MIT's global warming prediction

[RWatt]

Smaller than the last cycle, but still about half as much

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nope, orbit and inclination melted those ice sheets.

And what's changed since then?

These patterns of climate change are slow and long term. What has changed is the fact that we're now on the downside of a interglacial warm period and slowly moving towards a new ice age set-up. In fact 5,000 years ago the poles where more pointed towards the sun then today and so our planet was warmer by 2-5c then today. The forest where a good 500 miles further north too, but we have been slowly tracking down for the past 4,000 years and also the shape of our obrit effect such with more energy and less energy phases. No way should today be warmer then the peak of the interglacial. If so something is seriously fucked up.

Pointing the poles toward the Sum makes the whole planet warmer? So if Earth had a pole orientation like say Uranus we'd be what 15 degrees warmer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Smaller than the last cycle, but still about half as much

Warmers say that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has almost no effect on Earth's Climate changes.

 

[RWatt]

Smaller than the last cycle, but still about half as much

Warmers say that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has almost no effect on Earth's Climate changes.

On the contrary I expect the fall in the solar cycle from 2002 to 2010 as depicted on that graph had a cooling effect on global temperature of slightly more than 0.1C. That's quite a lot of temperature change in the space of 8 years.

Of course now the solar cycle is in an ongoing warming period until about 2014 so I expect the cycle will contribute just under 0.1C warming in the next few years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Smaller than the last cycle, but still about half as much

Warmers say that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has almost no effect on Earth's Climate changes.

On the contrary I expect the fall in the solar cycle from 2002 to 2010 as depicted on that graph had a cooling effect on global temperature of slightly more than 0.1C. That's quite a lot of temperature change in the space of 8 years.

Of course now the solar cycle is in an ongoing warming period until about 2014 so I expect the cycle will contribute just under 0.1C warming in the next few years.

And MadMade CO2 makes up the difference, right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

And what's changed since then?

These patterns of climate change are slow and long term. What has changed is the fact that we're now on the downside of a interglacial warm period and slowly moving towards a new ice age set-up. In fact 5,000 years ago the poles where more pointed towards the sun then today and so our planet was warmer by 2-5c then today. The forest where a good 500 miles further north too, but we have been slowly tracking down for the past 4,000 years and also the shape of our obrit effect such with more energy and less energy phases. No way should today be warmer then the peak of the interglacial. If so something is seriously fucked up.

Pointing the poles toward the Sum makes the whole planet warmer? So if Earth had a pole orientation like say Uranus we'd be what 15 degrees warmer?

earth also got more energy through a orbit that allowed more solar energy to hit the earth during this time frame, but the earth overall must of only been slightly hotter then today(1c tops) then what was once believed to be so, because you can't judge how hot the poles where for the global avg temperature. Believe me if the period between 4-7 thousand years was only 1-2c warmer then there is no way the med evil was 3-5c warmer then today. Makes NO sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These patterns of climate change are slow and long term. What has changed is the fact that we're now on the downside of a interglacial warm period and slowly moving towards a new ice age set-up. In fact 5,000 years ago the poles where more pointed towards the sun then today and so our planet was warmer by 2-5c then today. The forest where a good 500 miles further north too, but we have been slowly tracking down for the past 4,000 years and also the shape of our obrit effect such with more energy and less energy phases. No way should today be warmer then the peak of the interglacial. If so something is seriously fucked up.

Pointing the poles toward the Sum makes the whole planet warmer? So if Earth had a pole orientation like say Uranus we'd be what 15 degrees warmer?

earth also got more energy through a orbit that allowed more solar energy to hit the earth during this time frame, but the earth overall must of only been slightly hotter then today(1c tops) then what was once believed to be so, because you can't judge how hot the poles where for the global avg temperature. Believe me if the period between 4-7 thousand years was only 1-2c warmer then there is no way the med evil was 3-5c warmer then today. Makes NO sense.

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

Let's stay with orientation of the poles, hmmmkay?

