Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[Old Rocks]

Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?

Well, I don't recall telling you that.

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. Any claiming that such things haven't been examined is engaging in conspiracy talk.

Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OK, a lot of reading, but you stated that you wanted someone to show you the science. And science is not a simple one line bumper sticker.

I know its not a one liner. That's why I'm waiting to have an in depth discussion about the topics. It doesn't have to be all at once.

If you wish to have a discussion concerning the warming, you really need to have done the research concerning the science behind the warming. There are many, many discussions out there concerning this in peer reviewed literature. Even one in the PNAS that blames CFCs for the warming. None that are serious that deny the warming. That is left to morons on this board.

The physics of the warming was established before the Civil War. The first real quantification of the effects of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was done in 1896. The first continous measurement of CO2 increase in the atmosphere was done in the early '50s. There are reams of articles since this became an issue in peer reviewed journals. I know because I was first introduced to the subject in a geology class in the mid-60's. And I have watched the regression of the glaciers in the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas.

 

[Billy_Bob]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

Your postulation that GHG'S have greater forcing is BS. As the current cooling trend reenforces that link between CO2 and Temperature is not what they have been purporting. Even the IPCC and EPA have walked back their forcing multipliers to 1 - 1.7 Deg C per doubling. Given the current cooling trend the forcing actually lands at 0.0 - 0.4 deg C per doubling as water vapor is now acting as a negative forcing countering all the effects of CO2. The empirical evidence shows quite the opposite of the alarmist drivel.

 

[Old Rocks]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.

Look at the graph again. It would take us over 20,000 years, by past performance, to reach the point that the cold would begin to affect agriculture. However, the increase in heat, because of the effect it has on the Arctic Ice and atmospheric circulation, is already affecting the agriculture.

 

[Old Rocks]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

Your postulation that GHG'S have greater forcing is BS. As the current cooling trend reenforces that link between CO2 and Temperature is not what they have been purporting. Even the IPCC and EPA have walked back their forcing multipliers to 1 - 1.7 Deg C per doubling. Given the current cooling trend the forcing actually lands at 0.0 - 0.4 deg C per doubling as water vapor is now actin as a negative forcing countering all the effects of CO2.

That is not what the scientists that have studied this subject for a lifetime state. And the forcings have just started to push the temperature up. And there is no current cooling trend. August was the hottest August on record according the scientists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The physics of the warming was established before the Civil War. The first real quantification of the effects of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was done in 1896. The first continous measurement of CO2 increase in the atmosphere was done in the early '50s. There are reams of articles since this became an issue in peer reviewed journals. I know because I was first introduced to the subject in a geology class in the mid-60's. And I have watched the regression of the glaciers in the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas.

All of which is now trending the other way. This is a cyclical event. it has happened before and it will happen again. There are areas of New forming glaciation in the high mountains of the Rockies and other US ranges. The last sixty years has been a natural warming cycle and solar ramp up. The next sixty years as the solar cycles cools will see the return of many of the things you cite lost. Even the permafrost in the arctic has made a major comeback in the last three years.

I do not doubt what you observed what i doubt is the mechanism you claim made it disappear.

I am still waiting for someone to show how at 7,000ppm the earth glaciated, warmed, glaciated, warmed thousands of times despite the level of CO2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

Your postulation that GHG'S have greater forcing is BS. As the current cooling trend reenforces that link between CO2 and Temperature is not what they have been purporting. Even the IPCC and EPA have walked back their forcing multipliers to 1 - 1.7 Deg C per doubling. Given the current cooling trend the forcing actually lands at 0.0 - 0.4 deg C per doubling as water vapor is now actin as a negative forcing countering all the effects of CO2.

That is not what the scientists that have studied this subject for a lifetime state. And the forcings have just started to push the temperature up. And there is no current cooling trend. August was the hottest August on record according the scientists.

The top of a sinodal wave giving the illusion of long durational increase. Again last August according to the Northern Hemispheres CRN shows cooling and no record. Only the adjusted GISS/NASA data makes that assertion even despite the unadjusted data showing quite the opposite.

 

[SixFoot]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.

Look at the graph again. It would take us over 20,000 years, by past performance, to reach the point that the cold would begin to affect agriculture. However, the increase in heat, because of the effect it has on the Arctic Ice and atmospheric circulation, is already affecting the agriculture.

The warmer it gets, the more food I produce. Carbon dioxide is food for my crops and trees. If the weather doesn't go below freezing, I don't have to worry about the eggs in the coop freezing and cracking open. Its also cheaper to cool my house than it is to heat it if I use electricity. Warmer winters would be a good thing for energy demands. But all that aside, if we prevent a steady decline into an ice age for 20,000 years, I still don't see why that's a bad thing, especially if millions of square miles of land thaw out and become more livable.

The biggest question on my mind concerning global warming is, "why should I care?"

 

[SixFoot]

Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?

Well, I don't recall telling you that.

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. Any claiming that such things haven't been examined is engaging in conspiracy talk.

Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OK, a lot of reading, but you stated that you wanted someone to show you the science. And science is not a simple one line bumper sticker.

I know its not a one liner. That's why I'm waiting to have an in depth discussion about the topics. It doesn't have to be all at once.

If you wish to have a discussion concerning the warming, you really need to have done the research concerning the science behind the warming. There are many, many discussions out there concerning this in peer reviewed literature. Even one in the PNAS that blames CFCs for the warming. None that are serious that deny the warming. That is left to morons on this board.

The physics of the warming was established before the Civil War. The first real quantification of the effects of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was done in 1896. The first continous measurement of CO2 increase in the atmosphere was done in the early '50s. There are reams of articles since this became an issue in peer reviewed journals. I know because I was first introduced to the subject in a geology class in the mid-60's. And I have watched the regression of the glaciers in the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevadas.

