Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[mamooth]

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?

Says the WUWT troll who came in here raving about "CAGW" and implying there was a conspiracy to ignore all non-greenhouse-gas related research.

Did you really think we haven't seen dishonest concern troll routines before? You're just angry because nobody fell for it. That's right, you're just a "concerned citizen". One using WUWT lingo. And when you "want information", instead of looking for it on the internet like a normal person, you come to a message board and demand people educate you. Yeah, that's convincing.

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

That's just dumb, being that heat and drought are causing starvation now, while that ice age is at least 20,000 years away. Your logic is like saying that I should run my furnace full blast all summer long, because winter will eventually arrive.

 

[SixFoot]

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?

Says the WUWT troll who came in here raving about "CAGW" and implying there was a conspiracy to ignore all non-greenhouse-gas related research.

Did you really think we haven't seen dishonest concern troll routines before? You're just angry because nobody fell for it. That's right, you're just a "concerned citizen". One using WUWT lingo. And when you "want information", instead of looking for it on the internet like a normal person, you come to a message board and demand people educate you. Yeah, that's convincing.

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

That's just dumb, being that heat and drought are causing starvation now, while that ice age is at least 20,000 years away. Your logic is like saying that I should run my furnace full blast all summer long, because winter will eventually arrive.

My logic comes from years of experience in farming. Perhaps you just didn't catch the full meaning of my statement/opinion.

 

[mamooth]

So your farming experience tells you to choose heat and drought soon so it won't freeze in 20,000 years?

 

[jc456]

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?

Says the WUWT troll who came in here raving about "CAGW" and implying there was a conspiracy to ignore all non-greenhouse-gas related research.

Did you really think we haven't seen dishonest concern troll routines before? You're just angry because nobody fell for it. That's right, you're just a "concerned citizen". One using WUWT lingo. And when you "want information", instead of looking for it on the internet like a normal person, you come to a message board and demand people educate you. Yeah, that's convincing.

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

That's just dumb, being that heat and drought are causing starvation now, while that ice age is at least 20,000 years away. Your logic is like saying that I should run my furnace full blast all summer long, because winter will eventually arrive.

Naw we get to watch you on an almost daily basis post your nonsense. And NONSENSE is what it is, make no MISTAKE!

 

[SixFoot]

So your farming experience tells you to choose heat and drought soon so it won't freeze in 20,000 years?

I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Post count is not important to me so please give me something with subsistence and worthy of a reply to prevent either of us from wasting our time.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Not dishonest at all. One of my tools is System Analysis and a system response to stimulus is either Overdamped, Underdamped or Oscillatory. When you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.

Those are charateristic responses of various systems to a step input in some critical variable.. Which one LOOKS like every temperature projection ever produced from a climate model? ACTUALLY -- that type of response only occurs in the simplest of systems. Which tells you something about the construction of "climate models" The response to miminal CO2 trigger event is MORE likely to ACTUALLY look more like the graph in lower right if the Earth has a death wish..

But in simple terms when you have models that use a SINGLE INVARIANT Climate Sensitivity and overstated POSITIVE feedbacks -- you GET simple results. And almost certainly they are wrong.

If it is not RUNAWAY WARMING --- show me ANY "climate model" output that does not exponentially MULTIPLY into the future..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- For closed loop systems like the Earth's Climate (not referring to a closed atmos, just the appearance of feedback elements in the process) if your response to stimuli DOESN'T exhibit some kind of natural ringing or "natural resonance" --- It's a dead giveaway that the model is too damn simplistic..

The middle TOP curve in my chart above is by FAR the most likely system type output for a "trigger event" on CO2 warming.. There is a lot "forensics" in looking at models and model behaviour. And it all stems from the Systems knowledge you can glean about "what's in the black box" that you are modeling. So just by looking at general characteristics of an unknown systems response to step functions, ramps and other common stimulus -- you can tell a lot about what is "in the box" and maybe MORE IMPORTANTLY -- what SHOULD BE "in the box"...

 

[mamooth]

When you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.

You're assuming that water vapor positive feedback goes on forever, instead of being a short-term factor. That's an incorrect assumption, hence your results are invalid.

Why it doesn't go on forever ... that's rather complicated, and somewhat beyond the scope here.

