Sun Goes Blank Again, Weakest Solar Cycle in More Than a Century

[jc456]

CO2 at 280 ppm made up a significant fraction of the greenhouse warming that kept this planet 33 centigrade degrees above it's albedo-modified blackbody temperature of -18C. Increasing CO2 content by 42% is producing a non-trivial increase in the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got 0.013%.

Greenhouse effect isn't factual.. No Test validates that a warm object can be made warmer from itself by CO2. In fact, no object can warm itself from its emitted IR

 

[LaDexter]

made up a significant fraction of the greenhouse warming

This is right up there with how the FRAUD reacts when confronted = with total BS that has nothing to do with the actual CLIMATE CHANGE that happens on Earth. The atmosphere absorbs heat. All atmospheres absorb heat when hit by sunlight/starlight. The gas concentration issue Crick is blabbering about is laughable when the facts are fully understood. Different atoms and molecules react differently to different wavelengths of EMR. For CO2, it absorbs INFRARED more than other atoms/molecules, but for the entire rest of the spectrum, it is NOT SPECIAL in absorbing energy/heat. INFRARED is a tiny tiny fraction of the energy transmitted by the Sun. UV and other higher bandwidth EMR have much more energy and dwarf the INFRARED in that category. Hence, the "greenhouse gas" claim is complete BS. CO2 is not a "Greenhouse gas" as the warmers suggest, because the Sun does not just pump out INFRARED. The Sun pumps out the EM spectrum, and that is why an increase in atmospheric CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, but rather forces the Tippy Toppiest "top climate scientists" to fudge the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, has 9 times the ice of the other, is on average 50F colder, and calves/puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs. the Arctic (some 46 times the molecular H2O the Mississippi dumps in the Gulf), and the "warmers" simply refuse to answer when asked WHY...

 

[mamooth]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But the denominator is still 1,000,000. So a big change in a rounding error is still a rounding error.

So, was it your utter failure in basic math that led to your extreme weakness in basic science?

Can you show us the lab work demonstrating the temperature difference between the following 2 atmospheres:

1. 80% N2, 20%O2
2. 80% N2, 19.97% O2, .03% CO2

Thank you

 

[jc456]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

"You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups."

What is the greenhouse effect? Show the experimental data using temperature evidence that CO2 makes a warm object warmer! What's the heating capability of IR from the surface vs. UV? How many sunscreens protect against just IR instead of UV?

 

[LaDexter]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Still don't understand the difference between highly correlated raw data and fudge "corrected" with uncorrelated "corrections" - must be a requirement to be Prez of Flat Earth Society...

 

[Crick]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

"You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups."

What is the greenhouse effect? Show the experimental data using temperature evidence that CO2 makes a warm object warmer! What's the heating capability of IR from the surface vs. UV? How many sunscreens protect against just IR instead of UV?

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

"You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups."

What is the greenhouse effect? Show the experimental data using temperature evidence that CO2 makes a warm object warmer! What's the heating capability of IR from the surface vs. UV? How many sunscreens protect against just IR instead of UV?

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

Should be easy for you to supply then for us newbies. Please, supply the data requested so that I too may be as enlightened as you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

"You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups."

What is the greenhouse effect? Show the experimental data using temperature evidence that CO2 makes a warm object warmer! What's the heating capability of IR from the surface vs. UV? How many sunscreens protect against just IR instead of UV?

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

Should be easy for you to supply then for us newbies. Please, supply the data requested so that I too may be as enlightened as you.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Done.

 

[jc456]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

"You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups."

What is the greenhouse effect? Show the experimental data using temperature evidence that CO2 makes a warm object warmer! What's the heating capability of IR from the surface vs. UV? How many sunscreens protect against just IR instead of UV?

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

Three crick, three. In that time zero evidence of greenhouse effect. Zero! Again, for greenhouse effect, one must have surface heat return to the surface. Period. Never happens. Never shown to happen. Post up one experiment showing temperatures increase with CO2. Failed every time. Every time I.

 

[jc456]

Why do you keep lying outright about the satellite and balloon data, which both show strong warming?

Don't worry, I can answer that. The only way you can support your fraud is by lying about everything.

You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

"You also fail hilariously at understanding the basics of the greenhouse effect. You're completely ignorant of this topic, so you shouldn't be bothering the grownups."

