Less than a billion years....probably a lot less....

[abu afak]

The Sun is not a static input in our solar system, like all other bodies it is undergoing change moment by moment and probably faster than the other bodies in question. The immensity of our center star allows it to fuse 600 million tons of hydrogen to helium every second of every day. This is what produces the solar winds that offer light, heat and other products to the solar system. The amount of energy that we receive here on earth averages to something like 1300 watts per square meter of our planet's surface.....second by second...it's a rate of delivery. There are several things that mitigate that radiation....our magnetic field, our atmosphere and our ice cover to name a few...I'm sure there are others but those seem to be the major components. There is also another factor that continues to be marginalized. The sun is getting slightly more luminous with each passing moment. Now granted it is a infinitesimally small increase but the Sun.... even in infinitesimal increments is a total beast of an energy source. I have read numerous articles that claim it's not a factor to worry about and yet this seems to defy all that I know about increased energy inputs and on the face of it simply does not make any real physical sense. I do not hold a degree in thermodynamics....however I don't think one is necessary to see the logic here. Simply put the Sun is growing more energetic and we are not moving away from it in any real way at this point soooo the obvious conclusion is that we are recieving more Solar Energy as time goes by regardless of anything anyone wants to produce that says otherwise. Try this at home with your stove top burner and your hand...elecrtric is probabaly more accuate for comparision since radiation is the key factor here not convection or conduction.

Now eventually everyone agrees that the Sun will destroy life on this planet because of this process. A billion years is the estimate....long time from now right? But how do we really know that? It's just a best guess....

So tell me...are you really content to think that something a massive and powerful as the Sun can increase its energy ouput day by day and NOT AFFECT OUR PLANET? You will see bushels of high sounding academic mantra to indicate that this is the case. However I submit to you that even a child knows better.

JO

Oh look, another willful simpleton!
Like scientists (and even 5th graders) don't know what he goofily posted.
Maybe my 100th posting explaining this....

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth has warmed.
Radiation re-emitted back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time are leading it! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was Not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

`

 

[Moonglow]

I have plenty of time to die so I am not worried about it.

 

[ding]

Oh look, another willful simpleton!
Like scientists (and even 5th graders) don't know what he goofily posted.
Maybe my 100th posting explaining this....

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth has warmed.
Radiation re-emitted back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time are leading it! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was Not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.

`

All normal for an interglacial period which is naturally warming.

 

[abu afak]

All normal for an interglacial period which is naturally warming.

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

Note the AGW SPIKE on the upper Right/last 200 years that is distinctly UNnatural in the rest of the 12,000 years.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All normal for an interglacial period which is naturally warming.

To all:

Imagine the audacity and stupidity required to think you outsmarted the scientists by repeating back to them their own discovery. Just, embarrassing.

 

[ding]

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

Note the AGW SPIKE on the upper Right/last 200 years that is distinctly UNnatural in the rest of the 12,000 years.

`

I love that graph. It shows the warming started 150 years before CO2 emissions began. I also like it because it has a realistic zero line.

 

[ding]

To all:

Imagine the audacity and stupidty required to think you outsmarted the scientists by repeating back them their own discovery. Just, embarrassing.

They made a mistake. It's no big deal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They made a mistake. It's no big deal.

Just hilarious. And a bit embarrassing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Sun is not a static input in our solar system, like all other bodies it is undergoing change moment by moment and probably faster than the other bodies in question. The immensity of our center star allows it to fuse 600 million tons of hydrogen to helium every second of every day. This is what produces the solar winds that offer light, heat and other products to the solar system. The amount of energy that we receive here on earth averages to something like 1300 watts per square meter of our planet's surface.....second by second...it's a rate of delivery. There are several things that mitigate that radiation....our magnetic field, our atmosphere and our ice cover to name a few...I'm sure there are others but those seem to be the major components. There is also another factor that continues to be marginalized. The sun is getting slightly more luminous with each passing moment. Now granted it is a infinitesimally small increase but the Sun.... even in infinitesimal increments is a total beast of an energy source. I have read numerous articles that claim it's not a factor to worry about and yet this seems to defy all that I know about increased energy inputs and on the face of it simply does not make any real physical sense. I do not hold a degree in thermodynamics....however I don't think one is necessary to see the logic here. Simply put the Sun is growing more energetic and we are not moving away from it in any real way at this point soooo the obvious conclusion is that we are recieving more Solar Energy as time goes by regardless of anything anyone wants to produce that says otherwise. Try this at home with your stove top burner and your hand...elecrtric is probabaly more accuate for comparision since radiation is the key factor here not convection or conduction.

