The Sun's amazing role in global climate

[Dagosa]

If you want to understand Climate, please check with Judith Curry's excellent site @ JudithCurry.com

She is not a blabber mouth. She allows scientists to discuss topics on her site.

Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role

by Javier Vinos This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the polew…

judithcurry.com

Climate Etc. Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role​ curryja Nov 4 Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun's Surprising Role​ by Javier Vinos This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the poleward transport of heat are one of the main ways in which the planet's climate changes naturally. It also shows that changes in solar activity affect this transport, restoring the Sun as a major cause of global warming. Since climate models do not properly represent heat transport and the IPCC reports completely neglect this process, this new hypothesis will not be easily dismissed. I am sure that over time it will lead to a better understanding of how the climate changes naturally, and hopefully less climate hysteria. Continue reading Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role

So the other 30k sites don’t count ? Just Judy’s ? She’s more informed than NASA, the AAAS, MIT, KHU, etc.??
Why is that ?

 

[Libby von H]

If you want to understand Climate, please check with Judith Curry's excellent site @ JudithCurry.com

She is not a blabber mouth. She allows scientists to discuss topics on her site.

Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role

by Javier Vinos This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the polew…

judithcurry.com

Climate Etc. Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role​ curryja Nov 4 Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun's Surprising Role​ by Javier Vinos This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the poleward transport of heat are one of the main ways in which the planet's climate changes naturally. It also shows that changes in solar activity affect this transport, restoring the Sun as a major cause of global warming. Since climate models do not properly represent heat transport and the IPCC reports completely neglect this process, this new hypothesis will not be easily dismissed. I am sure that over time it will lead to a better understanding of how the climate changes naturally, and hopefully less climate hysteria. Continue reading Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role

I spent months and monts studying climage matters and I do admire Judith Curry.
But the real huge error in the climate BS is the models. In even the more critical and simpler disease models the very same errors are made.

"
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?"

 

[Libby von H]

So the other 30k sites don’t count ? Just Judy’s ? She’s more informed than NASA, the AAAS, MIT, KHU, etc.??
Why is that ?

Three logic errors must be pointed out here.
1) Does the fact that 30K textbooks in math say the same thing mean that quoting any single one must be wrong ?
2) It is beyond belief that you are taking the contradicitons of so many sites as PROOF that the ones you like must be right
3) Nasa and MIT both have prominent opponents of climate matters. Crazy that you don't know ths. But even crazier to think that people whose salary and career depend on hewing to the official stance would be more credible !!!!

You are a silly person. That is my reading of you. Just silly

 

[Dagosa]

Three logic errors must be pointed out here.
1) Does the fact that 30K textbooks in math say the same thing mean that quoting any single one must be wrong ?
2) It is beyond belief that you are taking the contradicitons of so many sites as PROOF that the ones you like must be right
3) Nasa and MIT both have prominent opponents of climate matters. Crazy that you don't know ths. But even crazier to think that people whose salary and career depend on hewing to the official stance would be more credible !!!!

You are a silly person. That is my reading of you. Just silly

Wrong. There are 30k PLUS accredited universities and research facilities in the world, all with science departments and ALL with credentialed scientists that are in with AGW.
You just made three paragraphs with woo woo infested made up shit. This is how you conspiracy theorist think...you do very little.

Then, you end with your little slurs that like Trump, are self inflicting accusations.

 

[ding]

Wrong. There are 30k PLUS accredited universities and research facilities in the world, all with science departments and ALL with credentialed scientists that are in with AGW.
You just made three paragraphs with woo woo infested made up shit. This is how you conspiracy theorist think...you do very little.

Then, you end with your little slurs that like Trump, are self inflicting accusations.

And they all recognize the simple physics show an instantaneous GHG effect of CO2 as 1C per doubling of CO2. Which is all you can really count on as being the impact from CO2.

 

[Dagosa]

I spent months and monts studying climage matters and I do admire Judith Curry.
But the real huge error in the climate BS is the models. In even the more critical and simpler disease models the very same errors are made.

"
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?"

