Global Cooling Theory picks up Steam

[Billy_Bob]

The sun is cooling...er, because of global warming

Yup.. It's kinda like those classic Godzilla versus Mothra showdowns. Place your bet..

What is actually not so funny is this is how most of the Alarmist drivel is show fraud. They exaggerate the cause to the extent that no one with any scientific training would fall for the butt load of crap they are spewing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The sun is cooling...er, because of global warming

Yup.. It's kinda like those classic Godzilla versus Mothra showdowns. Place your bet..

Mr. Mod, is this what Zone 2 means to you?

Please don't bring up this up on the boards. PM me or your favorite moderator. But to answer the question. It is directly relevent to the Op topic being discussed. That's what "relevent content" means..

The UK MET made a HUGE deal about how another Maunder Min wouldn't have a serious effect because of the battle between the sun and whatever is causing the current warming. It's a classic showdown.

The MET was very much wrong in their assessment. They really messed up on their math.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thought the IPCC said there was no solar forcing on the planet's climate since 1850..

They didn't.

Sure they did.. Reduced the whole run-up to solar maximum to something like 0.04w/m2 in their famous lying chart of "Forcings since 1850".. Ask CrickHam and Rocks -- they've posted it Gillions of times here.

It's a flat out fabrication. They had to redefine solar irradiance to come up with a definition that didn't make the sun a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip...

0.04 = no

who knew?

The sun isn't a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip.

This is slightly off-topic -- if you want to debate it -- start a thread.
But there has been over 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age.



The IPCC ignored the BASELINE increase in solar output and invented a new metric that has to do with all those "squiggles" you see on the chart. Essentially STRIPPED the average increase out in order to make that a low number..

Don't KNOW if it would 30%, but there are credible statements about it being about 20 to 30% of the warming forcing needed to explain our temperature blip.

Dr Muller from the BEST study and many others have spoken up and criticized the purposeful under estimation of "natural effects" in the reports. This is one specific example of outright deviousness.

 

[jon_berzerk]

given all this cooling perhaps the title should be

Global Cooling Theory picks up condensation

--LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

In the same IPCC report they said the increase in forcing required to get the observed temp change from 1850 was around 3.5W/m2.

You do the math..

 

[Old Rocks]

Thought the IPCC said there was no solar forcing on the planet's climate since 1850..

They didn't.

Sure they did.. Reduced the whole run-up to solar maximum to something like 0.04w/m2 in their famous lying chart of "Forcings since 1850".. Ask CrickHam and Rocks -- they've posted it Gillions of times here.

It's a flat out fabrication. They had to redefine solar irradiance to come up with a definition that didn't make the sun a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip...

0.04 = no

who knew?

The sun isn't a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip.

This is slightly off-topic -- if you want to debate it -- start a thread.
But there has been over 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age.



The IPCC ignored the BASELINE increase in solar output and invented a new metric that has to do with all those "squiggles" you see on the chart. Essentially STRIPPED the average increase out in order to make that a low number..

Don't KNOW if it would 30%, but there are credible statements about it being about 20 to 30% of the warming forcing needed to explain our temperature blip.

Dr Muller from the BEST study and many others have spoken up and criticized the purposeful under estimation of "natural effects" in the reports. This is one specific example of outright deviousness.

Interesting chart. Note that the peaks between 1950 and 2000 are pretty much the same. Yet the temperature for that period has increased significantly. And the GHG levels for that period have increased significantly. Given that GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, and that the TSI did not increase, what do you think was responsible for that rapid increase in the temperature rise?

 

[flacaltenn]

Thought the IPCC said there was no solar forcing on the planet's climate since 1850..

They didn't.

Sure they did.. Reduced the whole run-up to solar maximum to something like 0.04w/m2 in their famous lying chart of "Forcings since 1850".. Ask CrickHam and Rocks -- they've posted it Gillions of times here.

It's a flat out fabrication. They had to redefine solar irradiance to come up with a definition that didn't make the sun a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip...

0.04 = no

who knew?

The sun isn't a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip.

This is slightly off-topic -- if you want to debate it -- start a thread.
But there has been over 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age.



The IPCC ignored the BASELINE increase in solar output and invented a new metric that has to do with all those "squiggles" you see on the chart. Essentially STRIPPED the average increase out in order to make that a low number..

Don't KNOW if it would 30%, but there are credible statements about it being about 20 to 30% of the warming forcing needed to explain our temperature blip.

Dr Muller from the BEST study and many others have spoken up and criticized the purposeful under estimation of "natural effects" in the reports. This is one specific example of outright deviousness.

Interesting chart. Note that the peaks between 1950 and 2000 are pretty much the same. Yet the temperature for that period has increased significantly. And the GHG levels for that period have increased significantly. Given that GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, and that the TSI did not increase, what do you think was responsible for that rapid increase in the temperature rise?

