Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[mamooth]

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

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

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

Here is what you posted...

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

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

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

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

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

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


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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[SSDD]

You

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

More lies from SSo DDumb.

 

[SSDD]

More lies from SSo DDumb.

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

Here is what you posted...

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

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

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

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

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

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


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

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

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

More lies from SSo DDumb.

And yet the oceans are not warming...

 

[mamooth]

And yet the oceans are not warming...

We just discussed this in another thread, Billy.

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

And yet the oceans are not warming...

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

 

[SSDD]

And yet the oceans are not warming...

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

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

* - Unsubstantiated assertion

 

[SSDD]

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

Are you claiming that the temperature of the world's oceans is not increasing? Yes or No

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

 

[Crick]

Ocean heat content - Wikipedia

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

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

where {\displaystyle \rho }

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No model, fool

 

[SSDD]

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

Good enough to fool you....

 

[Crick]

That is precisely what it is. Fool.