svanered, O. (2001). "A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa". _South African Journal of Science_ *97*: 49–51.
*Jump up^* Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow, S.I., Pittalwala, I.I. (1997). "Bipolar changes in atmospheric circulation during the Little Ice Age". _Science_ *277*(5330): 1294–96. doi:10.1126/science.277.5330.1294.
*Jump up^* Khim, B.-K.; Yoon H. I.; Kang C. Y.; Bahk J. J. (November 2002). "Unstable Climate Oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula". _Quaternary Research_ *58* (3): 234–245. Bibcode:2002QuRes..58..234K.doi:10.1006/qres.2002.2371.
*Jump up^* http://waiscores.dri.edu/MajorFindings/MayewskiRes.html
*Jump up^* http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/pastmeetings/abstracts00/Das.htm
*Jump up^* D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, V.I. Morgan."Historical CO
2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores". _Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center_. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
*Jump up^* M. Angeles Bárcena, Rainer Gersonde, Santiago Ledesma, Joan Fabrés, Antonio M. Calafat, Miquel Canals, F. Javier Sierro, Jose A. Flores (1998). "Record of Holocene glacial oscillations in Bransfield Basin as revealed by siliceous microfossil assemblages"._Antarctic Science_ *10* (3): 269–85. doi:10.1017/S0954102098000364.
*Jump up^* Rhodes et al: "Little Ice Age climate and oceanic conditions of the Ross Sea, Antarctica from a coastal ice core record". Clim. Past, 8, 1223–1238, 2012.
*Jump up^* Erica J. Hendy, Michael K. Gagan, Chantal A. Alibert, Malcolm T. McCulloch, Janice M. Lough, Peter J. Isdale (22 February 2002). "Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age". _Science_ *295* (5559): 1511–4.Bibcode:2002Sci...295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693. PMID 11859191.
*Jump up^* Pollack, H. N., Huang, S., Smerdon, J. E. (2006). "Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground". _J. Quaternary Sci._ *21* (7): 701–6.Bibcode:2006JQS....21..701P. doi:10.1002/jqs.1060.
*Jump up^* Nunn, P.D. (2000). "Environmental catastrophe in the Pacific Islands around AD 1300"._Geoarchaeology_ *15* (7): 715–40. doi:10.1002/1520-6548(200010)15:7<715::AID-GEA4>3.0.CO;2-L.
*Jump up^* Winkler, Stefan (2000). "The 'Little Ice Age' maximum in the Southern Alps, New Zealand: preliminary results at Mueller Glacier". _The Holocene_ *10* (5): 643–647.doi:10.1191/095968300666087656. Retrieved 27 June 2010.
*Jump up^* Villalba, R. (1990). "Climatic fluctuations in Northern Patagonian during the last 1000 years as inferred from tree-rings records". _Quaternary Research_ *34* (3): 346–60.Bibcode:1990QuRes..34..346V. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(90)90046-N.
*Jump up^* Villalba, R (1994). "Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America". _Climatic Change_ *26* (2–3): 183–97.doi:10.1007/BF01092413.
*Jump up^* Sébastien Bertranda, Xavier Boësa, Julie Castiauxa, François Charletb, Roberto Urrutiac, Cristian Espinozac, Gilles Lepointd, Bernard Charliere, Nathalie Fage (2005). "Temporal evolution of sediment supply in Lago Puyehue (Southern Chile) during the last 600 yr and its climatic significance". _Quaternary Research_ *64* (2): 163. Bibcode:2005QuRes..64..163B.doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2005.06.005.
*Jump up^* Meyer, I.; Wagner, S. (2009). "The Little Ice Age in Southern South America: Proxy and Model Based Evidence". _Past Climate Variability in South America and Surrounding Regions_. Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research *14*. p. 395. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2672-9_16. ISBN 978-90-481-2671-2. edit
*Jump up^* Thompson, L. G.; Mosley-Thompson, E.; Davis, M. E.; Lin, P. N.; Henderson, K.; Mashiotta, T. A. (2003). "Tropical Glacier and Ice Core Evidence of Climate Change on Annual to Millennial Time Scales". _Climate Variability and Change in High Elevation Regions: Past, Present & Future_. Advances in Global Change Research *15*. p. 137.doi:10.1007/978-94-015-1252-7_8. ISBN 978-90-481-6322-9. edit
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Araneda, A., F. Torrejón, M. Aguayo, L. Torres, F. Cruces, M. Cisternas, R. Urrutia (2007). "Historical records of San Rafael glacier advances (North Patagonian Icefield): another clue to 'Little Ice Age' timing in southern Chile?". _The Holocene_ *17* (7): 987–98.doi:10.1177/0959683607082414.
*Jump up^* Bond et al., 1997
*Jump up^* "Abrupt Climate Changes Revisited: How Serious and How Likely?". _USGCRP Seminar_. US Global Change Research Program. 23 February 1998.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Surface changes in the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the last millennium Nature Communications Nature Publishing Group, Wanamaker et al. (2012). Surface changes in the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the last millennium
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Kaufman, D. S.; Schneider, D. P.; McKay, N. P.; Ammann, C. M.; Bradley, R. S.; Briffa, K. R.; Miller, G. H.; Otto-Bliesner, B. L.; Overpeck, J. T.; Vinther, B. M.; Abbott, M.; Axford, M.; Bird, Y.; Birks, B.; Bjune, H. J. B.; Briner, A. E.; Cook, J.; Chipman, T.; Francus, M.; Gajewski, P.; Geirsdottir, K.; Hu, A.; Kutchko, F. S.; Lamoureux, B.; Loso, S.; MacDonald, M.; Peros, G.; Porinchu, M.; Schiff, D.; Seppa, C.; Seppa, H.; Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members (2009). "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling". _Science_ *325*(5945): 1236–1239. doi:10.1126/science.1173983. PMID 19729653. edit
"Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling". UCAR. 3 September 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2011.
Bello, David (4 September 2009). "Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling". Scientific American. Retrieved 19 May 2011.
*Jump up^* Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 29, 2005.
*Jump up^* Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High Space.com Astronomy 27 October 2004
*Jump up^* Geoffrey Parker, Lesley M. Smith (1997). _The general crisis of the seventeenth century_.Routledge. pp. 287, 288. ISBN 978-0-415-16518-1.
*Jump up^* Crowley, Thomas J. (14 July 2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". _Science_ *289* (5477): 270–7. Bibcode:2000Sci...289..270C.doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270. PMID 10894770.
*Jump up^* Robock, Alan (21 December 1979). "The "Little Ice Age": Northern Hemisphere Average Observations and Model Calculations". _Science_ *206* (4425): 1402–4.Bibcode:1979Sci...206.1402R. doi:10.1126/science.206.4425.1402. PMID 17739301.
*Jump up^* "A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science". Science.nasa.gov. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
*Jump up^* Hopkin, Michael (29 November 2006). "Gulf Stream weakened in 'Little Ice Age'"._Nature News_.
*Jump up^* Villanueva, John Carl (19 October 2009). "Little Ice Age". Universe Today. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
*Jump up^* Pittenger, Richard F.; Gagosian, Robert B. (October 2003). "Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the Military" (PDF). _Defense Horizons_ (National Defense Univ Washington DC Center for Technology and National Security Policy) *33*. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
*Jump up^* Leake, Jonathan (8 May 2005). "Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows". _The Times_ (London). Retrieved 11 May 2010.
*Jump up^* "Hot Planet — Cold Comfort". _Alan Alda in Scientific American Frontiers_. Only a Little Ice Age. 16 February 2005. PBS.
*Jump up^* Ravilious, Kate (27 February 2006). "Europe's chill linked to disease". BBC.
*Jump up^* Ruddiman, William F. (2003). "The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago". _Climatic Change_ *61* (3): 261–293.doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ "Evidence for the Postconquest Demographic Collapse of the Americas in HistoricalCO
2 Levels". American Meteorological Society through Allenpress.com. 2006. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
*Jump up^* R.J. Nevle _et al_., "Ecological-hydrological effects of reduced biomass burning in the neotropics after A.D. 1500," _Geological Society of America Meeting_, Minneapolis MN, 11 October 2011 . abstract. Popular summary: "Columbus' arrival linked to carbon dioxide drop: Depopulation of Americas may have cooled climate," _Science News,_ 5 November 2011. (access date 2 January 2012)
*Jump up^* Bergeron, Louis (17 December 2008). "Reforestation helped trigger Little Ice Age, researchers say". Stanford News Service.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Melissa Free, Alan Robock (27 August 1999). "Global Warming in the Context of the Little Ice Age". Rutgers University, originally published in Journal of Geophysical Research. Retrieved 3 January 2010.
*Jump up^* Hunt, B. G. (2006). "The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and simulated climatic variability". _Climate Dynamics_ *27* (7–8): 677–694. doi:10.1007/s00382-006-0153-5. edit


