Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Sunsettommy]

LOL Silly Billy, you are a liar, worse even than Trump. There is no misinterpretation of your ignorance of science, nor your constant pulling of 'stinky fact' out of your ample ass. We know how the earth warms and cools, and we know that right now it is rapidly warming due to the GHGs that we have and are putting into the atmosphere.

UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Ha ha ha, what a pathetic claim since the satellite data doesn't show how much is natural and how much is CO2 warm forced. It is simply a composite of data placed into chart form.

The chart shows it has not been warming for the last 20 years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Look, Silly, that was your source. And they clearly stated that the reduction in UV by the sun would only slow the warming a bit. Deal with it yourself.

We are past 410 ppm CO2 and 1850 ppb CH4. Normal would be 280 ppm of CO2 and about 700 ppb of CH4. So we are committed to a rapid warming for centuries.

You should drop CH4 since its postulated warm forcing contribution is tiny from the start and rapidly goes downhill.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate

Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.

Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate

Silly Billy, your own source says you are full of shit. The scientists are predicting that it might slow the warming down a bit. That might give us a bit more breathing space, but not much. And the reduction is in the ultraviolet range, they do not give a figure for the reduction of the TSI. I suspect it is far less than that of the UV.

LOL

You and never doing the math...Do you ever check to see if what they say and what the evidence says are in concert? Tell me moron, which is more important as to energy that the earth can absorb?

Again you took the razor sharp scissor SKS talking points and ran with them...

Old Rocks doesn't seem to realize that there is little warm forcing power left to squeeze out of CO2, most of it was set in 500 million years ago when it was at the estimated 7,000 ppm level.

Here are but two of many published science papers showing low to very low CO2 sensitivity in a doubling of CO2:

Idso, 1998 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)

Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming.

and,

Holmes, 2018 (2XCO2 = -0.03°C)

Calculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03% [300 ppm]: [formula found in text] Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06% [600 ppm] ≈ 288.11 K. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ≈ 288.14 – 288.11 ≈ – 0.03 K.
The change would in fact be extremely small and difficult to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports, and also probably of the opposite sign [cooling]. Even that small number would likely be a maximum change, since if fossil fuels are burned to create the emitted CO2, then atmospheric O2 will also be consumed, reducing that gas in the atmosphere – and offsetting any temperature change generated by the extra CO2. This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere, even before any allowance is made for the consumption of atmospheric O2.

Many more HERE

And the empirically seen and documented effect is 0.2 deg C or less. Its amazing to me that they still tout their grossly failed and flawed modeling.

 

[Crick]

Are you suggesting that the average outcome of all CO2 doubling studies is in that range? I didn't think so. They call that "cherry picking" Bob. By the way, are you still claiming that the Meteorology 101 class you took at your local junior college granted you a degree in atmospheric physics?

 

[SSDD]

Are you suggesting that the average outcome of all CO2 doubling studies is in that range? I didn't think so. They call that "cherry picking" Bob. By the way, are you still claiming that the Meteorology 101 class you took at your local junior college granted you a degree in atmospheric physics?

Show us a single piece of observed, measured, experimental data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one... Can't do it can you? You wish you could, but you can't....and that is the cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis...imagine, a hypothesis upon which the very cornerstone is not supported by a single piece of observed, measured data...and you are a big enough dupe to believe in it.

 

[Crick]

It was done a hundred years ago and a thousand times since. The problem isn't the evidence and data available to me, the problem is your refusal to accept anything that you don't want to accept. Your concepts of fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer are the musings of a psychopath. You're an idiot and a dozen people here have shown it to you (and the rest of the USMB audience) over and over and over again. That you persist is simply evidence of your personal issues there's no need to get into in this forum. Perhaps USMB could start an Abnormal Psychology board...

 

[whitehall]

The sun is an anomaly in the blackness and frigid norm of the known universe. An entire species of sub-humans existed for thousands of years during a burp in the sun's energy when the geographical area we know as New York was under a hundred foot glacier. The point is that the current human footprint on earth is a fragile drop in the ocean of geologic time. The earth may be at the peak of the warming trend at the end of the last ice age 40,000 years ago and we should enjoy the concept but somehow there is a faction of mostly American left wingers who can't enjoy a warm day unless they can create a political and economic extortion scam out of it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It was done a hundred years ago and a thousand times since. The problem isn't the evidence and data available to me, the problem is your refusal to accept anything that you don't want to accept. Your concepts of fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer are the musings of a psychopath. You're an idiot and a dozen people here have shown it to you (and the rest of the USMB audience) over and over and over again. That you persist is simply evidence of your personal issues there's no need to get into in this forum. Perhaps USMB could start an Abnormal Psychology board...

Translation: I can't answer a science based question, because I am too busy ranting with name calling and ugly insinuations.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate

Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.

Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate

Silly Billy, your own source says you are full of shit. The scientists are predicting that it might slow the warming down a bit. That might give us a bit more breathing space, but not much. And the reduction is in the ultraviolet range, they do not give a figure for the reduction of the TSI. I suspect it is far less than that of the UV.

