Solar Irradiance in a nose-dive...

[Toddsterpatriot]

If average temps are going UP, but solar irradiance is going DOWN, that points to man made CO2 pollution as the culprit.

Preventing a new ice age would make CO2 the hero, not the culprit.

Ya lost me. You must be joking, man made pollution is going to save us from an ice age NOBODY even recognizes as a issue? Yay.

Ya lost me.

Do you think a new Ice Age would be good or bad?

man made pollution is going to save us from an ice age

Not pollution, CO2.

Touché. What Ice age? The ice caps are melting...global average temps are rising. We are definitely are NOT on the same page here.

Yeah, ice ages, famine and death are funny. Durr.

What is funny is how truly stupid you are, or at least how stupid you think that other people are. It would be several thousand years before any real affects of the slide toward another ice age that we were in were felt.

However, before this century is out, we will see major affects from the warming we have already committed our planet to. And if we continue our present output of GHGs, things will be very bad by the end of this century, and worse for several centuries afterwards. Not that jerks like you give a damn.

It would be several thousand years before any real affects of the slide toward another ice age that we were in were felt.


Right, because ice ages never start more quickly, 75/77 scientists said so. LOL!

And if we continue our present output of GHGs, things will be very bad by the end of this century

Yeah, because a little bit warmer is very bad. Quick, more windmills!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Elektra, old gal, just can it. Several people have shown you the fallacy of that stupid arguement. And we are going to continue to install solar and wind, because they are not only cleaner, but they are more economical than fossil fuels.

but they are more economical than fossil fuels.

Yeah, because generating one-third your rated output and using nat-gas plants on standby, when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is more economical. Durr.

 

[mamooth]

You are so hopelessly stupid after all this "investment" in climate knowledge.. It's sad really...

You still haven't shown us anything except handwaving.

Trenberth says the Ocean thermal cycles are the "planet's heat safety valves".. Literally, they occasionally blow off immense amounts of STORED heat from the Oceans. Haven't gotten to a fixed set of equations regarding the PATHS or DELAYS for that heat storage --- but they could be blowing off 100 year old "heat" in any AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc event...

And as he's said nothing about heat that magically hiding undetected for a century, that's just another red herring on your part.

You are a pea brain. And I'm pretty much gonna ignore you from now on. Because the basic concept of Ocean Heat Storage escapes your puny grasp.. That energy is available to be tapped up to 200m deep by an El Nino or swept up into an ocean conveyor to melt arctic ice or picked up by cyclonic energy HUNDREDS of years from now. Creating (among other effects) NEW atmospheric equilibrium temperatures from very very old heat energy kept in storage.

So ... more handwaving about magical hidden heat that suddenly appears a centuries later.

We're still waiting for you to provide that function that describes the climate system. It's a travesty that mainstream science has failed to acknowledge the brilliance of your "I have a theory that's obviously correct, but I won't get specific about what it is, and anyone who disagrees with that unspecified theory is a fraud" science.

So do that name calling -- degrading stuff ya gotta do. It has ZERO effect on the way things work.. OR on me...

I've been ignoring your chronic name calling up until this point, because it only highlighted how you lacked any actual argument. However, when you start accusing me of your own specialty, I have to react.

It's the stuff that you learned from your heroes at the very few websites that feed your ignorance on the topics.

I haven't engaged in any name calling towards you. And in return for that courtesy ... I get things like "squidward" or "pea-brain" or "turd". And that's just on this thread.

If you'd like, I can act like you and start hurling insults non-stop. Is that what you want?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wouldn't expect that it would have a CLIMATE WARMING effect over a 50 year period where the solar insolation had PEAKED OUT since the 1960s after a 150 year CLIMB from the last Solar Minimum in the mid 18th century..

No, because heat doesn't hide magically for a century and then suddenly reappear. Real scientists understand that.

Your theory is a fantasy, and none of your meltdowns or evasions will change that.