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> The references to Wikipedia's "garbage".  Let's see yours Billy Bob.
> 
> *References*
> *<SNIP>*



Every single one is dependent on Global Climate Model.... None of them are based on empirical evidence...

This is how corrupted science has become. They place their variables in to a hodgepodge model, with no way to check its output.. And they write papers about it..  42 papers by Michael Mann or citing him of the 62. Knowing the garbage Mann has put out it doesn't bode well for the outputs..  Garbage in Garbage Out...  The others i dont care to read at this point.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

Now Crick is littering the place with stuff he'll never read and has no hope of understanding. 

I PERSONALLY enjoyed.. 


*Jump up^* "Arquivo de eventos históricos - Página 4 - MeteoPT.com - Fórum de Meteorologia". MeteoPT.com. 17 July 2012. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
I found it muy bueno...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Now Crick is littering the place with stuff he'll never read and has no hope of understanding.
> 
> I PERSONALLY enjoyed..
> 
> ...



No Habla Espanio....     I found it funny that it is a Spanish blogg...  and its and enviro-wacko blogg to boot...


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> The references to Wikipedia's "garbage".  Let's see yours Billy Bob.
> 
> *References*
> *<SNIP>*





Billy_Bob said:


> Every single one is dependent on Global Climate Model.... None of them are based on empirical evidence...



What the fuck are you talking about?  The discussion here concerns the Little Ice Age.  Those references are making use of historical data and paleoclimatic proxies.  There is virtually NO model usage in any of those references.  It is almost nothing BUT empirical data.



Billy_Bob said:


> This is how corrupted science has become. They place their variables in to a hodgepodge model, with no way to check its output..



Yo.  Numbnuts.  What model?  What corruption?  You just spew sound bites thinking something will stick somewhere.  Well, sorry, but as the Bard has told us, "the truth will out"



Billy_Bob said:


> And they write papers about it..  42 papers by Michael Mann or citing him of the 62.



You don't actually know what Michael Mann's does for a living, do you.



Billy_Bob said:


> Knowing the garbage Mann has put out it doesn't bode well for the outputs..  Garbage in Garbage Out...



I am not in the least surprised that you would insult the work of Michael Mann.  But since you have no idea why you're supposed to do so, it lacks the impact it might have coming from someone who bothers to pick up a few facts here and there.  But then, people who pick up a few facts here and there (and aren't prone to lie) wouldn't accuse Michael Mann of putting out garbage. 



Billy_Bob said:


> The others i dont care to read at this point.



Ha ha ha haaaa.  What's wrong with you people?  I didn't put all that up there because I thought you should read it, though it certainly wouldn't hurt you to read SOMETHING.  I was only pointing out that the Wikipedia article to which I referred re the LIA had a great deal of authoritative references while your contentions on the topic have essentially none.


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Now Crick is littering the place with stuff he'll never read and has no hope of understanding.
> 
> I PERSONALLY enjoyed..
> 
> ...



I personally enjoyed your failure to follow the conversation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  The discussion here concerns the Little Ice Age.  Those references are making use of historical data and paleoclimatic proxies.  There is virtually NO model usage in any of those references.  It is almost nothing BUT empirical data.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ha ha ha haaaa.  What's wrong with you people?  I didn't put all that up there because I thought you should read it, though it certainly wouldn't hurt you to read SOMETHING.  I was only pointing out that the Wikipedia article to which I referred re the LIA had a great deal of authoritative references while your contentions on the topic have essentially none.



Every singe one of those use proxy data input to models to create their output records.  I Repeat AGAIN; *MODEL OUTPUTS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE* of anything...

Your like a rabbit that drops lots of little shit pellets all over hoping just one of them will grow to be a tree.  WIki is a shit source.. changeable at a whim and has proven crap. Just keep on using your shit pellets..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2014)

And what the hell dooes the title Climate Change and Witch Hunting have to offer to the discussion you tool?   Just summarize in your own words.   What a joke.....  You are essentially pooping all over the forum..


----------



## Kosh (Sep 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The references to Wikipedia's "garbage".  Let's see yours Billy Bob.
> ...



Posts like this show beyond of a shadow of doubt and show empirically that you hate real science and that none of your postings are based in reality.

Another fail AGW cult posting.


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



It shows _empirically_ that I hate real science?

Good god are you stupid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

Got to love it...

DOE and NASA report that their solar array's used to calculate solar panel output loss have now breached an 8.3% LOSS of usable radiation in the 0.2-0.6um band. 

As solar panels use a very narrow band within this to generate energy, it shows the loss of down-welling radiation that can warm the oceans is falling off considerably.. Now not only do we have to worry about energy not making it to the surface of the earth but cooling oceans to boot as the majority of ocean warming is done in the 0.2um to 0.8um spectrum of down-welling solar radiation.... 

I wonder why this information was so hard to find?  No one is talking about this. Looks like I need to do some serious digging and verify it with other sources.. If the spectral shift is this massive were in for some serious cooling..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Got to love it...
> 
> DOE and NASA report that their solar array's used to calculate solar panel output loss have now breached an 8.3% LOSS of usable radiation in the 0.2-0.6um band.
> 
> ...



I would be interesting to see how much UV output has decreased in the bands responsible for the production of O3 in the stratosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
> Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation..
> 
> Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..
> ...


And to think that this was noticed by a power company trying to ascertain why their precious solar panels were degrading so quickly, when they were less than three years old...   Funny thing is, the shift has gradually gone farther. Some power company solar stations at 35 deg lat are experiencing 12-15% losses in output from startup. This leeds me to believe this might not be over and the shift will remain for some time. We simply do not know how long this condition will last or how critical this shift will become.  Lowering the direct energy, that warms the oceans, could put us in a glacial cycle in very short order.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Got to love it...
> ...