LOL

You and never doing the math...Do you ever check to see if what they say and what the evidence says are in concert? Tell me moron, which is more important as to energy that the earth can absorb?

Again you took the razor sharp scissor SKS talking points and ran with them...

Old Rocks doesn't seem to realize that there is little warm forcing power left to squeeze out of CO2, most of it was set in 500 million years ago when it was at the estimated 7,000 ppm level.

Here are but two of many published science papers showing low to very low CO2 sensitivity in a doubling of CO2:

Idso, 1998 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)

Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming.

and,

Holmes, 2018 (2XCO2 = -0.03°C)

Calculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03% [300 ppm]: [formula found in text] Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06% [600 ppm] ≈ 288.11 K. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ≈ 288.14 – 288.11 ≈ – 0.03 K.
The change would in fact be extremely small and difficult to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports, and also probably of the opposite sign [cooling]. Even that small number would likely be a maximum change, since if fossil fuels are burned to create the emitted CO2, then atmospheric O2 will also be consumed, reducing that gas in the atmosphere – and offsetting any temperature change generated by the extra CO2. This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere, even before any allowance is made for the consumption of atmospheric O2.

Many more HERE

The Holmes paper really put things into perspective and it pretty much shows CO2 has no power over its own to do anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Are you suggesting that the average outcome of all CO2 doubling studies is in that range? I didn't think so. They call that "cherry picking" Bob. By the way, are you still claiming that the Meteorology 101 class you took at your local junior college granted you a degree in atmospheric physics?

They have been trending downward for years now, CO2 doubling to 560 ppm postulated warm forcing effect is becoming smaller and smaller as people learn more and more about it.

I have many published science papers showing the much lower estimates than what it was back in year 2000 or so. Lets face it, the CO2 effect has been much overblown and the warming trend since 1979 are mostly caused by El-Nino's.

The collective science is more and more saying that CO2 has a tiny warm forcing left at the 400 ppm level, CH4 is practically irrelevant at the 1865 ppb level.

 

[SSDD]

It was done a hundred years ago and a thousand times since. .

If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...alas, all you can seem to do is claim that there is a great deal of data and that the experiment has been done and recorded thousands of times...you don't seem to be able to bring any of it here...

I don't blame you...last time you tried, all you managed to do was show how low your threshold for "evidence" actually was and that what you believed was evidence was, in fact, not. Don't guess you would want to have that happen again...SO..you just make claims that you drag out of your ass which are not based on any sort of observation or measurement and claim that the problem is someone else rather than your own belief in "science" that does not exist.

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL Silly Billy, you are a liar, worse even than Trump. There is no misinterpretation of your ignorance of science, nor your constant pulling of 'stinky fact' out of your ample ass. We know how the earth warms and cools, and we know that right now it is rapidly warming due to the GHGs that we have and are putting into the atmosphere.

UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Your reply to his post 21, makes clear that you have no idea how weather works. The chart you posted actually help destroy the AGW conjecture, but your ignorance about it is why you did it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And today the paradoxical presentation is about to deliver a very cold winter to the Northern Hemisphere...

A forming La Niña, a cold AMO, PDO, APO and other long term oscillations, with a sun that is entering what could be a very long minimum and very low solar output. All three to converge on the Earth as it has now passed 23.6 oblique axis tilt which is known as the tipping point for glaciation in Milankovitch cycles.

All the items that can effect glacial cycles are present... All we need is one good kick by a volcanic eruption..

 

[Billy_Bob]

With record cold being set in the polar regions and above theoretical maximum cooling taking place in Antarctica its time to revisit why the polar lows are being displaced. Why the atmosphere above the poles has thinned and why we see theoretical maximum cooling at the surface...

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

 

[skookerasbil]

Dr Judith Curry....now retired due to the relentless fakery coming from the climate change industry....has been saying it for 10 years. Nobody knows dick for certain about what is driving the climate. Sure as shit, she's making the "real scientists" look st00pid!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nothing like a ground blizzard earlier today on I-80 near Cheyenne, WY.. And not much is moving tonight in 65mph cross winds.. Got to love wind zone 5-6 areas...

 

[Crick]

From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...at-selected-Antarctic-stations_fig2_249612281


Also see: NASA - Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming

 

[SSDD]

Still can't read a graph i see.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...at-selected-Antarctic-stations_fig2_249612281


Also see: NASA - Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming

Having trouble with graphing still...?? Even NASA doesn't deny the cooling IS happening.

 

[Wuwei]

If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere

I think it would be difficult because any measurements would be in very old archives. I certainly wouldn't waste time in searching for it because with modern science it is quite logical to deduce it from the conservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. It is simple:

Absorption of IR means the loss of IR energy to the gas in a random fashion. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the IR energy loss. Gain of random energy of a gas is thermal energy. One can go into detail on how IR leads to increased vibratory energy of a GHG, which is very rapidly dissipated to the rest of the atmosphere, but the conservation of energy is sufficient to say that the absorbed IR increases the thermal energy.

Do you have any other ideas about the nature of the energy transfer?