You are so hopelessly stupid after all this "investment" in climate knowledge.. It's sad really...

Trenberth says the Ocean thermal cycles are the "planet's heat safety valves".. Literally, they occasionally blow off immense amounts of STORED heat from the Oceans. Haven't gotten to a fixed set of equations regarding the PATHS or DELAYS for that heat storage --- but they could be blowing off 100 year old "heat" in any AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc event...

You are a pea brain. And I'm pretty much gonna ignore you from now on. Because the basic concept of Ocean Heat Storage escapes your puny grasp.. That energy is available to be tapped up to 200m deep by an El Nino or swept up into an ocean conveyor to melt arctic ice or picked up by cyclonic energy HUNDREDS of years from now. Creating (among other effects) NEW atmospheric equilibrium temperatures from very very old heat energy kept in storage.

So do that name calling -- degrading stuff ya gotta do. It has ZERO effect on the way things work.. OR on me...
It's the stuff that you learned from your heroes at the very few websites that feed your ignorance on the topics.

And since the forcings of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere far exceed the forcings of the minor increase in solar output we saw, what is going to happen when the oceans start spitting that heat back at us, Mr. Flacaltenn. Seems to me that your arguement shows that the GHGs are going to be far more destructive than that minor and transient increase in TSI.

Hell Rocks -- I'm not telling ya that. The Climate science is telling us that nobody should expect the temperature to follow any particular forcing as a correlated process.. Doesn't work that way. Not with massive storage of heat on the planet and delays of decades to "mix it all" into equilibrium.. That's why there has never really been one single stupid ass "climate sensitivity" number. There are short-term and long-term factors with their own constants and time delays.. BUT --- its all ad hoc "best guesses"...

It appears that OceanHContent never reacted to the INCREASING forcing from LW IR retentention,. If it HAD -- those BTK and NOAA data sets would have contained much higher order terms in their shapes since the 1960s.
A linear increase in OHC is more consistent with either a prolonged "step" up in forcing OR we just haven't seen the "long term" sensistivity terms kick in yet...

 

[flacaltenn]

You are so hopelessly stupid after all this "investment" in climate knowledge.. It's sad really...

You still haven't shown us anything except handwaving.

Trenberth says the Ocean thermal cycles are the "planet's heat safety valves".. Literally, they occasionally blow off immense amounts of STORED heat from the Oceans. Haven't gotten to a fixed set of equations regarding the PATHS or DELAYS for that heat storage --- but they could be blowing off 100 year old "heat" in any AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc event...

And as he's said nothing about heat that magically hiding undetected for a century, that's just another red herring on your part.

You are a pea brain. And I'm pretty much gonna ignore you from now on. Because the basic concept of Ocean Heat Storage escapes your puny grasp.. That energy is available to be tapped up to 200m deep by an El Nino or swept up into an ocean conveyor to melt arctic ice or picked up by cyclonic energy HUNDREDS of years from now. Creating (among other effects) NEW atmospheric equilibrium temperatures from very very old heat energy kept in storage.

So ... more handwaving about magical hidden heat that suddenly appears a centuries later.

We're still waiting for you to provide that function that describes the climate system. It's a travesty that mainstream science has failed to acknowledge the brilliance of your "I have a theory that's obviously correct, but I won't get specific about what it is, and anyone who disagrees with that unspecified theory is a fraud" science.

So do that name calling -- degrading stuff ya gotta do. It has ZERO effect on the way things work.. OR on me...

I've been ignoring your chronic name calling up until this point, because it only highlighted how you lacked any actual argument. However, when you start accusing me of your own specialty, I have to react.

It's the stuff that you learned from your heroes at the very few websites that feed your ignorance on the topics.

I haven't engaged in any name calling towards you. And in return for that courtesy ... I get things like "squidward" or "pea-brain" or "turd". And that's just on this thread.