What is the greenhouse effect? Show the experimental data using temperature evidence that CO2 makes a warm object warmer! What's the heating capability of IR from the surface vs. UV? How many sunscreens protect against just IR instead of UV?

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

How many years have you been posting on this board? And you STILL have to ask for an explanation of the greenhouse effect? Fer crisssakes dude, get a brain then get a life, cause you got neither 'round these parts.

Should be easy for you to supply then for us newbies. Please, supply the data requested so that I too may be as enlightened as you.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Done.

Post the piece that states temperature?

 

[flacaltenn]

CO2 at 280 ppm made up a significant fraction of the greenhouse warming that kept this planet 33 centigrade degrees above it's albedo-modified blackbody temperature of -18C. Increasing CO2 content by 42% is producing a non-trivial increase in the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got 0.013%.

Greenhouse effect isn't factual.. No Test validates that a warm object can be made warmer from itself by CO2. In fact, no object can warm itself from its emitted IR

The surface is ALWAYS in net loss. Heat going to space. An atmosphere is not "warming itself". It is simply SLOWING the rate of loss of heat to the sky.. You need to be a LOT more specific -- if you have a SERIOUS objection to well accepted explanations like the GreenHouse.

And why does EVERY thread in this forum end up with the topic hijacked. If you have basic issues with why you're not an instant popsicle -- start a thread for that..

 

[Crick]

The surface is ALWAYS in net loss. Heat going to space. An atmosphere is not "warming itself". It is simply SLOWING the rate of loss of heat to the sky.. You need to be a LOT more specific -- if you have a SERIOUS objection to well accepted explanations like the GreenHouse.

And why does EVERY thread in this forum end up with the topic hijacked. If you have basic issues with why you're not an instant popsicle -- start a thread for that..

AS I've pointed out, disagreement on fundamentals, like whether or not a greenhouse effect exists, whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas, make it difficult to discuss the 'finer' details.

And I don't think I'm the one that initiall hijacked this thread.

 

[Old Rocks]

To return to the topic.

The decrease in solar energy, by every thing that I have read, should we go full maunder minimum, will still be less than the increase from the heat retained by the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. So, all that will happen, is that there will be a decrease in the acceleration rate for the time that the minimum is present. And when it ceases, as it has in the past, Katy bar the door.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 at 280 ppm made up a significant fraction of the greenhouse warming that kept this planet 33 centigrade degrees above it's albedo-modified blackbody temperature of -18C. Increasing CO2 content by 42% is producing a non-trivial increase in the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got 0.013%.

Greenhouse effect isn't factual.. No Test validates that a warm object can be made warmer from itself by CO2. In fact, no object can warm itself from its emitted IR

The surface is ALWAYS in net loss. Heat going to space. An atmosphere is not "warming itself". It is simply SLOWING the rate of loss of heat to the sky.. You need to be a LOT more specific -- if you have a SERIOUS objection to well accepted explanations like the GreenHouse.

And why does EVERY thread in this forum end up with the topic hijacked. If you have basic issues with why you're not an instant popsicle -- start a thread for that..

The surface is ALWAYS in net loss. Heat going to space. An atmosphere is not "warming itself". It is simply SLOWING the rate of loss of heat to the sky..

I tried to explain slowing the loss of heat to jc yesterday, he thought I was explaining magic.

 

[flacaltenn]

To return to the topic.

The decrease in solar energy, by every thing that I have read, should we go full maunder minimum, will still be less than the increase from the heat retained by the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. So, all that will happen, is that there will be a decrease in the acceleration rate for the time that the minimum is present. And when it ceases, as it has in the past, Katy bar the door.

Well -- if count the total temperature rise since the LAST Maunder Minimum -- THEN you start seeing a "climate time scale" type pattern. Which makes the GW "signature" less dominant than it's been advertised.

It's there Roxie.. But the imagined accelerations, irreversible triggers and doomsday predictions are on hold. We will have LONG weaned off of carbon energy before any "trigger" is pulled.

And a good Solar minimum will PERMANENTLY remove a LOT of heat storage from the oceans. Which will retard the overall "progress" of about 1.2degC/ CO2 doubling..

 

[Crick]

How much was TSI down from the long term average during the Maunder Minimum?