I just emailed a friend who might be able to get me that info.. Interesting thought as it would also affect cloud cover...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I would be very interested in seeing the results...certain bots on the board can't accept that natural reactants and catalysts to O3 present in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm, the fact that solar output of UV varies wildly from year to year and the fact that the holes themselves are seasonal explain the decrease in O3...he prefers to believe that a molecule present at about 3 parts per BILLION is entirely responsible.  

I don't think for a minute that actual data would have any effect on his belief, or the beliefs of any of the cultists on the board...but it would be good to know the numbers anyway.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


This can be said of most alarmists. Any observed data, which points away from CO2 as being responsible for our natural variation, will be ignored.


----------



## Crick (Jan 22, 2019)

0.2 to 0.6 uM?  8.3%  That must be the cause of all that snow.

And, I find it interesting that as of last Sunday Same Shit was STILL looking for UV data to support the ozone contention he's been screaming about for the last four weeks as the absolute word of god.  I posted four different UV datasets and NONE of them supported his contention.  But, of course deniers ignore anything that refutes their presuppositions. ; - )


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2019)

Its laughable to believe that the Sun or Earth's magnetic field has any effect on our climate when climate science teaches us that CO2 functions much like the turtles supporting the Earth on their backs.

It's CO2 all the way


----------



## Crick (Jan 22, 2019)

Wrong thread Frank


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> 0.2 to 0.6 uM?  8.3%  That must be the cause of all that snow.
> 
> And, I find it interesting that as of last Sunday Same Shit was STILL looking for UV data to support the ozone contention he's been screaming about for the last four weeks as the absolute word of god.  I posted four different UV datasets and NONE of them supported his contention.  But, of course deniers ignore anything that refutes their presuppositions. ; - )


I should have the updated EREB satellite data for him later this week..  Polar LWIR (Arctic) escape has increased +6.8% over last three years... The LWIR release happening today, has never been seen in the satellite record.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2019)

Fascinating that Billy would want to resurrect a thread highlighting his long-running perfect record of failure.

In his third post on this thread from 2014, Billy predicts imminent cooling. We see how that turned out.

Billy, given that you face-planted so hard with your 2014 prediction, why shouldn't everyone assume you're being equally stupid this time? Because that's what everyone is assuming.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> 0.2 to 0.6 uM?  8.3%  That must be the cause of all that snow.
> 
> And, I find it interesting that as of last Sunday Same Shit was STILL looking for UV data to support the ozone contention he's been screaming about for the last four weeks as the absolute word of god.  I posted four different UV datasets and NONE of them supported his contention.  But, of course deniers ignore anything that refutes their presuppositions. ; - )



Actually skid mark...you posted 4 data sets with pretty colors which you, as usual, completely misunderstood.  Lets have a look shall we?

The discussion revolved around the wild fluctuations in solar output of particular bands of UV.....not total output....and remember...it is about the particular wavelengths of UV that are responsible for the production of ozone in the stratosphere.

Here is what you posted...






Can you point out any solar output in a particular wavelenght in this graph.  Is there anything here that would suggest that solar output of UV in the wavelengths responsible for the production of UV in the stratosphere is, or is not responsible for changes in O3?






While this set of graphs do show a decreasing trend, once again can you point out any solar output in a particular wavelenght in this graph.  Is there anything here that would suggest that solar output of UV in the wavelengths responsible for the production of UV in the stratosphere is, or is not responsible for changes in O3?






Once again can you point out any solar output in a particular wavelenght in this graph.  Is there anything here that would suggest that solar output of UV in the wavelengths responsible for the production of UV in the stratosphere is, or is not responsible for changes in O3?  Did you note that while it doesn't show any particular wavelength, it does show a decreasing trend in UVb from 2009 - 2015?  Did that not register with you? 

Is this what passes for science in your mind...a few graphs which in no way support your claims....is this sort of bullshit all it takes to fool you?  Really?  Are you this stupid?  If so, it is little wonder that you are a complete dupe.

Do feel free to point out anything within your pretty little graphs that dispute a single suggestion from the information I posted...Here, let me post it again...

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

clip: That is why Krivova's model SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance Reconstruction) also takes the fluctuations in the UV light into account. "*Although the UV light makes up just 8 percent of the total solar irradiance," she says, "the fluctuations are considerable.*

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  *This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.*

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (*a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone laye*r)


https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

However, bright regions surrounding the sunspots, called faculae, cause the sun to brighten at peak activity (Lean and Foukal, 1988). Lean and others (1995a) estimated that during the Maunder Minimum, total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.2 percent relative to a present quiet sun (minimum of the mid-1990’s), *but total ultraviolet (UV) 
radiation was reduced by 1.04 percent. This is important because it is the UV radiation that modulates ozone production,* which, in turn, affects the dynam- ics and energetics of the middle and upper atmosphere through radiative processes and dynamic mechanisms involving convective Hadley cell circu- lation (Haigh, 1996).


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating that Billy would want to resurrect a thread highlighting his long-running perfect record of failure.
> 
> In his third post on this thread from 2014, Billy predicts imminent cooling. We see how that turned out.
> 
> Billy, given that you face-planted so hard with your 2014 prediction, why shouldn't everyone assume you're being equally stupid this time? Because that's what everyone is assuming.



Poor stupid old woman...when are you going to realize that projecting the failures of climate science on skeptics only makes you guys look terribly uninformed?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2019)

Vigilante said:


>


Oh, I see. Snow in your back yard, so that means it is cold everywhere. What a dumb fucking ass you are. We have had just two nights where it actually frosted thus far this winter so I can assume it is warm everywhere, right? Dumb ass logic backed up by dumb ass cartoons, but then, that is all you deniers have.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

You


Old Rocks said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


You believe that because it is warm somewhere, that it is warm everywhere...I have provided study after study showing that what warming there is,  is regional...the whole globe isn't warming...in fact, most of the globe isn't..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2019)

More lies from SSo DDumb.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> More lies from SSo DDumb.



Idiot...you show a one day, tampered with graph and suppose it is supposed to mean something.    And we all know that you are the liar rocks...  Here is a link to some of the information I have posted showing that the warming is regional...not global.

So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 0.2 to 0.6 uM?  8.3%  That must be the cause of all that snow.
> ...


They simply have no concept that energy must be able to be processed by the matter it strikes.  The shift from UV to visible bands decreases the formation of O3 and that same shift makes the lost energy within that band unavailable for the oceans to absorb and warm.

They simply don't get it... They have no cognitive thought skills..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> They simply don't get it... They have no cognitive thought skills..



Bots don't think...it isn't required of them which is good since it isn't an intrinsic part of their nature.  They eat whatever pap they are fed and go forth to regurgitate as much and as often as possible.  It is a good thing though...not being thinking people, they remain blissfully unaware that the tables are turning....you can only fool people so long with pseudoscience before someone starts checking the numbers...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> More lies from SSo DDumb.


And yet the oceans are not warming...


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> And yet the oceans are not warming...



