Global cooling in 2030 it's true???

DRKTS wrote:We had 104 published predictions of this solar cycle up to a year in advance. How many were right? None!

So what are the chances of one being right 20 years in advance? Very Low. You may as well flip a coin.

Surface Detail wrote: No. The Earth is not a blackbody, hence its emission is a function of both its temperature (as per the SB law) and its emissivity.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: And isn't the Stefan-Boltzmann law to do with temperature not magnetism?

Correct. Stefan-Boltzmann tells you that if the sun's output decreases then the earth's temperature decreases.


.

That is a major misunderstanding of the earths energy balance. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation only tells the change in temperature that the sun emits when the energy emitted from the sun changes. Since that temperature is the fourth root of the energy the forcing is weak. But all things being equal it will cause a change in the earth's temperature. But all things are not equal. CO2 causes the earth to warm like putting on a jacket warms a person even if the temperature doesn't change. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas that causes the earth to warm if it increases. Greater reflectivity of the earth like the greening of the earth or the melting of glaciers that expose darker material below works to warm the earth. So the suns output can decrease, but if the other factors that control surface temperature increase then the net result will be an increase in temperature. The sun's output has never been a big driver of temperature change. It just sometimes starts a process that allows feedback factors to kick in.

Okay, dude. Let's just shut off the sun and SEE how big a driver of temperature change it is!

Then we can talk about water vapor and the magick energy source it contains and the magick warming its capable of.

Ok I'm beginning to see the problem. You need help with the science. There is a really big difference between how much energy the sun gives off and how much CHANGE in energy the sun gives off. We are so far away from the sun that a large change in the sun's energy will be small by the time it reaches us. Does that help

No. It is simply a somewhat lesser form of discounting the effect of the sun. No significant energy on Earth comes from anywhere except the sun.

No magick gas on Earth is a source of energy. The atmosphere is not a source of energy. It's just mass.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: No. The Earth is not a blackbody, hence its emission is a function of both its temperature (as per the SB law) and its emissivity.

Emissivity is a constant. Go learn science.
.

DRKTS wrote:

spot wrote:
The Daily Mail is a bit of a joke when it comes to science, I've just read into it more and surprise surprise the scientists were misrepresented,
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/
Also take into account their work is speculative, we do have as well as quite a few trolls a solar physicist who occasional posts on this forum. it would be interesting to get his opinion.

We have had many such models in the past predicting huge cycles or Maunder minimum. They have one feature in common - they have all been wrong.

The idea of two interfering dynamos (oscillators) was something I have been pushing for over a decade now. Mine though is not a deep dynamo interfering with as surface but the two hemispheres (N & S).

The only problem is that such a system defies prediction. Here is the result of a similar but much simpler system two linked pendulums. From two simple oscillators were get chaos ...



We had 104 published predictions of this solar cycle up to a year in advance. How many were right? None!

So what are the chances of one being right 20 years in advance? Very Low. You may as well flip a coin.

We also have had predictions based on a "breakthrough in solar dynamo modelling" by Dr Dikpati at UCAR in the mid 2000's. It reproduced past cycles perfectly but predicted a big cycle for SC24 and we got a weak one.

Solar cycle prediction is a great business. You predict a big, average or small cycle (a 1 in 3 chance of being right) 10 -20 years in advance. If you guess right then you can say I told you so. If you guess wrong then you forget what you said (because nobody else will remember) and do a new prediction.

Some solar cycle predictors - forecast different outcomes at different times so no matter what happens they are right (look up Hathaway's many different predictions for SC24 from 2008 to the present!).

IBdaMann wrote:

Aesop describes your kind of "sour grapes" in a fable. You are pouting about how empirical observations run counter to your WACKY, science-denying, religious dogma.

The observations MUST be bad.

Yes, I feel for you.


.

DRKTS wrote:The first paragraph is just an illogical and non sequitur rant.

Which observations are wrong? The sunspot number?

It is so easy even you could do it. You look at the Sun and count the number of sunspot groups (G) and then the number of individual sunspots (N(s)).

Then SSN = 10G + N(s)

This data is not only collected by professional observatories but by hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers round the world. I used to do it when I was a teenager. Not a lot can go wrong with that.

Duh!

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:The first paragraph is just an illogical and non sequitur rant.

Which observations are wrong? The sunspot number?

It is so easy even you could do it. You look at the Sun and count the number of sunspot groups (G) and then the number of individual sunspots (N(s)).

Then SSN = 10G + N(s)

This data is not only collected by professional observatories but by hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers round the world. I used to do it when I was a teenager. Not a lot can go wrong with that.

Duh!