Again Rocks.. New assessments from MaxPlanck and GeorgiaTech and others -- because of the pause -- have raised the topic of storage and delays. MANY papers since the pause validating everything I said about system responses to stimuli.

If you have a run-up in CO2 and you STOPPED immediately.. How long would it take the longer feedbacks to come to equilibrium. The answer is hundreds of years. No different for a solar forcing. You step it on up and leave it there and the temps could (I think will climb) for decades if not a century.

This infantile concept that the temperature output graph shape and phase has to EXACTLY match the input culprit source is sooooo yesterday..

The Earth's climate system is more complex than that..

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite on the contrary, Mr. Flacaltenn. The heat delivered by the sun is there as it is delivered. It may warm the water, and that effect lasts for as long as it takes to get out of the system. But it is not persistant in the same way that CO2 in the atmosphere is. It will not be there for decades to hundreds of years,.

 

[flacaltenn]

They didn't.

Sure they did.. Reduced the whole run-up to solar maximum to something like 0.04w/m2 in their famous lying chart of "Forcings since 1850".. Ask CrickHam and Rocks -- they've posted it Gillions of times here.

It's a flat out fabrication. They had to redefine solar irradiance to come up with a definition that didn't make the sun a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip...

0.04 = no

who knew?

The sun isn't a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip.

This is slightly off-topic -- if you want to debate it -- start a thread.
But there has been over 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age.



The IPCC ignored the BASELINE increase in solar output and invented a new metric that has to do with all those "squiggles" you see on the chart. Essentially STRIPPED the average increase out in order to make that a low number..

Don't KNOW if it would 30%, but there are credible statements about it being about 20 to 30% of the warming forcing needed to explain our temperature blip.

Dr Muller from the BEST study and many others have spoken up and criticized the purposeful under estimation of "natural effects" in the reports. This is one specific example of outright deviousness.

Interesting chart. Note that the peaks between 1950 and 2000 are pretty much the same. Yet the temperature for that period has increased significantly. And the GHG levels for that period have increased significantly. Given that GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, and that the TSI did not increase, what do you think was responsible for that rapid increase in the temperature rise?

Der, uhh, its natural! Climategate!

More of it probably is natural than previously estimated. THat's why the estimates of climate sensitivities are going way down over the past decade of science. Those magical multipliers that give CO2 it's superpowers are getting waaaay smaller..

 

[flacaltenn]

Quite on the contrary, Mr. Flacaltenn. The heat delivered by the sun is there as it is delivered. It may warm the water, and that effect lasts for as long as it takes to get out of the system. But it is not persistant in the same way that CO2 in the atmosphere is. It will not be there for decades to hundreds of years,.

Oh HELL No.. What do you think the Ocean Ate My Warming theory says. It goes into storage. To reappear at the next cyclical warm ocean pool.. May take DECADES to go to thermal equilibrium. If CO2 can have persistant effects -- so can solar forcings.

All that solar warming gets up in the atmospheric retentions thru convection and direct IR radiation. FEEDS the greenhouse gases..

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the systems angle.. If you have storage in the system. and an imbalance in forcing persists at a constant level -- that storage element will integrate the forcing. What is the integral of a step function? It is a ramp. (or in generic terms a sloping line)

Is a solar step an imbalance? Check....
Are there storage and feedbacks in the system? Check..

So it is POSSIBLE to get the system to RAMP up.. Even if the input forcing remains at a constant imbalance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thought the IPCC said there was no solar forcing on the planet's climate since 1850..

They didn't.

Sure they did.. Reduced the whole run-up to solar maximum to something like 0.04w/m2 in their famous lying chart of "Forcings since 1850".. Ask CrickHam and Rocks -- they've posted it Gillions of times here.

It's a flat out fabrication. They had to redefine solar irradiance to come up with a definition that didn't make the sun a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip...

0.04 = no

who knew?

The sun isn't a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip.

This is slightly off-topic -- if you want to debate it -- start a thread.
But there has been over 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age.



The IPCC ignored the BASELINE increase in solar output and invented a new metric that has to do with all those "squiggles" you see on the chart. Essentially STRIPPED the average increase out in order to make that a low number..

Don't KNOW if it would 30%, but there are credible statements about it being about 20 to 30% of the warming forcing needed to explain our temperature blip.

Dr Muller from the BEST study and many others have spoken up and criticized the purposeful under estimation of "natural effects" in the reports. This is one specific example of outright deviousness.

Interesting chart. Note that the peaks between 1950 and 2000 are pretty much the same. Yet the temperature for that period has increased significantly. And the GHG levels for that period have increased significantly. Given that GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, and that the TSI did not increase, what do you think was responsible for that rapid increase in the temperature rise?

