Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[mamooth]

Really don't understand your own theory do ya?

I understand you're making up all kinds of crazy stuff and calling it my theory. Your cult is helpless to address actual AGW theory, so it's forced to make up such crazy strawmen.

Feel free to declare victory because you've so decisively defeated those imaginary bogeymen. Meanwhile, the world has moved on without you. Enjoy the your irrelevance, being you've worked so hard to earn it.

 

[mamooth]

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. The level of volcanic activity isn't any different than it's been for the past century. Anyone claiming that such things haven't been examined is putting forth a conspiracy theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

Really don't understand your own theory do ya?

I understand you're making up all kinds of crazy stuff and calling it my theory. Your cult is helpless to address actual AGW theory, so it's forced to make up such crazy strawmen.

Feel free to declare victory because you've so decisively defeated those imaginary bogeymen. Meanwhile, the world has moved on without you. Enjoy the your irrelevance, being you've worked so hard to earn it.

Your better choice at this point -- rather than goin postal -- would be to admit that the BASIC PREMISE of the AGW theory that you defend -- embarrasses you. And you want to deflect and attack rather than defend the fact that you believe the Earth's climate system is defective and inherently unstable..

That's HOW the AGWarming theory MAGNIFIES the actual warming powers of CO2 to get those headlines.. Are you denying that?

Address the issue and cut the crap..

 

[SixFoot]

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. Any claiming that such things haven't been examined is engaging in conspiracy talk.

Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. Any claiming that such things haven't been examined is engaging in conspiracy talk.

Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?

You will find SixFoot, that there is very little "help" coming from the "warmers" on the board. They are treating this as some type of fantasy league season and relying on "consensus" and "settled science".

We actually know a lot about previous climate changes on the planet and the stuff you listed IS the best explanation for mile thick glaciers in Downtown Detroit. We also know that the climate system is pretty robust having swung thru all of these drastic eras before man. And doing so without the scary predictions that it will destroy itself thru runaway warming..

What we DON'T know is how heat is actually stored and moved thru the surface of the planet by interactions between tropics and poles. And the TIME it takes for the planet to assume new equilibrium temperatures after some type of shocking forcing.
We measure and study all kinds of semi-periodic ocean and atmos "natural cycles" but dont spend enough time understanding the mechanics of them for example. See the AMO and PDO and ENSO cycles of the oceans OR the the conveyors that run in deep oceans between poles and tropics. OR even the motions and cycles of the jet stream and arctic air containment.

There is also a vast amount of confusion about the magnitude of temperature change to equilibrium because of "climate sensitivity". So if CO2 increases FORCE a change of 1deg at the surface --- will that be MAGNIFIED by feedback and heat transfer components? And if so how much?

Just take a look at the vast disagreement in the literature about a "GLOBAL" Climate sensitivity number. It's actually a stupid construct that the ENTIRE PLANET responds the same way to a change in temp. Empirically, the Earth has many climate zones that will respond drastically different to a 1deg change. YET --- because the gold standard in getting paid is "GLOBAL" warming -- instead of understanding the regional responses --- we've wasted TONS of money and science on arguing about ONE NUMBER for the entire planet --- instead of figuring out how different regions respond and interact.

Key characteristic of Global Warming science has been simplistic SINGLE NUMBER answers to complex problems. Like ONE Global temperature anomaly or ONE Global Climate Sensitivity number or "hockey stick" studies that pretend to estimate ONE Global temperature reconstruction over 1000 of years EVERYWHERE on the surface with scant information from tree rings, ice cores and mud bug hole depths.

Never NEEDED to address the complexities of a system as difficult as the thermodynamics and climate system of the Earth. These folks were paid to come up with simplistic single number answers that could validate the larger agendas of Global Warming..

Simplistic science for simplistic minds. That's why you find so many Cricks, OldieRocks, Mamooths and RollingThunders around claiming consensus and "settled science". Everyone else is still capable of useful skepticism and individual thought by doing some very simple investigation of their own..