We just discussed this in another thread, Billy. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/21659368/

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-019-8276-x.pdf
---
In fact, 2018 has set a new record of ocean heating, surpassing 2017, which was the previous warmest year ever recorded (Cheng et al., 2018) (Fig. 1)
---

You cut and ran after your crazy claims there were debunked. Same old same old. You and SSDD _always_ run from everyone. That's why everyone knows you two are fully aware that you're faking everything, and the reason you fake it all is because your cult demands you fake it all.


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> And yet the oceans are not warming...



Billy Boy, the ENSO 3.4 index is not a direct measure of global ocean heat content or temperature.  That information looks more like this:


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the oceans are not warming...
> ...



Your graph is a model attempting to determine how much energy is contained within the oceans based on TOA radiation measurements.  In addition, the model that produced that graph has discounted all the models which show negative TOA heat imbalances...in short...it is the product of just one more cherry picked model run...one picked for its value in supporting an alarmist narrative...

But hey...it's good enough to fool you...right?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

That graph is NOT a model.  It is based on thousands of empirical observations.  If you want to get on someone for using a model, you might talk to your buddy Billy Boy attempting to use the ENSO 3.4 index as a measure of global ocean heat content.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> That graph is NOT a model.  It is based on thousands of empirical observations.  If you want to get on someone for using a model, you might talk to your buddy Billy Boy attempting to use the ENSO 3.4 index as a measure of global ocean heat content.



Sorry...it is the output of a cherry picked model...but clearly, it's good enough to fool you.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Sorry, you're a fooking Martian attempting to sterilize the Earth for your little green squirmy brethren back home*.  Clearly good enough to fool you.

Are you claiming that the temperature of the world's oceans is not increasing?

* - Unsubstantiated assertion


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Sorry, you're a fooking Martian attempting to sterilize the Earth for your little green squirmy brethren back home.  Clearly good enough to fool you.
> 
> Are you claiming that the temperature of the world's oceans is not increasing?  Yes or No



So now you got your panties in a wad because you don't want your chart to be from a cherry picked model...having a bit of a tantrum are you?   Terribly sorry that the chart was good enough to fool you, but clearly it did.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

*Ocean heat content - Wikipedia*

*Definition and measurement*
The areal density of ocean heat content between two depth levels is defined using a definite integral:[3]

{\displaystyle H=\rho c_{p}\int _{h2}^{h1}T(z)dz}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




where {\displaystyle \rho }
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is seawater density, {\displaystyle c_{p}}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is the specific heat of sea water, h2 is the lower depth, h1 is the upper depth, and {\displaystyle T(z)}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is the temperature profile. In SI units, {\displaystyle H}
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 has units of J·m−2. Integrating this density over an ocean basin, or entire ocean, gives the total heat content, as indicated in the figure to right. Thus, the total heat content is the product of the density, specific heat capacity, and the volume integral of temperature over the three-dimensional region of the ocean in question.

Ocean heat content can be estimated using temperature measurements obtained by a Nansen bottle, an ARGO float, or ocean acoustic tomography. The World Ocean Database Project is the largest database for temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans.

The upper Ocean heat content in most North Atlantic regions is dominated by heat transport convergence (a location where ocean currents meet), without large changes to temperature and salinity relation.[4]

Looks like you'll have to visit Wikipedia to see the actual formula's greek

4)  Sirpa Häkkinen, Peter B Rhines, and Denise L Worthen (2015). "Heat content variability in the North Atlantic Ocean in ocean reanalyses". _Geophys Res Lett_. *42*: 2901–2909. doi:10.1002/2015GL063299. PMC 4681455. PMID 26709321.

No model, fool


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2019)

Let me guess....you think that is some sort of evidence that your graph isn't the output of a cherry picked model.

Good enough to fool you....


----------



## Crick (Jan 28, 2019)

That is precisely what it is.  Fool.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the oceans are not warming...
> ...


LOL

ZettaJoules....

The effects of which are measured in THOUSANDTHS of a degree. And made to look scary by x and y axis manipulations that have no scientific value.....  Your a fucking propagandist.  The amount of heat in your graph is 0.0089 deg C. And the MARGIN OF ERROR IS 0.01 deg C..   *This means your supposed warming is equal to ZERO*... WHICH IS WHAT I POSTED! A reputable scientist or group would have  made this clear, but they did not. I can only assume they were deceptive ON PURPOSE!

I find it un-amusing that people who call themselves scientists are DECEIVING PEOPLE FOR AGENDA


----------



## Crick (Jan 28, 2019)

The oceans are warming at an alarming pace.  Fact.  You're arguments are bullshit.  Fact.  You're claim to understand what is going on.  Not a fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Got to love it...
> ...




Here ya go SSDD...





The dropout is massive from 0.2um to 1.8um. Over 11% drop in energy in this band.  O3 should be reacting by dissipating because there is insufficient energy to create Ozone, at either pole.  This also explains the cooling of equatorial oceans. There is simply a massive change in energy that can penetrate the ocean and warm it.

This dropout has been increasing for 3 years now.   Definitely a cooling sun.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> That is precisely what it is.  Fool.



That's what I said....it is the output of a cherry picked model.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> The oceans are warming at an alarming pace.  Fact.  You're arguments are bullshit.  Fact.  You're claim to understand what is going on.  Not a fact.




Only according to your cherry picked models describing heat in terms of zetta joules...much like your claims that a molecule present at 3 parts per billion is destroying the ozone layer...

It is pseudoscience but hey...it's good enough to fool you.


----------



## Crick (Feb 1, 2019)

What is your problem with zettajoules?  Might it be the result of a misunderstanding on your part?

Would you be happier with zettawatts/second?  yotta-ergs/second, zettahorsepower, zettaPferdestärke, zettacheval vapeur, or exafoot-pounds/minute?


----------



## SixFoot (Mar 8, 2019)

A Wiki list of impact craters less than 10,000 years old.






Then we have the Burckle Crater in the Indian Ocean that appears to have impacted during or right before the rise of Sumeria, when the known written history begins:

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia

And the big one in the "news" lately, is the newly discovered impact crater in Greenland, which may very well be the cause of the Younger Dryas Period, and the subsequent extincion of most North American mega-fauna.

Scientists shocked by massive meteorite

Now, we can compare the ages and yield of these impact craters and compare them to the oxygen isotopes in Greenland:






The impact of a one-mile-wide comet on Earth would create a blast yield more powerful than the world's combined nuclear arsenals.

Did civilization start 10,000 - 12,000 years ago, or did civilization reboot?

Did written history begin 5,000 years ago, or did it restart?

Do farting cows impact the climate more than regularly-timed celestial impacts, or are we dismissing the insane amount of heat-energy it took to end the Ice Age in under 2,000 years?

We know all about Climate Science already though, right?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Ohhhh...kay then.

I'd like to comment on Billy Bob's OP for this thread.

Do you have the data showing this spectral shift?  Before and after spectra would be nice.  So would spectral power figures for the bands you're discussing.

By the way, theory is still spelled T-H-E-O-R-Y, not theroy as you always seem to have it.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The oceans are warming at an alarming pace.  Fact.  You're arguments are bullshit.  Fact.  You're claim to understand what is going on.  Not a fact.
> ...




Why do you think it inaccurate to describe the warming in zetajoules?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Solar Spectral Shift and Earths Atmospherics.
> 
> Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.
> 
> ...