I'm guessing you didn't understand my post.


.

DRKTS wrote:No, I am stating you don't know what the hell you are talking about as you cannot express the concepts in simple understandable English (is it your second language?) and substantiate those opinions with any verifiable data.

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:No, I am stating you don't know what the hell you are talking about as you cannot express the concepts in simple understandable English (is it your second language?) and substantiate those opinions with any verifiable data.

Excellent attempt to shift your burden of proof.

You are the one asserting Global Warming and "Climate change" and "greenhouse effect" and all sorts of WACKY religious unfalsifiable miracles. I am not claiming ANY religious miracles. The sole burden of proof rests with you. If I'm not making an argument it's because I'm not arguing anything; you are.

You bear the full responsibility to clearly express your arguments beyond refutation. Otherwise, if you are happy with your WACKY religious claims remaining unsupported than I'm happy to let you leave them that way.

If you actually intend to support your WACKY assertions and violations of physics then get to it.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:No, I am stating you don't know what the hell you are talking about as you cannot express the concepts in simple understandable English (is it your second language?) and substantiate those opinions with any verifiable data.

Excellent attempt to shift your burden of proof.

You are the one asserting Global Warming and "Climate change" and "greenhouse effect" and all sorts of WACKY religious unfalsifiable miracles. I am not claiming ANY religious miracles. The sole burden of proof rests with you. If I'm not making an argument it's because I'm not arguing anything; you are.

You bear the full responsibility to clearly express your arguments beyond refutation. Otherwise, if you are happy with your WACKY religious claims remaining unsupported than I'm happy to let you leave them that way.

If you actually intend to support your WACKY assertions and violations of physics then get to it.

You are the one making wild unsupported assertions and cannot find evidence to support them. The burden of proof is on the both sides of any scientific argument.

I have already explained in exquisite detail many of my arguments on various threads here and in the links I have provided and in my videos. If you choose not to listen or accept them that is your problem. I am not getting into a bring-me-another-rock situation.

It is your turn to provide something that supports your case. Put up or shut up.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

The shape of the molecule does not give anything the ability to raise the overall temperature. Water vapor does not cause the Earth to warm. It is not a greenhouse gas.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

The shape of the molecule does not give anything the ability to raise the overall temperature. Water vapor does not cause the Earth to warm. It is not a greenhouse gas.

I like your style ITN. No argument, no discussion, no comprehension. Just a flat denial of basic facts. Have you considered a career in politics?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

The shape of the molecule does not give anything the ability to raise the overall temperature. Water vapor does not cause the Earth to warm. It is not a greenhouse gas.

I like your style ITN. No argument, no discussion, no comprehension. Just a flat denial of basic facts. Have you considered a career in politics?

First, learn what a fact is. You are confusing a fact with an argument.

There is no source of energy in water vapor. I do not have to prove a negative. YOU have to prove how water vapor is a source of energy.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

The shape of the molecule does not give anything the ability to raise the overall temperature. Water vapor does not cause the Earth to warm. It is not a greenhouse gas.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

The shape of the molecule does not give anything the ability to raise the overall temperature. Water vapor does not cause the Earth to warm. It is not a greenhouse gas.

You are the only denier I have ever heard say water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. All the others use it to say the warming is natural and not caused by CO2.

Surface Detail wrote:
It is a fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It is a fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Once again, since you seem particularly slow about this.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate to an argument. It has nothing to do with observation (due to the effects of phenomenology), it has nothing to to do with what is 'established' (another word for 'consensus'), it has nothing to do with 'everyone knows that' (a fallacy of the argument of popularity, the same fallacy consensus itself makes), it has no power to 'bless' a statement as The Truth.

If all parties to an argument agree on a predicate, that predicate becomes a fact. This is why we refer to facts as 'facts of the argument'. If a single participant of that argument disputes the predicate, it is no longer a fact. It has become an argument.

Data is not a fact. It can be disputed.

A definition is not a fact. There is no authority that owns a definition. Dictionaries are not an authority.

Attempting to bless or sanctify an argument as fact is not a fact. No one has the power to raise a statement to the status of a fact with the agreement of all involved.

Observation is not a fact. It can be disputed. If an optical illusion helps here to visualize this, fine.

argumentum ad populum is not a fact. It is a fallacy. This includes the use of consensus as fact.

Note that a fact does not have to be real to be a fact.

Attempting to make water vapor a greenhouse gas is not a fact. It is an argument. simply stating that is a fact is a circular argument.

We may now return to the actual argument at hand.

What about water vapor leads you to believe it can act as an energy source?

Surface Detail wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You didn't know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? You should get out more.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It does not add to the overall temperature of the Earth any more than nitrogen does.