 

[SixFoot]

You will find SixFoot, that there is very little "help" coming from the "warmers" on the board. They are treating this as some type of fantasy league season and relying on "consensus" and "settled science".

We actually know a lot about previous climate changes on the planet and the stuff you listed IS the best explanation for mile thick glaciers in Downtown Detroit. We also know that the climate system is pretty robust having swung thru all of these drastic eras before man.

What we DON'T know is how heat is actually stored and moved thru the surface of the planet by interactions between tropics and poles. And the TIME it takes for the planet to assume new equilibrium temperatures after some type of shocking forcing. There is also a vast amount of confusion about the magnitude of temperature change to equilibrium because of "climate sensitivity". So if CO2 increases FORCE a change of 1deg at the surface --- will that be MAGNIFIED by feedback and heat transfer components? And if so how much?

Just take a look at the vast disagreement in the literature about a "GLOBAL" Climate sensitivity number. It's actually a stupid construct that the ENTIRE PLANET responds the same way to a change in temp. Empirically, the Earth has many climate zones that will respond drastically different to a 1deg change. YET --- because the gold standard in getting paid is "GLOBAL" warming -- instead of understanding the regional responses --- we've wasted TONS of money and science on arguing about ONE NUMBER for the entire planet --- instead of figuring out how different regions respond and interact.

Key characteristic of Global Warming science has been simplistic SINGLE NUMBER answers to complex problems. Like ONE Global temperature anomaly or ONE Global Climate Sensitivity number or "hockey stick" studies that pretend to estimate ONE Global temperature reconstruction over 1000 of years EVERYWHERE on the surface with scant information from tree rings, ice cores and mud bug hole depths.

Never NEEDED to address the complexities of a system as difficult as the thermodynamics and climate system of the Earth. These folks were paid to come up with simplistic single number answers that could validate the larger agendas of Global Warming..

Simplistic science for simplistic minds. That's why you find so many Cricks, OldieRocks, Mamooths and RollingThunders around claiming consensus and "settled science". Everyone else is still capable of useful skepticism and individual thought by doing some very simple investigation of their own..

The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the complete and automatic dismissal of the things I listed, particularly the Milankovitch Cycles. If man is responsible for countering the Solar cooling cycles associated, then I say "THANK YOU!" to everyone contributing.

As a farmer, I depend on the warm weather to keep my family fed and my bills paid. Cooling is far more detrimental to the human race and always has been. Food becomes scarce and people end up starving. What happens if the arctic becomes ice-free? Well, Canada for one, is going to have a shit ton of fertile farmland and real estate.

This past winter was a detriment to my fruit trees and livestock. I lost years worth of future food and money thanks to the cold snaps and the late frosts. The coming winter isn't looking to be any better either. I'll be adding 12 more trees to my orchard next spring (red/golden apple, pear, peach, cherry and almond), and I'm hoping, praying the young food bearers won't suffer a similar fate, lest I be out of another few thousand dollars.

 

[Crick]

Orbital eccentricity
Axial obliquity
Axial precession
Apsidal precession
Orbital inclination
Solar activity
Volcanism
Oceanic currents

I assume you want to discuss the relationship between these parameters and activities and global warming.

Why don't you tell us what effect you believe these various processes are having on the Earth's climate.

Maybe SOMEONE should study them -- dontcha think? Because they are best explanations for ALL the drastic changes in the climate before man.. But today's Climate Scientists don't get paid unless they study CO2 as the primary control knob of the GreenHouse.. We've wasting a lot of brain, time and money..

They have been studied. They are being studied. The literature is filled with studies on all those topics and dozens more. They are discussed quite thoroughly in the IPCC assessment reports. Claiming that they are not is simply ridiculous. Claiming that these are the best explanations for the warming observed over the last century is also ridiculous. The magnitude of the affects these phenomena have had is simply inadequate to account for the observations.