Sugiyama 2005 is a very mathematical treatment of it.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/sugiyama_etal_2005.pdf

And Goldblatt 2012 is somewhat less technical.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1593.pdf

 

[jc456]

When you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.

You're assuming that water vapor positive feedback goes on forever, instead of being a short-term factor. That's an incorrect assumption, hence your results are invalid.

Why it doesn't go on forever ... that's rather complicated, and somewhat beyond the scope here.

Sugiyama 2005 is a very mathematical treatment of it.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/sugiyama_etal_2005.pdf

And Goldblatt 2012 is somewhat less technical.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1593.pdf

From your link:

"The warming that Earth is experiencing now due to emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning is unprecedented" Where is it warming? It ain't here in North America. And if it isn't warming how can warming be on an unprecedented pace?

 

[flacaltenn]

When you claim that a system is DOMINATED by positive feedbacks (to that particular variable in question) it is Unstable and subject to asymptotic behaviour in its response.

You're assuming that water vapor positive feedback goes on forever, instead of being a short-term factor. That's an incorrect assumption, hence your results are invalid.

Why it doesn't go on forever ... that's rather complicated, and somewhat beyond the scope here.

Sugiyama 2005 is a very mathematical treatment of it.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/sugiyama_etal_2005.pdf

And Goldblatt 2012 is somewhat less technical.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1593.pdf

My analysis isn't invalid.. The published performance of most EVERY climate model is invalid. From the simple forensic analysis of it's response to the CO2 trigger. If water vapor has a time variant effect on those curves -- it would add DAMPENING to the outputs. Not in evidence at all is it?

Let's just crush your hopes of impeaching my science knowledge and make this about what folks have been told..

Runaway climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Runaway climate change or runaway global warming is hypothesized to follow atipping point in the climate system, after accumulated climate change initiates a reinforcing positive feedback. This is thought to cause climate to rapidly change until it reaches a new stable condition.[1]

The runaway greenhouse effect has several meanings. At the least extreme, this implies global warming sufficient to induce out-of-control amplifying feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates. At the most extreme, a Venus-like planet with crustal carbon baked into the atmosphere and a surface temperature of several hundred degrees, an irreversible climate state.

Between these two is the moist greenhouse, which occurs if the climate forcing is large enough to make water vapour (H2O) a major atmospheric constituent.[8] In principle, an extreme moist greenhouse might cause an instability with water vapour preventing radiation to space of all absorbed solar energy, resulting in very high surface temperature and evaporation of the ocean.[9] However, simulations indicate that no plausible human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing can cause an instability and baked-crust runaway greenhouse effect.[10]

Did ya miss ole Hansen talking about boiling oceans?? Or the hype over the "LAST CHANCE TO SAVE PLANET" at the next climate conference?
I've actually seen press releases that say we have 268 days left to save the planet.. Never heard the words "tipping point"???

Get off my couch cat...

 

[IanC]

mamooth doesnt like informative acronyms like CAGW. one of the biggest problems with AGW is that the consensus meme demands that if someone agrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to agree with all of it. and conversely if someone disagrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to disagree with all of it. obviously this is not a correct description of the range of views on global warming but it is evident in the studies that proclaim 97%

the vast majority of skeptics believe that increased CO2 causes some warming. what they dont believe is that positive feedbacks multiply that slight warming into a catastrophic runaway warming that will destroy the world as we know it. the evidence of the last 15 years has decimated the CAGW predictions. it is time to rethink the assumptions built into the models that were designed 20+ years ago when the evidence coincidentally supported the alarmist view.

food for thought. if the last 15 years has had no warming because of natural conditions in spite of CO2, and the previous 15 years before that had warming that was increased by natural conditions, then the models that were based on assumptions made from 85-99 are wrong by half if the natural conditions even out between the two time periods. jus' sayin'.

 

[flacaltenn]

mamooth doesnt like informative acronyms like CAGW. one of the biggest problems with AGW is that the consensus meme demands that if someone agrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to agree with all of it. and conversely if someone disagrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to disagree with all of it. obviously this is not a correct description of the range of views on global warming but it is evident in the studies that proclaim 97%

Very well stated. Maybe we should ask Crick and Mammy what parts of the fabled CAGW really does embarrass them...