Dude, the science is settled, the Sun has no impact on our climate


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> The oceans are warming at an alarming pace.  Fact.  You're arguments are bullshit.  Fact.  You're claim to understand what is going on.  Not a fact.



Without referring to "magic beans", please describe the mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 generate the additional heat to warm the deep oceans


----------



## mamooth (Mar 8, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dude, the science is settled, the Sun has no impact on our climate



So why do you believe that? After all, it seems rather contrary to common sense.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Without referring to "magic beans", please describe the mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 generate the additional heat to warm the deep oceans




No.  That information has been posted here repeatedly and is easily available.  The manner of your query tells me you don't care anyway.  More trolling.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Without referring to "magic beans", please describe the mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 generate the additional heat to warm the deep oceans
> ...


What a load of crap.. LWIR is INCAPABLE of warming the oceans directly as it does not go beyond the skin layer and the evaporation process there cools the layer below it making it colder...  Tell me again about the second law and what heat does..

LWIR is not warming the oceans because its physical properties and those of water will not allow it.

Go water your magic beans Jack...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

I am afraid, Billy Bob, that your claim is complete nonsense. Besides which, as we have all been told by you and others, the GHG trapped heat is far more likely to transfer by conduction than by radiation.  That makes your argument about IR absorbed by the ocean (as bogus as it is) to be nothing more than a straw man argument in Billy-Bob-World. I have not seen any of you claim that heat cannot be transferred to the ocean by conduction.  Have you?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Crick said:


> I am afraid, Billy Bob, that your claim is complete nonsense. Besides which, as we have all been told by you and others, the GHG trapped heat is far more likely to transfer by conduction than by radiation.  That makes your argument about IR absorbed by the ocean (as bogus as it is) to be nothing more than a straw man argument in Billy-Bob-World. I have not seen any of you claim that heat cannot be transferred to the ocean by conduction.  Have you?



So are you now claiming back conduction in addition to back radiation?  Really?  Got any observed, measured evidence of back conduction? Will it be back convection next?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> I am afraid, Billy Bob, that your claim is complete nonsense. Besides which, as we have all been told by you and others, the GHG trapped heat is far more likely to transfer by conduction than by radiation.  That makes your argument about IR absorbed by the ocean (as bogus as it is) to be nothing more than a straw man argument in Billy-Bob-World. I have not seen any of you claim that heat cannot be transferred to the ocean by conduction.  Have you?


BWHAAAAAAAA

You really are ignorant of how the evaporation zone works..

Within the first ten microns of the oceans surface the molecules absorb the LWIR energy. The energy is weak and it is immediately removed by the water vapor. There is no conduction pathway as the water below the first ten microns is COOLER do to evaporation. The heat you talk about never makes it beyond the first ten microns by EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENT!

Go water your magic beans Jack...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



He doesn't think things through critically.  All I can do is shake my head in awe of his total ignorance of how it physically works.. Worse still are those who believe his tripe..


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> There is no conduction pathway as the water below the first ten microns is COOLER do to evaporation.



You say a layer of heated water resting on top of a layer of cooler water has no conduction pathway down?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

A simple explanation showing some of your errors.:

Solar Radiation & Photosynthetically Active Radiation - Environmental Measurement Systems





Infrared radiation is responsible for warming Earth’s surface and atmosphere.
Infrared light is on the opposite side of the spectrum from ultraviolet light. This radiation has a wavelength of >700 nm and provides 49.4% of solar energy 9. Infrared radiation is readily absorbed by water and carbon dioxide molecules and converted to heat energy 10. The longer wavelengths cause heat by exciting electrons in the substances that absorb them. Thus infrared radiation is responsible for warming Earth’s surface. Infrared light is reflected more than UV or visible light due to its longer wavelengths 10. This reflection allows infrared radiation to transfer heat between the surface, water and the air.

In a body of water, infrared light can only reach a certain distance below the surface. *90% of infrared radiation is absorbed in the first meter of the water’s surface, and only 1% can reach past two meters in pure water* 1. This is why the surface of most bodies of water are warmer than the depths.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

And a study by Judith Curry that flat out says you are wrong Billy Bob

Mechanisms for Warming of the Oceans

"This paper describes a model that uses the basics of heat transfer to demonstrate than an increase in downwelling infrared radiation associated with increased CO2reduces heat loss from the mixed layer of the ocean, causing the ocean to warm."


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

And Billy, the day I take intellectual criticism from someone who thinks the Earth's magnetic field holds the atmosphere in place is the day.... well, it's just not going to happen.  Your comments about the ignorance of others, given the ignorance you yourself have repeatedly demonstrated, are beyond astounding.  Most people would refuse to believe they would ever run into a person as morally lacking and as factually dishonest as you have demonstrated yourself to be.

And, again, you and yours have contended that the vast majority of heat transfer after surface IR is absorbed by GHGs takes place by conduction.  If true, whatever issues may exist in the transfer of heat by radiation is irrelevant.

Of course, conduction actually takes place in an even thinner layer of water.  So it's time to shift your arguments once again in your never-ending search for support.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> And a study by Judith Curry that flat out says you are wrong Billy Bob
> 
> Mechanisms for Warming of the Oceans
> 
> "This paper describes a model that uses the basics of heat transfer to demonstrate than an increase in downwelling infrared radiation associated with increased CO2reduces heat loss from the mixed layer of the ocean, causing the ocean to warm."




She provide any observed measured evidence of that, or just an unobservable, unmeasurable untestable model?


----------



## SixFoot (Mar 8, 2019)

A 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) wide _spherical _comet (for nice, even mathematical purposes), with an average earth crust density of 2.5 metric tonnes per cubic meter (~2.144 billion cubic meters of volume, for a mass of ~5 billion metric tonnes), traveling at 20 meters per second (72,000 kph, or ~44,738 mph), and we have quite an event on our hands.

KE = (½)(5 billion)(72,000)²

KE = 72 gigatons, or 72,000 megatons.

In 1960, at the height of U.S. nuclear weapons power, we had a stockpile of ~20,500 megatons worth of bombs, which is less than ⅓ of the blast energy of the mentioned spherical object.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> And Billy, the day I take intellectual criticism from someone who thinks the Earth's magnetic field holds the atmosphere in place is the day.... .



The earth's magnetic field is what keeps the atmosphere from being stripped away....let me guess...you didn't know that either...

engineer my shiny metal ass...


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

You too?  HAHAHAHAHAaaaaa...

So, do you have a high pressure zone around all those magnets on your refrigerator?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And a study by Judith Curry that flat out says you are wrong Billy Bob
> ...



You're going to question Dr Curry?  Who will you have left?  Oh, silly me, you never had anyone with you, did you.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> You too?  HAHAHAHAHAaaaaa...
> 
> So, do you have a high pressure zone around all those magnets on your refrigerator?




The stupidity just never stops with you does it?  

It's Official: NASA Announces Mars' Atmosphere Was Stripped Away by Solar Winds

Clip:  Solar winds blast out from the Sun at around a million miles per hour (about 1.6 million km/h), and fortunately Earth is protected from these by our magnetic field. But although Mars used to have a magnetic field, it lost it as its planet cooled down billions of years ago, and that allowed the ions in its atmosphere to effectively be blown away.


