Remember me
▼ Content

But the Climate is Always Changing!



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
02-02-2016 18:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote: I don't get it. There is an average global temperature in that graph. IB says that there is no average global temperature. Then Cliff Harris can not be authoritative, right?

You just made a common mistake on this forum, i.e. assuming that Ceist is being factual.

Ceist is never factual, especially when talking/writing about someone else.

With a little more experience you will be able to arrive at correct conclusions such as "IBdaMann never cited that graph." It just takes time.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2016 22:18
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

So, you were about to explain what you consider to constitute the "average global temperature" and how you would accurately measure it.


.


The average global temperature is the average of the ground surface thermometer regions x the area that they cover divided by the total surface of the Earth. Dimensionally: C sq km/ sq km => average C

If that's to complex for you imagine a spherical honey comb with a thermometer in the middle of each. If the cells are all the same size then the surface average temperature of the entire honey comb would just be the average of the all the thermometer readings.

Average T = [∑(I =0 to n) Ti] / n

But now imagine that the cells are all different sizes. Then the surface average temperature would be

Average T = [∑(I =0 to n) Ti * Ai] / [∑(I =0 to n) Ai]

where Ti is the temperature of the ith cell and Ai its area. n is the total number of cells.

In climatology measurements they essentially do that but in a very much more sophisticated way with large numbers of checks and balances on the analysis.

In climate measurements they like to use 50 km x 50 km cells. However not all places on Earth have that sort of resolution. Tests on areas where there is much denser spacing show there is not significant loss until we get to 500 km or larger cells.

Now provided they do that in the same way over the time of the data set then it is perfectly proper to compare measurements.

What I did above should give you a clue about how average global temperatures are measured, because at the present you don't have a clue because you have not bothered to read the copious number of papers that NASA, NOAA and the rest of them have published on the subject.
02-02-2016 22:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote: The average global temperature is the average of the ground surface thermometer regions x the area that they cover divided by the total surface of the Earth. Dimensionally: C sq km/ sq km => average C

This doesn't sound right to me. Are you talking about the ground temperature or are you talking about the atmospheric temperature at some short distance above the ground?

I just want to make sure, you are claiming to cover the entire surface of the earth, yes?


DRKTS wrote:But now imagine that the cells are all different sizes. Then the surface average temperature would be

Average T = [∑(I =0 to n) Ti * Ai] / [∑(I =0 to n) Ai]

Here is where I start to have some problems. Your thermometers are therefore not evenly spaced.

What is your target margin of error? If your thermometers are not evenly spaced then your margin of error will relate to your largest gap.

How many thermometers will you be using total?

DRKTS wrote: In climatology measurements they essentially do that but in a very much more sophisticated way with large numbers of checks and balances on the analysis.

I wouldn't call it "sophisticated."

DRKTS wrote: In climate measurements they like to use 50 km x 50 km cells.

What is a "climate" measurement? I thought we were measuring one parameter of weather.


DRKTS wrote:What I did above should give you a clue about how average global temperatures are measured, because at the present you don't have a clue because you have not bothered to read the copious number of papers that NASA, NOAA and the rest of them have published on the subject.

What you have written above tells me that you are still a moron who needs to play pretend scientist in order to "smart." I willing to work with you on this but I have a feeling you'll be changing your position several times before you give up trying to construct a workable, accurate measure of earth's "average global temperature."

Answer the above questions and let's move forward.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2016 23:29
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
.. thermodynamics somehow don't apply?
.. the top of the earth's atmosphere somehow differs substantially from the temperature at the top of the moon's atmosphere?


If you want, we can most certainly compare any layer of the Earth's atmosphere with the moon. The ozone layer stays slightly above the "average temperature" of the moon's surface. Other layers are hotter or colder, depending of course on their interaction with the electromagnet waves/photons coming from the sun and the reflected/scattered ones coming from the earth's surface/atmosphere.