I'm personally embarrassed by skeptics that attempt to overturn basic GreenHouse theory or claim that CO2 has no warming powers or is "tapped out". I also think it's a dangerous thing to base too much of your skepticism in "the pause".. And your arguments need to be much more comprehensive that that or a recent weather event.

But what pisses me off the ABSOLUTE most -- Is quoting old and fundamentally flawed abortions of statistics that PURPORT to claim a consensus on ALL Global Warming issues by scientists who have "settled the science".. THAT to me is use of force and coercion rather than anything close to science, logic or reason..

 

[jc456]

mamooth doesnt like informative acronyms like CAGW. one of the biggest problems with AGW is that the consensus meme demands that if someone agrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to agree with all of it. and conversely if someone disagrees with part of the CO2 theory then they are assumed to disagree with all of it. obviously this is not a correct description of the range of views on global warming but it is evident in the studies that proclaim 97%

Very well stated. Maybe we should ask Crick and Mammy what parts of the fabled CAGW really does embarrass them...

I'm personally embarrassed by skeptics that attempt to overturn basic GreenHouse theory or claim that CO2 has no warming powers or is "tapped out". I also think it's a dangerous thing to base too much of your skepticism in "the pause".. And your arguments need to be much more comprehensive that that or a recent weather event.

But what pisses me off the ABSOLUTE most -- Is quoting old and fundamentally flawed abortions of statistics that PURPORT to claim a consensus on ALL Global Warming issues by scientists who have "settled the science".. THAT to me is use of force and coercion rather than anything close to science, logic or reason..

I find it insane to perpetuate something without any evidence that would suggest any catastrophic conditions exists. And that all observed data is manipulated to achieve some confirmation in a model derived 20 years ago. This is Ethically wrong.

And then to have the warmers state they don't use proof or evidence in science. I just can't comprehend how that is at all possible. One can have a mathematical model but one should have evidence that supports it. I haven't seen any since I've been on here. I do know that September 13th I had my furnace on in Chicago when average temps ought to be in the 70s.

 

[mamooth]

My analysis isn't invalid.

Sure it is. You're out of your depth here, trying to apply controls theory to cases where it doesn't apply.

Did you really think that no AGW scientist knew what the result of endless positive feedback is? Or that they do know, and are lying about it? Either way, it's a kook conspiracy theory on your part.

Anyways, you didn't even look at the science involved. None of the deniers here would. You've got your conspiracy theories, and you're sticking with them, which means you're forced to ignore the actual science. Which, as Cook as many others so able proved, over 97% agree with. That proven fact that has you nearly pissing yourself with rage, going off into some Cook Derangement Syndrome that's a delight to behold. It's as if you think hating one man can make all the facts vanish and turn your fabricated statistics into truth.

Let's just crush your hopes of impeaching my science knowledge and make this about what folks have been told.

Your misuse of controls theory is a sort of bad engineering pretending to be science. And your various cherrypicks reek of desperation. For example, Hansen's claim was qualified with the condition that every bit of fossil fuel on the planet gets burned, not to mention that most scientists still don't agree with it. And that the "tipping point" does not refer to runaway warming, showing your further ignorance of the topic.

In the end, all that you deniers have now is shrieking alarmism. It's either the world is doomed from "CAGW" that only you can define, or there's an ice age coming. You all need to make up your minds.

 

[mamooth]

Back to the science ...

If warming was due to increased solar activity, we would have to see:
1. Stratospheric warming
2. More warming during the day
3. More warming in the summer

Instead, what we actually observe is:
1. Stratospheric cooling
2. More warming at night
3. More warming in the winter

That is, observed data shows the opposite of what you'd expect if the current warming was due to the sun. The data shows what's expected if warming is due to greenhouse gases.

That's why essentially no scientists think the warming is solar-caused, other than that single Russian guy the deniers love to reference. He called for an ice age beginning in 2014. It hasn't showed up so far.

 

[jc456]

My analysis isn't invalid.

Sure it is. You're out of your depth here, trying to apply controls theory to cases where it doesn't apply.

Did you really think that no AGW scientist knew what the result of endless positive feedback is? Or that they do know, and are lying about it? Either way, it's a kook conspiracy theory on your part.

