Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[RealDave]

There you go again. Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present. How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?

Got any examples of climate scientists pointing out that the past was much warmer than the present...or that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...or mentioning that the ice age the earth is exiting began with CO2 levels at or near 1000ppm? Any examples of climate science pointing out that the past makes it apparent that we have little to worry about?

You run in circles waving your arms screaming how CO2 levels were higher in the past yet you are too naive to consider what the Earth was like then. Our civilizations are build on our current climate.

At the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting, the would have been almost indistinguishable from the present. And civilization over the past 10,000 years developed in a warmer climate than the present.

You ignore the ocean levels in those years with higher CO2 yet ocean levels of that time would devastate a high percentage of this planet's people. Let alone our food production. What if the higher temps lowered the production we get out of the bread belt? This effect is happening now.

CO2 levels had nothing to do with the climate...again, there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which suggests that CO2 has any effect on climate whatsoever. But feel free to bring a piece of such evidence here if you believe it exists...good luck with that.

This is how uneducated you must be. It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action. Stupid, ignorant, uneducated assholes like you put my children's future in jeopardy.

Still waiting on the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the claim that action on CO2 needs to be taken...you clearly believe it does, but based on what actual evidence?

Increasing temperatures the past 100+ years caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases emissions If we can reduce these emissions, we can try to limit the increase in temps in the future until the Earth can catch up & remove some of the excess CO2. This could take many decades.





.

 

[SSDD]

Increasing temperatures the past 100+ years caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases emissions

Since there has been no published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused due to our CO2 production has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, exactly what is your basis for making such a claim? It certainly isn't anything you got from the literature...maybe you got it from an activist, or the media...certainly not from climate science.

But feel free to provide the paper, or the title and author if you believe such a paper exists.

If we can reduce these emissions, we can try to limit the increase in temps in the future until the Earth can catch up & remove some of the excess CO2. This could take many decades.

Since you have no observed, measured evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere, what makes you think that reducing CO2 will somehow have an effect on the global temperature? Let me guess, the same activist or the media?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.

You do not have a clue....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.

You do not have a clue....

When is the magic energy destroying tube paper coming out?

 

[Billy_Bob]

knock yourself out...you won't believe any actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs anyway..

And that is the problem. Even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, they will profess AGW.
And to this day the Tropospheric Hot Spot has been proven not to exist... Without it the AGW lie falls apart...

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.

You do not have a clue....

When is the magic energy destroying tube paper coming out?

Wow..

The shear ignorance you show is funny as hell..

The energy passes through the tube. Its was never captured by the atmosphere of the tube because it could not react to it. You don't even understand how or why the experiment was set up. We proved that >99% of the energy emitted by black bodies on earth is lost to space as the atmosphere is incapable of warming due to LWIR over >89% of the planet due to the lack of water vapor in the atmosphere.

You and your ilk can run in circles screaming at the sky but the facts are there and screaming wont change them...

 

[Billy_Bob]

That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
That's funny.

This is precisely the experiment we did that took two years to complete. No, LWIR does not heat CO2 or our atmospheric mixture devoid of water vapor. 6-20um energy is absorbed and re-emitted so quickly that CO2 will not warm. But you know this and continue this scam,,, LWIR is transmitted but will not warm the atmosphere until it hits and is absorbed by a black body or grey body which is reactive to the bandwidth of the energy and is capable of holding and consuming the energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.

You do not have a clue....

When is the magic energy destroying tube paper coming out?

Wow..

The shear ignorance you show is funny as hell..

The energy passes through the tube. Its was never captured by the atmosphere of the tube because it could not react to it. You don't even understand how or why the experiment was set up. We proved that >99% of the energy emitted by black bodies on earth is lost to space as the atmosphere is incapable of warming due to LWIR over >89% of the planet due to the lack of water vapor in the atmosphere.

You and your ilk can run in circles screaming at the sky but the facts are there and screaming wont change them...

The shear ignorance you show is funny as hell..

verb (used with object), sheared, sheared or shorn, shear·ing.

1. to cut (something).
2. to remove by or as if by cutting or clipping with a sharp instrument: to shear wool from sheep.
3. to cut or clip the hair, fleece, wool, etc., from: to shear sheep.

the definition of shear

DURR!

The energy passes through the tube. Its was never captured by the atmosphere of the tube because it could not react to it.

You said the tube was opaque. And insulated. Were you lying, or just stupid?

You and your ilk can run in circles screaming at the sky

My ilk is mocking your idiocy, not screaming at the sky.

 

[Crick]

I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaa what a fucking LIAR

 

[danielpalos]

powering ancient underground cities with modern technologies would help us understand the concepts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaa what a fucking LIAR

I understand you have no training and that your triggered by facts... Now be a good little useful idiot and fuck off..

I am amazed how many of you idiots will not face the facts. You will whine, cry and call names and NEVER ADDRESS THE SCIENCE OF THE MATTER.. You expose yourselves as the lying pieces of shit you are...

Please provide just one piece of OBSERVED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE(also known as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) which proves your wild ass assumptions... Take your religious/cult zealotry and shove it up your ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?

Sure they do..

Why?

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

 

[Wuwei]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

 

[SSDD]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

If you were actually a graduate student in physics, you would say to yourself - well, it's been warming for the last 150 years and shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. It is extremely unlikely that it will cool faster than it warmed up. So what is the minimum length of this hot pulse we'd have to be looking for? Longer than the Holocene data resolution.

 

[Crick]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.

And so what happens in Same Shit Universe when two object attain equilibrium? You believe they stop radiating. That would be a violation of Planck's Law, wouldn't it. What a fooking IDIOT

 

[Wuwei]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.

What does that have to do with Billy's silly statement, "Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate."?

 

[SSDD]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.

And so what happens in Same Shit Universe when two object attain equilibrium? You believe they stop radiating. That would be a violation of Planck's Law, wouldn't it. What a fooking IDIOT

Here...I set two objects to the same temperature...solve for P if you have at least that much mathematical skill.

Here is a clue...P = 0

 

[SSDD]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.

What does that have to do with Billy's silly statement, "Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate."?

The two objects are still losing energy to the surroundings...when the two objects are in equilibrium, the warmer object is no longer losing energy to the surroundings and to the cooler object...the cooler object is no longer losing energy to the surroundings and gaining energy from the warmer object.... They will both now be losing energy to the surroundings based on their area, their emissivity and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings...assuming of course, that the two objects are the same size...

Is this really that far over your head?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.

Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured

Still waiting for your observation of objects at equilibrium ceasing all radiating.

You must have many observations, not just a model, eh?