Water vapor doesn't even have a big effect on temperature swing. It's specific heat is not a remarkable value in any way.

You need to get with your fellow CC deniers and decide on which argument to make. They have all been saying for years that since water vapor is a greenhouse gas that it is the cause of global warming, not CO2.

Of course nitrogen does not cause temperature to change, it's not a greenhouse gas. Its molecular structure is symmetrical.

The shape of the molecule does not give anything the ability to raise the overall temperature. Water vapor does not cause the Earth to warm. It is not a greenhouse gas.

You are the only denier I have ever heard say water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. All the others use it to say the warming is natural and not caused by CO2.

When it comes to denial, ITN is hardcore. "Deny everything" is his motto. No messing about. I'm surprised he hasn't denied the existence of molecules yet.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It is a fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Once again, since you seem particularly slow about this.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate to an argument. It has nothing to do with observation (due to the effects of phenomenology), it has nothing to to do with what is 'established' (another word for 'consensus'), it has nothing to do with 'everyone knows that' (a fallacy of the argument of popularity, the same fallacy consensus itself makes), it has no power to 'bless' a statement as The Truth.

If all parties to an argument agree on a predicate, that predicate becomes a fact. This is why we refer to facts as 'facts of the argument'. If a single participant of that argument disputes the predicate, it is no longer a fact. It has become an argument.

Data is not a fact. It can be disputed.

A definition is not a fact. There is no authority that owns a definition. Dictionaries are not an authority.

Attempting to bless or sanctify an argument as fact is not a fact. No one has the power to raise a statement to the status of a fact with the agreement of all involved.

Observation is not a fact. It can be disputed. If an optical illusion helps here to visualize this, fine.

argumentum ad populum is not a fact. It is a fallacy. This includes the use of consensus as fact.

Note that a fact does not have to be real to be a fact.

Attempting to make water vapor a greenhouse gas is not a fact. It is an argument. simply stating that is a fact is a circular argument.

We may now return to the actual argument at hand.

What about water vapor leads you to believe it can act as an energy source?

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It is a fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Once again, since you seem particularly slow about this.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate to an argument. It has nothing to do with observation (due to the effects of phenomenology), it has nothing to to do with what is 'established' (another word for 'consensus'), it has nothing to do with 'everyone knows that' (a fallacy of the argument of popularity, the same fallacy consensus itself makes), it has no power to 'bless' a statement as The Truth.

If all parties to an argument agree on a predicate, that predicate becomes a fact. This is why we refer to facts as 'facts of the argument'. If a single participant of that argument disputes the predicate, it is no longer a fact. It has become an argument.

Data is not a fact. It can be disputed.

A definition is not a fact. There is no authority that owns a definition. Dictionaries are not an authority.

Attempting to bless or sanctify an argument as fact is not a fact. No one has the power to raise a statement to the status of a fact with the agreement of all involved.

Observation is not a fact. It can be disputed. If an optical illusion helps here to visualize this, fine.

argumentum ad populum is not a fact. It is a fallacy. This includes the use of consensus as fact.

Note that a fact does not have to be real to be a fact.

Attempting to make water vapor a greenhouse gas is not a fact. It is an argument. simply stating that is a fact is a circular argument.

We may now return to the actual argument at hand.

What about water vapor leads you to believe it can act as an energy source?

Are you saying there are no greenhouses gases?

Surface Detail wrote:
A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Water vapour absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Therefore water vapour is a greenhouse gas. That is a fact.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:


Are you saying there are no greenhouses gases?

That is exactly what I am saying.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:


Are you saying there are no greenhouses gases?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Please then explain how we are not living on a dead ice bound planet. You can calculate what the temperature at the surface of a planet would be at a particular distance from the Sun.

The surface temperature of the Earth should be on average about -16C, instead it is +16C. -16C is almost exactly what the average surface temperature of the Moon is. What is the difference? An atmosphere that traps the Sun's heat.

The shape of the molecules are important - an asymmetric molecule (CO2, CH4, NxO, O3, etc) traps IR in the requisite wavelength band. Symmetric molecules (O2, N2, Ar, He) do not.

Hank wrote:

Great explanation. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It is a fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Once again, since you seem particularly slow about this.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate to an argument. It has nothing to do with observation (due to the effects of phenomenology), it has nothing to to do with what is 'established' (another word for 'consensus'), it has nothing to do with 'everyone knows that' (a fallacy of the argument of popularity, the same fallacy consensus itself makes), it has no power to 'bless' a statement as The Truth.