I would wonder, though, what you consider to be the top of the earth's atmosphere. 100km like in the textbooks? Up there, the energy recieved by the sun is about 1.2kw/m2. But most of the energy remains in the light (sorry, I meant Radiation in the form of electromagnet waves) passing through the atmosphere, such that only less than 1kw/m2 reaches the surface. Meaning that an amount is converted into other forms of energy, *before* it hits the surface: Heat and chemical reactions (potential energy) for instance in the ionosphere and the ozone layer.

On the moon, all 1.2kw hit the surface. Yes, there is a bit of a difference between the two.

Now, both Earth and the Moon absorb some of the radiation and reflect a good bit of it. "Absorbing" means to a large extent converting it to heat. But a good deal is reflected and makes its way back out to space!

Yes, I find it much more interesting to talk about surfaces. Wouldn't it make more sense, since life just happens to find itself on or very near the Earth's surface?

"blocks."

Yes, please forgive my inaccuracy. I forgot that we're trying to put a paper together here instead of trying to communicate on common grounds;-)

Is anything in this post rediculous or not to be agreed with?
03-02-2016 05:10
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

Answer the above questions and let's move forward.


.


If you read the damn papers like I suggested then you would not have any such questions.
03-02-2016 09:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
For some fun, I'd like to present a really dodgy graph from one of IBdaMann's very few 'authoritative' sources, Cliff Harris- the guy with no science qualifications, background or publications yet calls himself 'one of the top 10 climatologists in the last 4 decades'. Oh, and he also uses the Bible to 'predict' the climate.


In this graph, Cliff Harris notes the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt at 1100 BC.
If he was going to put dates of mythical Biblical stories, it's a shame he didn't take his graph back to Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden- around 4000BC or something wasn't it? Or predict the climate of the second coming?


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi


Funny to see that you're capable to find such doubtful sources. Most of us can't. That says a lot about you.
It's a completely dodgy graph. It's by a religious crackpot whose blog IBdaMann has used several times as a supposed 'authoritative source'



03-02-2016 09:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Hank Samler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
For some fun, I'd like to present a really dodgy graph from one of IBdaMann's very few 'authoritative' sources, Cliff Harris ...

I don't get it. There is an average global temperature in that graph. IB says that there is no average global temperature. Then Cliff Harris can not be authoritative, right?

Yes, vulcanoes have a lot to do with effecting temperatures. They spew ash (short term very cooling), SO2 (shortterm cooling) and CO2 (longterm warming) in the atmosphere..

IBdaMann didn't actually use that graph. Its just a rubbish graph by the same religious crackpot whose blog IBdaMann has used several times as an 'authoritative' source.

The irony is that IB runs around ranting that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the laws of physics and that global warming is a religion and anyone who accepts the science is a "warmazombie scientifically illiterate religious moron".

Yet one of the few sources he has used to support his views was Cliff Harris's blog. Cliff Harris is a scientifically illiterate religious nutter, with zero background in science and believes he can predict the climate using the Bible.

Classic fail.




Edited on 03-02-2016 09:24
03-02-2016 09:18
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Answer the above questions and let's move forward.


.


If you read the damn papers like I suggested then you would not have any such questions.

Pretty much every post from IbDaMann should just be answered with:

"You're Not Even Wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time and read a damned textbook you idiot"



"Not Even Wrong" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong



Edited on 03-02-2016 09:18
03-02-2016 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Ceist wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Answer the above questions and let's move forward.


.


If you read the damn papers like I suggested then you would not have any such questions.

Pretty much every post from IbDaMann should just be answered with:

"You're Not Even Wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time and read a damned textbook you idiot"



"Not Even Wrong" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong


Pretty much every post from Ceist is about how much you hate IBdaMann and me.

Go get a life, idiot.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2016 20:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Answer the above questions and let's move forward.


.


If you read the damn papers like I suggested then you would not have any such questions.


...and you tip your king. How disappointing.

Let me know if you wish to play again.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2016 20:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Ceist wrote: The irony is that IB runs around ranting that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the laws of physics and that global warming is a religion and anyone who accepts the science is a "warmazombie scientifically illiterate religious moron".

errata:

IB DaMann doesn't really run around unless playing sports.

