Grand Solar Minimum, not a problem

[flacaltenn]

Here's the deal that went flying over your head. There won't be any cooling to recover from. Instead, the strong warming will continue at a slightly reduced rate. It's a very simple point. How did you miss it?

Of course.. If you say so.. Ignore ALL of the evidence from the LAST grand minimum and the fact that not only does THIS FORCING cool the surface and the atmosphere, and play a MUCH STRONGER role than LWIR in ocean cooling/heating, but it also REDUCES the black body radiation AVAILABLE to be converted to "back radiation" from the GHouse...

Current rate of warming on 40 year sat record is 0.013DegC PER YEAR !!! I think you'll just have to experience the LONGER TERM EFFECTS of shedding heat for 80 years for yourself... I'll be around -- will YOU?????

 

[flacaltenn]

That's some odd pseudoscience on your part. Please tell us about the physical mechanism behind it. Why is it that you say 1 w/m^2 of visible light will heat the oceans more than 1 w/m^2 of longwave IR? The IR would seem to be more effective at heating, being how seawater reflects very little longwave IR, but lots of visible light.

You've been here in this forum recycling the same weak ass rebuttals and personal sliming years now??? And you don't understand why LWIR has a smaller effect on ocean heating/cooling than DIRECT FULL SPECTRUM sunlight???

Man --- it's sad to see a mind go that blank.... I can't help you... Go study the optical spectrum filtering of salt water for yourself...

 

[mamooth]

Of course.. If you say so.. Ignore ALL of the evidence from the LAST grand minimum and the fact that not only does THIS FORCING cool the surface and the atmosphere, and play a MUCH STRONGER role than LWIR in ocean cooling/heating, but it also REDUCES the black body radiation AVAILABLE to be converted to "back radiation" from the GHouse...

The LIA began around 1300, the Maunder Minimum around 1645. Being how your "effect" precedes your "cause" by centuries, your argument makes no sense.

Current rate of warming on 40 year sat record is 0.013DegC PER YEAR !!!

First, the current rate is actually 0.019C/year. Don't cherrypick the outlier UAH data set, as it's known to have a wild cooling bias. All other data sets contradict it, including the weather balloon data.

Second, what's the point? We know it's warming strongly. It's going to keep warming strongly, regardless of any conceivable behavior from the sun.

I think you'll just have to experience the LONGER TERM EFFECTS of shedding heat for 80 years for yourself... I'll be around -- will YOU?????

Let's get you on record. When does the global temperature drop begin? I'm just curious about how much of a period you give yourself where you can keep claiming that the continued warming proves you're right about the cooling.

And you don't understand why LWIR has a smaller effect on ocean heating/cooling than DIRECT FULL SPECTRUM sunlight???

That's not an answer. That's an evasion. Again, why do you say that 1 w/m^2 of visible light will heat the oceans more than 1 w/m^2 of longwave IR?

Man --- it's sad to see a mind go that blank.... I can't help you... Go study the optical spectrum filtering of salt water for yourself...

Ah, I see a hint of your bad argument. You think that since visible light penetrates deeper, it causes more warming. That fails because under your theory, a portion of the IR energy would have to vanish after absorption. Being how that's a violation of conservation of energy, your theory is clearly wrong. Don't try to invoke evaporation to save it, as skin temperature is only a few degrees warmer. The oceans are not constantly boiling away at the skin layer. The longwave IR goes in and stays in, and your theory is nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course.. If you say so.. Ignore ALL of the evidence from the LAST grand minimum and the fact that not only does THIS FORCING cool the surface and the atmosphere, and play a MUCH STRONGER role than LWIR in ocean cooling/heating, but it also REDUCES the black body radiation AVAILABLE to be converted to "back radiation" from the GHouse...

The LIA began around 1300, the Maunder Minimum around 1645. Being how your "effect" precedes your "cause" by centuries, your argument makes no sense.

Current rate of warming on 40 year sat record is 0.013DegC PER YEAR !!!

