Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[mamooth]

Nice try Sylvester.. CO2 warming is an impedance to surface cooling, not a heat source. So it is INDEPENDENT of solar input flux. It will raise thermal equilibrium by approximately the same amount REGARDLESS of the state of the sun.. So if the Atmos reached those levels before, the trigger condition for your imagined "thermal runaway" was met -- UNLESS of course that period of time WAS a snowball earth.

You're the only one here talking about "thermal runaway". That's your imaginary theory, not mine, and I'm not obligated to defend what your voices told you I believe.

Back on planet earth, solar output was 4% lower, but there was much more CO2, so more heat was held in, so temperatures were about the same. Then CO2 levels did drop, and there was a snowball earth, which didn't thaw until CO2 levels rose again. Hence, the paleorecord confirms both ways that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

And what is this ridiculous denial of "reduced solar flux" at the poles? You think the winters there are sunny? I didn't hear BillyBob say that.

His exact words were "The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2.", post #51.

What I heard him say was that the effect of spectral shifts would be magnified at the poles because of reduced atmos thickness.

"Would?" He used past tense, which means he is claiming such shifts have already happened. That's why we're asking him to show us the data. Or if he made an error in tense, he needs to state that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

BillyBob, we notice your failure to back up your claims of reduced solar flux at the poles. Or any of your claims. But then, our resident Ph.D geologist wouldn't ever back up his crazy pronouncements either.

Any first year solar physicist student understands axiel tilt and solar angle. Your premise fails to understand that the sun has to travel through approximately 1.6 or greater earth atmosphere layers to reach the poles for 80% of the year. the other 20% the thinner atmosphere allows faster heat absorption at earths surface. However the inverse is true during black body emitence phase at night where the lack of atmosphere allows faster heat loss to space. This is basic traning for all persons.

Oh, the solar scientist here also doesn't seem to know that when CO2 was at 5000 ppm, the sun was significantly cooler. Combined forcing of the sun and CO2 was similar to today. Essentially, the paleorecord proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, otherwise it would have been snowball earth. Poor Billybob, alas, doesn't understand such basics, and declares CO2 is meaningless.

You fail to recognize that earth was closer to the sun during this phase of our solar systems expansion. IF we compare W/M^2 at earths surface then and now there was greater received energy. CO2 in our atmosphere is less than a 1 to 1 LOG reference. The fantasy positive forcing has been shown nonexistent.

BillyBob, if you ever want to publish, I suggest you fix such glaring errors in your logic first. Unless you're aiming for a denier pal review junk science journal. No reputable scientists would let your twaddle pass.

Glaring errors in my logic? Is that because they do not match what people are told to believe or do they have basis in empirical evidence? This is the problem with group think of the alarmists, they pal review their own work and if someone tries to get published and do not meet the demanded point of view, they do not get published. This is precisely the problem that Climategate exposed.

So who has issues with their point of view again?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you buy Billy Bob's reduced atmospheric thickness at the poles? You might want to look into that before you shove that foot too awful far down your own gullet.

I've got a good piece of advice for you... for anyone reading these discussions: don't take Billy Bob's word for jack shit. Go check it out yourself.

Jack Shit talking Shit... You really need to look in the mirror.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you buy Billy Bob's reduced atmospheric thickness at the poles? You might want to look into that before you shove that foot too awful far down your own gullet.

<snip>.

Let me see.. All molecules have weight, The earth is spinning. Physics tells us that a spinning object will elongate if not a solid object. Simple physics..

 

[Billy_Bob]

interesting paper..

Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age. (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2012, Applied Physics Research)
At Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age Abdussamatov Applied Physics Research
Dr. Abdussamatov writes:

From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

 

[SixFoot]

Hey guys, great circle jerk based on ignorant twaddle. You reinforce each other's insanity in the most hilarious ways. Too bad you're all such clueless retards.

Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

 

[SixFoot]

I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation..

Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..

Glad to hear from BillyBob that this problem is being worked. Part of the "renaissance" of Climate Science that I'm seeing in the past year or so. Real stuff is gonna apparently gonna get more attention than the fables.

Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents


This is a small list of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"

 

[mamooth]

Any first year solar physicist student understands axiel tilt and solar angle. Your premise fails to understand that the sun has to travel through approximately 1.6 or greater earth atmosphere layers to reach the poles for 80% of the year. the other 20% the thinner atmosphere allows faster heat absorption at earths surface. However the inverse is true during black body emitence phase at night where the lack of atmosphere allows faster heat loss to space. This is basic traning for all persons.

It's a habit you have, babbling about some side tangent when you get asked a direct question. You were asked to show that "The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2." If you can't do that, just say so. It's not like you're fooling anyone by evading. Everyone is quite aware that you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

You fail to recognize that earth was closer to the sun during this phase of our solar systems expansion.

Say what?

You keep getting nuttier. Expanding solar system? Wow. And here everyone else thought earth had been in the same orbit for at least the past 4 billion years. Nice of you to set them all straight.

 

[mamooth]

This is a small list of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"

You mean the WUWT kooks? Those are the only nutters using the "CAGW" term, so those would be the only CAGW theorists around. By using that term yourself, you revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT loon, someone impossible to take seriously.

So did some crybaby go weeping to WUWT that they were getting their asses kicked here and needed reinforcements? I'm wondering why we got this recent invasion of WUWT cult morons.

 

[SixFoot]

This is a small list of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"

You mean the WUWT kooks? Those are the only nutters using the "CAGW" term, so those would be the only CAGW theorists around. By using that term yourself, you revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT loon, someone impossible to take seriously.

So did some crybaby go weeping to WUWT that they were getting their asses kicked here and needed reinforcements? I'm wondering why we got this recent invasion of WUWT cult morons.