 

[Crick]

I believe the invention of the spectrophotometer predates 1978.

BTW, I've just started a thread in the announcements and feedback forum about the use of the invective "tard". I wouldn't have thought I'd need to explain my objections to the term but surely it's obvious that its use, no matter at whom it's aimed or what the perceived justification might be, is extraordinarily painful and offensive to a group of people who deserve our care and compassion rather than this sort of puerile abuse. It is a term I would have thought you wouldn't hear from anyone who'd completed elementary school.

I'd like to ask all of you who've taken to using the term to think about who it is you're actually hurting by doing so.

Can you say 'Tard'?

As I thought I made clear, I choose not to. It would be nice if you did the same. Surely we have enough insults to sling at each other that we can exclude a handful to protect the innocent.

 

[Crick]

Do you really think no one is studying all those factors? Vulcanism? Ocean currents? Orbital mechanics? That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.

NO THERE NOT! 165 billion dollars to climate science to study global warming, a political hack job. Those who do real science are being ignored for the ones who sell snake oil without basis in reality,

You're being ridiculous. Go to Google and enter "scholarly papers on vulcanism and climate change". Then replace vulcanism with "ocean currents", then with orbital mechanics. You will get pages and pages and pages of returns. And on what do you base this comment that those doing "real science" are being ignored in favor of others selling "snake oil" with no basis in reality? How could you believe that any charge, that extreme and that over-generalized, could have any demonstrable basis in reality? Come back to Earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you really think no one is studying all those factors? Vulcanism? Ocean currents? Orbital mechanics? That's not exactly the bleeding edge of arcane.

NO THERE NOT! 165 billion dollars to climate science to study global warming, a political hack job. Those who do real science are being ignored for the ones who sell snake oil without basis in reality,

You're being ridiculous. Go to Google and enter "scholarly papers on vulcanism and climate change". Then replace vulcanism with "ocean currents", then with orbital mechanics. You will get pages and pages and pages of returns. And on what do you base this comment that those doing "real science" are being ignored in favor of others selling "snake oil" with no basis in reality? How could you believe that any charge, that extreme and that over-generalized, could have any demonstrable basis in reality? Come back to Earth.

Pull me a reference on why the AMO has the period that it has. Or how to PREDICT the progression of Rossby waves.. OR better yet, Tell me how a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity number tells a scientist JackShit about how the Climate actually works..

THOSE are details that will explain SMALL changes in surface temperature. (YES --- I said SMALL). And the topic of this thread is an area that COULD conceivably have a LARGER effect than Milankovich Cycles and we could not study it until just 20 yrs ago. Yet -- it doesn't warrant 1% of the money or attention that the phoney CO2 hoax has gotten.

 

[flacaltenn]

You will find SixFoot, that there is very little "help" coming from the "warmers" on the board. They are treating this as some type of fantasy league season and relying on "consensus" and "settled science".

We actually know a lot about previous climate changes on the planet and the stuff you listed IS the best explanation for mile thick glaciers in Downtown Detroit. We also know that the climate system is pretty robust having swung thru all of these drastic eras before man.

What we DON'T know is how heat is actually stored and moved thru the surface of the planet by interactions between tropics and poles. And the TIME it takes for the planet to assume new equilibrium temperatures after some type of shocking forcing. There is also a vast amount of confusion about the magnitude of temperature change to equilibrium because of "climate sensitivity". So if CO2 increases FORCE a change of 1deg at the surface --- will that be MAGNIFIED by feedback and heat transfer components? And if so how much?

Just take a look at the vast disagreement in the literature about a "GLOBAL" Climate sensitivity number. It's actually a stupid construct that the ENTIRE PLANET responds the same way to a change in temp. Empirically, the Earth has many climate zones that will respond drastically different to a 1deg change. YET --- because the gold standard in getting paid is "GLOBAL" warming -- instead of understanding the regional responses --- we've wasted TONS of money and science on arguing about ONE NUMBER for the entire planet --- instead of figuring out how different regions respond and interact.

