Weakest solar cycle in 200 years

[Crick]

Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".

They are bogus since they exist ONLY in climate models. Never happened in the last 600 Million years, which you keep ignoring over and over. Positive feedback effects are never significant anywhere on the planet. Negative feedbacks are dominant and a big part of the Convection process of removing heat from the surface.

There are new published papers showing that Positive modeling feedbacks claims are dead on arrival. From Ollila, 2018

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
“
The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”

Another paper about NEGATIVE feedback:

A global radiative-convective feedback

Abstract.
We have investigated the sensitivity of the intensity of convective activity and atmospheric radiative cooling to radiatively thick upper-tropospheric clouds using a new version of the Colorado State University General Circulation Model. The model includes a bulk cloud microphysics scheme to predict the formation of cloud water, cloud ice, rain, and snow. The cloud optical properties are interactive and dependent upon the cloud water and cloud ice paths. We find that the formation of a persistent upper tropospheric cloud ice shield leads to decreased atmospheric radiative cooling and increased static stability. Convective activity is then strongly suppressed. In this way, upper-tropospheric clouds act as regulators of the global hydrologic cycle, and provide a negative feedback between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective activity

 

[Sunsettommy]

If people pay more attention to the INCREASE in OLWR during El-Nino phases and a DECREASE during La-Nino phases, they would realize that CO2 does poorly in stopping the increased out going IR rate during warming spells. Here is a nice paper discussing this based on Satellite data.

Surveys from Geophysics:

Advances in Understanding Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Variability from Satellite Observations

"Abstract
This paper highlights how the emerging record of satellite observations from the Earth Observation System (EOS) and A-Train constellation are advancing our ability to more completely document and understand the underlying processes associated with variations in the Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget. Large-scale TOA radiation changes during the past decade are observed to be within 0.5 Wm−2 per decade based upon comparisons between Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard Terra and Aqua and other instruments. Tropical variations in emitted outgoing longwave (LW) radiation are found to closely track changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During positive ENSO phase (El Niño), outgoing LW radiation increases, and decreases during the negative ENSO phase (La Niña). The coldest year during the last decade occurred in 2008, during which strong La Nina conditions persisted throughout most of the year. Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) observations show that the lower temperatures extended throughout much of the troposphere for several months, resulting in a reduction in outgoing LW radiation and an increase in net incoming radiation. At the global scale, outgoing LW flux anomalies are partially compensated for by decreases in midlatitude cloud fraction and cloud height, as observed by Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer, respectively. CERES data show that clouds have a net radiative warming influence during La Niña conditions and a net cooling influence during El Niño, but the magnitude of the anomalies varies greatly from one ENSO event to another. Regional cloud-radiation variations among several Terra and A-Train instruments show consistent patterns and exhibit marked fluctuations at monthly timescales in response to tropical atmosphere-ocean dynamical processes associated with ENSO and Madden–Julian Oscillation.

 

[Crick]

1) Models all the way.

2) Models all the way

3) Models all the way, the paper is badly out of date since CO2 doubling sensitivity has dropped radically.

4) Another what if paper that is already sliding out of date since Greenland ice pack loss has dropped a lot to an actual INCREASE last year.

You have yet to identify the feedback processes you claimed were based on "a bogus paradigm" . Models are not feedback processes and they are not based on a bogus paradigm.

1) Models all the way.
NONE of your links addresses the most important tests of the AGW conjecture which makes most of their model driven papers moot. The lack of a Tropic "hot spot" and the 50% less per decade warming trend rate prediction/projection.

First, it's TROPOSPHERIC HOT SPOT, not "tropic. And second, if you think that's the sine qua non of AGW, you've only just demonstrated your abysmal ignorance on the topic.

1) Models all the way.Permafrost melted out in part of southern Greenland that allowed Vikings to grow crops which are impossible today, yet no run away warming occurred. It was around 2C warmer than now in the early part of the interglacial, yet still no run away warming trend, heck it has NEVER happened in last 600 Million years.

Paleoclimatology
Main article: Paleoclimatology
Events that could be described as runaway climate change may have occurred in the past.

Clathrate gun
Main article: Clathrate gun
The clathrate gun hypothesis suggests an abrupt climate change due to a massive release of methane gas from methane clathrates on the seafloor. It has been speculated that the Permian-Triassic extinction event[37] and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum[38]were caused by massive clathrate release.

Snowball Earth
Main articles: Snowball earth and Ice-albedo feedback
Geological evidence shows that ice-albedo feedback caused sea ice advance to near the equator at several points in Earth history.[39] Modeling work shows that such an event would indeed be a result of a self-sustaining ice-albedo effect,[40] and that such a condition could be escaped via the accumulation of CO2 from volcanic outgassing.[41]

39) References Hoffman, P. F.; Kaufman, A. J.; Halverson, G. P.; Schrag, D. P. (1998). "A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth" (PDF). Science. 281(5381): 1342–1346. Bibcode:1998Sci...281.1342H. doi:10.1126/science.281.5381.1342. PMID 9721097.