First, the current rate is actually 0.019C/year. Don't cherrypick the outlier UAH data set, as it's known to have a wild cooling bias. All other data sets contradict it, including the weather balloon data.

Second, what's the point? We know it's warming strongly. It's going to keep warming strongly, regardless of any conceivable behavior from the sun.

I think you'll just have to experience the LONGER TERM EFFECTS of shedding heat for 80 years for yourself... I'll be around -- will YOU?????

Let's get you on record. When does the global temperature drop begin? I'm just curious about how much of a period you give yourself where you can keep claiming that the continued warming proves you're right about the cooling.

And you don't understand why LWIR has a smaller effect on ocean heating/cooling than DIRECT FULL SPECTRUM sunlight???

That's not an answer. That's an evasion. Again, why do you say that 1 w/m^2 of visible light will heat the oceans more than 1 w/m^2 of longwave IR?

Man --- it's sad to see a mind go that blank.... I can't help you... Go study the optical spectrum filtering of salt water for yourself...

Ah, I see a hint of your bad argument. You think that since visible light penetrates deeper, it causes more warming. That fails because under your theory, a portion of the IR energy would have to vanish after absorption. Being how that's a violation of conservation of energy, your theory is clearly wrong. Don't try to invoke evaporation to save it, as skin temperature is only a few degrees warmer. The oceans are not constantly boiling away at the skin layer. The longwave IR goes in and stays in, and your theory is nonsense.

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

 

[westwall]

Of course.. If you say so.. Ignore ALL of the evidence from the LAST grand minimum and the fact that not only does THIS FORCING cool the surface and the atmosphere, and play a MUCH STRONGER role than LWIR in ocean cooling/heating, but it also REDUCES the black body radiation AVAILABLE to be converted to "back radiation" from the GHouse...

The LIA began around 1300, the Maunder Minimum around 1645. Being how your "effect" precedes your "cause" by centuries, your argument makes no sense.

Current rate of warming on 40 year sat record is 0.013DegC PER YEAR !!!

First, the current rate is actually 0.019C/year. Don't cherrypick the outlier UAH data set, as it's known to have a wild cooling bias. All other data sets contradict it, including the weather balloon data.

Second, what's the point? We know it's warming strongly. It's going to keep warming strongly, regardless of any conceivable behavior from the sun.

I think you'll just have to experience the LONGER TERM EFFECTS of shedding heat for 80 years for yourself... I'll be around -- will YOU?????

Let's get you on record. When does the global temperature drop begin? I'm just curious about how much of a period you give yourself where you can keep claiming that the continued warming proves you're right about the cooling.

And you don't understand why LWIR has a smaller effect on ocean heating/cooling than DIRECT FULL SPECTRUM sunlight???

That's not an answer. That's an evasion. Again, why do you say that 1 w/m^2 of visible light will heat the oceans more than 1 w/m^2 of longwave IR?

Man --- it's sad to see a mind go that blank.... I can't help you... Go study the optical spectrum filtering of salt water for yourself...

Ah, I see a hint of your bad argument. You think that since visible light penetrates deeper, it causes more warming. That fails because under your theory, a portion of the IR energy would have to vanish after absorption. Being how that's a violation of conservation of energy, your theory is clearly wrong. Don't try to invoke evaporation to save it, as skin temperature is only a few degrees warmer. The oceans are not constantly boiling away at the skin layer. The longwave IR goes in and stays in, and your theory is nonsense.

The LIA is accepted as having begun in 1380, the Sporer Minimum (funny how you ignore that one) began in approximately 1450 and was a likewise cooler period during the LIA. The LIA was not the beginning of the LIA, but it was the coldest part of the LIA. Address those issues if you would.

 

[mamooth]

The LIA is accepted as having begun in 1380, the Sporer Minimum (funny how you ignore that one) began in approximately 1450 and was a likewise cooler period during the LIA. The LIA was not the beginning of the LIA, but it was the coldest part of the LIA. Address those issues if you would.

Sure. You still have the LIA starting before the solar slowdown.

Hence, the LIA was not initiated by low solar activity.