Now eventually everyone agrees that the Sun will destroy life on this planet because of this process. A billion years is the estimate....long time from now right? But how do we really know that? It's just a best guess....

So tell me...are you really content to think that something a massive and powerful as the Sun can increase its energy ouput day by day and NOT AFFECT OUR PLANET? You will see bushels of high sounding academic mantra to indicate that this is the case. However I submit to you that even a child knows better.

JO

So climate change ain't going to get us the sun is

 

[justoffal]

So climate change ain't going to get us the sun is

Yes it absolutely is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So climate change ain't going to get us the sun is

Wrong.

 

[ding]

Just hilarious. And a bit embarrassing.

Not in the slightest. A doubling of CO2 increases surface temperature by 1C.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes it absolutely is.

Just wanted a clarification

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not in the slightest. A doubling of CO2 increases surface temperature by 1C.

In ding fantasyland. But not in reality.

 

[ding]

In ding fantasyland. But not in reality.

pure radiative energy equilibrium

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

pure radiative energy equilibrium

Yes, I heard you the first 100 times you were wrong.

Did you have a look at the IPCC report yet? I believe a new one just came out.

 

[ding]

Yes, I heard you the first 100 times you were wrong.

Did you have a look at the IPCC report yet? I believe a new one just came out.

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space.

In other words, energy in equals energy out. This is the same concept that governs the temperature of anything; if energy is gained faster than it is lost, warming occurs… but if energy is lost faster than it is gained, cooling occurs.

Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, the energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 to 240 watts per square meter. We don’t really know for sure because our global observations from spaceborne satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure those flows of radiant energy.

“Greenhouse” components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface, and at the same time causes the upper atmosphere (especially the stratosphere) to cool. From an energy standpoint, it’s similar to adding insulation to the walls of a heated house in the winter; for the same rate of energy input (no thermostat), the result will be that the walls are warmer on the inside, and colder on the outside. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere insulating the Earth’s surface from the “cold” depths of outer space.

It is believed (based upon theoretical calculations) that our global emissions of carbon dioxide have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%, thus reducing the rate at which IR energy is lost to outer space. Global warming theory (through conservation of energy) says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature. This warming then increases the IR escaping to space until the emitted IR radiation once again reaches a balance with absorbed sunlight, and the temperature stops rising. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[ding]

Yes, I heard you the first 100 times you were wrong.

Did you have a look at the IPCC report yet? I believe a new one just came out.

And YOU have yet to post any supporting evidence for the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space.

In other words, energy in equals energy out. This is the same concept that governs the temperature of anything; if energy is gained faster than it is lost, warming occurs… but if energy is lost faster than it is gained, cooling occurs.

Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, the energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 to 240 watts per square meter. We don’t really know for sure because our global observations from spaceborne satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure those flows of radiant energy.

“Greenhouse” components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface, and at the same time causes the upper atmosphere (especially the stratosphere) to cool. From an energy standpoint, it’s similar to adding insulation to the walls of a heated house in the winter; for the same rate of energy input (no thermostat), the result will be that the walls are warmer on the inside, and colder on the outside. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere insulating the Earth’s surface from the “cold” depths of outer space.

It is believed (based upon theoretical calculations) that our global emissions of carbon dioxide have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%, thus reducing the rate at which IR energy is lost to outer space. Global warming theory (through conservation of energy) says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature. This warming then increases the IR escaping to space until the emitted IR radiation once again reaches a balance with absorbed sunlight, and the temperature stops rising. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

Haha, look at you cherry picking blogs you dint understand from discredited deniers. Sad.

By the way, 1degC is not even in the range of the warming that will be caused by doubling the CO2 from before the industrial era. As honest people who follow the science understand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And YOU have yet to post any supporting evidence for the pure radiative energy equilibrium of CO2 absent any made up climate sensitivity.

Because i don't have to do that. The scientific community does all the work for me. I don't have to search for blogs I never read and don't understand by discredited deniers.