NASA proposes a magnetic shield to protect Mars' atmosphere

Clip:  At one time, Mars had a magnetic field similar to Earth, which prevented its atmosphere from being stripped away. Credit: NASA


engineer my shiny metal ass..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Just the physical laws themselves..good enough for me...at least I know I'm not fooling myself.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You too?  HAHAHAHAHAaaaaa...
> ...




You don't have an honest bone in your body, do you.

Billy Bob did not say that the Earth's magnetic field prevented it from being stripped away by the solar wind.  He said the magnetic field held the atmosphere in place.  NOT the same thing.  And when you spoke up in his defense, you KNEW that his assertion was utter nonsense.  Jesus, you're a fucking saint, ain't ya.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



That is what I said....to which you said that it didn't...and I would say that keeping it from being stripped away is pretty much keeping it in place...  I put sand bags on a blanket at the beach to keep it in place otherwise the wind will blow it away...


----------



## Flash (Mar 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IN late August of 1998 two major solar arrays in the Nevada desert were perplexed by a three to five percent drop in their collected energy.  The usual suspects were checked, dirt, rain, clouds, smoke, etc. None of these were identified as the cause.
> 
> NASA's ACE space craft had registered a rather odd shift in the solar spectrum which was ignored. It was a shift in energy output drop from 0.2um-0.5um  and a corresponding increase around 1.0-1.2um. So subtle that no one even cared, except engineers of solar panels.  The band pass of PV panels, which it converts to energy, is primarily in the 0.3 to 0.6 um wave length.
> 
> ...




These stupid Moon Bats would think the shift was caused because so many people drive SUVs, or something.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Do YOU have data illustrating the spectral shift that Billy Bob claims has taken place?  And I don't find solar panel data to be convincing.  It is exactly like you trying to use the space heater industry to refute the world's climate researchers.


SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



Actually, we have multiple examples of observed back radiation.  But you claim that was produced by the air a micron from the lens of the spectrometer.  That wouldn't matter as it would still be back-radiation, but like everything else, you will simply reject it out of hand.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> Actually, we have multiple examples of observed back radiation.  But you claim that was produced by the air a micron from the lens of the spectrometer.  That wouldn't matter as it would still be back-radiation, but like everything else, you will simply reject it out of hand.



No you don't...you have examples of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is only evidence of being fooled by instrumentation...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, the science is settled, the Sun has no impact on our climate
> ...



A long time ago, your Cult determined that CO2 was the driver, the Suns impact was minimal.  Don't you ALWAYS assign the EXACT SAME ENERGY OUTPUT FROM THE BIG YELLOW THING IN THE SKY?

Hmmm, which is it Dude?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Without referring to "magic beans", please describe the mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 generate the additional heat to warm the deep oceans
> ...



Yeah, making shit up again just like the never once posted experiment showing the relationship between a 120ppm CO2 increases and temperature.

How much energy is required to heat 1 cubic liter of water 1C?


----------



## Crick (Mar 10, 2019)

If you can't look that up Frank you need to get off the internet RIGHT NOW


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you can't look that up Frank you need to get off the internet RIGHT NOW



Can't look it up because it doesn't exist...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2019)

Flash said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IN late August of 1998 two major solar arrays in the Nevada desert were perplexed by a three to five percent drop in their collected energy.  The usual suspects were checked, dirt, rain, clouds, smoke, etc. None of these were identified as the cause.
> ...


how do you know it isn't the growth of our cities with buildings made out of bricks, steel and concrete? you have to admit, that is a lot of weight in areas that weren't that heavy before, right?


----------



## Flash (Mar 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




LOL! Thanks for playing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you can't look that up Frank you need to get off the internet RIGHT NOW



I thought you had it all work out, you know, consensus. Show us how atmospheric CO2 is able to generate the energy to heat the oceans as you allege.

Signed,

Skeptic


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IN late August of 1998 two major solar arrays in the Nevada desert were perplexed by a three to five percent drop in their collected energy.  The usual suspects were checked, dirt, rain, clouds, smoke, etc. None of these were identified as the cause.
> 
> NASA's ACE space craft had registered a rather odd shift in the solar spectrum which was ignored. It was a shift in energy output drop from 0.2um-0.5um  and a corresponding increase around 1.0-1.2um. So subtle that no one even cared, except engineers of solar panels.  The band pass of PV panels, which it converts to energy, is primarily in the 0.3 to 0.6 um wave length.
> 
> ...



Meh. The Warmers have told us repeatedly that the Sun and Earths magnetic field have no impact on our climate


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IN late August of 1998 two major solar arrays in the Nevada desert were perplexed by a three to five percent drop in their collected energy.  The usual suspects were checked, dirt, rain, clouds, smoke, etc. None of these were identified as the cause.
> ...


They would be wrong on about 60 different levels. The solar fusion cycle burns as any nuclear one does, At some point the reaction becomes filled with expended material and it slightly changes the reaction, reducing the high energy output, until it clears. On the sun it is the natural flows which clear the expended material and that takes time.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

The natural flows?

Our sun is a main sequence star.  It's behavior is accurately characterized by the standard stellar model. Given the ratio of mass to luminosity, our sun will turn hydrogen to helium for approximately 12 billion years before switching to a helium - carbon reaction. Given that the sun is less than halfway through its hydrogen cycle, your contention is, once again, completely wrong.

PS, convection is not seen redistributing helium in stars under 2 solar masses.

