Scientist: Do We Really Know?

[RollingThunder]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

That makes no sense, JustCrazy. The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased. Crick was right, you are full of shit!

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.
Columbia University

dude we were currently experiencing a solar minimum.

SO WHAT?

I just told you that: "The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased."

Solar minimums have only a minimal effect on the Earth's temperatures....and that effect is completely overwhelmed by the effects of the risings levels of CO2 and methane.

To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpts)
For decades, scientists have tried to understand the link between winds and temperature and the Sun and its cycles. There were tell-tale signs of a connection. For instance, the Little Ice Age recorded in Europe between 1550 and 1700 happened during a time of very low solar activity.

Solar scientists have long known that solar variability changes the distribution of energy in the Earth's atmosphere. During the Sun's 11-year cycle, from solar maximum through solar minimum, the energy released by the Sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent. New studies have clarified that when the solar cycle is at a maximum, it puts out a larger percentage of high-energy radiation, which increases the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The increased ozone warms the upper atmosphere and the warm air affects winds all the way from the stratosphere (that region of the atmosphere that extends from about 6 to 30 miles high) to the Earth's surface. The change in wind strength and direction creates different climate patterns around the globe.

However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role... The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues." For more details, see Link Between Solar Cycle and Climate is Blowin' in the Wind

You might also like to read the paper Solar Irradiance Since 1874 Revisited by S. K. Solanki and M. Fligge, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, no. 3, pages 341-344 (1 Feb 1998)

 

[jc456]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

That makes no sense, JustCrazy. The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased. Crick was right, you are full of shit!

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.
Columbia University

dude we were currently experiencing a solar minimum.

SO WHAT?

I just told you that: "The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased."

Solar minimums have only a minimal effect on the Earth's temperatures....and that effect is completely overwhelmed by the effects of the risings levels of CO2 and methane.

To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpts)
For decades, scientists have tried to understand the link between winds and temperature and the Sun and its cycles. There were tell-tale signs of a connection. For instance, the Little Ice Age recorded in Europe between 1550 and 1700 happened during a time of very low solar activity.

Solar scientists have long known that solar variability changes the distribution of energy in the Earth's atmosphere. During the Sun's 11-year cycle, from solar maximum through solar minimum, the energy released by the Sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent. New studies have clarified that when the solar cycle is at a maximum, it puts out a larger percentage of high-energy radiation, which increases the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The increased ozone warms the upper atmosphere and the warm air affects winds all the way from the stratosphere (that region of the atmosphere that extends from about 6 to 30 miles high) to the Earth's surface. The change in wind strength and direction creates different climate patterns around the globe.

However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role... The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues." For more details, see Link Between Solar Cycle and Climate is Blowin' in the Wind

You might also like to read the paper Solar Irradiance Since 1874 Revisited by S. K. Solanki and M. Fligge, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, no. 3, pages 341-344 (1 Feb 1998)

it decreased though right? So, what do you think must happen to the LWIR will it go up? hahahahahahahaahahha

 

[RollingThunder]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

That makes no sense, JustCrazy. The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased. Crick was right, you are full of shit!

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.
Columbia University

dude we were currently experiencing a solar minimum.

SO WHAT?

I just told you that: "The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased."

Solar minimums have only a minimal effect on the Earth's temperatures....and that effect is completely overwhelmed by the effects of the risings levels of CO2 and methane.

To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpts)
For decades, scientists have tried to understand the link between winds and temperature and the Sun and its cycles. There were tell-tale signs of a connection. For instance, the Little Ice Age recorded in Europe between 1550 and 1700 happened during a time of very low solar activity.

Solar scientists have long known that solar variability changes the distribution of energy in the Earth's atmosphere. During the Sun's 11-year cycle, from solar maximum through solar minimum, the energy released by the Sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent. New studies have clarified that when the solar cycle is at a maximum, it puts out a larger percentage of high-energy radiation, which increases the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The increased ozone warms the upper atmosphere and the warm air affects winds all the way from the stratosphere (that region of the atmosphere that extends from about 6 to 30 miles high) to the Earth's surface. The change in wind strength and direction creates different climate patterns around the globe.

However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role... The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues." For more details, see Link Between Solar Cycle and Climate is Blowin' in the Wind

You might also like to read the paper Solar Irradiance Since 1874 Revisited by S. K. Solanki and M. Fligge, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, no. 3, pages 341-344 (1 Feb 1998)

it decreased though right? So, what do you think must happen to the LWIR will it go up? hahahahahahahaahahha

What do you imagine you are talking about, JustCrazy?

