Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Billy_Bob]

If these scientists are so good, why do all of their predictions fail so completely every time? You know, just like all of Billy's predictions.

How that's imminent strong cooling doing these days, Billy? You know, what you've been predicting nonstop for the past 10 years.

LOL.. No. Failure is the alarmist's thing. Their models fail without exception and this new paper show why. Do the math. It's all right there in black and white.

I wasn't asking about the paper on Curry's site. I was asking about your comment "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory.". Where have you learned that this is the case?

Please read the Paper.. The links to it have been provided. We're talking about the science not me.

 

[Crick]

We're talking about the science not me.

I'm asking about this comment of YOURS: "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory."

What sources have given you this impression Billy Boy?

 

[mamooth]

LOL.. No. Failure is the alarmist's thing. Their models fail without exception and this new paper show why.

Yes, yes, all the deniers are talking about how glorious and splendid the emperor's new clothes are.

It's just mathturbation. She looked at the data, and created a convulated mess of equations so that the input would result in something like the output.

Trouble is, no matter what any output is, you can always create some equations to get you that result. That's why scientists warn against mathturbation. It's too easy to fool yourself into thinking that curve fitting will explain everything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, yes, all the deniers are talking about how glorious and splendid the emperor's new clothes are.

It's just mathturbation. She looked at the data, and created a convulated mess of equations so that the input would result in something like the output.

Trouble is, no matter what any output is, you can always create some equations to get you that result. That's why scientists warn against mathturbation. It's too easy to fool yourself into thinking that curve fitting will explain everything.

Poor snaggletooth... Are your panties in a wad? Please show where her math is inaccurate. I'll wait

 

[Crick]

I'm asking about this comment of YOURS: "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory."

What sources have given you this impression Billy Boy?

You know, Billy Boy, the reason I ask this question and the reason you refuse to answer it is because if you're willing to post your fantasy as if it were fact, everything you tell us is put in doubt. You know?

 

[jc456]

Poor snaggletooth... Are your panties in a wad? Please show where her math is inaccurate. I'll wait

I see no response from cat lady

 

[Crick]

I see no response from cat lady

Are you going to discuss Svetlana's Veretenenko's 2022 study on the impact of solar variability on poleward energy transport with him? How about the PNAS article on the odd linearity of outgoing LW intensity vs latitude? Or even the heart of the matter, Javier Vinos' Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (and tell me you don't hear Captain America and Bucky in there)?

 

[BackAgain]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

View attachment 172129

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

View attachment 172131

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

View attachment 172132

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

Snowfall in unexpected regions is a paradoxical effect of AGW.

SO, if it’s expected, it’s because of AGW.

BUT, if it is unexpected, then it’s paradoxically caused by AGW.

SURELY, a thing must be either expected or unexpected. Therefore whatever it is, it is caused by AGW.

 

[Crick]

Snowfall in unexpected regions is a paradoxical effect of AGW.

SO, if it’s expected, it’s because of AGW.

BUT, if it is unexpected, then it’s paradoxically caused by AGW.

SURELY, a thing must be either expected or unexpected. Therefore whatever it is, it is caused by AGW.

What if you're completely ambivalent about it?

 

[jc456]

Are you going to discuss Svetlana's Veretenenko's 2022 study on the impact of solar variability on poleward energy transport with him? How about the PNAS article on the odd linearity of outgoing LW intensity vs latitude? Or even the heart of the matter, Javier Vinos' Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (and tell me you don't hear Captain America and Bucky in there)?

Why? It wasn’t my discussion, I was looking for her response to Billie. Haven’t seen it

 

[BackAgain]

What if you're completely ambivalent about it?

Blame AGW.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Snowfall in unexpected regions is a paradoxical effect of AGW.

SO, if it’s expected, it’s because of AGW.

BUT, if it is unexpected, then it’s paradoxically caused by AGW.

SURELY, a thing must be either expected or unexpected. Therefore whatever it is, it is caused by AGW.

LOL...

No.

The paradox is in the Arctic and Antarctic. At issue are the intensity and direction of the waves coupled with size of the polar lows. It is this coupling, that cools the mid troposphere but warms the surface, as it pulls energy from the mid latitudes. A cooling world with a paradoxical warming of the surface which the AGW faithful claim is man caused. It has no human cause. The forcing change is due to solar input decreasing.

 

[BackAgain]

LOL...

No.

The paradox is in the Arctic and Antarctic. At issue are the intensity and direction of the waves coupled with size of the polar lows. It is this coupling, that cools the mid troposphere but warms the surface, as it pulls energy from the mid latitudes. A cooling world with a paradoxical warming of the surface which the AGW faithful claim is man caused. It has no human cause. The forcing change is due to solar input decreasing.

Well, that would shoot my theory all the way to hell.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you going to discuss Svetlana's Veretenenko's 2022 study on the impact of solar variability on poleward energy transport with him? How about the PNAS article on the odd linearity of outgoing LW intensity vs latitude? Or even the heart of the matter, Javier Vinos' Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (and tell me you don't hear Captain America and Bucky in there)?