You mean once the data is adjusted to show a temperature increase

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sure they did.. Reduced the whole run-up to solar maximum to something like 0.04w/m2 in their famous lying chart of "Forcings since 1850".. Ask CrickHam and Rocks -- they've posted it Gillions of times here.

It's a flat out fabrication. They had to redefine solar irradiance to come up with a definition that didn't make the sun a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip...

0.04 = no

who knew?

The sun isn't a 25% or 30% contributor to the current warming blip.

This is slightly off-topic -- if you want to debate it -- start a thread.
But there has been over 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age.



The IPCC ignored the BASELINE increase in solar output and invented a new metric that has to do with all those "squiggles" you see on the chart. Essentially STRIPPED the average increase out in order to make that a low number..

Don't KNOW if it would 30%, but there are credible statements about it being about 20 to 30% of the warming forcing needed to explain our temperature blip.

Dr Muller from the BEST study and many others have spoken up and criticized the purposeful under estimation of "natural effects" in the reports. This is one specific example of outright deviousness.

Interesting chart. Note that the peaks between 1950 and 2000 are pretty much the same. Yet the temperature for that period has increased significantly. And the GHG levels for that period have increased significantly. Given that GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, and that the TSI did not increase, what do you think was responsible for that rapid increase in the temperature rise?

Der, uhh, its natural! Climategate!

More of it probably is natural than previously estimated. THat's why the estimates of climate sensitivities are going way down over the past decade of science. Those magical multipliers that give CO2 it's superpowers are getting waaaay smaller..

Even the IPCC in AR5 has abandoned the 3-6 deg C range. Thier new range is 1.38 Deg c to 3.0 deg C / doubling. Then they refuse to cite even that range by stating "Best Guess" because even that range is so far removed from empirical evidence (0.46) that they do not want to be caught spouting it. Right now the "forcing " is less than half what the empirical lab experiments of CO2 say it should be. The earth is acting with a negative response to CO2 which is directly opposite what the models do..

 

[mamooth]

Here's the systems angle.. If you have storage in the system. and an imbalance in forcing persists at a constant level -- that storage element will integrate the forcing. What is the integral of a step function? It is a ramp. (or in generic terms a sloping line)

Is a solar step an imbalance? Check....
Are there storage and feedbacks in the system? Check..

So it is POSSIBLE to get the system to RAMP up.. Even if the input forcing remains at a constant imbalance.

You used to explain the "pause" (which I correctly pointed out never existed, but that's another story) as being because a step function usually creates a [1 - exp(-kt) ] type system response, which is asymptotic to a new equilibrium level.

And then the pause was debunked. And now your story is that a step function is creating a constant ramp response. Fine. That can work, if the "ramp" is just the beginning of the [1 - exp(-kt) ] curve.

Trouble is, if it's just beginning, we've got a long way to go. Many decades. Unless you think that ramping up is suddenly going to stop soon.

The problem with your theory is it's not disprovable. You can attribute any response to the sun. Oh wait, you can't attribute the stratospheric cooling to a solar increase. Only greenhouse gases explain that. Or why the outgoing longwave distribution changes to squeeze down in the GHG bands, or why the backradiation increases.

 

[SSDD]

Even the IPCC in AR5 has abandoned the 3-6 deg C range. Thier new range is 1.38 Deg c to 3.0 deg C / doubling. Then they refuse to cite even that range by stating "Best Guess" because even that range is so far removed from empirical evidence (0.46) that they do not want to be caught spouting it. Right now the "forcing " is less than half what the empirical lab experiments of CO2 say it should be. The earth is acting with a negative response to CO2 which is directly opposite what the models do..

Here is a history of the published literature predictions on climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2....as you can see the estimates are dropping towards zero where it belongs, since CO2 doesn't contribute anything to the global climate.

 

[SSDD]

Here's the systems angle.. If you have storage in the system. and an imbalance in forcing persists at a constant level -- that storage element will integrate the forcing. What is the integral of a step function? It is a ramp. (or in generic terms a sloping line)

Is a solar step an imbalance? Check....
Are there storage and feedbacks in the system? Check..

So it is POSSIBLE to get the system to RAMP up.. Even if the input forcing remains at a constant imbalance.

You used to explain the "pause" (which I correctly pointed out never existed, but that's another story) as being because a step function usually creates a [1 - exp(-kt) ] type system response, which is asymptotic to a new equilibrium level.

And then the pause was debunked. And now your story is that a step function is creating a constant ramp response. Fine. That can work, if the "ramp" is just the beginning of the [1 - exp(-kt) ] curve.

Trouble is, if it's just beginning, we've got a long way to go. Many decades. Unless you think that ramping up is suddenly going to stop soon.