Global Warming is a proper noun, being the name of a religion, and is thus capitalized.

"The Science" is the title of the dogma and is also capitalized.

Ceist wrote: Yet one of the few sources he has used to support his views was Cliff Harris's blog. Cliff Harris is a scientifically illiterate religious nutter, with zero background in science and believes he can predict the climate using the Bible.

I referenced a particular article that was posted on that site, not Cliff Harris' expertise in anything.

To date, you have not questioned the truth or accuracy of the article I referenced. Instead, you have attacked Cliff Harris. So we are in agreement on the accuracy of the article.

Thanks for clarifying.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-02-2016 12:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
So IBdaMann admits he uses the personal blog of a crackpot religious zealot who thinks he can predict the climate using the Bible, as an 'authoritative source".


As for Into the Night- he clearly needs assistance with his 'emissions'. The ones he has when he goes to bed at night and fantasizes about showing the world what a genius he is when he, a humble layperson with no background in physics, proves all the textbooks and all the physicists in the world are stupid and have got it all wrong.

Perhaps IB will give his little buddy ITN a hand with his emissions.



Edited on 07-02-2016 12:13
07-02-2016 12:30
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Into the Night wrote:Pretty much every post from Ceist is about how much you hate IBdaMann and me.
Yes, he's almost as insidious as your bosom pal, IBdaMned.

Fuggy seems to think you two are one and the same and I could see his point if it wasn't for the 2,804.5 miles between you.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-02-2016 01:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Pretty much every post from Ceist is about how much you hate IBdaMann and me.
Yes, he's almost as insidious as your bosom pal, IBdaMned.

Fuggy seems to think you two are one and the same and I could see his point if it wasn't for the 2,804.5 miles between you.


@ Into the Night, notice how Earthling-1 will use even your comment about Ceist on this board to hurl insults about Fair Game on that board. It's his only mode. It's his only reason for existing on the internet.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-02-2016 10:18
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
IBdaMann wrote:@ Into the Night, notice how Earthling-1 will use even your comment about Ceist on this board to hurl insults about Fair Game on that board. It's his only mode. It's his only reason for existing on the internet.
.

Priceless !!


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-02-2016 12:30
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
"We have a vested interest in creating panic as more money will flow to climate science" - John Christy

You realize that John Christy is a climate denier? So he seems to be arguing against himself!

Secondly, the exact reverse happened during the Bush regime. They cut climate funding yet the climate scientists stick to their guns.

Thirdly most climate scientists have tenured positions so would not care two hoots about funding because they were going to get paid the same anyway.
08-02-2016 13:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote: Secondly, the exact reverse happened during the Bush regime. They cut climate funding yet the climate scientists stick to their guns.

Exactly. It seems that regardless of any funding changes all devout worshipers of all religions pretty much stuck to their guns and maintained their respective faiths. So you do have a point.

However, as funding later increased for predetermined conclusions, the number of "papers" and "studies" and "reports" increased accordingly.

DRKTS wrote: Thirdly most climate scientists have tenured positions so would not care two hoots about funding because they were going to get paid the same anyway.

Well, they certainly would not care two hoots about what science may have to say on the matter, but they certainly are greedy bastards who want a lot more money than their universities are paying them to breathe on their students.

They want the money. They absolutely care.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-02-2016 15:03
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

Exactly. It seems that regardless of any funding changes all devout worshipers of all religions pretty much stuck to their guns and maintained their respective faiths. So you do have a point.

However, as funding later increased for predetermined conclusions, the number of "papers" and "studies" and "reports" increased accordingly.

Well, they certainly would not care two hoots about what science may have to say on the matter, but they certainly are greedy bastards who want a lot more money than their universities are paying them to breathe on their students.

They want the money. They absolutely care.


.


So you are arguing that they were wrong in backing the science in times when it was not fashionable to do so and harmed their self interest. But later they just follow their self interest when they continue to say the exact same thing.

Please take a course in logic.