Anyways, you didn't even look at the science involved. None of the deniers here would. You've got your conspiracy theories, and you're sticking with them, which means you're forced to ignore the actual science. Which, as Cook as many others so able proved, over 97% agree with. That proven fact that has you nearly pissing yourself with rage, going off into some Cook Derangement Syndrome that's a delight to behold. It's as if you think hating one man can make all the facts vanish and turn your fabricated statistics into truth.

Let's just crush your hopes of impeaching my science knowledge and make this about what folks have been told.

Your misuse of controls theory is a sort of bad engineering pretending to be science. And your various cherrypicks reek of desperation. For example, Hansen's claim was qualified with the condition that every bit of fossil fuel on the planet gets burned, not to mention that most scientists still don't agree with it. And that the "tipping point" does not refer to runaway warming, showing your further ignorance of the topic.

In the end, all that you deniers have now is shrieking alarmism. It's either the world is doomed from "CAGW" that only you can define, or there's an ice age coming. You all need to make up your minds.

Did you say something?

 

[flacaltenn]

My analysis isn't invalid.

Sure it is. You're out of your depth here, trying to apply controls theory to cases where it doesn't apply.

Did you really think that no AGW scientist knew what the result of endless positive feedback is? Or that they do know, and are lying about it? Either way, it's a kook conspiracy theory on your part.

Anyways, you didn't even look at the science involved. None of the deniers here would. You've got your conspiracy theories, and you're sticking with them, which means you're forced to ignore the actual science. Which, as Cook as many others so able proved, over 97% agree with. That proven fact that has you nearly pissing yourself with rage, going off into some Cook Derangement Syndrome that's a delight to behold. It's as if you think hating one man can make all the facts vanish and turn your fabricated statistics into truth.

Let's just crush your hopes of impeaching my science knowledge and make this about what folks have been told.

Your misuse of controls theory is a sort of bad engineering pretending to be science. And your various cherrypicks reek of desperation. For example, Hansen's claim was qualified with the condition that every bit of fossil fuel on the planet gets burned, not to mention that most scientists still don't agree with it. And that the "tipping point" does not refer to runaway warming, showing your further ignorance of the topic.

In the end, all that you deniers have now is shrieking alarmism. It's either the world is doomed from "CAGW" that only you can define, or there's an ice age coming. You all need to make up your minds.

There is not a process or a system where Linear/NonLinear/Stochastic Systems does not apply.. All the way from chemical/electrical signaling in nerve tissue to space flight systems. ALL climate models are using principles that MUST OBEY these mathematical constructs. And the lack of care in Modeling the climate explains a LOT about why the outputs all look similarly unstable and underdamped.

You are on ignore.. NOT because you impugned my technical expertise, but for LYING about what Hansen said and denying the basic story of your own theory.. The "tipping point" is in a mere 200 days or so according to political experts all over the world bound for the next climate conference. That is the point where REGARDLESS if man placed a cork in EVERY SMOKESTACK --- the earth would reach the trigger point BY ITSELF and proceed to destroy itself.. THAT --- is the horseshit fable that you believe is "science"..

 

[SixFoot]

Back to the science ...

If warming was due to increased solar activity, we would have to see:
1. Stratospheric warming
2. More warming during the day
3. More warming in the summer

Instead, what we actually observe is:
1. Stratospheric cooling
2. More warming at night
3. More warming in the winter

That is, observed data shows the opposite of what you'd expect if the current warming was due to the sun. The data shows what's expected if warming is due to greenhouse gases.

That's why essentially no scientists think the warming is solar-caused, other than that single Russian guy the deniers love to reference. He called for an ice age beginning in 2014. It hasn't showed up so far.

Interesting. So one "famous" guy said the arctic would be ice-free by 2014, and another "famous" guy said there would be an ice age by now.

Looks like both of them said something hyperbolic at best.


This is the kind of stuff that makes me just shake my head at every arm chair scientist on either side of the isle.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

You have some serious issues with the plots. All but one of these use 2 different sets of plot durations which give the illusion of rapid rise at the end of the data set.

Wow.. Using the Mann method of deception... If the three graphs were plotted in the 300 year time spans the massive spike at the end would not exist. Now why would someone create a spike where one should not exist? Why would they do that? When someone uses two time spans (ie: 300 year plots in reconstructions and then splice 25 year time spans onto the end) its far worse than disingenuous.

I find it rather funny that so many use the Mann method.

 

[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.

Keep quoting wiki.... Garbage!