From Wikipedia's article on the Maunder Minimum we have:

Little Ice Age

Comparison of group sunspot numbers (top), Central England Temperature (CET) observations (middle) and reconstructions and modeling of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures (NHT). The CET in red are summer averages (for June, July and August) and in blue winter averages (for December of previous year, January and February). NHT in grey is the distribution from basket of paleoclimate reconstructions (darker grey showing higher probability values) and in red are from model simulations that account for solar and volcanic variations. By way of comparison, on the same scales the anomaly for modern data (after 31 December 1999) for summer CET is +0.65oC, for winter CET is +1.34oC, and for NHT is +1.08oC. Sunspot data are as in supplementary data to and Central England Temperature data are as published by the UK Met Office The NHT data are described in box TS.5, Figure 1 of the IPCC AR5 report of Working Group 1.

The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still controversial, as no convincing mechanism for the solar activity to produce cold temperatures has been proposed, and the current best hypothesis for the cause of the Little Ice Age is that it was the result of volcanic action. The onset of the Little Ice Age also occurred well before the beginning of the Maunder minimum.

The correlation between low sunspot activity and cold winters in England has recently been analyzed using the longest existing surface temperature record, the Central England Temperature record. They emphasize that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters, and not a global effect. A potential explanation of this has been offered by observations by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment, which suggest that solar UV output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle than scientists had previously thought. In 2011, an article was published in the Nature Geoscience journal that uses a climate model with stratospheric layers and the SORCE data to tie low solar activity to jet stream behavior and mild winters in some places (southern Europe and Canada/Greenland) and colder winters in others (northern Europe and the United States). In Europe, examples of very cold winters are 1683-84, 1694–95, and thewinter of 1708–09.

Note that the term "Little Ice Age" applied to the Maunder minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-84, but the winter just two years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different from those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.

 

[Old Rocks]

To return to the topic.

The decrease in solar energy, by every thing that I have read, should we go full maunder minimum, will still be less than the increase from the heat retained by the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. So, all that will happen, is that there will be a decrease in the acceleration rate for the time that the minimum is present. And when it ceases, as it has in the past, Katy bar the door.

Well -- if count the total temperature rise since the LAST Maunder Minimum -- THEN you start seeing a "climate time scale" type pattern. Which makes the GW "signature" less dominant than it's been advertised.

It's there Roxie.. But the imagined accelerations, irreversible triggers and doomsday predictions are on hold. We will have LONG weaned off of carbon energy before any "trigger" is pulled.

And a good Solar minimum will PERMANENTLY remove a LOT of heat storage from the oceans. Which will retard the overall "progress" of about 1.2degC/ CO2 doubling..

Given that we saw an increase in the neighborhood of 1 C in 2015, and we were no where near the doubling, 560 ppm of CO2, I think your estimate is way low. And most of the increase has occurred in the last 30 years.

 

[Crick]

And a good Solar minimum will PERMANENTLY remove a LOT of heat storage from the oceans.

Care to explain that?

 

[flacaltenn]

To return to the topic.

The decrease in solar energy, by every thing that I have read, should we go full maunder minimum, will still be less than the increase from the heat retained by the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. So, all that will happen, is that there will be a decrease in the acceleration rate for the time that the minimum is present. And when it ceases, as it has in the past, Katy bar the door.

Well -- if count the total temperature rise since the LAST Maunder Minimum -- THEN you start seeing a "climate time scale" type pattern. Which makes the GW "signature" less dominant than it's been advertised.

It's there Roxie.. But the imagined accelerations, irreversible triggers and doomsday predictions are on hold. We will have LONG weaned off of carbon energy before any "trigger" is pulled.

And a good Solar minimum will PERMANENTLY remove a LOT of heat storage from the oceans. Which will retard the overall "progress" of about 1.2degC/ CO2 doubling..

Given that we saw an increase in the neighborhood of 1 C in 2015, and we were no where near the doubling, 560 ppm of CO2, I think your estimate is way low. And most of the increase has occurred in the last 30 years.

When you quote YEARLY peak anomalies, you are missing the "climate trend". If CO2 is 35% to 50% of that OBSERVED change --- that principle estimate from chemistry and physics is RIGHT ON... And MUCH more accurate than the exaggerated hype that made GW such a big deal in the first place.


Comparison of group sunspot numbers (top), Central England Temperature (CET) observations (middle) and reconstructions and modeling of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures (NHT). The CET in red are summer averages (for June, July and August) and in blue winter averages (for December of previous