Solar v Anthropogenic Causes of Global Warming

[mamooth]

People simply don't understand the electromagnetic waves from the sun are pulses.

HAHAHHAAHHAHAHHA

"Electromagnetic waves"

You have no idea of what the terms you use even mean. It's like you just spewing out StarTrek technobabble about realigning the flux tubes for the dilithium matrix.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So called "back-radiation" at wavelengths above 10um can not warm anything.

Back to your denial of conservation of energy. That's just one reason why you're a laughable crank.

The absence of a hot spot in our troposphere shows this fact clearly. Recent studies show perfect correlation of solar input rise and atmospheric release rates indicating the adaptic lapse rate is coupled with system input.

Solar input has been dropping. Is there any topic you where you don't claim the exact opposite of reality?

Solar activity also regulates cosmic rays affecting earths cloud cover.

Lots of observed physical evidence to show it as well.

Nope, none at all. Cloud cover hasn't been changing as cosmic rays change. Another of your theories bites the dust.

You really have no concept of how EM works or why the imbalance of energy creates the waves..

 

[mamooth]

One paper vs 36 that say otherwise.. go away squidward.

Yet you won't post these mystery papers. Curious, that. Are they some type of classified data?

You can try to redefine reality, but it doesn't work. Sunspot level trend has been downward since 1975. Twist and squirm as you might, that's undeniable. it's been warming since 1975, hence temperature is _not_ following the sunspot trend.

 

[mamooth]

You really have no concept of how EM works or why the imbalance of energy creates the waves..

Oh, pleasepleaseplease tell us. Does the explanation include charged photons?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really have no concept of how EM works or why the imbalance of energy creates the waves..

Oh, pleasepleaseplease tell us. Does the explanation include charged photons?

I see your sticking with con census science and the flat earth society. Hows that sun going round the earth thing working out for ya?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Solar could be the only logical explanation.

We will need a solar landing before we can fix it.

...at night, of course!

If the earths rotational speed slowed it would have a massive impact on the day/night temperature differential..

 

[Crick]

People simply don't understand the electromagnetic waves from the sun are pulses. These are higher in count during high solar activity but they also reappear during times of very low solar activity as well.

Theory suggests the solar dynamo creates these at opposing high and lows of the cycle.

Pulses in what sense? What are the characteristics of these pulses? Are you talking about the sun's normal EM output - its light? What is the range of their "count" and to what "solar activity" do you refer? Whose theory is suggesting that the solar dynamo is creating them? And when you say "the cycle" should we assume you mean the 11-year sunspot cycle?

 

[Old Rocks]

Bull Shit sqwdiward..

There are mountains of evidence. Because you refuse to believe them, as they don't fit your agenda, its not worth my time to post them up again.

I just posted the actual evidence. You ran from it, and now you claimed you have mystery data showing otherwise, but you won't post it.

Very convincing. Go collect your Nobel Prize.

One paper vs 36 that say otherwise.. go away squidward.

links

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar could be the only logical explanation.

We will need a solar landing before we can fix it.

...at night, of course!

If the earths rotational speed slowed it would have a massive impact on the day/night temperature differential..

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[westwall]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

Hopefully, they'll incorporate it into the models that they have. Even though this is a significant contributor, you can see from the overlay upon actual (and modeled) global temperature that there are a lot of other very significant contributors from the environmental processes that are being measured and increasingly understood. The doctor who made this presentation says that sunspot activity is unpredictable but has bounds of both magnitude and duration so while no really accurate prediction can be made, a range of predictions could be. He believes that the typical cycles of the sun would most likely give us an additional 1 degree C increase but I don't think he's including positive feedbacks so we're not done yet.

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

 

[Crick]

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole ******* planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

 

[westwall]

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole ******* planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

 

[mamooth]

Back in the real world, even Hansen's 1988 prediction was very close, and models in general have been very good. I'm talking the real models, not the frauds that deniers pretend are the models.

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate

I especially like westwall's claim that "tens of billions" of dollars have been spent modelling. No, he won't back that up, because it's a completely insane number he yanked out of his butt. That's one reason he stinks so badly at all science, because he has no sense of the scale of numbers.

 

[Crick]

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole ******* planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

None of that gives the slightest indication that climate scientists are USING those simple models. Every one of these was created for the general public. The current model framework is CMIP5. The link I posted gave a good idea of the minimum requirements for one. It is NOT simple.

 

[westwall]

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole ******* planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

None of that gives the slightest indication that climate scientists are USING simple models. Every one of these was created for the general public. The current model framework is CMIP5. The link I posted gave a good idea of the minimum requirements for one. It is NOT simple.

Sheesh you are one dense silly person. Post up any climatology study you wish and you will see these words..."we used a simple model". Go ahead. I dare you!

 

[Crick]

AR5 used CMIP5 models. Why don't you try to demonstrate for us that CMIP5 models are "simple"?

 

[westwall]

AR5 used CMIP5 models. Why don't you try to demonstrate for us that CMIP5 models are "simple"?

No sweat. The bolded section shows how terribly simplistic they are.



