Our Sun Isn’t Burning So Hot

[Sunsettommy]

And so how do you see that buffer behaving during a solar minimum?

And so how do you see that buffer behaving during a solar minimum?

Your ignorance is obvious here since it is well known what they are, HINT: Cycles

If his ignorance is so obvious, why not explain it?

Because it is standard 101 stuff.

That sounds like an excuse. If it's so standard, it shouldn't take much effort to explain.

It appears that you don't either or you wouldn't pester me with your B.S.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Republicans will suddenly be believers in glabal warming and will applaud it for fending off an ice age.

Skeptics have long agreed it has been warming for a long while, cut the misleading B.S.

Liar. I distinctly remember the blather about how there was no warming right up to 1998, when it became apparent to everyone.

 

[MaryL]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

 

[Montrovant]

And so how do you see that buffer behaving during a solar minimum?

And so how do you see that buffer behaving during a solar minimum?

Your ignorance is obvious here since it is well known what they are, HINT: Cycles

If his ignorance is so obvious, why not explain it?

Because it is standard 101 stuff.

That sounds like an excuse. If it's so standard, it shouldn't take much effort to explain.

It appears that you don't either or you wouldn't pester me with your B.S.

It appears you don't actually know what you are talking about, or you'd explain instead of deflecting.

See, I can play too!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

The issue here is this.

First, what the sun does and doesn't do will impact us.

Second. What we do will impact us.

Now, if we kill the oceans by pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it might not matter what Sun does.

The Moon is at more or less the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, logically.

The Moon gets to 127 degrees Celsius (260 F)
The also gets to minus 173 degrees Celsius (minus 280 F)

This is the impact of no atmosphere. If we tamper with our own atmosphere, we could potentially cause much wilder temperatures.

Here's a scenario. The Oceans take up CO2, but the PH levels change. We put too much CO2 for the Oceans and the PH levels rise and destroy the ecosystem of the Oceans.

Therefore the Oceans stop taking in the CO2 and it also pumps the CO2 out of the Oceans. This increases CO2 levels massively, which then either increase temperatures so high most animals on the planet die, or it blocks out the sun and temperatures drop so low we'd struggle to survive.

How hot the sun is makes no difference.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

The issue here is this.

First, what the sun does and doesn't do will impact us.

Second. What we do will impact us.

Now, if we kill the oceans by pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it might not matter what Sun does.

The Moon is at more or less the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, logically.

The Moon gets to 127 degrees Celsius (260 F)
The also gets to minus 173 degrees Celsius (minus 280 F)

This is the impact of no atmosphere. If we tamper with our own atmosphere, we could potentially cause much wilder temperatures.

Here's a scenario. The Oceans take up CO2, but the PH levels change. We put too much CO2 for the Oceans and the PH levels rise and destroy the ecosystem of the Oceans.

Therefore the Oceans stop taking in the CO2 and it also pumps the CO2 out of the Oceans. This increases CO2 levels massively, which then either increase temperatures so high most animals on the planet die, or it blocks out the sun and temperatures drop so low we'd struggle to survive.

How hot the sun is makes no difference.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,blzzzzzzzzzzz.

So.... you don't have any knowledge of this topic? So why respond?

 

[westwall]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

 

[Flash]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

The problem is there is no proof that the earth is getting warmer caused by man made activities. That is why the environmental wackos have to manipulate data. The gaggle of climate scientists were exposed doing it in Climategate I & II and during the Obama administration both NASA and NOAA were manipulating data. Everything from measured surface data to satellite data.

These idiot climate scientists created this scam by using flawed computer models that didn't accurately predict how CO2 is balanced in the atmosphere so they had to manipulate data in order to prove what was not supported by real data. Even Al Gore's infamous "hockey stick" graft was created by using cherry picked data. That is why none of the disastrous predictions made 20 years ago never came true.

This issue of AGW has become a religion of the Left because they want to use it for worldwide redistribution of wealth or something. Until they become honest we will never have a credible discussion on it.

In the meantime it looks like we are approaching a solar minimum so you better go out an buy a warm coat if you don't have one.

We have had a pretty cool winter and spring here in Central Florida. I have screened in pool and use solar panels to heat the water. By this time in other years the pool is warm enough for us to use. The water is cool now. Global warming my ass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Coldest spring/"Summer" I can ever remember in NY.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

 

[Flash]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

 

[Montrovant]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

Context is always important. Compared to the natural amount of CO2, man may not have a huge output. However, compared to the output man made in the past, the CO2 output today may be huge.