If you'd like, I can act like you and start hurling insults non-stop. Is that what you want?

oooh.. I'm threatened by you getting more rabid and vicious.. What would truly be threatening to me would be if you weren't so stone stupid as to believe that the massive HEAT storage on the planet was not a ONE-WAY STREET. If you had any inkling how silly you sound when you talk about Heat "magically reappearing" after a 100 years or more..

A lot like a primitive shaman trying to tell the tribe that the mirrors and the Iphones are just a trick of the demons.
That heat in storage is ALWAYS available to be moved, or concentrated or diluted or UP-CHUCKED back into the atmos cycle at a whim..

And as he's said nothing about heat that magically hiding undetected for a century, that's just another red herring on your part.

Oh noes Squiddly --- That's EXACTLY what Trenberth meant by that statement. And it's not my red herring. It's a MASSIVE failure on your part to apply Thermo and Physics to what a Climate sized "heat exchanger" actually is.... Good Bye.. Good Riddance. Happy self-stimulation... .

 

[Crick]

What mechanism did he suggest would store UNDETECTED heat?

 

[Crick]

Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variabilityand change
Posted on 12 July 2011 by Kevin Trenberth
Energy and Climate

Climate change is very much involved with energy, most commonly in the form of heat but other forms of energy are also important. Radiation comes in from the sun (solar radiationat short wavelengths), and every body radiates according to its temperature (proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature), so that on Earth we, and the surface andatmosphere radiate at infrared wavelengths.

Weather and climate on Earth are determined by the amount and distribution of incoming radiation from the sun. For an equilibrium climate, global mean outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) necessarily balances the incoming absorbed solar radiation (ASR), but with redistributions of energy within the climate system to enable this to happen on a global basis. Incoming radiant energy may be scattered and reflected by clouds andaerosols (dust and pollution) or absorbed in the atmosphere. The transmitted radiation is then either absorbed or reflected at the Earth’s surface. Radiant solar (shortwave) energy is transformed into sensible heat (related to temperature), latent energy (involving different water states), potential energy (involving gravity and altitude) and kinetic energy (involving motion) before being emitted as longwave infrared radiant energy. Energy may be stored, transported in various forms, and converted among the different types, giving rise to a rich variety of weather or turbulent phenomena in the atmosphere and ocean. Moreover the energy balance can be upset in various ways, changing the climate and associated weather.

Hence the incoming radiation may warm up the ground or any object it hits, or it may just go into drying up surface water. After it rains and the sun comes out, the puddles largely dry up before the temperature goes up. If energy is absorbed it raises the temperature. The surface of the body then radiates but also loses heat by transfer through cooler winds or by evaporative cooling. Some energy gets converted into motion as warm air rises and cold air sinks, and this creates winds and thus kinetic energy, which gets dissipated by friction. Over oceans the winds drive ocean currents.

The differential between incoming and outgoing radiation: the net radiation is generally balanced by moving air of different temperature and moisture content around. Air temperature affects density as warmer air expands and thus it takes up more room, displacing cooler air, thereby changing the air in a column whose weight determines the surface pressure. Consequently, this sets up pressure differences that in turn cause winds, which tend to blow in such a way as to try to offset the temperature differences. The Earth’s rotation modifies this simple picture. A result is that southerlies are warm in the northern hemisphere and northerlies are cold. And so we get weather with clouds and rain in all of its wondrous complexity.

The changing seasons illustrate what happens as the sun apparently moves across the equator into the other hemisphere. In summer some excess heat goes into the ocean, which warms up reaching peak values about the equinox, and in winter the land cools off but heat comes out of the oceans and this is carried onto land, and so oceans moderate the seasonal climate variations. Much of the exchange involves water evaporating and precipitating out, and thus the hydrological cycle.