Key characteristic of Global Warming science has been simplistic SINGLE NUMBER answers to complex problems. Like ONE Global temperature anomaly or ONE Global Climate Sensitivity number or "hockey stick" studies that pretend to estimate ONE Global temperature reconstruction over 1000 of years EVERYWHERE on the surface with scant information from tree rings, ice cores and mud bug hole depths.

Never NEEDED to address the complexities of a system as difficult as the thermodynamics and climate system of the Earth. These folks were paid to come up with simplistic single number answers that could validate the larger agendas of Global Warming..

Simplistic science for simplistic minds. That's why you find so many Cricks, OldieRocks, Mamooths and RollingThunders around claiming consensus and "settled science". Everyone else is still capable of useful skepticism and individual thought by doing some very simple investigation of their own..

The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the complete and automatic dismissal of the things I listed, particularly the Milankovitch Cycles. If man is responsible for countering the Solar cooling cycles associated, then I say "THANK YOU!" to everyone contributing.

As a farmer, I depend on the warm weather to keep my family fed and my bills paid. Cooling is far more detrimental to the human race and always has been. Food becomes scarce and people end up starving. What happens if the arctic becomes ice-free? Well, Canada for one, is going to have a shit ton of fertile farmland and real estate.

This past winter was a detriment to my fruit trees and livestock. I lost years worth of future food and money thanks to the cold snaps and the late frosts. The coming winter isn't looking to be any better either. I'll be adding 12 more trees to my orchard next spring (red/golden apple, pear, peach, cherry and almond), and I'm hoping, praying the young food bearers won't suffer a similar fate, lest I be out of another few thousand dollars.

Did you notice the botched News Special from NBC this spring about the Maple Syrup guy in the NorthEast that got quoted out of context on Global Warming? Was a PURPOSEFUL edit to make it appear that last winter was TOO WARM for a good harvest. He was pissed. And he's a victim and an example of the PURPOSEFUL misrepresentation to the public. NBC completely destroys it's credibility on the topic --- and no one cares.. When it smells bad -- throw it out.... Half the shit the public gets fed was NEVER even in a published science paper. Came out of the Press Release office INTENDED to misrepresent the work and confuse the public.

It would be ironic wouldn't it if the piddling amount of CO2 in atmos was the only thing delaying the NEXT of the past 4 Ice Ages. If there's one thing we KNOW about the recent climate on a Millenial scale, it's that there's been multiple periods of INTENSE glaciating cold, punctured by BRIEF periods of our kind of weather.
Look at the graph and it'll scare your pants off and you'll forget about "carbon".
It's about DUE in time. Several of the past inter-glacials (warm spikes) have been shorter than one we are currently in.. And they have been occurring on a pretty regular basis (give or take 20,000 years) !

 

[Crick]

Do either of you have any data to support the idea that the warming observed over the last century or so is due to Milankovitch cycles?

 

[SixFoot]

Did you notice the botched News Special from NBC this spring about the Maple Syrup guy in the NorthEast that got quoted out of context on Global Warming? Was a PURPOSEFUL edit to make it appear that last winter was TOO WARM for a good harvest. He was pissed. And he's a victim and an example of the PURPOSEFUL misrepresentation to the public. NBC completely destroys it's credibility on the topic --- and no one cares.. When it smells bad -- throw it out.... Half the shit the public gets fed was NEVER even in a published science paper. Came out of the Press Release office INTENDED to misrepresent the work and confuse the public.

It would be ironic wouldn't it if the piddling amount of CO2 in atmos was the only thing delaying the NEXT of the past 4 Ice Ages. If there's one thing we KNOW about the recent climate on a Millenial scale, it's that there's been multiple periods of INTENSE glaciating cold, punctured by BRIEF periods of our kind of weather.
Look at the graph and it'll scare your pants off and you'll forget about "carbon".
It's about DUE in time. Several of the past inter-glacials (warm spikes) have been shorter than one we are currently in.. And they have been occurring on a pretty regular basis (give or take 20,000 years) !