Main sequence - Wikipedia

*References*

*^* "The Brightest Stars Don't Live Alone". _ESO Press Release_. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
*^* Longair, Malcolm S. (2006). _The Cosmic Century: A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology_. Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-0-521-47436-8.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Brown, Laurie M.; Pais, Abraham; Pippard, A. B., eds. (1995). _Twentieth Century Physics_. Bristol; New York: Institute of Physics, American Institute of Physics. p. 1696. ISBN 978-0-7503-0310-1. OCLC 33102501.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Russell, H. N. (1913). ""Giant" and "dwarf" stars". _The Observatory_. *36*: 324–329. Bibcode:1913Obs....36..324R.
*^* Strömgren, Bengt (1933). "On the Interpretation of the Hertzsprung-Russell-Diagram". _Zeitschrift für Astrophysik_. *7*: 222–248. Bibcode:1933ZA......7..222S.
*^* Schatzman, Evry L.; Praderie, Francoise (1993). _The Stars_. Springer. pp. 96–97. ISBN 978-3-540-54196-7.
*^* Morgan, W. W.; Keenan, P. C.; Kellman, E. (1943). _An atlas of stellar spectra, with an outline of spectral classification_. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago press. Retrieved 2008-08-12.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Unsöld, Albrecht (1969). _The New Cosmos_. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. p. 268. ISBN 978-0-387-90886-1.
*^* Kelly, Patrick L.; et al. (2 April 2018). "Extreme magnification of an individual star at redshift 1.5 by a galaxy-cluster lens". _Nature_. *2* (4): 334–342. arXiv:1706.10279. Bibcode:2018NatAs...2..334K. doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0430-3. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
*^* Howell, Elizabeth (2 April 2018). "Rare Cosmic Alignment Reveals Most Distant Star Ever Seen". _Space.com_. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
*^* Gloeckler, George; Geiss, Johannes (2004). "Composition of the local interstellar medium as diagnosed with pickup ions". _Advances in Space Research_. *34* (1): 53–60. Bibcode:2004AdSpR..34...53G. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.02.054.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Kroupa, Pavel (2002). "The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems". _Science_. *295*(5552): 82–91. arXiv:astro-ph/0201098. Bibcode:2002Sci...295...82K. doi:10.1126/science.1067524. PMID 11778039. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
*^* Schilling, Govert (2001). "New Model Shows Sun Was a Hot Young Star". _Science_. *293* (5538): 2188–2189. doi:10.1126/science.293.5538.2188. PMID 11567116. Retrieved 2007-02-04.
*^* "Zero Age Main Sequence". _The SAO Encyclopedia of Astronomy_. Swinburne University. Retrieved 2007-12-09.
*^* Hansen, Carl J.; Kawaler, Steven D. (1999), _Stellar Interiors: Physical Principles, Structure, and Evolution_, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Springer Science & Business Media, p. 39, ISBN 978-0387941387
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ _*d*_ Clayton, Donald D. (1983). _Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis_. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-10953-4.
*^* "Main Sequence Stars". Australia Telescope Outreach and Education. 25 April 2018. Retrieved 2007-12-04.
*^* Harding E. Smith (21 April 1999). "The Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram". _Gene Smith's Astronomy Tutorial_. Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
*^* Richard Powell (2006). "The Hertzsprung Russell Diagram". _An Atlas of the Universe_. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
*^* Moore, Patrick (2006). _The Amateur Astronomer_. Springer. ISBN 978-1-85233-878-7.
*^* "White Dwarf". _COSMOS—The SAO Encyclopedia of Astronomy_. Swinburne University. Retrieved 2007-12-04.
*^* "Origin of the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram". University of Nebraska. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
*^* "A course on stars' physical properties, formation and evolution" (PDF). University of St. Andrews. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
*^* Siess, Lionel (2000). "Computation of Isochrones". Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique, Université libre de Bruxelles. Retrieved 2007-12-06.—Compare, for example, the model isochrones generated for a ZAMS of 1.1 solar masses. This is listed in the table as 1.26 times the solar luminosity. At metallicity Z=0.01 the luminosity is 1.34 times solar luminosity. At metallicity Z=0.04 the luminosity is 0.89 times the solar luminosity.
*^* Zombeck, Martin V. (1990). _Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics_ (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-34787-7. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
*^* "SIMBAD Astronomical Database". Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg. Retrieved 2008-11-21.
*^* Luck, R. Earle; Heiter, Ulrike (2005). "Stars within 15 Parsecs: Abundances for a Northern Sample". _The Astronomical Journal_. *129* (2): 1063–1083. Bibcode:2005AJ....129.1063L. doi:10.1086/427250.
*^* "LTT 2151 – High proper-motion Star". Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg. Retrieved 2008-08-12.
*^* Staff (1 January 2008). "List of the Nearest Hundred Nearest Star Systems". Research Consortium on Nearby Stars. Archived from the original on 13 May 2012. Retrieved 2008-08-12.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ _*d*_ Brainerd, Jerome James (16 February 2005). "Main-Sequence Stars". The Astrophysics Spectator. Retrieved 2007-12-04.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ Karttunen, Hannu (2003). _Fundamental Astronomy_. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-00179-9.
*^* Bahcall, John N.; Pinsonneault, M. H.; Basu, Sarbani (2003). "Solar Models: Current Epoch and Time Dependences, Neutrinos, and Helioseismological Properties". _The Astrophysical Journal_. *555* (2): 990–1012. arXiv:astro-ph/0212331. Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90m1301B. doi:10.1086/321493.
*^* Salaris, Maurizio; Cassisi, Santi (2005). _Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations_. John Wiley and Sons. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-470-09220-0.
*^* Oey, M. S.; Clarke, C. J. (2005). "Statistical Confirmation of a Stellar Upper Mass Limit". _The Astrophysical Journal_. *620* (1): L43–L46. arXiv:astro-ph/0501135. Bibcode:2005ApJ...620L..43O. doi:10.1086/428396.
*^* Ziebarth, Kenneth (1970). "On the Upper Mass Limit for Main-Sequence Stars". _Astrophysical Journal_. *162*: 947–962. Bibcode:1970ApJ...162..947Z. doi:10.1086/150726.
*^* Burrows, A.; Hubbard, W. B.; Saumon, D.; Lunine, J. I. (March 1993). "An expanded set of brown dwarf and very low mass star models". _Astrophysical Journal, Part 1_. *406* (1): 158–171. Bibcode:1993ApJ...406..158B. doi:10.1086/172427.
*^* Aller, Lawrence H. (1991). _Atoms, Stars, and Nebulae_. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31040-6.
*^* Bressan, A. G.; Chiosi, C.; Bertelli, G. (1981). "Mass loss and overshooting in massive stars". _Astronomy and Astrophysics_. *102*(1): 25–30. Bibcode:1981A&A...102...25B.
*^* Lochner, Jim; Gibb, Meredith; Newman, Phil (6 September 2006). "Stars". NASA. Retrieved 2007-12-05.
*^* Gough, D. O. (1981). "Solar interior structure and luminosity variations". _Solar Physics_. *74* (1): 21–34. Bibcode:1981SoPh...74...21G. doi:10.1007/BF00151270.
*^* Padmanabhan, Thanu (2001). _Theoretical Astrophysics_. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-56241-6.
*^* Wright, J. T. (2004). "Do We Know of Any Maunder Minimum Stars?". _The Astronomical Journal_. *128* (3): 1273–1278. arXiv:astro-ph/0406338. Bibcode:2004AJ....128.1273W. doi:10.1086/423221. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
*^* Tayler, Roger John (1994). _The Stars: Their Structure and Evolution_. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45885-6.
*^* Sweet, I. P. A.; Roy, A. E. (1953). "The structure of rotating stars". _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_. *113*(6): 701–715. Bibcode:1953MNRAS.113..701S. doi:10.1093/mnras/113.6.701.
*^* Burgasser, Adam J.; Kirkpatrick, J. Davy; Lepine, Sebastien (5–9 July 2004). _Spitzer Studies of Ultracool Subdwarfs: Metal-poor Late-type M, L and T Dwarfs_. _Proceedings of the 13th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun_. Hamburg, Germany: Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co. p. 237. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
*^* Green, S. F.; Jones, Mark Henry; Burnell, S. Jocelyn (2004). _An Introduction to the Sun and Stars_. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54622-5.
*^* Richmond, Michael W. (10 November 2004). "Stellar evolution on the main sequence". Rochester Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Prialnik, Dina (2000). _An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution_. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65937-6.
*^* Schröder, K.-P.; Connon Smith, Robert (May 2008). "Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited". _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_. *386* (1): 155–163. arXiv:0801.4031. Bibcode:2008MNRAS.386..155S. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13022.x.
*^* Arnett, David (1996). _Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter, from the Big Bang to the Present_. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01147-9.—Hydrogen fusion produces 8×1018 erg/g while helium fusion produces 8×1017 erg/g.
*^* For a detailed historical reconstruction of the theoretical derivation of this relationship by Eddington in 1924, see: Lecchini, Stefano (2007). _How Dwarfs Became Giants. The Discovery of the Mass-Luminosity Relation_. Bern Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. ISBN 978-3-9522882-6-9.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Rolfs, Claus E.; Rodney, William S. (1988). _Cauldrons in the Cosmos: Nuclear Astrophysics_. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-72457-7.
*^* Sackmann, I.-Juliana; Boothroyd, Arnold I.; Kraemer, Kathleen E. (November 1993). "Our Sun. III. Present and Future". _Astrophysical Journal_. *418*: 457–468. Bibcode:1993ApJ...418..457S. doi:10.1086/173407.
*^* Hansen, Carl J.; Kawaler, Steven D. (1994). _Stellar Interiors: Physical Principles, Structure, and Evolution_. Birkhäuser. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-387-94138-7.
*^* Laughlin, Gregory; Bodenheimer, Peter; Adams, Fred C. (1997). "The End of the Main Sequence". _The Astrophysical Journal_. *482*(1): 420–432. Bibcode:1997ApJ...482..420L. doi:10.1086/304125.
*^* Imamura, James N. (7 February 1995). "Mass-Luminosity Relationship". University of Oregon. Archived from the original on 14 December 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-08.
*^* Icko Iben (29 November 2012). _Stellar Evolution Physics_. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1481–. ISBN 978-1-107-01657-6.
*^* Adams, Fred C.; Laughlin, Gregory (April 1997). "A Dying Universe: The Long Term Fate and Evolution of Astrophysical Objects". _Reviews of Modern Physics_. *69* (2): 337–372. arXiv:astro-ph/9701131. Bibcode:1997RvMP...69..337A. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337.
*^* Staff (12 October 2006). "Post-Main Sequence Stars". Australia Telescope Outreach and Education. Retrieved 2008-01-08.
*^* Girardi, L.; Bressan, A.; Bertelli, G.; Chiosi, C. (2000). "Evolutionary tracks and isochrones for low- and intermediate-mass stars: From 0.15 to 7 Msun, and from Z=0.0004 to 0.03". _Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement_. *141* (3): 371–383. arXiv:astro-ph/9910164. Bibcode:2000A&AS..141..371G. doi:10.1051/aas:2000126.
*^* Sitko, Michael L. (24 March 2000). "Stellar Structure and Evolution". University of Cincinnati. Archived from the originalon 26 March 2005. Retrieved 2007-12-05.
*^* Krauss, Lawrence M.; Chaboyer, Brian (2003). "Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology". _Science_. *299* (5603): 65–69. Bibcode:2003Sci...299...65K. doi:10.1126/science.1075631. PMID 12511641.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> The natural flows?
> 
> Our sun is a main sequence star.  It's behavior is accurately characterized by the standard stellar model. Given the ratio of mass to luminosity, our sun will turn hydrogen to helium for approximately 12 billion years before switching to a helium - carbon reaction. Given that the sun is less than halfway through its hydrogen cycle, your contention is, once again, completely wrong.
> 
> ...