Now why should I go research the science behind all this instead of just asking you? You're very passionate and have a lot to say about the subject, so for me, its quicker and easier just to hear what you have to say with your sources to further expound on any key points you might not have mentioned.

Questions, answers, statements, opinions, etc., all the right ingredients for an in depth conversation/debate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.

Look at the graph again. It would take us over 20,000 years, by past performance, to reach the point that the cold would begin to affect agriculture. However, the increase in heat, because of the effect it has on the Arctic Ice and atmospheric circulation, is already affecting the agriculture.

The Little Ice Age happened in 30 years and it affected crops within 5 years of its start. the first 2-5 deg C Drop can happen in as little as 3 years.

 

[Crick]

The Little Ice Age took 150 years to drop 0.5C

 

[flacaltenn]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.

Look at the graph again. It would take us over 20,000 years, by past performance, to reach the point that the cold would begin to affect agriculture. However, the increase in heat, because of the effect it has on the Arctic Ice and atmospheric circulation, is already affecting the agriculture.

Thats some mighty sloppy bullshit. Expected better than that from you. Two of those interglacials ended inlessthan 5000 yrs. With a delta in temp of close to 2degC. And you babies are pissing about 10ths of a deg now driving Climate Change. Wouldnt be surprised if the temporal resolution of those ice core readings are limiting the slopes. In fact I KNOW that they are.. The prudent reading of that data COULD suggest you might reverse ALL the 20th century warming in a matter of a couple thousand years.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Little Ice Age took 150 years to drop 0.5C

As measured by proxies that have time resolutions of a hundred years. Again for the 100th time Crick, those global hockey sticks DO NOT SHOW ACCURATE RISE AND FALL TIMES. But the I DIVIDUAL proxy evidence and AMPLE written evidence from the 18th century TOTALLY backs up what BillyBob told you about the onset being far less than a decade.

 

[Crick]

You're confused. The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850. The biggest resolution challenge is local variation. the LIA was not a clearly global event. The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.

 

[Billy_Bob]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.

Look at the graph again. It would take us over 20,000 years, by past performance, to reach the point that the cold would begin to affect agriculture. However, the increase in heat, because of the effect it has on the Arctic Ice and atmospheric circulation, is already affecting the agriculture.

Thats some mighty sloppy bullshit. Expected better than that from you. Two of those interglacials ended inlessthan 5000 yrs. With a delta in temp of close to 2degC. And you babies are pissing about 10ths of a deg now driving Climate Change. Wouldnt be surprised if the temporal resolution of those ice core readings are limiting the slopes. In fact I KNOW that they are.. The prudent reading of that data COULD suggest you might reverse ALL the 20th century warming in a matter of a couple thousand years.

Considering the warming they are talking about is just .5 deg C i would suspect that cooling of just 1 or 2 years would lay that waste. CRN shows that in just 12 years we have fallen 0.6 deg C in the northern hemisphere. I think you were being kind.

As for the scope or view of that graph it is on 1,000 year averages. there could well be increases and drops within those that are much bigger than our current rise and falls that could scare the hell out of all of us.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're confused. The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850. The biggest resolution challenge is local variation. the LIA was not a clearly global event. The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.

Love the revisionist history,, The LIA was indeed global..

 

[flacaltenn]

You're confused. The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850. The biggest resolution challenge is local variation. the LIA was not a clearly global event. The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.

Say WHAT? WHEN did I ever mention WHEN it occurred? I did mention 18th century anecdores because those are the ones im most familiar with. AND thats the middle of the period. You have no yearly records to document what happened all over the world. But there are ample INDIVIDUAL proxies from every corner of the globe and oceans that show some form of fingerprint for it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're confused. The Little Ice Age didn't take place that long ago: 1550 to 1850. The biggest resolution challenge is local variation. the LIA was not a clearly global event. The cause of the event was far more likely to be a coincidental confluence of causes than a single forcing function.

Lets clear this up for you shall we?

The little ice age started in the early 1300's and finished around1645.. roughly 380 years..

The makers of the graph pointed out that the depth of cooling is very important as it shows how close we are to glaciation. The LIA was a 5 deg F drop.. OR 2.2 Deg C IF we were in a warming world those drops would become less and less. the exact opposite is occurring.

 

[Crick]

I'd be a little more impressed with your graphic had it ANY VERTICAL SCALE

From good ol' Wikipedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1]While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeThird Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.

 

[mamooth]

I am still waiting for someone to show how at 7,000ppm the earth glaciated, warmed, glaciated, warmed thousands of times despite the level of CO2.

Thousands of times?

You're just flat out making crap up now. Like your "expanding solar system" fable. You're not a scientist in any way, as you're far too stupid and dishonest for that. You're an idiot WUWT cultist who is in way over his head.

Oh, I pointed out the sun was cooler in that era. So you've also directly lied about not getting a response. Son, drunk, stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life.

And we're _still_ waiting for you to back up your claim "The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2."

 

[mamooth]

Your better choice at this point -- rather than goin postal -- would be to admit that the BASIC PREMISE of the AGW theory that you defend -- embarrasses you. And you want to deflect and attack rather than defend the fact that you believe the Earth's climate system is defective and inherently unstable..

You just suck so badly at the science, you have to completely retreat from the real world.

That's HOW the AGWarming theory MAGNIFIES the actual warming powers of CO2 to get those headlines.. Are you denying that?

Address the issue and cut the crap..

It's either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid of you to equate positive feedbacks with "thermal runaway". Those are two entirely different things. If you can't see a difference, you have no business speaking with the grownups.