And what do you imagine that it has to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the reality of human caused global warming?

Are you once again sure that you have spotted some fundamental error in the science that millions of real scientists have missed? ROTFLMFAO

You poor retarded loon!

 

[Crick]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

 

[jc456]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

BYW, I still don't believe in re-radiation from the atmosphere. My point was that you all are not consistent with your own belief, since we're at a solar minimum, you can't increase your magic radiation. You failed your own hypothesis.

And, the dot in the sky.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

BYW, I still don't believe in re-radiation from the atmosphere. My point was that you all are not consistent with your own belief, since we're at a solar minimum, you can't increase your magic radiation. You failed your own hypothesis.

And, the dot in the sky.

I still don't believe in re-radiation from the atmosphere.

Right, because the atmosphere only absorbs, never radiates. Derp!

 

[Crick]

BYW, I still don't believe in re-radiation from the atmosphere.

Then you can explain to Todd why the atmosphere is not the same temperature as the sun's photosphere.

My point was that you all are not consistent with your own belief, since we're at a solar minimum, you can't increase your magic radiation. You failed your own hypothesis.

I hand Sally 100 dollars and tell her she can only keep 75% of it. Then I hand Jane 200 dollars and tell her she can only keep 50% of it. Who ends up with more money?

 

[Crick]

Do you understand what I'm saying there?

The decrease in TSI is truly minute. Increasing GHG levels have no trouble at all overcoming that loss to continue to increase temperatures.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

That makes no sense, JustCrazy. The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased. Crick was right, you are full of shit!

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.
Columbia University

dude we were currently experiencing a solar minimum.

SO WHAT?

I just told you that: "The sun's energy "input" into our planet has NOT significantly "decreased", nor has it increased."

Solar minimums have only a minimal effect on the Earth's temperatures....and that effect is completely overwhelmed by the effects of the risings levels of CO2 and methane.

To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpts)
For decades, scientists have tried to understand the link between winds and temperature and the Sun and its cycles. There were tell-tale signs of a connection. For instance, the Little Ice Age recorded in Europe between 1550 and 1700 happened during a time of very low solar activity.

Solar scientists have long known that solar variability changes the distribution of energy in the Earth's atmosphere. During the Sun's 11-year cycle, from solar maximum through solar minimum, the energy released by the Sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent. New studies have clarified that when the solar cycle is at a maximum, it puts out a larger percentage of high-energy radiation, which increases the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The increased ozone warms the upper atmosphere and the warm air affects winds all the way from the stratosphere (that region of the atmosphere that extends from about 6 to 30 miles high) to the Earth's surface. The change in wind strength and direction creates different climate patterns around the globe.

However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role... The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues." For more details, see Link Between Solar Cycle and Climate is Blowin' in the Wind

You might also like to read the paper Solar Irradiance Since 1874 Revisited by S. K. Solanki and M. Fligge, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, no. 3, pages 341-344 (1 Feb 1998)

Some idiot doesn't know the diff between max/mins in 11 year cycles and GRAND minimums and maximums.

And another idiot doesn't know the diff between "sunspot number" and the ACTUAL TOTAL Solar Irradiance..

If anyone talks about the LONG term variations in solar output and then puts up a chart of sunspot number INSTEAD of TSI --- run the other way..

Yeah the short term 22 yr cycle only changes the max min by about 0.4%. But

A) We are only looking for a TOTAL GW forcing change of about 0.8% !!!!!!!

B) THe LONG term solar forcing change leading up to a relative Solar Maximum about 1960 WAS more than 0.4%...

C) That forcing increase REMAINED at that level until about 2000. And NOW there are indications that we might be going into a Grand Solar Min... EVEN IF the forcing rose and remained constant -- temperatures could STILL rise at that steady maximum up to 50 or 80 years thereafter because of delays in equilibrium or more energy going into ocean storage.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

BYW, I still don't believe in re-radiation from the atmosphere. My point was that you all are not consistent with your own belief, since we're at a solar minimum, you can't increase your magic radiation. You failed your own hypothesis.

And, the dot in the sky.

It's the only reason you're not a popsicle.. How does the earth avoid being an ice ball if MORE energy is going OUT in 24 hours than is coming in WITHOUT "re-radiation" from the atmosphere??? Off-topic for sure, but you should keep your stubborn refusal to learn to yourself..