The way I'm hearing this is the more the Earth's equatorial bulge is perpendicular to the Sun the more total energy the planet receives and therefore the greater the warmer....izzatright?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Smaller than the last cycle, but still about half as much

Warmers say that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has almost no effect on Earth's Climate changes.

On the contrary I expect the fall in the solar cycle from 2002 to 2010 as depicted on that graph had a cooling effect on global temperature of slightly more than 0.1C. That's quite a lot of temperature change in the space of 8 years.

Of course now the solar cycle is in an ongoing warming period until about 2014 so I expect the cycle will contribute just under 0.1C warming in the next few years.

I agree with you about the solar minimum, but to say that a far weaker solar max will resupply the energy into the climate system is not accurate.

Every grand-minimum are made up of both minimums and maximums. Yes the minimums are low, but so are the maximums. A warm period is the opposite of this and creates a surplus of energy into the climate system.

Lets imagine this...

The dalton grand-minimum

lets say-not the numbers of course
140, 80, 40, 20, 30 for our max's
10, 20, 0, 0, 5, 10 for our mins

Lets say the period between 1780-1810
140, 150, 125-max's
45, 50, 35-min's

Guess what more energy is going to be going into the system.


Lets now look at the past 50 years

200, 180, 170, 150, 200, 180-max's
50, 40, 35, 40, 25, 10, 15-min's

Not the numbers of course...

Now you get a minimum that has
0-5 and a max that may only top out in the 100's.

You trend this over 5-6 solar mins, maxs you will get less energy then the past 50 years and the temperature will go down. Or it will work as a negative forcing.

I believe at least some effect has been occurring since 2003 or so.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Pointing the poles toward the Sum makes the whole planet warmer? So if Earth had a pole orientation like say Uranus we'd be what 15 degrees warmer?

earth also got more energy through a orbit that allowed more solar energy to hit the earth during this time frame, but the earth overall must of only been slightly hotter then today(1c tops) then what was once believed to be so, because you can't judge how hot the poles where for the global avg temperature. Believe me if the period between 4-7 thousand years was only 1-2c warmer then there is no way the med evil was 3-5c warmer then today. Makes NO sense.

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

Let's stay with orientation of the poles, hmmmkay?

The way I'm hearing this is the more the Earth's equatorial bulge is perpendicular to the Sun the more total energy the planet receives and therefore the greater the warmer....izzatright?

This is one of the factors that control the ice age cycles, yes. When you get less energy at the poles you have less energy to melt snow and ice and glacial start growing. The tilt of the earth's axis is more extreme(24-24.5 degree's) and in fact our planet north star is totally different at this time. On the other hand many scientist believe that the tropics where no warmer then today.

 

[sparky]

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

although posters try repeatedly, in multiple threads to do so, up to and including MIT level studies.....to no avail

so one wonders, just what , or who you're crusading for Frank?

the deniers of GW seem to think the science of it is all fear factor, green machine, some sort of plot to make $$$ by tree huggers

well, i suggest you get over it, because every iota of want ,need or fear the human race is subjetred to has been prostituted for someone's gain eventually

it doesn't make GW any less a reality.....

~S~

 

[CrusaderFrank]

earth also got more energy through a orbit that allowed more solar energy to hit the earth during this time frame, but the earth overall must of only been slightly hotter then today(1c tops) then what was once believed to be so, because you can't judge how hot the poles where for the global avg temperature. Believe me if the period between 4-7 thousand years was only 1-2c warmer then there is no way the med evil was 3-5c warmer then today. Makes NO sense.

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

Let's stay with orientation of the poles, hmmmkay?

The way I'm hearing this is the more the Earth's equatorial bulge is perpendicular to the Sun the more total energy the planet receives and therefore the greater the warmer....izzatright?

This is one of the factors that control the ice age cycles, yes. When you get less energy at the poles you have less energy to melt snow and ice and glacial start growing. The tilt of the earth's axis is more extreme(24-24.5 degree's) and in fact our planet north star is totally different at this time. On the other hand many scientist believe that the tropics where no warmer then today.

