how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[orogenicman]

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

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.

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

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.

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiple layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's not real.

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only "top-down" but also "bottom-up" mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.

In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.

Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.

The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at this link > The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report

 

[PMZ]

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

Outgoing longwave radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy leaving the earth as infrared radiation at low energy. OLR is a critical component of the Earth’s radiation budget and represents the total radiation going to space emitted by the atmosphere.[1] Earth's radiation balance is very closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) is satisfied and the Earth's average temperature is very nearly stable. The OLR is affected by clouds and dust in the atmosphere, which tend to reduce it below clear sky values. Greenhouse gases, such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), absorb certain wavelengths of OLR adding heat to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the atmosphere to emit more radiation. Some of this radiation is directed back towards the Earth, increasing the average temperature of the Earth's surface. Therefore, an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas would contribute to global warming by increasing the amount of radiation that is absorbed and emitted by these atmospheric constituents.

The OLR is dependent on the temperature of the radiating body. It is affected by the Earth's skin temperature, skin surface emissivity, atmospheric temperature, water vapor profile, and cloud cover.[1]

We all know that the result of AGW has to be an increase in OLR as the earth responds to GHGs by warming. What we can't pinpoint yet is the precise nature of, or timing of, that response. Only that it has to be.

The earth has 150 years of an increasing GHG load to react to. Who knows what in that history today's data shows the reaction to?

 

[westwall]

I guess you missed the memo. The sun is currently at solar maximum. That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR. What "hotspot" are you referring to?

No, I got the memo. One of the weakest maximums since the little ice age. Weaker in fact that some of the solar minimums since then. Are you able to have an honest discussion or are you congenitally dishonest and simply unable to help yourself?....or perhaps so desperate to present the appearance of scoring a point that sacrificing your character seems a small price to pay??

No, olfraud is never honest. Look how many he socks he has coversations with.... Only a true fanatic spends that much time and energy perpetrating fables...

 

[westwall]

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

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.

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

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.

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiple layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's not real.

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only "top-down" but also "bottom-up" mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.

In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.

Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.

The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at this link > The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report

C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....

 

[orogenicman]

I guess you missed the memo. The sun is currently at solar maximum. That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR. What "hotspot" are you referring to?

No, I got the memo. One of the weakest maximums since the little ice age. Weaker in fact that some of the solar minimums since then. Are you able to have an honest discussion or are you congenitally dishonest and simply unable to help yourself?....or perhaps so desperate to present the appearance of scoring a point that sacrificing your character seems a small price to pay??

No, olfraud is never honest. Look how many he socks he has coversations with.... Only a true fanatic spends that much time and energy perpetrating fables...

Gee, more ad hominem. How quaint.

 

[gslack]

No, I got the memo. One of the weakest maximums since the little ice age. Weaker in fact that some of the solar minimums since then. Are you able to have an honest discussion or are you congenitally dishonest and simply unable to help yourself?....or perhaps so desperate to present the appearance of scoring a point that sacrificing your character seems a small price to pay??

No, olfraud is never honest. Look how many he socks he has coversations with.... Only a true fanatic spends that much time and energy perpetrating fables...

Gee, more ad hominem. How quaint.

Oldsock.. LOL

 

[SSDD]

We all know that the result of AGW has to be an increase in OLR as the earth responds to GHGs by warming. What we can't pinpoint yet is the precise nature of, or timing of, that response. Only that it has to be.

First, since you don't have the first bit of hard, empirical evidence that man is responsible for any amount of global climate change, we must first establish that you are working from an assumption...not fact.

Second, you just stated earlier that AGW must result in a decrease of OLR. Do you need to be reminded of what you just claimed? That's one of the problems with being a warmer...you must constantly be claiming something different as your hypothesis disentegrates before your eyes. AGW causes more and less rain...AGW causes more and less snow...AGW causes more and less tornados....AGW causes more and less hurricaines.....AGW causes higher and lower temperatures....AGW causes everything.....and now you are claiming that AGW causes more and less OLR.

Your original quote is HERE

Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air......

So which is it gomer? More or less OLR?....or both?

And third, OLR has increased even during the lull so the warming was not the cause of the increase of OLR.

 

[Abraham3]

What do you folks make of the temperature trend from 1941 to 1979?

 

[Abraham3]

C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....

He can, but more importantly, as demonstrated by your multiple failures to respond cogently to posts refuting your contentions, YOU CAN'T.

 

[Abraham3]

Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????

Of course you will..... Ian and Mamooth were quite right. THe thermal laws AS THEY APPLIED TO RADIATIVE THERMAL EXCHANGES are obeyed "in the limit" of long-term observation.. Otherwise, it is and can be a crap shoot..

Actually, you won't and it has never once, in the history of the universe being observed.

Unfortunate that you have such a belief in QM as it is a long way from actually explaining anything. Any line of thought that can't even explain the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc "fix" is not a line of thought one should place much trust in.

You reject QM? Gollee. Why does that not surprise me?

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????

Of course you will..... Ian and Mamooth were quite right. THe thermal laws AS THEY APPLIED TO RADIATIVE THERMAL EXCHANGES are obeyed "in the limit" of long-term observation.. Otherwise, it is and can be a crap shoot..