More assumptions based on models....little wonder you are a dupe...


----------



## miketx (Mar 11, 2019)

Perhaps aliens are diverting a portion of the sun's radiant energy into a wormhole so they can use it for their own solar system to control global warming we caused on their planet? So they are giving us a carbon tax.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> The natural flows?
> 
> Our sun is a main sequence star.  It's behavior is accurately characterized by the standard stellar model. Given the ratio of mass to luminosity, our sun will turn hydrogen to helium for approximately 12 billion years before switching to a helium - carbon reaction. Given that the sun is less than halfway through its hydrogen cycle, your contention is, once again, completely wrong.
> 
> ...


Nice cut and paste...

You will never learn that I deal in facts the can be seen and documented (Empirical Evidence).  Every reaction like these react in similar ways.  I will take the empirical evidence over your failed models every day of the week.

Here is one written for first year physicists.  I hope its not to deep for your 6 year old level.
Nuclear Fusion in the Sun Explained Perfectly by Science

Maybe you can explain the difference between a P-P and P-E-P reaction and why our sun vasolates between these two reactions.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

What I posted was extracted from the Wikipedia article to which I linked.  It was not a cut and paste.  You cited NOTHING to support your contentions and the FACTS I put up show you to be incorrect.  If you disagree, post up supporting evidence that the sun's output, in power or spectrum shifts as a result of  a buildup of "expended material".  And what the fuck is that supposed to be anyway?  Hydrogen ash?


----------



## miketx (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> What I posted was extracted from the Wikipedia article to which I linked.  It was not a cut and paste.  You cited NOTHING to support your contentions and the FACTS I put up show you to be incorrect.  If you disagree, post up supporting evidence that the sun's output, in power or spectrum shifts as a result of  a buildup of "expended material".  And what the fuck is that supposed to be anyway?  Hydrogen ash?


Extracting from an article is not cutting and pasting? Who knew? Lol, I've seen a few times how the people at w-pedia distort things. They are no more trustworthy than any other media source.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

The words I posted are my own.  That is not cut and paste.  Multiple studies have shown Wikipedia to be at LEAST as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.


----------



## miketx (Mar 11, 2019)

Crick said:


> The words I posted are my own.  That is not cut and paste.  Multiple studies have shown Wikipedia to be at LEAST as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.


Studies by who? You guys are so gullible.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5%
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
How Accurate Is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia Or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://snap.stanford.edu/soma2010/papers/soma2010_18.pdf
Wikipedia has become a science reference source even though scientists don’t cite it
Teachinghistory.org
Can you trust the historical accuracy of Wikipedia? - Technology news for museums    - Canada.ca
http://scivenue.com/2017/11/20/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-britannica/


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 16, 2019)

Meanwhile small changes in the Sun output appears to have significant impact on the ocean waters, hence climate:

From NASA

*Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate*

Excerpt:

Jan. 8, 2013:  In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. 

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet. 

LINK

*======================*

This is but one of many solar studies that makes clear they have a profound effect on the planets weather and climate cycles.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Meanwhile small changes in the Sun output appears to have significant impact on the ocean waters, hence climate:
> 
> From NASA
> 
> ...


This was the awakening moment over at the NRC that spectral shift could have devastating impacts and not affect TSI very much.. It was the moment when they began to look at how our atmosphere actually reacts to the energy passing through it.

The reaction by the alarmists was predictable as it smashed their "science is settled" narrative.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The reaction by the alarmists was predictable as it smashed their "science is settled" narrative.



You've been predicting "ICE AGE ANY DAY!" non-stop for at least the past 5 years. Your ice age cult has been predicting it nonstop for over 40 years.

Yet your HolyIceAge never arrives. And it never will arrive. It just keeps on warming strongly, as all the normal people predicted.

Doesn't that dampen your fanatical religious zeal just a bit? Or is your blind faith in the inevitability of the HolyIceAge still undiminished?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The reaction by the alarmists was predictable as it smashed their "science is settled" narrative.
> ...



Exactly how quickly do you suppose the ocean can give up its heat hairball?  Since it is the oceans that regulate the temperature on earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


15-20 years is the average according to most Oceanic people I Know as only the surface impacts the atmosphere.  With the surface now cooling off rapidly the atmosphere will follow.


----------