The problem with your theory is it's not disprovable. You can attribute any response to the sun. Oh wait, you can't attribute the stratospheric cooling to a solar increase. Only greenhouse gases explain that. Or why the outgoing longwave distribution changes to squeeze down in the GHG bands, or why the backradiation increases.

It is good to know which players are going to ride the crazy train over the cliff and be left wondering what happened when the house of cards finally comes tumbling down around them....the smart players are already hedging their bets and developing quick exit strategies....lowering climate sensitivities till they reach zero...there was never any doubt that you are stupid enough to fail to see the rats abandoning the AGW crazy train....keep on believing hairball...it I look forward to your humiliating disappearance when the jig is up..

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the systems angle.. If you have storage in the system. and an imbalance in forcing persists at a constant level -- that storage element will integrate the forcing. What is the integral of a step function? It is a ramp. (or in generic terms a sloping line)

Is a solar step an imbalance? Check....
Are there storage and feedbacks in the system? Check..

So it is POSSIBLE to get the system to RAMP up.. Even if the input forcing remains at a constant imbalance.

You used to explain the "pause" (which I correctly pointed out never existed, but that's another story) as being because a step function usually creates a [1 - exp(-kt) ] type system response, which is asymptotic to a new equilibrium level.

And then the pause was debunked. And now your story is that a step function is creating a constant ramp response. Fine. That can work, if the "ramp" is just the beginning of the [1 - exp(-kt) ] curve.

Trouble is, if it's just beginning, we've got a long way to go. Many decades. Unless you think that ramping up is suddenly going to stop soon.

The problem with your theory is it's not disprovable. You can attribute any response to the sun. Oh wait, you can't attribute the stratospheric cooling to a solar increase. Only greenhouse gases explain that. Or why the outgoing longwave distribution changes to squeeze down in the GHG bands, or why the backradiation increases.

Never did that. And Linear Systems is very disprovable. Go ahead and try. Quit trying to slime up what I say..

The "step up" in solar irradiance plateaued about 30 yrs ago. We are STILL at a Grand Solar Maximum. With all the new work out about longer term feedbacks and sensitivities, you CAN expect that perhaps the pause is PARTLY because of the delays involved.

But moreover --- ANY system with storage will continue to feed HEAT from a leveled out forcing as a integral of the forcing function. Just the same way your furnace responds to the thermostat. It doesn't make the air from the furnace warmer as you turn it up..

It changes the amount of time that the "imbalance" is there to create more heat.. Same level forcing function -- the temperature in the house ramps up because of the time integral of the power applied.. Time integral of power in this case is heat energy.


If CO2 has "climate sensitivities" and storage and delays -- the same components are in play for the sun..

 

[flacaltenn]

Even the IPCC in AR5 has abandoned the 3-6 deg C range. Thier new range is 1.38 Deg c to 3.0 deg C / doubling. Then they refuse to cite even that range by stating "Best Guess" because even that range is so far removed from empirical evidence (0.46) that they do not want to be caught spouting it. Right now the "forcing " is less than half what the empirical lab experiments of CO2 say it should be. The earth is acting with a negative response to CO2 which is directly opposite what the models do..

Here is a history of the published literature predictions on climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2....as you can see the estimates are dropping towards zero where it belongs, since CO2 doesn't contribute anything to the global climate.

You'd LIKE to see them go to zero or negative pal. But CO2 DOES have a warming power to the atmos. It's just been granted superpowers that are now (as the graph shows) slowly dwindling away.. I SUSPECT that it's actually been closer to the CO2 ONLY value of 1degC/doubling than the hysteric projections that were spouted a couple decades ago..

Actually, the whole concept of a single number to describe the thermodynamic system of the climate is Sesame Street science.

 

[flacaltenn]

So ---- should we start a forum pool on a new solar minimum in 2050??

Who's in? Would give me an incentive to stay young just to take OldRocks' money....

 

[mamooth]

Never did that. And Linear Systems is very disprovable. Go ahead and try. Quit trying to slime up what I say..

Yes, linear systems is disprovable. That's why I pointed out the acceleration in warming rather conclusively disproves its applicability to the climate.

The "step up" in solar irradiance plateaued about 30 yrs ago. We are STILL at a Grand Solar Maximum. With all the new work out about longer term feedbacks and sensitivities, you CAN expect that perhaps the pause is PARTLY because of the delays involved.

And the "pause", which was actually just a minor deceleration, is gone. That doesn't match any expected linear systems response.

But moreover --- ANY system with storage will continue to feed HEAT from a leveled out forcing as a integral of the forcing function. Just the same way your furnace responds to the thermostat. It doesn't make the air from the furnace warmer as you turn it up..

A house is a bad analogy to the earth. The house stops heating because the furnace turns off. The earth stops heating when heat out matches heat in.