Hilarious. We don’t listen to ONE GUY in science. We should evaluate thousands of GUYS who are all doing trials and experiments themselves. Deniers will type their little ideas into google, then will hang in like a leach to anyone who agrees with you....it doesn’t work that way.

 

[Dagosa]

Three logic errors must be pointed out here.
1) Does the fact that 30K textbooks in math say the same thing mean that quoting any single one must be wrong ?
2) It is beyond belief that you are taking the contradicitons of so many sites as PROOF that the ones you like must be right
3) Nasa and MIT both have prominent opponents of climate matters. Crazy that you don't know ths. But even crazier to think that people whose salary and career depend on hewing to the official stance would be more credible !!!!

You are a silly person. That is my reading of you. Just silly

Logic ? Another bailout word. You need to be educated in the field or you can’t apply logic. You’re obviously not. Jacking off for a month doesn’t make you an expert on sex. Mental masturbation is what deniers engage in.

 

[expat_panama]

And they all recognize the simple physics show an instantaneous GHG effect of CO2 as 1C per doubling of CO2. Which is all you can really count on as being the impact from CO2.

If you're saying that doubling CO2 increases temps 1C, would you also say that halving CO2 reduces temp 1C?

 

[ding]

If you're saying that doubling CO2 increases temps 1C, would you also say that halving CO2 reduces temp 1C?

Yes, that would be true. It is the pure, instantaneous GHG effect of CO2. The actual physical process of how GHG slow the transfer of energy from earth to outer space. The absorption of long wave upward infrared radiation that excites their molecules and cause them to vibrate thereby heating the surrounding atmosphere.

That is the only effect that is certain to occur. It is instantaneous.

 

[ding]

Hilarious. We don’t listen to ONE GUY in science. We should evaluate thousands of GUYS who are all doing trials and experiments themselves. Deniers will type their little ideas into google, then will hang in like a leach to anyone who agrees with you....it doesn’t work that way.

I spent more than 20 years studying the earth's paleoclimates. Their entire conversation is intentionally misleading because they don't discuss the features of the earth which affect climate. No mention whatsoever of the significance of the landmass distribution, the polar region geography, the significance of heat transport to the Arctic and the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which we currently live in.

So shut the fuck up about your so called experts.

 

[Flash]

These stupid Moon Bats, that don't know jackshit about Climate Science, think that my gas guzzling Tundra pick up truck has more effect on the climate of earth than the sun.

 

[Dagosa]

These stupid Moon Bats, that don't know jackshit about Climate Science, think that my gas guzzling Tundra pick up truck has more effect on the climate of earth than the sun.

Considering that a gas guzzling Tundra uses energy from the sun, it seems a redundant.

 

[Flash]

Considering that a gas guzzling Tundra uses energy from the sun, it seems a redundant.

Energy that was produce millions of years ago and stored up nicely to be used today.

 

[Dagosa]

Energy that was produce millions of years ago and stored up nicely to be used today.

Nicely ? It hasn’t been pretty. Considering Every major war and most others since 1900 were over fossil fuels, it seems silly to support its continued dwindling use. Why don’t you campaign for whale oil ?

 

[Flash]

Nicely ? It hasn’t been pretty. Considering Every major war and most others since 1900 were over fossil fuels, it seems silly to support its continued dwindling use. Why don’t you campaign for whale oil ?

Climte change is real but AGW is bullshit. There is no scientifically defensive proof that CO2 emissions in the amounts we see now is a greenhouse gas.

Just a stupid non scientific correlation that idiots like you quote, some shit in shit out computer models paid for by Environmental Wacko research funds and whole lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data from people and agencies we have caught lying. Hell, they have even admitted lying.

 

[Dagosa]

Climte change is real but AGW is bullshit.

You obviously having never been outside of yo mammas basement stuck in front of a tv tuned to Fix news.

 

[Dagosa]

Just a stupid non scientific correlation that idiots like you quote,

Tell us again how you’re much better informed than every science institute in the entire world, every govt and every major corporation. There is no one to back you other than the ignorant.