You do not seem to be aware that most tenured positions do not allow scientists to accept other funding personally above and beyond their salary. Even when I was a research scientist in private industry, I could not accept outside funding. Anyone wanting to fund me to do something not related to my normal duties would have to enter into a contract with the company and the money went to the company. My salary never increased as a result.

Any speaking fees or book royalties went to my company. The same is generally true for academics. Government scientists are strictly forbidden to do that, it is illegal for them to accept that sort of funding.

In the exceptional circumstances that a scientist can accept outside funding, they have to declare it on all publications. That is why Willie Soon got into such hot water. He hid the sources of his funding.
08-02-2016 15:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote: So you are arguing that they were wrong in backing the science in times when it was not fashionable to do so.

No. I am pointing out that their firebrand dogma was not supported by science but was fueled by a standard religious persecution of non-believers, not unlike the Cursades or fatwahs against infidels.

DRKTS wrote: ... and harmed their self interest.

Religious crusades often end in Moby Dick fashion.

DRKTS wrote: But later they just follow their self interest when they continue to say the exact same thing.

You don't see the Jerry Falwell's of the world suddenly becoming atheists. Some do but those are very rare cases.

DRKTS wrote: You do not seem to be aware that most tenured positions do not allow scientists to accept other funding personally above and beyond their salary.

You do not seem to be aware that many tenured positions allow funded research that is seen as bringing prestige to the institution.

DRKTS wrote: Even when I was a research scientist in private industry, I could not accept outside funding.

Perhaps you simply weren't good enough to ever be offered funded research that would be seen as bringing prestige to your institution. As such, all you could offer is a further reduction in credibility.

DRKTS wrote: Any speaking fees or book royalties went to my company.

Were you offered speaking fees? Can I find those videos on YouTube?

DRKTS wrote: In the exceptional circumstances that a scientist can accept outside funding, they have to declare it on all publications.

Which they gladly do while gladly accepting the paycheck.

DRKTS wrote:That is why Willie Soon got into such hot water. He hid the sources of his funding.

Which is why they gladly declare that they were paid a gladly-accepted paycheck.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-02-2016 19:25
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

Can I find those videos on YouTube?


.


Yes, you can but not on YouTube ... better. Example:

http://scicolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/GSFCWeb_Fall2013.html

Click on the "v" to watch the video on 6 December
09-02-2016 20:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote: Click on the "v" to watch the video on 6 December


Three times I sat down to watch the video and got called away after a brief glimpse.

While I watch the rest of the video, would you mind telling me if you believe the earth is warming right now or if it's cooling right now?

You appear to recognize that the solar magnetic field weakens as the sun reduces in solar output. Do you recognize that the sun is currently reducing in solar output?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2016 23:09
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
DRKTS wrote:

Yes, you can but not on YouTube ... better.


Quite enlightening. Was able to watch it with my evening beer before bedtime.
Thank you for hanging out a little bit at this two bit shop;-)

Is that an Irish accent shining through?
10-02-2016 03:09
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Hank Samler wrote:

Is that an Irish accent shining through?


Devonshire ... but we are Celts too!
10-02-2016 03:21
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

Would you mind telling me if you believe the earth is warming right now or if it's cooling right now?


It is warming, of course, and more rapidly.

IBdaMann wrote:
You appear to recognize that the solar magnetic field weakens as the sun reduces in solar output. Do you recognize that the sun is currently reducing in solar output?


The solar output is not weakened by reducing magnetic field. It is modulated both up and down (by about 0.1%) by the solar cycle. The intrinsic output is determined by the rate of nuclear processes in the core of the Sun about a million to so years ago.

I was always intrigued by the fact it takes up to a couple of million years for the energy to travel from the core of the Sun to the surface (photosphere) a total of about 700,000 km and just over 8 minutes to travel the next 150 million km.

So no, the Sun is not reducing its output significantly enough to affect global warming. I estimate that if the Sun went into a 100 year Maunder minimum while we continued to emit CO2 and other GHGs at the current rates temperatures in 2116 would be as they would have been in 2100 without the Maunder minimum.
10-02-2016 03:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Would you mind telling me if you believe the earth is warming right now or if it's cooling right now?