The same can happen from year to year: heat can accumulate in the ocean and then later be released, leading to warmer spells and cooler spells. This commonly happens in the tropical Pacific and gives rise to the El Niño phenomenon. El Niño is the warm phase in the tropical Pacific while La Niña is the cool phase. During and following an El Niño there is a mini global warming as heat comes out of the ocean, while during La Niña, heat tends to get stored in the ocean. The El Niño cycle is irregular but has a preferred time scale of 3 to 7 years.

Ocean heat storage can last longer: for decades or centuries and inevitably involves ocean currents and the much deeper ocean. In the North Atlantic, cold waters sink and move equatorward at depth while the Gulf Stream at the surface takes warmer waters polewards, creating an overturning circulation that can also involve density changes in the ocean associated with both temperature and salt (the thermohaline circulation). Salty water is denser. Nonetheless, much of the ocean overturning circulation is wind driven. The overturning may involve the ocean down to several kilometers and can take many centuries to complete a cycle.

As well as the ocean taking up heat, heat can be lost by forming ice, as glaciers, ice caps, or major ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica) on land, or as sea ice. Extra heat can melt this ice and may contribute to sea level rise if land ice melts. Surface land can also absorb a small amount of heat but not much and not to great depths as it relies on conduction to move heat through the land unless water is flowing. Land energy variations occur mostly in the form of water or its absence, as heat goes to evaporate surface water. Highest temperatures and heat waves typically occur in droughts or deserts.

The atmosphere can not hold much heat and is dependent for its temperature on links to the underlying surface through conduction and thermals, convection, and radiation, as well as the wind in moving it around.

More at Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change

 

[mamooth]

Oh noes Squiddly --- That's EXACTLY what Trenberth meant by that statement. And it's not my red herring. It's a MASSIVE failure on your part to apply Thermo and Physics to what a Climate sized "heat exchanger" actually is.... Good Bye.. Good Riddance. Happy self-stimulation... .

It's okay for you to put forth a kind of weird and totally unsupported theory that contradicts the laws of physics. Lots of people say crazy stuff. No big deal.

It's even okay to constantly refuse to back up your crazy theory. After all, that's not dishonestly slurring anyone.

What's not okay is to lie about scientists, like you do here with Trenberth.

And it's absolutely not okay to froth that everyone who doesn't accept your weird pseudoscience must be a fraud.

Flac, on both an intellectual level and a moral level, you're not fit to sniff the jock of any of the climate scientists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now this is what we call a solar shut down. TSI has rebounded but it is lower than base line. The other components have flat-lined.....

 

[Crick]

View attachment 73411

Now this is what we call a solar shut down. TSI has rebounded but it is lower than base line. The other components have flat-lined.....

Your data show absolutely NOTHING. Your TSI comment is bullshit. What baseline is TSI below?

 

[flacaltenn]

What mechanism did he suggest would store UNDETECTED heat?

Say What? What "undetected heat"? Stored where? Is there some "mystery heat" no one knows about?

 

[Crick]

I'd say no, but the world is full of surprises. It's your contention that requires it.

 

[elektra]

Elektra, old gal, just can it. Several people have shown you the fallacy of that stupid arguement. And we are going to continue to install solar and wind, because they are not only cleaner, but they are more economical than fossil fuels.

Solar and Wind are going bankrupt, all over the World? You propose to spend another 50$ trillion dollars to replace Natural Gas, Coal, and Nuclear power with failed solar and wind, how is that cheaper then doing nothing?

 

[Crick]

What is funny is how truly stupid you are, or at least how stupid you think that other people are. It would be several thousand years before any real affects of the slide toward another ice age that we were in were felt.

However, before this century is out, we will see major affects from the warming we have already committed our planet to. And if we continue our present output of GHGs, things will be very bad by the end of this century, and worse for several centuries afterwards. Not that jerks like you give a damn.

The biggest lie, yet, "It will get warmer, even though it is not now, but it will, we just can't prove it and you must trust us".