If all parties to an argument agree on a predicate, that predicate becomes a fact. This is why we refer to facts as 'facts of the argument'. If a single participant of that argument disputes the predicate, it is no longer a fact. It has become an argument.

Data is not a fact. It can be disputed.

A definition is not a fact. There is no authority that owns a definition. Dictionaries are not an authority.

Attempting to bless or sanctify an argument as fact is not a fact. No one has the power to raise a statement to the status of a fact with the agreement of all involved.

Observation is not a fact. It can be disputed. If an optical illusion helps here to visualize this, fine.

argumentum ad populum is not a fact. It is a fallacy. This includes the use of consensus as fact.

Note that a fact does not have to be real to be a fact.

Attempting to make water vapor a greenhouse gas is not a fact. It is an argument. simply stating that is a fact is a circular argument.

We may now return to the actual argument at hand.

What about water vapor leads you to believe it can act as an energy source?

Are you saying there are no greenhouses gases?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying.

So why is a night with cloud cover warmer than a night with no clouds?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Water vapour absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Therefore water vapour is a greenhouse gas. That is a fact.

Not a fact. A definition by you. Definitions are not a fact.

Let's say you use this definition of a substance being a greenhouse substance.

That would mean the surface and the oceans are greenhouse liquids and solids.

It would also mean that YOU are a greenhouse substance.

Since just about everything emits infrared, your definition can be simplified to any substance that absorbs IR energy. Emission is no longer required as part of the definition.

Since all substances in contact with a warmer substance (the surface) are heated by that contact, then emit IR energy as a result of that contact, your definition which limits absorption of energy to a particular mode of energy absorption seems a little silly.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying.

So why is a night with cloud cover warmer than a night with no clouds?

First, I'll mention a couple of things before answering your question.

1) Liquid water (what a cloud is) has among the highest specific heat of any substance.

2) During the day, such cloud cover produces COOLER temperatures.

3) Median air temperature changes with the passage of fronts. Such fronts often contain clouds, but the clouds are the result of the differing air temperature, not the other way around.

Answer:
It takes longer to heat up liquid water than it does to heat air. It takes longer to cool down liquid water than it does to cool air. The liquid water has not gained overall temperature different from the air, but it will hold onto the energy it gained longer than air.

Water vapor, the invisible water in the air, also has a higher specific heat than the air, but not nearly as much as liquid water.

The effect of an overcast is to narrow the temperature swing around the median, which doesn't change due to this factor.

The best way to see the effect is right here in Seattle, which often gets weeks of low stratus overcast covering the entire region.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying.

So why is a night with cloud cover warmer than a night with no clouds?

First, I'll mention a couple of things before answering your question.

1) Liquid water (what a cloud is) has among the highest specific heat of any substance.

2) During the day, such cloud cover produces COOLER temperatures.

3) Median air temperature changes with the passage of fronts. Such fronts often contain clouds, but the clouds are the result of the differing air temperature, not the other way around.

Answer:
It takes longer to heat up liquid water than it does to heat air. It takes longer to cool down liquid water than it does to cool air. The liquid water has not gained overall temperature different from the air, but it will hold onto the energy it gained longer than air.

Water vapor, the invisible water in the air, also has a higher specific heat than the air, but not nearly as much as liquid water.

The effect of an overcast is to narrow the temperature swing around the median, which doesn't change due to this factor.

The best way to see the effect is right here in Seattle, which often gets weeks of low stratus overcast covering the entire region.

I was talking about days when it is sunny during the day and cloudy at night as opposed to sunny during the day and no clouds at night. The day temperatures are about the same but the night temperatures are a lot different.

Hank wrote:So why is a night with cloud cover warmer than a night with no clouds?

DRKTS wrote:Please then explain how we are not living on a dead ice bound planet.

DRKTS wrote: You can calculate what the temperature at the surface of a planet would be at a particular distance from the Sun.

Surface Detail wrote:It's not a definition by me. The universally accepted definition of a greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.

Hank wrote:Great explanation. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:It's not a definition by me. The universally accepted definition of a greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.

It's certainly not universal. Only your "Climate" religion recognizes the WACKY "greenhouse effect" miracle. There is no "greenhouse gas" in science. I have no idea where you got that silly notion.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Hank wrote:Great explanation. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered.

AWESOME! I must put this in my signature.

Hank, why don't you go win the Nobel prize in physics with your discovery?
.

Surface Detail wrote:It's not a discovery.

Surface Detail wrote:Everyone (except idiots like you and ITN) already knows this.

Surface Detail wrote:Greenhouse gases change the effective emissivity of the Earth and hence change the amount of radiation emitted for a particular temperature. Remember now?