It is warming, of course, and more rapidly.

IBdaMann wrote:
You appear to recognize that the solar magnetic field weakens as the sun reduces in solar output. Do you recognize that the sun is currently reducing in solar output?


The solar output is not weakened by reducing magnetic field. It is modulated both up and down (by about 0.1%) by the solar cycle. The intrinsic output is determined by the rate of nuclear processes in the core of the Sun about a million to so years ago.

I was always intrigued by the fact it takes up to a couple of million years for the energy to travel from the core of the Sun to the surface (photosphere) a total of about 700,000 km and just over 8 minutes to travel the next 150 million km.

So no, the Sun is not reducing its output significantly enough to affect global warming. I estimate that if the Sun went into a 100 year Maunder minimum while we continued to emit CO2 and other GHGs at the current rates temperatures in 2116 would be as they would have been in 2100 without the Maunder minimum.


How do you know what the temperatures are going to be in 2100 or 2116?


The Parrot Killer
10-02-2016 12:48
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
DRKTS wrote:
Devonshire ... but we are Celts too!

I guess we'll let that pass;-)
For what it's worth, I got engaged in a tea house over a scone in Exeter -- so many years ago. German lass, not Celtic..
10-02-2016 13:35
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Hank Samler wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Devonshire ... but we are Celts too!

I guess we'll let that pass;-)
For what it's worth, I got engaged in a tea house over a scone in Exeter -- so many years ago. German lass, not Celtic..


Not the famous tea house in Cathedral Square? If so, I knew it well. We lived in Exeter for 5 years in the early 60's. My Grandmother worked in the Royal Clarence Hotel and we used to wait for her to get off work by popping into the tea shop next door and having a nice hot cup of tea and a toasted tea cake.

I seem to remember one in High Street that we went to infrequently (because the tea cakes were not so big or buttery!)
10-02-2016 14:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote: It is warming, of course, and more rapidly.

You are firmly in the grips of science denial. I'm not sure what more can be said.

You presented slides that were constructed under the correct understanding that the sun goes through ~11-year cycles of cyclic increase/decrease of magnetic and radiation strength.

Now you're denying it.

DRKTS wrote: The solar output is not weakened by reducing magnetic field.

This is yet another example of a Global Warming worshiper conflating (intentionally or otherwise) correlation with causation.

Go back and review your own slides that you are now denying.

The weakening magnetic field occurs along with the decreasing solar output. Check those same slides.


DRKTS wrote: I was always intrigued by the fact it takes up to a couple of million years for the energy to travel from the core of the Sun to the surface (photosphere) a total of about 700,000 km and just over 8 minutes to travel the next 150 million km.

Well, it could take that long. It could also take ~2.3 seconds. The fact that energy is absorbed, radiated, absorbed, radiated, etc.. is an example of energy changing form. Yet this is the smokescreen employed by Global Warming worshipers to claim the earth's atmosphere creates energy to increase earth's temperature, i.e. "greenhouse effect." (yes, yes, the model then shifts to violating Planck's Law after violating the 1st LoT).

DRKTS wrote: So no, the Sun is not reducing its output significantly enough to affect global warming.

I did not ask about your subjective qualification.

Do you acknowledge that solar output is decreasing, right now, by a non-zero figure...or are you living in denial? Again, review your own slides if you must.

DRKTS wrote: I estimate that if the Sun went into a 100 year Maunder minimum while we continued to emit CO2 and other GHGs at the current rates temperatures in 2116 would be as they would have been in 2100 without the Maunder minimum.

Your argument is based on the defunct belief that atmospheric gases somehow have the magic power to violate the laws of physics. There's a reason there exists no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model in the body of science.

Anyway, your particular error is comprised of two parts:

1) Your denial that the sun is decreasing in output right now, and

2) Your belief in magical forces that somehow increase earth's temperature via violations of physics.