Actually, I'm more interested in the science. If you don't have any, then feel free to carry on with the grade school attempt at riling me up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is a small list of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"

You mean the WUWT kooks? Those are the only nutters using the "CAGW" term, so those would be the only CAGW theorists around. By using that term yourself, you revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT loon, someone impossible to take seriously.

So did some crybaby go weeping to WUWT that they were getting their asses kicked here and needed reinforcements? I'm wondering why we got this recent invasion of WUWT cult morons.

You were not kicking any ones ass but your own, and from inside a wet paper bag..

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is a small list of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"

You mean the WUWT kooks? Those are the only nutters using the "CAGW" term, so those would be the only CAGW theorists around. By using that term yourself, you revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT loon, someone impossible to take seriously.

So did some crybaby go weeping to WUWT that they were getting their asses kicked here and needed reinforcements? I'm wondering why we got this recent invasion of WUWT cult morons.

Actually, I'm more interested in the science. If you don't have any, then feel free to carry on with the grade school attempt at riling me up.

they are not interested in science. they want agenda!

 

[SixFoot]

This is a small list of the things I'd like the CAGW theorists to expound. Preferably something more dynamic than "NUH UH!"

You mean the WUWT kooks? Those are the only nutters using the "CAGW" term, so those would be the only CAGW theorists around. By using that term yourself, you revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT loon, someone impossible to take seriously.

So did some crybaby go weeping to WUWT that they were getting their asses kicked here and needed reinforcements? I'm wondering why we got this recent invasion of WUWT cult morons.

Actually, I'm more interested in the science. If you don't have any, then feel free to carry on with the grade school attempt at riling me up.

they are not interested in science. they want agenda!

That's the impression I'm getting from at least one poster. Lets see where this goes.

 

[Crick]

Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents

I assume you want to discuss the relationship between these parameters and activities and global warming.

Why don't you tell us what effect you believe these various processes are having on the Earth's climate.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nice try Sylvester.. CO2 warming is an impedance to surface cooling, not a heat source. So it is INDEPENDENT of solar input flux. It will raise thermal equilibrium by approximately the same amount REGARDLESS of the state of the sun.. So if the Atmos reached those levels before, the trigger condition for your imagined "thermal runaway" was met -- UNLESS of course that period of time WAS a snowball earth.

You're the only one here talking about "thermal runaway". That's your imaginary theory, not mine, and I'm not obligated to defend what your voices told you I believe.

Really don't understand your own theory do ya? The warming power of man-spewed CO2 is insufficient to cause the "model and projected" increases of 4 to 8degC that your high priests were predicting. The warming power of CO2 alone is more in the range of 1degC per doubling and we aint even done with the FIRST "man-caused" doubling.

So YOUR theory says that Earth Climate's is a lemon and will destroy itself with positive feedbacks and other "Magic Multipliers" if ANY thermal trigger exceeds a certain amount... That's the Ju Ju dust part of the Religious Rite of Recital of the Fable. Are you really that dense? Or just being pissy? Because there's no way in HELL ANY scientist is gonna tell you that CO2 ALONE will change the surface temperature by 4 to 8degC within 100 years WITHOUT all the Magic and incantations..

Of course -- the Magic has diminished somewhat in the last couple decades but you and Bullwinky are still believing the 1990 projections of doom and destruction.. Aren't ya?

 

[SixFoot]

Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents

I assume you want to discuss the relationship between these parameters and activities and global warming.

Why don't you tell us what effect you believe these various processes are having on the Earth's climate.

I would love to discuss such topics. I'm no scientist, and I don't pretend to be. The only scientist here that I know of, is the OP in this thread.

It is you, who must try to convince me of the honest merits pertaining to the CAGW theory. I'm not convinced, but I assure you, I'm the most open-minded Conservative anyone here is likely to meet.

The only thing I'm required to do is keep my farm running and my family fed. Not to sound combative, but I'm probably more "green" than you are.

I can survive, thrive, and gain weight without electricity, grocery stores, or automobiles, due to the life and land that I've carved out of my own blood, sweat, and tears....................Can you?

Teach me something about the topics I listed, and I'll teach you how to become self-sufficient (provided you don't already know how).

 

[flacaltenn]

Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents

I assume you want to discuss the relationship between these parameters and activities and global warming.

Why don't you tell us what effect you believe these various processes are having on the Earth's climate.

Maybe SOMEONE should study them -- dontcha think? Because they are best explanations for ALL the drastic changes in the climate before man.. But today's Climate Scientists don't get paid unless they study CO2 as the primary control knob of the GreenHouse.. We've wasting a lot of brain, time and money..

 

[Crick]

Do you really think no one is studying all those factors? Vulcanism? Ocean currents? Orbital mechanics? That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you really think no one is studying all those factors? Vulcanism? Ocean currents? Orbital mechanics? That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.

NO THERE NOT! 165 billion dollars to climate science to study global warming, a political hack job. Those who do real science are being ignored for the ones who sell snake oil without basis in reality,

 

[jc456]

I believe the invention of the spectrophotometer predates 1978.

BTW, I've just started a thread in the announcements and feedback forum about the use of the invective "tard". I wouldn't have thought I'd need to explain my objections to the term but surely it's obvious that its use, no matter at whom it's aimed or what the perceived justification might be, is extraordinarily painful and offensive to a group of people who deserve our care and compassion rather than this sort of puerile abuse. It is a term I would have thought you wouldn't hear from anyone who'd completed elementary school.

I'd like to ask all of you who've taken to using the term to think about who it is you're actually hurting by doing so.

Can you say 'Tard'?