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

Graphs like this? I have no idea who made them or where they came from, but of that is how the climate fluctuates, then I sure do hope we're preventing the next cold dip.

 

[SixFoot]

Do either of you have any data to support the idea that the warming observed over the last century or so is due to Milankovitch cycles?

I don't, but if anyone wants to discuss it, I'm open to the idea.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you notice the botched News Special from NBC this spring about the Maple Syrup guy in the NorthEast that got quoted out of context on Global Warming? Was a PURPOSEFUL edit to make it appear that last winter was TOO WARM for a good harvest. He was pissed. And he's a victim and an example of the PURPOSEFUL misrepresentation to the public. NBC completely destroys it's credibility on the topic --- and no one cares.. When it smells bad -- throw it out.... Half the shit the public gets fed was NEVER even in a published science paper. Came out of the Press Release office INTENDED to misrepresent the work and confuse the public.

It would be ironic wouldn't it if the piddling amount of CO2 in atmos was the only thing delaying the NEXT of the past 4 Ice Ages. If there's one thing we KNOW about the recent climate on a Millenial scale, it's that there's been multiple periods of INTENSE glaciating cold, punctured by BRIEF periods of our kind of weather.
Look at the graph and it'll scare your pants off and you'll forget about "carbon".
It's about DUE in time. Several of the past inter-glacials (warm spikes) have been shorter than one we are currently in.. And they have been occurring on a pretty regular basis (give or take 20,000 years) !

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

Graphs like this? I have no idea who made them or where they came from, but of that is how the climate fluctuates, then I sure do hope we're preventing the next cold dip.

Absolutely my man.. See that last warm spike at the right? If you believe the odds that a system in oscillation is gonna keep oscillating ---- we are overdue for the cooling compared to the short width of some of those previous spikes. BUT --- as they are forced to say on Wall Street.

"Past performance is no indication of future returns."

 

[Crick]

Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. Any claiming that such things haven't been examined is engaging in conspiracy talk.

Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OK, a lot of reading, but you stated that you wanted someone to show you the science. And science is not a simple one line bumper sticker.

 

[SixFoot]

Then why do you and yours keep trying to tell us that CO2 can't lead temperature?

Well, I don't recall telling you that.

Actually, I'm more interested in the science.

Then do some. For the first time. Surprise us. Show that you're something more than a cultist pasting a list and saying "but have you proven it's not one of these, huh, have you?".

That's not how science works. If you propose that something is the true cause of warming, you need to support your theory. AGW science has supported their theory admirably for decades running now. You don't get that kind of credibility unless you earn it. So earn it, by doing by some science.

All those things you listed have been looked at, in detail. Orbital parameters are well understood, and their combined effects should be causing a slow cooling now. Ocean currents don't cause global warming or cooling, they just put noise on the signal, changing whether heat goes into the ocean or the air. Solar output has been steady or declining slightly, yet we have warming. Any claiming that such things haven't been examined is engaging in conspiracy talk.

Its hard to figure out what science you're trying to teach me through all your useless attempts to get a rise out of me. Would you like to try again or do you just want to troll?

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society in the world;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OK, a lot of reading, but you stated that you wanted someone to show you the science. And science is not a simple one line bumper sticker.

I know its not a one liner. That's why I'm waiting to have an in depth discussion about the topics. It doesn't have to be all at once.


Ain't nobody got time for that. lol

 

[Old Rocks]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

 

[SixFoot]

See how quickly the ice reacts to the warming trend in the Milankovic cyles? Then look how long it takes to plunge into the next period of continental glaciation. The GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere have far greater forcing than does the Milankovic Cycles.

http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg

See, now that part makes me happy about the possibility of humans being able to prevent an ice age rife with mass starvation.