"Since 1850 the global surface temperature has warmed by about 0.9 oC. The CMIP5 computer climate models adopted by the IPCC have projected that the global surface temperature could rise by 2-5 oC from 2000 to 2100 for anthropogenic reasons. These projections are currently used to justify expensive mitigation policies to reduce the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2. However, recent scientific research has pointed out that the IPCC climate models fail to properly reconstruct the natural variability of the climate. Indeed, advanced techniques of analysis have revealed that the natural variability of the climate is made of several oscillations spanning from the decadal to the millennial scales (e.g. with periods of about 9.1, 10.4, 20, 60, 115, 1000 years and others). These oscillations likely have an astronomical origin. The same considerations yield to the conclusion that the IPCC climate models severely overestimate the anthropogenic climatic warming by about two times. Herein I demonstrate a number of failures of the IPCC models and I propose a semi-empirical climate model able to reconstruct the natural climatic variability since Medieval times. I show that this model projects a very moderate warming until 2040 and a warming less than 2 oC from 2000 to 2100 using the same anthropogenic emission scenarios used by the CMIP5 models. This result suggests that climatic adaptation policies, which are less expensive than the mitigation ones, could be sufficient to address most of the consequences of a climatic change during the 21st century. Finally, I show that a temperature forecast made in 2011 by Scafetta (Ref. 25) based on harmonic oscillations has well agreed with the global surface temperature data up to August 2016."




http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/files/Journals/HTECH/IJHT.34.S2_35.pdf

 

[Crick]

Scafetta's has NEVER provided the math to support his hypotheses of warming from planetary cycles: that the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn are causing the orbits of the Sun and the Earth's moon to deviate sufficiently to create the observed warming. That CMIP5 models don't take the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn into account is hardly evidence that they are too simple. It's evidence that Scafetta is a whack job.

You will note there aren't a lot of people on Scafetta's bus. As in, no one.

As for his choice of journal, from the IJHT's own website:

International Journal of Heat and Technology (IJHT) is a quarterly international journal for scientists, engineers, technologists, aimed at circulating new developments in the fields of heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and their applications, predominantly (but not only) applied to heat transfer, industrial and technological processes. In addition to the principal areas of research, the journal covers research results in related fields, including combined heat and mass transfer, micro and nanoscale systems, multiphase flow, combustion, radiative transfer, porous media, cryogenics, turbulence, and thermophysical property measurements and techniques.

Note that neither the word "climate" nor "atmosphere" appear in this rather lengthy description.

 

[westwall]

Scafetta's has NEVER provided the math to support his hypotheses of warming from planetary cycles: that the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn are causing the orbits of the Sun and the Earth's moon to deviate sufficiently to create the observed warming. That CMIP5 models don't take the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn into account is hardly evidence that they are too simple. It's evidence that Scafetta is a whack job.

You will note there aren't a lot of people on Scafetta's bus. As in, no one.

As for his choice of journal, from the IJHT's own website:

International Journal of Heat and Technology (IJHT) is a quarterly international journal for scientists, engineers, technologists, aimed at circulating new developments in the fields of heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and their applications, predominantly (but not only) applied to heat transfer, industrial and technological processes. In addition to the principal areas of research, the journal covers research results in related fields, including combined heat and mass transfer, micro and nanoscale systems, multiphase flow, combustion, radiative transfer, porous media, cryogenics, turbulence, and thermophysical property measurements and techniques.

Note that neither the word "climate" nor "atmosphere" appear in this rather lengthy description.

Gee, sounds like every other member of the climate mafia who to date have never released a single bit of their raw data. They claim it's either lost, (plausible) destroyed (ridiculous) or proprietary (nonsensical) as excuses to not release their data and methods. Mann screwed the pooch big time when he sued Dr. Ball because he will be forced by the Court to release his data. And that will cook him.

 

[RollingThunder]

Scafetta's has NEVER provided the math to support his hypotheses of warming from planetary cycles: that the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn are causing the orbits of the Sun and the Earth's moon to deviate sufficiently to create the observed warming. That CMIP5 models don't take the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn into account is hardly evidence that they are too simple. It's evidence that Scafetta is a whack job.

You will note there aren't a lot of people on Scafetta's bus. As in, no one.

As for his choice of journal, from the IJHT's own website:

International Journal of Heat and Technology (IJHT) is a quarterly international journal for scientists, engineers, technologists, aimed at circulating new developments in the fields of heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and their applications, predominantly (but not only) applied to heat transfer, industrial and technological processes. In addition to the principal areas of research, the journal covers research results in related fields, including combined heat and mass transfer, micro and nanoscale systems, multiphase flow, combustion, radiative transfer, porous media, cryogenics, turbulence, and thermophysical property measurements and techniques.

Note that neither the word "climate" nor "atmosphere" appear in this rather lengthy description.

Gee, sounds like every other member of the climate mafia who to date have never released a single bit of their raw data. They claim it's either lost, (plausible) destroyed (ridiculous) or proprietary (nonsensical) as excuses to not release their data and methods. Mann screwed the pooch big time when he sued Dr. Ball because he will be forced by the Court to release his data. And that will cook him.

Gee, sounds like you are still a liar and a troll, walleyed.

In the real world.....(one example out of many)....

Why don't scientists release raw data supporting climate change?
Quora
Answer:
Richard Muller, CoFounder, Berkeley Earth, Professor of Physics, U. Calif. Berkeley, creator of "Physics for Future Presidents"
Written Dec 28, 2015

Berkeley Earth does release all the raw data relevant to global warming. Berkeley Earth has the most extensive collection of raw data of any climate group, and it is all made available on our website, Home - Berkeley Earth. These data include the data that the British group kept confidential out of concern that they did not have permission to make it public.

In addition we release all of our analysis programs. We do this in the interest of transparency. We believe our analyses are objective and done using the best statistical means available, but we encourage others to use the same data if they find anything in our results to be something they dispute.