 

[Flash]

Tell us again how you’re much better informed than every science institute in the entire world, every govt and every major corporation. There is no one to back you other than the ignorant.

This AGW bullshit is nothing more than a sicko religion to you Libtard nutcases.

Get a life. Better yet go school and get an education so that you can learn to tell the difference between reality and bullshit.

 

[ReinyDays]

No one's mathed this yet? ...

Yes ... we can measure the Sun's output to a fairly high degree of accuracy ... 1,362.4184 W/m^2 ... however, we only measure Earth's surface temperature to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... 14 ... haha ... that's a bit of exaggeration ... we're technically using the kelvin scale and that's 287 ... three significant digits ... and that's 1,360 W/m^2 for the same accuracy ...

Indeed, the calculated difference is a tenth of a degree ... so using the 1,360 W/m^2 number is perfectly safe ... and DOES NOT CHANGE ... ever ...

Why scientists call this number the Solar Constant ... because it is indeed constant for atmospheric science purposes ...

Spoiler

Stefan-Boltzmann Equation in the form:

T = (( S x ( 1 - a )) / 4oe)^0.25 [ where T=temperature, S=Solar constant, a=albedo, o=Stefan-Boltzmann constant and e=emissivity ] ...
Using 0.3 for albedo and 1 for emissivity, then:

For S = 1,360 W/m^2, the calculated temperature is 254.54 K
For S = 1,361 W/m^2, the calculated temperature is 254.59 K
For S = 1,370 W/m^2, temperature is 255.00 K (yes, that's exact to a hundredth of a degree)

So you can see that even fairly large changes in solar output effects Earth's surface temperature just a little bit ... not that the Sun's output doesn't effect temperature, it just too little for us to measure using these cheap Walmart thermometers NOAA (and Republicans) are fond of using ...

That's the fucking SUN ... now explain why 120 ppm CO2 is more powerful that a sub-dwarf G2 star ... is common sense completely gone now? ... I showed you my math, now you show me yours ... do these 30,000 universities not have Mathematics Departments or something? ...

 

[ding]

No one's mathed this yet? ...

Yes ... we can measure the Sun's output to a fairly high degree of accuracy ... 1,362.4184 W/m^2 ... however, we only measure Earth's surface temperature to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... 14 ... haha ... that's a bit of exaggeration ... we're technically using the kelvin scale and that's 287 ... three significant digits ... and that's 1,360 W/m^2 for the same accuracy ...

Indeed, the calculated difference is a tenth of a degree ... so using the 1,360 W/m^2 number is perfectly safe ... and DOES NOT CHANGE ... ever ...

Why scientists call this number the Solar Constant ... because it is indeed constant for atmospheric science purposes ...

Spoiler

Stefan-Boltzmann Equation in the form:

T = (( S x ( 1 - a )) / 4oe)^0.25 [ where T=temperature, S=Solar constant, a=albedo, o=Stefan-Boltzmann constant and e=emissivity ] ...
Using 0.3 for albedo and 1 for emissivity, then:

For S = 1,360 W/m^2, the calculated temperature is 254.54 K
For S = 1,361 W/m^2, the calculated temperature is 254.59 K
For S = 1,370 W/m^2, temperature is 255.00 K (yes, that's exact to a hundredth of a degree)

So you can see that even fairly large changes in solar output effects Earth's surface temperature just a little bit ... not that the Sun's output doesn't effect temperature, it just too little for us to measure using these cheap Walmart thermometers NOAA (and Republicans) are fond of using ...

That's the fucking SUN ... now explain why 120 ppm CO2 is more powerful that a sub-dwarf G2 star ... is common sense completely gone now? ... I showed you my math, now you show me yours ... do these 30,000 universities not have Mathematics Departments or something? ...

Agreed. And then there is the sun's effect on wind which then affects ocean currents which then affects heat transport to the arctic and explains almost everything we see for our current landmass configuration which is what led to the transition of the greenhouse state to the icehouse state which is our current climate.