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

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, just look at the cooling!

Climate Reanalyzer

And it has cooled right down to an El Nino;

Climate Reanalyzer

 

[SSDD]

My goodness, just look at the cooling!

Climate Reanalyzer

And it has cooled right down to an El Nino;

Climate Reanalyzer

You see to be obsessed with el nino...an element of natural variability...do you believe somehow CO2 causes el nino and la nina? Explain that mechanism?

 

[Old Rocks]

Goodness, look at the cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, just look at the cooling!

Climate Reanalyzer

And it has cooled right down to an El Nino;

Climate Reanalyzer

You see to be obsessed with el nino...an element of natural variability...do you believe somehow CO2 causes el nino and la nina? Explain that mechanism?

Oh go play with your silly smart photons. Never even hinted at such a thing. But the dumb asses like you and Silly Billy are constantly talking about a 'cooling'. And the climate is going in the opposite direction.

 

[SSDD]

My goodness, just look at the cooling!

Climate Reanalyzer

And it has cooled right down to an El Nino;

Climate Reanalyzer

You see to be obsessed with el nino...an element of natural variability...do you believe somehow CO2 causes el nino and la nina? Explain that mechanism?

Oh go play with your silly smart photons. Never even hinted at such a thing. But the dumb asses like you and Silly Billy are constantly talking about a 'cooling'. And the climate is going in the opposite direction.

So you have nothing and feel the need to lash out at me because I remind you that you have nothing. If you were a thinking person, instead of a mewling, hand wringing, hysteric, you would be lashing out at climate science for not providing you even one piece of observed, measured evidence that you might use to slap me down.

 

[Crick]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

 

[SSDD]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...

 

[Crick]

That was a minute chunk of it fool. And, of course, you continue to lie.

 

[SSDD]

That was a minute chunk of it fool. And, of course, you continue to lie.

Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else. I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?

 

[Crick]

Asked and answered

 

[Billy_Bob]

New Little ICE Age Instead of Global Warming?
Theodor Landscheidt,
First Published May 1, 2003 Research Article PAYWALLED

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Abstract
Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

 

[SSDD]

Asked and answered

You are a liar skidmark....pretending that you provided anything beyond a steaming pile of excrement isn't fooling anyone...you are a laughing stock...

But do feel free to prove me wrong ass wipe....simply copy the address of the thread where you posted the evidence I asked for...

We both know you won't and everyone knows you are a liar.

 

[Wuwei]

So show me a measurement of a discrete C02 emission frequency made with an uncooled instrument...either you can or you can't...and we both know that you can't.

An uncooled instrument is of less importance than the GHG back radiation hitting the earth.

You have given no meaningful reply as to why GHG radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector. Do you have any theory at all?

 

[SSDD]

[
An uncooled instrument is of less importance than the GHG back radiation hitting the earth.

Again...absolute failure to grasp a basic concept...if no spectrum canbe measured by an uncooled instrument pointing at open sky, it is because no energy is entering the instrument to be measured...if no energy is entering the uncooled instrument, what, exactly, beyond unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models makes you think that the energy you are talking about is striking the uncooled surface of the earth?

The fact that no spectrum is being measured by the uncooled instrument is observable, measurable, testable evidence that back radiation is not hitting the surface of the earth. You deny what you can see and measure in favor of models that can neither be observed, measured, or tested. What does that say to the credibility of anything you might have to say on the topic of energy movement.

It seems that you are saying "screw what the instruments show...this is what the models say."

Does that about sum up your position?

You have given no meaningful reply as to why GHG radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector. Do you have any theory at all?

Nor am I required to. If I ask you precisely what causes objects to fall when dropped...what is the precise mechanism of gravity, you will have no answer. You can see it happen, you can observe it, you can measure it, you can test it, but you still don't know exactly what causes it. There are several theories, but we aren't making much headway towards eliminating any of them because our technology isn't to the point where we can derive tests and experiments that will show us which, if any of them are right.

There are all manner of things out there that we can observe, measure, and test all the live long day, but we have little to no idea of what the basic mechanisms are. The fact that energy isn't being absorbed and measured by the uncooled instrument is obvious by the lack of a measured spectrum...why it is not striking the instrument and being measured is unknown.

The second law doesn't attempt to say why energy won't move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...it just says that it won't. Someday we may know..but not today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.

Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Now, about your claim that atmospheric photons only hit a cooled instrument, and not an uncooled one.

Are you the only person in the world who knows the secret?
Seems that way.
Weird.

Weird... And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... You really can't grasp basic physics.

And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... You really can't grasp basic physics

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?

So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.