And you choose to look away and demean... DO I have your idiocy pegged or what... YOU DO NOT like what the science implies so you demean the person rather than discuss the science. Vinos paper is quite accurate and is bearing out empirical reviews of his hypothesis. Your AGW crap not so much.

What do you think of this linear, energy transport, route change? The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles and due to that thinning, the energy loss increases and speed of that loss? Empirical evidence removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here.

 

[mamooth]

Why? It wasn’t my discussion, I was looking for her response to Billie. Haven’t seen it

If you're going to lie, try not to be so stupid about it. I addressed the topic. You're running from it.

Also, I see the usual Republican gender-confusion.

Now, do you have anything to contribute to the topic, besides the personal attacks, red-herrings and deflections?

If you thought the paper was so great, tell us what you thought was great about it. You know, discuss the paper. Like I did.

 

[mamooth]

The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles

The "shrinkage of the atmosphere above the poles" is a _result_ of global-warming caused stratospheric cooling. It's not a cause of anything. It's a result.

We know the solar wind does squat in shaping the atmosphere. It just doesn't have enough mass. That leaves your theory without a real cause for why the atmosphere is changed shape (very, very slightly). AGW theory, of course, explains it well.

But let's humor you. Solar strength is on the uptick now. According to what you said in post #1, that should be making the polar atmosphere _thicker_. Yet you say it's getting thinner.

Dang, you even contradict your own theory.

 

[jc456]

If you're going to lie, try not to be so stupid about it. I addressed the topic. You're running from it.

Also, I see the usual Republican gender-confusion.

Now, do you have anything to contribute to the topic, besides the personal attacks, red-herrings and deflections?

If you thought the paper was so great, tell us what you thought was great about it. You know, discuss the paper. Like I did.

Hey skirt wiener, go to the post I responded to! You’re welcome

 

[Crick]

And you choose to look away and demean... DO I have your idiocy pegged or what... YOU DO NOT like what the science implies so you demean the person rather than discuss the science. Vinos paper is quite accurate and is bearing out empirical reviews of his hypothesis. Your AGW crap not so much.

What do you think of this linear, energy transport, route change? The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles and due to that thinning, the energy loss increases and speed of that loss? Empirical evidence removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here.

I think Vinos' suggestions is the route change. Keep in mind the dimensions and configuration of the Earth's atmosphere. It is 100 miles thick. From the equator to the poles is 60 times that distance. And now consider what is driving radiative transfer. The average temperature of the Earth's surface is 14C (287K). From a radiative perspective, the temperature at the end of that 100 vertical miles of continuously rarifying air is -271C (2K). The temperature differential taking Vinos' poleward route is significantly slower, particularly considering the photon's mean free path in the atmosphere. The temperature drop going north is going to require over 6,000, uniformly dense miles to drop from an average equatorial temp of 27C (300K) to an average annual polar temp of -20C (253K) in the North and -44C (229K) in the South.

So:
Going straight up to space is driven by a 285 Kelvin degree differential across 100 miles of air
Going poleward is driven by a 59 Kelvin degree average differential across 6,000 miles of air
Which path do you think most energy is going to take?

To what empirical evidence do you refer that "removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think Vinos' suggestions is the route change. Keep in mind the dimensions and configuration of the Earth's atmosphere. It is 100 miles thick. From the equator to the poles is 60 times that distance. And now consider what is driving radiative transfer. The average temperature of the Earth's surface is 14C (287K). From a radiative perspective, the temperature at the end of that 100 vertical miles of continuously rarifying air is -271C (2K). The temperature differential taking Vinos' poleward route is significantly slower, particularly considering the photon's mean free path in the atmosphere. The temperature drop going north is going to require over 6,000, uniformly dense miles to drop from an average equatorial temp of 27C (300K) to an average annual polar temp of -20C (253K) in the North and -44C (229K) in the South.

So:
Going straight up to space is driven by a 285 Kelvin degree differential across 100 miles of air
Going poleward is driven by a 59 Kelvin degree average differential across 6,000 miles of air
Which path do you think most energy is going to take?

To what empirical evidence do you refer that "removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here"?

You keep missing the elephant in the room. LWIR is radiated above cloud top in the second path so the energy loss will increase. The distance it must travel makes retention impossible and the reason the mid troposphere cools. You miss the very basic physical processes that make CO2 irrelevant.

 

[Crick]

You keep missing the elephant in the room. LWIR is radiated above cloud top in the second path so the energy loss will increase.

LW doesn't escape the atmosphere anywhere till it get up to the upper stratosphere due to the complete lack of water vapor and reduced air density. The vertical path to space may be shorter at the poles but if it has to laterally penetrate 3,000 miles of air to get there, it's not going to be the favored path.

The distance it must travel makes retention impossible and the reason the mid troposphere cools.

You frequently write sentences that make me think you are intentionally trying to be difficult to understand because you really don't know what you're saying but want to make your reader think its their shortcoming.

How does WHAT distance make IR (I assume) impossible to retain?

You miss the very basic physical processes that make CO2 irrelevant.

Then perhaps you could spell them out for us.