Um, that totally contradicts what we said before. If the Equator was perfectly aligned with the ecliptic, then North and South poles would receive the LEAST possible radiation but the radiation at the Equator would be at maximum...are you saying Earth becomes an ice world? What happened to the radiation at the equator?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

although posters try repeatedly, in multiple threads to do so, up to and including MIT level studies.....to no avail

so one wonders, just what , or who you're crusading for Frank?

the deniers of GW seem to think the science of it is all fear factor, green machine, some sort of plot to make $$$ by tree huggers

well, i suggest you get over it, because every iota of want ,need or fear the human race is subjetred to has been prostituted for someone's gain eventually

it doesn't make GW any less a reality.....

~S~

Take a couple minutes and locate the Theory of ManMade Global Warming for the rest of us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

although posters try repeatedly, in multiple threads to do so, up to and including MIT level studies.....to no avail

so one wonders, just what , or who you're crusading for Frank?

the deniers of GW seem to think the science of it is all fear factor, green machine, some sort of plot to make $$$ by tree huggers

well, i suggest you get over it, because every iota of want ,need or fear the human race is subjetred to has been prostituted for someone's gain eventually

it doesn't make GW any less a reality.....

~S~

You didn't read the MIT piece either right?

Well, there was no "Theory" listed there, but it was based on doubling down on their phony "Wheel of Climate Change" Model

"The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. "

See, it's all about ECONOMICS and not so much about science and don't forget, IPCC uses Climate Change to redistribute wealth.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

Let's stay with orientation of the poles, hmmmkay?

The way I'm hearing this is the more the Earth's equatorial bulge is perpendicular to the Sun the more total energy the planet receives and therefore the greater the warmer....izzatright?

This is one of the factors that control the ice age cycles, yes. When you get less energy at the poles you have less energy to melt snow and ice and glacial start growing. The tilt of the earth's axis is more extreme(24-24.5 degree's) and in fact our planet north star is totally different at this time. On the other hand many scientist believe that the tropics where no warmer then today.

Um, that totally contradicts what we said before. If the Equator was perfectly aligned with the ecliptic, then North and South poles would receive the LEAST possible radiation but the radiation at the Equator would be at maximum...are you saying Earth becomes an ice world? What happened to the radiation at the equator?

Solar energy heats the surface within the tropics through direct alinement of the sun within 20 degree's north or south. What this does is the solar energy that warms the earth hits the tropics throughout the year more directly. Within the tropics the energy only has to go through one "earth atmosphere" and it is directed at it, which means more energy to heat the surface. At the poles it is the opposite and the solar energy is forced to be more spreaded out as the angle of the earth(sphere) spreads the solar energy out and also the energy has to go through at a much lower angle, which means the solar energy has to go through what accounts to going through more "earth Atmospheres". When you get a more extreme angle the poles are pointed more towards the sun and get more direct energy. Less ice and forces are planet into a interglacial.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is one of the factors that control the ice age cycles, yes. When you get less energy at the poles you have less energy to melt snow and ice and glacial start growing. The tilt of the earth's axis is more extreme(24-24.5 degree's) and in fact our planet north star is totally different at this time. On the other hand many scientist believe that the tropics where no warmer then today.

Um, that totally contradicts what we said before. If the Equator was perfectly aligned with the ecliptic, then North and South poles would receive the LEAST possible radiation but the radiation at the Equator would be at maximum...are you saying Earth becomes an ice world? What happened to the radiation at the equator?

Solar energy heats the surface within the tropics through direct alinement of the sun within 20 degree's north or south. What this does is the solar energy that warms the earth hits the tropics throughout the year more directly. Within the tropics the energy only has to go through one "earth atmosphere" and it is directed at it, which means more energy to heat the surface. At the poles it is the opposite and the solar energy is forced to be more spreaded out as the angle of the earth(sphere) spreads the solar energy out and also the energy has to go through at a much lower angle, which means the solar energy has to go through what accounts to going through more "earth Atmospheres". When you get a more extreme angle the poles are pointed more towards the sun and get more direct energy. Less ice and forces are planet into a interglacial.