And yet, your solution creates more CO2 than any other form of energy, constant use of Heavy Industry processing natural resources into 1000 ton Wind Turbines and millions upon millions of Solar Panels is creating measurable pollution now, on an unprecedented scale.

To save the World you will destroy it?

The solution is the problem. Use more Coal and Hydrocarbons to save the World?

Elektra, I SHOWED you the data that tells us that a typical large wind turbine SAVES as much CO2 (vs a coal or oil fired power plant of the same capacity) as was produced during its manufacture (per YOUR sources) IN A MATTER OF DAYS. You made not the slightest effort to refute my numbers.

So, you either have a poor memory or you have chosen to lie.

 

[elektra]

What is funny is how truly stupid you are, or at least how stupid you think that other people are. It would be several thousand years before any real affects of the slide toward another ice age that we were in were felt.

However, before this century is out, we will see major affects from the warming we have already committed our planet to. And if we continue our present output of GHGs, things will be very bad by the end of this century, and worse for several centuries afterwards. Not that jerks like you give a damn.

The biggest lie, yet, "It will get warmer, even though it is not now, but it will, we just can't prove it and you must trust us".

And yet, your solution creates more CO2 than any other form of energy, constant use of Heavy Industry processing natural resources into 1000 ton Wind Turbines and millions upon millions of Solar Panels is creating measurable pollution now, on an unprecedented scale.

To save the World you will destroy it?

The solution is the problem. Use more Coal and Hydrocarbons to save the World?

Elektra, I SHOWED you the data that tells us that a typical large wind turbine SAVES as much CO2 (vs a coal or oil fired power plant of the same capacity) as was produced during its manufacture (per YOUR sources) IN A MATTER OF DAYS. You made not the slightest effort to refute my numbers.

So, you either have a poor memory or you have chosen to lie.

Right, you showed bullshit that was not verifiable, at best.

Wind Turbines do not work, first and foremost they require Oil to operate and a constant source of electricity, which both comes from fossil fuels, the more Wind Turbines installed, the more fossil fuel is used. Using more creates more CO2, period.

When will we quite manufacturing Wind Turbines? Never. Wind Turbine is a new heavy industry, producing heavy pollution. You got to use Coal, to make Coke, to make those steel towers, once you burn Coal you release more than CO2 into the atmosphere, you release radioactive particles, tons! So you have created a new source of CO2 and heavy toxic pollutants. Has the amount of CO2 increased or decreased in the atmosphere since we created the New Heavy Industry of Wind Turbine Manufacture? CO2 has increased in the atmosphere, as a direct result of increased use of Heavy Industry in the manufacture of Wind Turbines.

Calculate all you want, but what you write on paper is meaningless, it is the results that count, I see we are tearing down Wind Turbines that were built 7 years ago, they do not last very long, I see Wind Turbines leaking Oil, more importantly, today the Wind is not blowing, that multi-billion dollar investment is setting idle, a huge waste of money, we have ramped up the use of fossil plants to compensate for the lack of wind today, we may have to do the same thing tomorrow, or for most of the rest of the year, we do not know.

In the meantime, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere, to save the World you must destroy it!

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid. The capacity of wind turbines in this country and worldwide is growing.

 

[elektra]

Installed Capacity, not the amount of electricity delivered, any amount they claim they produce they actually self report, it is not metered.

Add the Capacity factor and the Availability factor and what do you have, nothing! How much are they producing today, zero, no wind is blowing.

God are you stupid. The capacity of wind turbines in this country and worldwide is growing.

 

[Crick]

Not metered? Show us the source that tells you that.

 

[elektra]

Not metered? Show us the source that tells you that.

Its called, Department of Energy. There was a thread on it or it was explained in a thread. How do you think a Wind Turbine is reporting its output to the DOE cricket? The ulilities literally send in a form, a report.

 

[Crick]

But how would the utilities be able to fill out the form if the turbine were not metered? Of course the turbine is monitored six ways from Sunday. That was the lunacy of yours I was addressing.