Hence, other factors initiated it.

Hence, your claim that only the sun matters is clearly wrong.

Now, if you'd like to, you can quantify all the factors involved ... and that's what the climate scientists have done. And you all call it invalid. Not based on any actual data, but entirely because the conclusions weren't what you wanted to see.

 

[mamooth]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

If all the data didn't contradict you, why would you keep asking a question that's been answered for you many times?

You wouldn't have to be such a dishonest troll if the data backed you up.

 

[westwall]

The LIA is accepted as having begun in 1380, the Sporer Minimum (funny how you ignore that one) began in approximately 1450 and was a likewise cooler period during the LIA. The LIA was not the beginning of the LIA, but it was the coldest part of the LIA. Address those issues if you would.

Sure. You still have the LIA starting before the solar slowdown.

Hence, the LIA was not initiated by low solar activity.

Hence, other factors initiated it.

Hence, your claim that only the sun matters is clearly wrong.

Now, if you'd like to, you can quantify all the factors involved ... and that's what the climate scientists have done. And you all call it invalid. Not based on any actual data, but entirely because the conclusions weren't what you wanted to see.

Never said it was. Merely have stated that the worst of the LIA was during the Maunder. But, regardless, the planet cooled down. Why? Mayhaps it is the same process that was involved with the recent warming, which has now ceased.

But that is called science, and we all know, you don't do science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it is actually you people who are ignoring the historical record. If you weren't you would understand that NOTHING we are experiencing now is either "unprecedented " or unusual.

That's a shameless lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

If all the data didn't contradict you, why would you keep asking a question that's been answered for you many times?

You wouldn't have to be such a dishonest troll if the data backed you up.

But you posted no experiment. Why is that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

If your "theory" is correct and an increase from 280 to 400ppm "traps heat", enough heat to radically alter the climate of an entire planet, its a simple experiment that should yield a non-imaginary number.

Where's the beef?

 

[westwall]

No, it is actually you people who are ignoring the historical record. If you weren't you would understand that NOTHING we are experiencing now is either "unprecedented " or unusual.

That's a shameless lie.

And yet it is supported by fact. Something you seem unable to grasp.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientists continue to test Relativity. "Global Warming" has no tests, only "consensus" which is as non-scientific as you get

 

[SSDD]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

Really? Lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming int he atmosphere...

The "greenhouse" effect is a good example of a scientific "fact" that "everyone knows" about but is accepted without the first piece of actual evidence to support the claim...much like stress being the cause of ulcers...everyone "knew" that stress caused ulcers although there was no evidence to support the position..and salt causing high blood pressure, and cholesterol causing heart disease and the number of instances where everyone "knew" a thing that turned out to be false are legion.

 

[SSDD]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

Great....lets see a link to one that actually confirms a greenhouse effect as one that demonstrates the heat of compression, or that water vapor can absorb and retain energy or some other such side show hucksterism that is good enough to fool idiots..

 

[daveman]

If CO2 is such a powerful "greenhouse gas" why dont you have a single repeatable lab experiment showing the "temperature increase" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm?

We do. The greenhouse effect of co2 is well studied.

That's not an experiment either

"It's well studied" means that experiments have been done confirming the greenhouse effect. Many times over. Why not look some of them up?

I know why. You love being ignorant. It's true. You do. You would rather be wrong and not know you are wrong than learn something and have to stray from your odd little paradigm.

Like, a cultist.

Let me help. Here's an experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse effect.

 

[mamooth]

Never said it was. Merely have stated that the worst of the LIA was during the Maunder. But, regardless, the planet cooled down. Why?

It seems to have started with high volcanic activity and lower CO2 levels, then later it was reinforced by a quiet sun.

Mayhaps it is the same process that was involved with the recent warming, which has now ceased.

And that process is?

But that is called science, and we all know, you don't do science.

Indeed. Here, you're invoking a magical mystery force that controls the climate. You won't explain what that force is, but you have faith it exists. That qualifies as a religious belief on your part.