Right and if the Earth poles are perpendicular to the ecliptic then Earth at the Equator presents the LEAST atmosphere and therefore would receive the MOST energy so you'd have a planet with 150 degree temperatures at the Equator and ice world at the poles

 

[Flopper]

I would offer a bet on this, but I wil be 142 when it comes to collect.

Your statement epitomizes why no wide spread changes will occur. Very few people care what happens to the earth in 142 years. Even if it were 50 years, there would be little support. Most of the world's population will be gone in 50 years. The needed changes will occur when it makes good economic sense. However since long term planning for most large corporations is about 5 years, any expenditures to fight global warming is seen as a distraction from what's really important, next quarters profits.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Um, that totally contradicts what we said before. If the Equator was perfectly aligned with the ecliptic, then North and South poles would receive the LEAST possible radiation but the radiation at the Equator would be at maximum...are you saying Earth becomes an ice world? What happened to the radiation at the equator?

Solar energy heats the surface within the tropics through direct alinement of the sun within 20 degree's north or south. What this does is the solar energy that warms the earth hits the tropics throughout the year more directly. Within the tropics the energy only has to go through one "earth atmosphere" and it is directed at it, which means more energy to heat the surface. At the poles it is the opposite and the solar energy is forced to be more spreaded out as the angle of the earth(sphere) spreads the solar energy out and also the energy has to go through at a much lower angle, which means the solar energy has to go through what accounts to going through more "earth Atmospheres". When you get a more extreme angle the poles are pointed more towards the sun and get more direct energy. Less ice and forces are planet into a interglacial.

Right and if the Earth poles are perpendicular to the ecliptic then Earth at the Equator presents the LEAST atmosphere and therefore would receive the MOST energy so you'd have a planet with 150 degree temperatures at the Equator and ice world at the poles

Besides the fact that the earth has something called hadley cells that transport heat from the equator to the poles. So the equator wouldn't get that hot.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

although posters try repeatedly, in multiple threads to do so, up to and including MIT level studies.....to no avail

so one wonders, just what , or who you're crusading for Frank?

the deniers of GW seem to think the science of it is all fear factor, green machine, some sort of plot to make $$$ by tree huggers

well, i suggest you get over it, because every iota of want ,need or fear the human race is subjetred to has been prostituted for someone's gain eventually

it doesn't make GW any less a reality.....

~S~

Libberish to English translation:

"Give up. We're getting tired of being resisted. Surrender now and we'll go easy on you and feed you to the compost heap last."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry, its just that I confused when things aren't explained well.

although posters try repeatedly, in multiple threads to do so, up to and including MIT level studies.....to no avail

so one wonders, just what , or who you're crusading for Frank?

the deniers of GW seem to think the science of it is all fear factor, green machine, some sort of plot to make $$$ by tree huggers

well, i suggest you get over it, because every iota of want ,need or fear the human race is subjetred to has been prostituted for someone's gain eventually

it doesn't make GW any less a reality.....

~S~

Libberish to English translation:

"Give up. We're getting tired of being resisted. Surrender now and we'll go easy on you and feed you to the compost heap last."

But they won't state what this "theory" is. We have to infer that they are now claiming that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 7 degrees...but of course, they will never say it.

30 years from now, people interviewing real scientists will ask how their universities got duped by the biggest scientific fraud in history and the answer will be "for the money"

 

[Big Fitz]

although posters try repeatedly, in multiple threads to do so, up to and including MIT level studies.....to no avail

so one wonders, just what , or who you're crusading for Frank?

the deniers of GW seem to think the science of it is all fear factor, green machine, some sort of plot to make $$$ by tree huggers

well, i suggest you get over it, because every iota of want ,need or fear the human race is subjetred to has been prostituted for someone's gain eventually

it doesn't make GW any less a reality.....

~S~

Libberish to English translation:

"Give up. We're getting tired of being resisted. Surrender now and we'll go easy on you and feed you to the compost heap last."

But they won't state what this "theory" is. We have to infer that they are now claiming that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 7 degrees...but of course, they will never say it.

30 years from now, people interviewing real scientists will ask how their universities got duped by the biggest scientific fraud in history and the answer will be "for the money"

always has been the case.