40)Jump up^ M.I. Budyko (1969). "Effect of solar radiation variation on climate of Earth" (PDF). Tellus. 21 (5): 611–1969. doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x.

41) Jump up^ Kirschvink, Joseph (1992). "Late Proterozoic low-latitude global glaciation: the Snowball Earth". In J. W. Schopf; C. Klein. The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-36615-1.

1) Models all the way.
Strong Positive feedbacks have NEVER existed because Water Vapor carries away a lot of "heat" from the surface as part of the CONVECTION process, which a significant NEGATIVE feedback.

Your delusions are based on modeling scenarios that are absurd.

Really?

Runaway greenhouse effect
See also: Runaway greenhouse effect
The runaway greenhouse effect has several meanings. At the least extreme, this implies global warming sufficient to induce out-of-control amplifying feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates. At the most extreme, a Venus-like planet with crustal carbon baked into the atmosphere and a surface temperature of several hundred degrees, an irreversible climate state.

Between these two is the moist greenhouse, which occurs if the climate forcing is large enough to make water vapour (H2O) a major atmospheric constituent.[8] In principle, an extreme moist greenhouse might cause an instability with water vapour preventing radiation to space of all absorbed solar energy, resulting in very high surface temperature and evaporation of the ocean.[9] However, simulations indicate that no plausible human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing can cause an instability and baked-crust runaway greenhouse effect.[10]

Conceivable levels of human-made climate forcing could yield the low-end runaway greenhouse. A forcing of 12–16 W m−2 would require carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to increase 8–16 times. If the forcing were due only to CO2 change, this would raise the global mean temperature by 16–24 °C with much larger polar warming. A warming of 16–24 °C produces a moderately moist greenhouse, with water vapour increasing to about 1% of the atmosphere's mass, thus increasing the rate of hydrogen escape to space. If such a forcing were entirely due to CO2, the weathering process would remove the excess atmospheric CO2 on a time scale of 10^4–10^5 years, well before the ocean was significantly depleted. Venus-like conditions on the Earth require a large long-term forcing that is unlikely to occur until the sun brightens by a few tens of percents, which will take a few billion years.[10]

 

[Old Rocks]

1) Models all the way.

2) Models all the way

3) Models all the way, the paper is badly out of date since CO2 doubling sensitivity has dropped radically.

4) Another what if paper that is already sliding out of date since Greenland ice pack loss has dropped a lot to an actual INCREASE last year.

NONE of your links addresses the most important tests of the AGW conjecture which makes most of their model driven papers moot. The lack of a Tropic "hot spot" and the 50% less per decade warming trend rate prediction/projection.

Permafrost melted out in part of southern Greenland that allowed Vikings to grow crops which are impossible today, yet no run away warming occurred. It was around 2C warmer than now in the early part of the interglacial, yet still no run away warming trend, heck it has NEVER happened in last 600 Million years.

Strong Positive feedbacks have NEVER existed because Water Vapor carries away a lot of "heat" from the surface as part of the CONVECTION process, which a significant NEGATIVE feedback.

Your delusions are based on modeling scenarios that are absurd.

LOL You are so full of shit. Water vapor is the strongest GHG. However, it's residence time in the atmosphere is less than 10 days, so it is a feedback from CO2 and CH4. We have had an increase of 7% in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because of the increase in GHGs.

 

[miketx]

I know for a FACT that the tempurature in 234,576,567 BC was cooler.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".

They are bogus since they exist ONLY in climate models. Never happened in the last 600 Million years, which you keep ignoring over and over. Positive feedback effects are never significant anywhere on the planet. Negative feedbacks are dominant and a big part of the Convection process of removing heat from the surface.

There are new published papers showing that Positive modeling feedbacks claims are dead on arrival. From Ollila, 2018

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
“
The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”

Another paper about NEGATIVE feedback:

A global radiative-convective feedback

Abstract.
We have investigated the sensitivity of the intensity of convective activity and atmospheric radiative cooling to radiatively thick upper-tropospheric clouds using a new version of the Colorado State University General Circulation Model. The model includes a bulk cloud microphysics scheme to predict the formation of cloud water, cloud ice, rain, and snow. The cloud optical properties are interactive and dependent upon the cloud water and cloud ice paths. We find that the formation of a persistent upper tropospheric cloud ice shield leads to decreased atmospheric radiative cooling and increased static stability. Convective activity is then strongly suppressed. In this way, upper-tropospheric clouds act as regulators of the global hydrologic cycle, and provide a negative feedback between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective activity

Positive feedbacks were very significant during the Great Dying. Lordy, Tommy, at least get a minimal background in paleoclimatology before making such an ass of yourself. And in PT extinction event.

 

[Old Rocks]

However, what is significant, and totally blows the silly deniers arguments out of the water is that we do have a cooling period going on with the sun right now, yet the Earth continues to warm.