Are you not posting a link because you're a ***** like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?

No I have the link, I just think that you ignoring it once tells me how you will behave again.. So why waste my time?

Still looking for that link? LOL!

 

[Wuwei]

You have given no meaningful reply as to why GHG radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector. Do you have any theory at all?

Nor am I required to. If I ask you precisely what causes objects to fall when dropped...what is the precise mechanism of gravity, you will have no answer. You can see it happen, you can observe it, you can measure it, you can test it, but you still don't know exactly what causes it. There are several theories, but we aren't making much headway towards eliminating any of them because our technology isn't to the point where we can derive tests and experiments that will show us which, if any of them are right.

There are all manner of things out there that we can observe, measure, and test all the live long day, but we have little to no idea of what the basic mechanisms are. The fact that energy isn't being absorbed and measured by the uncooled instrument is obvious by the lack of a measured spectrum...why it is not striking the instrument and being measured is unknown.

I already told you that metaphysics is not the way to think of practical physical systems. That is for philosophers and is a lame excuse for you attempt to reinvent science.

Science already knows the mechanism for accelerating charges radiating, and that mechanism has never failed. If you say that accelerating charges in a colder body cannot radiate, you have violated fundamental principles of Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics. Net flow does not violate those well established principles.

You already said that both net flow and one-way flow are both consistent with observations and measurements, so why do choose to believe the one that violates physics?

I am not trying to change your mind. Nobody can. But if your mind thinks up something preposterous, I would like to know why somebody can possibly think that way. I see you have nothing in mind.

 

[SSDD]

I already told you that metaphysics is not the way to think of practical physical systems. That is for philosophers and is a lame excuse for you attempt to reinvent science.

And since I don't think of systems in those terms, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than perhaps you don't know, or understand the definition of metaphysics.

Science already knows the mechanism for accelerating charges radiating, and that mechanism has never failed. If you say that accelerating charges in a colder body cannot radiate, you have violated fundamental principles of Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics. Net flow does not violate those well established principles.

No, science doesn't...Science has a pretty good idea of why, but not much of an idea of how. It is within the how that the mechanism may be found. You folks don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism...

You already said that both net flow and one-way flow are both consistent with observations and measurements, so why do choose to believe the one that violates physics?

Yeah...you keep saying that, but when I ask for an example of discrete frequencies moving in both directions between objects with an instrument at ambient temperature, you can't provide it...so it isn't consistent with either measurements or observations since neither have ever been made. Again...the failure is yours...you don't understand what the instruments are measuring or how those measurements are derived....as a result, you are easily fooled. Sad, but that's just the way it is. You have proven it over and over.

 

[HenryBHough]

Had to chuckle when I got an email from a friend in California. Where he lives they have never had measurable snow until a few days before Christmas.

He's bitching about having to shovel ten inches of what looks suspiciously like snow but Algore keeps telling him it's just granular global warming.

 

[Wuwei]

And since I don't think of systems in those terms, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than perhaps you don't know, or understand the definition of metaphysics.

Nope, what you are saying is that you have no idea what you are thinking. One-way energy flow totally violates physics. The physics we observe and measure negates what you think.

No, science doesn't...Science has a pretty good idea of why, but not much of an idea of how. It is within the how that the mechanism may be found. You folks don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism...

The mechanism for EM accelerating charges has been measured and observed. It is contrary to your smart photons. You don't need to know any thing more than that to invalidate one-way emission.

Yeah...you keep saying that, but when I ask for an example of discrete frequencies moving in both directions between objects with an instrument at ambient temperature, you can't provide it...so it isn't consistent with either measurements or observations since neither have ever been made. Again...the failure is yours...you don't understand what the instruments are measuring or how those measurements are derived....as a result, you are easily fooled. Sad, but that's just the way it is. You have proven it over and over.

Nope. That is pure BS. I told you many times. Your reinvention of physics violates known physics.

 

[SSDD]

The mechanism for EM accelerating charges has been measured and observed. It is contrary to your smart photons. You don't need to know any thing more than that to invalidate one-way emission.

OK...do describe the underlying mechanism for EM accelerating charges.

You might start with describing precisely how the Coulomb force operates because the mechanism of acceleration in EM charges can not be understood without a precise understanding of how the Coulomb force actually operates.

Never mind...don't bother...there are numerous hypotheses on what the underlying mechanism is, but the underlying fact is that we don't know...and since we don't know that, we can't really know the underlying mechanism responsible for EM accelerating charges...you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism...you believe that because we know a thing works, and why it works, that somehow that equates to how it works...i suppose you also think we know how gravity works.

Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects. If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there. I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.