 

[flacaltenn]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

CO2 forcing since 1700s is NOT 500 times the INCREASE in TSI --- that;'s where you went wrong. Thermal equilibrium for something as large as a planet does NOT happen overnight. If the TSI peaked in the 60s and 70s --- the warming is STILL continuing today. And the increase of ocean storage is FAR more likely to be from the sun than from CO2 forcing..

Your simple math is not the whole story,.. I know you have CRAG --- but take a GOOD look at the TSI curve I left in your post. It shows about 3 up cycles and 3 down cycles. You notice anything about the 3RD down cycle?

It's SIGNIFICANTLY longer isn't it? Which means that even the DUTY CYCLE of this 11 year rhythm affects the BASELINE average of the TSI. You CANNOT take peaks and valleys and calculate changes in TSI.. That signature is ALSO the culprit for suspecting a pattern that looks like a coming Solar Grand minimum..

 

[RollingThunder]

As I mentioned on another thread...

In the delusional world of the gullible denier cult retards, in their own pitiful excuses for minds, they are all, in spite of being ignorant, uneducated idiots, more than competent to critique and dismiss the scientific research on global warming and its consequent climate changes performed by the tens of thousands of PhD level climate scientists around the planet, who are generally in a high degree of agreement. Fecalhead is a good example of these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted, pseudo-science clowns.

 

[Crick]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

CO2 forcing since 1700s is NOT 500 times the INCREASE in TSI --- that;'s where you went wrong. Thermal equilibrium for something as large as a planet does NOT happen overnight. If the TSI peaked in the 60s and 70s --- the warming is STILL continuing today. And the increase of ocean storage is FAR more likely to be from the sun than from CO2 forcing..

Your simple math is not the whole story,.. I know you have CRAG --- but take a GOOD look at the TSI curve I left in your post. It shows about 3 up cycles and 3 down cycles. You notice anything about the 3RD down cycle?

It's SIGNIFICANTLY longer isn't it? Which means that even the DUTY CYCLE of this 11 year rhythm affects the BASELINE average of the TSI. You CANNOT take peaks and valleys and calculate changes in TSI.. That signature is ALSO the culprit for suspecting a pattern that looks like a coming Solar Grand minimum..

I can calculate changes in TSI any way I want. I may not be able to specify the real value of my results (for which I made no attempt) but neither can you ignore the various feedback mechanisms to a change in radiative forcing as you've done now repeatedly trying to tell us that CO2 climate sensitivity is 1C or less.

Care to explain why you believe the storage mechanisms for radiative energy direct from the sun should be in any significant manner different from the storage mechanisms from radiative energy that's taken a detour through GHGs? Spectrum? Magic? Wishful thinking?

 

[jc456]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

BYW, I still don't believe in re-radiation from the atmosphere. My point was that you all are not consistent with your own belief, since we're at a solar minimum, you can't increase your magic radiation. You failed your own hypothesis.

And, the dot in the sky.

It's the only reason you're not a popsicle.. How does the earth avoid being an ice ball if MORE energy is going OUT in 24 hours than is coming in WITHOUT "re-radiation" from the atmosphere??? Off-topic for sure, but you should keep your stubborn refusal to learn to yourself..

Why do clouds form? It ain't re-radiation. Hmm where do pressure systems come from? No re-radiation again. Hell evaporation is always happening, the earth is covered with clouds. Do you think there aren't?

 

[Crick]

Why do clouds form?

Due to water vapor in an atmosphere that changes temperature and pressure with altitude. As water-bearing air rises into regions in which the temperature and pressure pushes it pas its dew point, the water condenses, most often around dust particles, forming droplets. Billions of droplets form clouds. I do not see what bearing that has on back-radiation

It ain't re-radiation. Hmm where do pressure systems come from?

From Mr Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
A pressure system is a relative peak or lull in the sea level pressure distribution. The surface pressure at sea level varies minimally, with the lowest value measured 870.0 hectopascals (25.69 inHg) and the highest recorded 1,085.7 hectopascals (32.06 inHg). High- and low-pressure systems evolve due to interactions of temperature differentials in the atmosphere, temperature differences between the atmosphere and water within oceans and lakes, the influence of upper-level disturbances,[jargon] as well as the amount of solar heating or radiational cooling an area receives. Pressure systems cause weather experienced locally. Low-pressure systems are associated with clouds and precipitation that minimize temperature changes through the day, whereas high-pressure systems normally associated with dry weather and mostly clear skies with larger diurnal temperature changes due to greater radiation at night and greater sunshine during the day. Pressure systems are analyzed by those in the field of meteorology within surface weather maps.