Actually, you won't and it has never once, in the history of the universe being observed.

Unfortunate that you have such a belief in QM as it is a long way from actually explaining anything. Any line of thought that can't even explain the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc "fix" is not a line of thought one should place much trust in.

Actually the example I gave you really doesn't have anything to do with QM. It can be modeled just as the BBody radiation output of each of the objects towards the other. As each body is radiating, the minute diff in EM fluxes will occasionally, for short intervals, end up in the wrong direction. Over a constant and longer time, the NET FLUX will obey the 2nd law..

 

[westwall]

No, I got the memo. One of the weakest maximums since the little ice age. Weaker in fact that some of the solar minimums since then. Are you able to have an honest discussion or are you congenitally dishonest and simply unable to help yourself?....or perhaps so desperate to present the appearance of scoring a point that sacrificing your character seems a small price to pay??

No, olfraud is never honest. Look how many he socks he has coversations with.... Only a true fanatic spends that much time and energy perpetrating fables...

Gee, more ad hominem. How quaint.

It would be ad hom were you not olfraud. However, as you outed yourself by insulting me in a way ONLY olfraud has ever done you outed yourself. Not very bright there dummy...

 

[westwall]

What do you folks make of the temperature trend from 1941 to 1979?

The same of ANY temperature trend. Natural variability.

 

[westwall]

C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....

He can, but more importantly, as demonstrated by your multiple failures to respond cogently to posts refuting your contentions, YOU CAN'T.

So, the question is....are you olfraud the third?

 

[Days]

You are thinking of the earth in a way that isn't the nature of the beast. You are thinking like the earth absorbs heat and holds heat in. Actually just the opposite is the case. The earth does not hold heat in, it releases it. Take a look at temps in the upper atmosphere, they are all cold. Yet heat rises. If the earth retained heat, temps would be searing in the upper atmosphere. But the heat just passes through.

Green house effect only works with actual barriers (of glass) to hold the heat in.

The earth has always produced its own heat through volcanic activity. That heat warms the earth and then releases into space. It may melt a glacier or two in the process of escape, but the earth does not retain the heat, no planet does that. The atmospheric retention is minimal, momentary retention. Nothing as dramatic as a barrier of enclosed glass. Nothing remotely close to that.

While air pollution is a problem all its own, and spraying Barium salts into the atmosphere is not helping that problem, you have to differentiate between heat retention and air pollution. Do green house gases retain heat? Or just slow it's exit?

When you are talking heat, the far and away #1 global source for variations in the global temps has always been volcanic activity.

West Antarctica Warmed Quickly ... 20,000 Years Ago

 

[SSDD]

You reject QM? Gollee. Why does that not surprise me?

Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix? A hydrogen atom for pete's sake. The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix. And that's just the start. Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table. QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.

 

[SSDD]

Actually the example I gave you really doesn't have anything to do with QM. It can be modeled just as the BBody radiation output of each of the objects towards the other. As each body is radiating, the minute diff in EM fluxes will occasionally, for short intervals, end up in the wrong direction. Over a constant and longer time, the NET FLUX will obey the 2nd law..

Yes, and as soon as I point out that the second law states that neither heat nor energy can move from high entropy to low entropy, you will invoke QM and net flows and on and on so yes, in fact, the example you gave relies entirely on QM. As soon as you start talking net flows instead of gross flows, you leave the law and head out into QM and the land of hypothesis.

 

[Abraham3]

I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.

Actually, the atmospheric thermal effect works on other planets. The greenhouse effect calculations used to derive the the temperature here don't derive accurate temperatures anywhere else. Try and phrase your statements accurately to reflect the topic of discussion.

Here is a place to start.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf

http://www.climatethoughts.org/WCRP_Poster_Nikolov_Zeller.pdf

I have read the article at tallbloke. The second link never opened. I have a couple of comments:

1) He assumes a relationship between cloud cover and solar magnetic effects. He never even cites a source for this idea. While there may be someone out there who has proposed such a relationship, it is most certainly not widely accepted.

2) In his conclusion, describing current climatic conditions, he fails to mention ocean warming at all.

3) I saw a lengthy discussion of using ATE to predict exoplanetary temperatures. I saw no discussion showing GHE calculations of those same systems to be in error. They may be - other sources have mentioned that IPCC formulas did poorly, but I have not seen the numbers and saw no such comment from Nikolov and Zeller.

 

[orogenicman]

No, olfraud is never honest. Look how many he socks he has coversations with.... Only a true fanatic spends that much time and energy perpetrating fables...

Gee, more ad hominem. How quaint.

It would be ad hom were you not olfraud. However, as you outed yourself by insulting me in a way ONLY olfraud has ever done you outed yourself. Not very bright there dummy...

You out yourself every time you post. You don't need my assistance.

 

[orogenicman]

You reject QM? Gollee. Why does that not surprise me?

Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix? A hydrogen atom for pete's sake. The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix. And that's just the start. Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table. QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.

So what you are saying is that you reject 90 years of physics research. Brilliant move, Einstein.