As I understand it, the idea is that the climate has a somewhat delicate balance, and the addition of man-made greenhouse gasses puts it over a tipping point. So it isn't that man creates enough greenhouse gasses to warm the planet by itself, but rather than man adds enough to the already existing levels to do so.

Whether that is true or not I couldn't say.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

I have one of the Warmers on record stating that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat water than air. So how hot must the atmosphere be in order to raise the ocean temperature even 1/10th of a degree?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

 

[westwall]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

Context is always important. Compared to the natural amount of CO2, man may not have a huge output. However, compared to the output man made in the past, the CO2 output today may be huge.

As I understand it, the idea is that the climate has a somewhat delicate balance, and the addition of man-made greenhouse gasses puts it over a tipping point. So it isn't that man creates enough greenhouse gasses to warm the planet by itself, but rather than man adds enough to the already existing levels to do so.

Whether that is true or not I couldn't say.

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere of this planet. The warmists have been claiming that the Earths atmosphere is super dooper sensitive, and that a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 can have dramatic results. Historically there is no support for that claim. The Vostock ice core data shows that warming occurs first, and then hundreds of years later there is a rise in atmospheric CO2. Going back for over 800,000 years, that data is the most accurate we have, and shows that even when the atmospheric CO2 levels were hovering around 1000ppm, we still had ice ages.

 

[westwall]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

I have yet to see anything factual that shows CO2 increasing warming in any way. The GHG effect of CO2 in this atmosphere is quite simply smothered by water vapor.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

I have yet to see anything factual that shows CO2 increasing warming in any way. The GHG effect of CO2 in this atmosphere is quite simply smothered by water vapor.

Any increase in the postulated CO2 warm forcing increase is always getting overcome by the increase rate of energy leaving the planet, CO2 simply doesn't produce enough warming to generate a real warming trend that can be measured.

This was pointed out a few years ago from The Inconvenient Skeptic:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

Worth reading it all.

 

[Flash]

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

I have one of the Warmers on record stating that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat water than air. So how hot must the atmosphere be in order to raise the ocean temperature even 1/10th of a degree?

The thing that gets me is how the AGW religious nuts refuse to understand the real data that has been collected. Like for instance that once the earth had more than ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but yet the planet was a ball of ice at the time. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas with 4,000 ppm then why wasn't the earth warm enough to melt ice?

Back in medieval times and Roman times the earth had lower CO2 but yet the earth was warmer. How can they explain that? The historical data clearly shows that CO2 level lags temperature increases.

The reason these nut cases have to make up data and corrupt science is because their theory that man is creating enough CO2 to change the climate of the earth doesn't hold up to any real scientific scrutiny.

All they have are their shitty computer models that don't correlate to any real world climate. That is why they have to invent data and they have been caught doing it several times.

When it gets damn cold in the next few years because of the solar minimum these Moon Bats will be damn glad they have fossil fuels to heat their homes because the Solyndra solar cells ain't gonna do jackshit. Obama lied to them.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

I have one of the Warmers on record stating that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat water than air. So how hot must the atmosphere be in order to raise the ocean temperature even 1/10th of a degree?

The thing that gets me is how the AGW religious nuts refuse to understand the real data that has been collected. Like for instance that once the earth had more than ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but yet the planet was a ball of ice at the time. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas with 4,000 ppm then why wasn't the earth warm enough to melt ice?

Back in medieval times and Roman times the earth had lower CO2 but yet the earth was warmer. How can they explain that? The historical data clearly shows that CO2 level lags temperature increases.

The reason these nut cases have to make up data and corrupt science is because their theory that man is creating enough CO2 to change the climate of the earth doesn't hold up to any real scientific scrutiny.

All they have are their shitty computer models that don't correlate to any real world climate. That is why they have to invent data and they have been caught doing it several times.

When it gets damn cold in the next few years because of the solar minimum these Moon Bats will be damn glad they have fossil fuels to heat their homes because the Solyndra solar cells ain't gonna do jackshit. Obama lied to them.

This chart based on Ice core data, from C3 Headlines:

Look at all those temperature swings while CO2 barely moved.