No re-radiation again. Hell evaporation is always happening, the earth is covered with clouds. Do you think there aren't?

Please explain your point. For starters, if the Earth's atmosphere is not absorbing and re-radiating energy, what prevents the Earth from being at its black body temperature of -18C/0F? Alternatively, if you believe it absorbs but does not radiate, what prevents it from being the same temperature as the surface of the photosphere?

 

[RollingThunder]

Why do clouds form?

Due to water vapor in an atmosphere that changes temperature and pressure with altitude. As water-bearing air rises into regions in which the temperature and pressure pushes it pas its dew point, the water condenses, most often around dust particles, forming droplets. Billions of droplets form clouds. I do not see what bearing that has on back-radiation

It ain't re-radiation. Hmm where do pressure systems come from?

From Mr Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
A pressure system is a relative peak or lull in the sea level pressure distribution. The surface pressure at sea level varies minimally, with the lowest value measured 870.0 hectopascals (25.69 inHg) and the highest recorded 1,085.7 hectopascals (32.06 inHg). High- and low-pressure systems evolve due to interactions of temperature differentials in the atmosphere, temperature differences between the atmosphere and water within oceans and lakes, the influence of upper-level disturbances,[jargon] as well as the amount of solar heating or radiational cooling an area receives. Pressure systems cause weather experienced locally. Low-pressure systems are associated with clouds and precipitation that minimize temperature changes through the day, whereas high-pressure systems normally associated with dry weather and mostly clear skies with larger diurnal temperature changes due to greater radiation at night and greater sunshine during the day. Pressure systems are analyzed by those in the field of meteorology within surface weather maps.

No re-radiation again. Hell evaporation is always happening, the earth is covered with clouds. Do you think there aren't?

Please explain your point. For starters, if the Earth's atmosphere is not absorbing and re-radiating energy, what prevents the Earth from being at its black body temperature of -18C/0F? Alternatively, if you believe it absorbs but does not radiate, what prevents it from being the same temperature as the surface of the photosphere?

See post #52.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is not "his hypothesis". It is the greenhouse effect and it has been accepted science for over 100 years. Incoming short wave radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and then re-radiated in all directions as long wave infrared. That process slows the escape of thermal energy from the atmosphere to space and that raises the equilibrium temperature of the system as a whole. Imagine a water tank with a pipe adding more water at a constant rate. Water in the tank rises. Now we put a drain line in at the bottom. The flow of water through the drain line depends on the water pressure - the level of water in the tank. The tank will fill till the water's hydrodynamic pressure creates a flow in the drain line that exactly matches the incoming flow: equilibrium. Now, with a valve we add some restriction to the drain line so that the flow out is reduced. The water level will begin rising again and will not stop till the increased pressure causes the drain line's flow to once more match the rate of incoming water. The tank is the Earth's atmosphere, the water represents the sun's energy, the restriction in the drain line represents the effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 and the water's level is the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Got it?

nice except that it isn't what I stated I stated that the sun's input is decreased, meaning in your little analogy there that less water is coming into the tank. My gawd, then the tank isn't going to fill and the output will not increase and pressure will not build. wow.

TSI levels did not CAUSE the warming. The slight decrease now taking place will certainly help, but it is NOT enough to stop the warming - as is obvious given the long string of record hot temperatures globally.

From the TSI peak in 1981 of about 1362 W/m^2, we've dropped ALL THE WAY DOWN to 1361.5 W/m^2, or about 0.0367%. CO2 levels since that time have risen by 62/338ths, or 18.34%. The increase in CO2 forcing - ignoring positive feedback from water vapor - is 500 times the decrease in TSI. Guess who wins.

CO2 forcing since 1700s is NOT 500 times the INCREASE in TSI --- that;'s where you went wrong. Thermal equilibrium for something as large as a planet does NOT happen overnight. If the TSI peaked in the 60s and 70s --- the warming is STILL continuing today. And the increase of ocean storage is FAR more likely to be from the sun than from CO2 forcing..

Your simple math is not the whole story,.. I know you have CRAG --- but take a GOOD look at the TSI curve I left in your post. It shows about 3 up cycles and 3 down cycles. You notice anything about the 3RD down cycle?

It's SIGNIFICANTLY longer isn't it? Which means that even the DUTY CYCLE of this 11 year rhythm affects the BASELINE average of the TSI. You CANNOT take peaks and valleys and calculate changes in TSI.. That signature is ALSO the culprit for suspecting a pattern that looks like a coming Solar Grand minimum..