 

[miketx]

However, what is significant, and totally blows the silly deniers arguments out of the water is that we do have a cooling period going on with the sun right now, yet the Earth continues to warm.

Funny how every year about this times it starts warming up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny how winter temperatures more resemble your IQ. Funny how this curve is from left to right, indicating that it is rapidly warming. Funny how that will continue to be the case.

 

[Flash]

What??? The temperature of the earth is determined by solar energy output?????

Can't be. No way. The Moon Bats tells us it is determined by the number of SUVs that White Republicans drive.

 

[Flash]

Funny how winter temperatures more resemble your IQ. Funny how this curve is from left to right, indicating that it is rapidly warming. Funny how that will continue to be the case.

Source and calibration data please.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, here we are, in a La Nina, sun getting colder, and what does the weather do? Just stays warm.

Look at our most recent low, +0.2. That is warmer than all but seven of the years prior to 1997 on satellite record. So, with a cool sun and La Nina, why are we still seeing such warm temperatures?

Thanks again for posting a chart that shows a 2 decade pause

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cold water is again taking over the flow from Antarctica up the coast of South America..

Well, on the West Coast. LOL

Yes, the Madoff Data Set of "warming trapped (like a rat!) In the ocean" saves the day!!

How does atmospheric CO2 heat the deep ocean?? What's your "science" to that?

 

[Pilot1]

Wait. Let's give even MORE money to government by force so they can change the cycles of the Sun.

 

[Flash]

Well, here we are, in a La Nina, sun getting colder, and what does the weather do? Just stays warm.

Look at our most recent low, +0.2. That is warmer than all but seven of the years prior to 1997 on satellite record. So, with a cool sun and La Nina, why are we still seeing such warm temperatures?

Thanks again for posting a chart that shows a 2 decade pause

These stupid Moon Bats don't their ass from a hole in the round when it comes to Climate Science. They just parrot the lies put out by the AGW God Worshipers.

That stupid chart came from NASA that has been discredited for producing falsified data during the Obama Administration so their credibility is shot..

Also satellite data is notorious inaccurate. The sensors on the satellites are inaccurate to about +/- 3 degrees F making it impossible to detect the changes depicted by that environmental wacko chart. Also the calibration of the senors are always out of whack.

Meanwhile here in Central Florida, like most of the US, we had a cool winter and spring.

 

[Old Rocks]

What??? The temperature of the earth is determined by solar energy output?????

Can't be. No way. The Moon Bats tells us it is determined by the number of SUVs that White Republicans drive.

Ah shit. Another terminally dumb fuck. Look, my little retarded 'Conservative', there are two factors in what determines the Earth's temperature. How much energy it gets from the sun, and how much of that energy it retains. The energy retained is determined by the albedo of the surface, and the GHGs in the atmosphere. We are decreasing the albedo by decreasing the amount of ice on land and sea, and increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Now do you wish to further offer proof that you are a room temperature IQ?

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny how winter temperatures more resemble your IQ. Funny how this curve is from left to right, indicating that it is rapidly warming. Funny how that will continue to be the case.

Source and calibration data please.

LOL Source is right on the chart. However, seeing as how you are probably too stupid to use google, here is the site;

UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2018: +0.21 deg. C. « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes I did. And if you were capable of following a conversation, you would realize I am referring to the feedbacks that Sunsettommy claimed are based on a "bogus paradigm".

They are bogus since they exist ONLY in climate models. Never happened in the last 600 Million years, which you keep ignoring over and over. Positive feedback effects are never significant anywhere on the planet. Negative feedbacks are dominant and a big part of the Convection process of removing heat from the surface.

There are new published papers showing that Positive modeling feedbacks claims are dead on arrival. From Ollila, 2018

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”
“
The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”

Another paper about NEGATIVE feedback:

A global radiative-convective feedback

Abstract.
We have investigated the sensitivity of the intensity of convective activity and atmospheric radiative cooling to radiatively thick upper-tropospheric clouds using a new version of the Colorado State University General Circulation Model. The model includes a bulk cloud microphysics scheme to predict the formation of cloud water, cloud ice, rain, and snow. The cloud optical properties are interactive and dependent upon the cloud water and cloud ice paths. We find that the formation of a persistent upper tropospheric cloud ice shield leads to decreased atmospheric radiative cooling and increased static stability. Convective activity is then strongly suppressed. In this way, upper-tropospheric clouds act as regulators of the global hydrologic cycle, and provide a negative feedback between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective activity

Positive feedbacks were very significant during the Great Dying. Lordy, Tommy, at least get a minimal background in paleoclimatology before making such an ass of yourself. And in PT extinction event.

What was the posted RESOLUTION values of the data for those two events?

Snicker...............................

 

[Crick]

For fuck's sake, WHAT do you believe to be a "bogus paradigm'?

ps: the chronological resolution for the PT extinction event does not disavow the leading theories as to its cause.

snicker

asshole.