I can calculate changes in TSI any way I want. I may not be able to specify the real value of my results (for which I made no attempt) but neither can you ignore the various feedback mechanisms to a change in radiative forcing as you've done now repeatedly trying to tell us that CO2 climate sensitivity is 1C or less.

Care to explain why you believe the storage mechanisms for radiative energy direct from the sun should be in any significant manner different from the storage mechanisms from radiative energy that's taken a detour through GHGs? Spectrum? Magic? Wishful thinking?

My God Crick -- that last part has been discussed here a dozen times. You really should stop asking questions. Because it's a flat-out admission you are not following ANYTHING of any technical nature at all..

You don't remember longwave/shortwave discussions as it applies to ocean heating??

Obviously -- your questions gave you away... Waste of time for both of us.. Probably MORE of a waste of our time than going over back-rad with the bat-shit crazy deniers in this forum..

 

[RollingThunder]

My God Crick -- that last part has been discussed here a dozen times. You really should stop asking questions. Because it's a flat-out admission you are not following ANYTHING of any technical nature at all..

You don't remember longwave/shortwave discussions as it applies to ocean heating??

Obviously -- your questions gave you away... Waste of time for both of us.. Probably MORE of a waste of our time than going over back-rad with the bat-shit crazy deniers in this forum..

See post #52.

 

[Crick]

I can calculate changes in TSI any way I want. I may not be able to specify the real value of my results (for which I made no attempt) but neither can you ignore the various feedback mechanisms to a change in radiative forcing as you've done now repeatedly trying to tell us that CO2 climate sensitivity is 1C or less.

Care to explain why you believe the storage mechanisms for radiative energy direct from the sun should be in any significant manner different from the storage mechanisms from radiative energy that's taken a detour through GHGs? Spectrum? Magic? Wishful thinking?

My God Crick -- that last part has been discussed here a dozen times. You really should stop asking questions. Because it's a flat-out admission you are not following ANYTHING of any technical nature at all..

You don't remember longwave/shortwave discussions as it applies to ocean heating??

Obviously -- your questions gave you away... Waste of time for both of us.. Probably MORE of a waste of our time than going over back-rad with the bat-shit crazy deniers in this forum..

Then apparently you missed jc's expert who claims that the largest portion of solar energy striking the surface of the Earth DIRECTLY (and that would include the oceans) is IR.

I recall some very foolish people who claimed that water had some sort of "skin" to it which was inexplicably unable to transfer heat it had absorbed downward, even when that skin was physically mixed with the bulk of the water body. Is THAT the discussion to which you refer?

 

[jc456]

Why do clouds form?

Due to water vapor in an atmosphere that changes temperature and pressure with altitude. As water-bearing air rises into regions in which the temperature and pressure pushes it pas its dew point, the water condenses, most often around dust particles, forming droplets. Billions of droplets form clouds. I do not see what bearing that has on back-radiation

It ain't re-radiation. Hmm where do pressure systems come from?

From Mr Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
A pressure system is a relative peak or lull in the sea level pressure distribution. The surface pressure at sea level varies minimally, with the lowest value measured 870.0 hectopascals (25.69 inHg) and the highest recorded 1,085.7 hectopascals (32.06 inHg). High- and low-pressure systems evolve due to interactions of temperature differentials in the atmosphere, temperature differences between the atmosphere and water within oceans and lakes, the influence of upper-level disturbances,[jargon] as well as the amount of solar heating or radiational cooling an area receives. Pressure systems cause weather experienced locally. Low-pressure systems are associated with clouds and precipitation that minimize temperature changes through the day, whereas high-pressure systems normally associated with dry weather and mostly clear skies with larger diurnal temperature changes due to greater radiation at night and greater sunshine during the day. Pressure systems are analyzed by those in the field of meteorology within surface weather maps.

No re-radiation again. Hell evaporation is always happening, the earth is covered with clouds. Do you think there aren't?

Please explain your point. For starters, if the Earth's atmosphere is not absorbing and re-radiating energy, what prevents the Earth from being at its black body temperature of -18C/0F? Alternatively, if you believe it absorbs but does not radiate, what prevents it from being the same temperature as the surface of the photosphere?

Dude, mass volume convection circulation and a layered atmosphere that maintains volume. You should actually read up on all the physicists that I've found that convinced me re-radiation is a pipe dream .