Naturally, if you acknowledge the first and deny the second, the correct assumption is that the earth is currently cooling, perhaps by a very gradual non-zero figure. That amounts to blasphemy, of course, to Global Warming dogma.

I believe that covers everything. Have I inadvertently omitted anything?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2016 14:28
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
DRKTS wrote:
Not the famous tea house in Cathedral Square?


Must be the one. Yes, it was next to the cathedral - although looking at a map in Google, I can't really reconstruct it all. ..

Now I remember, "cream tea" was the thing. Romantic, although neither of us are really for that sort of thing.
11-02-2016 03:33
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Hank Samler wrote:

Must be the one. Yes, it was next to the cathedral - although looking at a map in Google, I can't really reconstruct it all. ..

Now I remember, "cream tea" was the thing. Romantic, although neither of us are really for that sort of thing.


Though a Devonian born and bred, I could never develop a taste for Devonshire Clotted Cream. Probably why I had to leave and live in the US!
11-02-2016 03:48
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

You are firmly in the grips of science denial. I'm not sure what more can be said.

You presented slides that were constructed under the correct understanding that the sun goes through ~11-year cycles of cyclic increase/decrease of magnetic and radiation strength.

Now you're denying it.


Do you have a comprehension disability? What has the solar cycle got to do with global warming?


This is yet another example of a Global Warming worshiper conflating (intentionally or otherwise) correlation with causation.

Go back and review your own slides that you are now denying.

The weakening magnetic field occurs along with the decreasing solar output. Check those same slides.


You seem unable (or is it unwilling?) to understand the meaning of the simplest scientific statements.



Well, it could take that long. It could also take ~2.3 seconds. The fact that energy is absorbed, radiated, absorbed, radiated, etc.. is an example of energy changing form. Yet this is the smokescreen employed by Global Warming worshipers to claim the earth's atmosphere creates energy to increase earth's temperature, i.e. "greenhouse effect." (yes, yes, the model then shifts to violating Planck's Law after violating the 1st LoT).


Look up random walk theory. It takes over 1 million years because of the high densities in the core of the Sun.

I did not ask about your subjective qualification.

Do you acknowledge that solar output is decreasing, right now, by a non-zero figure...or are you living in denial? Again, review your own slides if you must.


The question is about whether changes on the Sun are causing global warming (actually my next video will be about that). Wait a couple of days and all your questions will be answered.

Your argument is based on the defunct belief that atmospheric gases somehow have the magic power to violate the laws of physics. There's a reason there exists no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model in the body of science

Anyway, your particular error is comprised of two parts:

1) Your denial that the sun is decreasing in output right now, and

2) Your belief in magical forces that somehow increase earth's temperature via violations of physics.

Naturally, if you acknowledge the first and deny the second, the correct assumption is that the earth is currently cooling, perhaps by a very gradual non-zero figure. That amounts to blasphemy, of course, to Global Warming dogma.

I believe that covers everything. Have I inadvertently omitted anything?


Odd how just about every professional physicist on the planet would disagree with you about GHGs violating the laws of physics.

Your grasp of the physical laws seems tenuous at best, just like your grasp on reality.
11-02-2016 07:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote:Do you have a comprehension disability?

Do you have an aversion to science?

DRKTS wrote: What has the solar cycle got to do with global warming?

Nothing, because Global Warming is just a religion. The solar cycle has everything to do with increasing and decreasing solar output. How is it that I need to explain this to you?

Oh, when solar output decreases, the earth cools correspondingly. Just for clarification, would you officially state your denial of this for the record?

DRKTS wrote:You seem unable (or is it unwilling?) to understand the meaning of the simplest scientific statements.

You seem unable to support any point of relevance. So far your denial remains intact.

DRKTS wrote: Look up random walk theory.

It seems obvious you need to review it. You didn't quite understand it completely the first time. Your wording implies that you believe each and every photon is obligated to millions of years leaving the core. In actuality very very few take that long. Most take an order of magnitude less and a few yet another order of magnitude less.

So check your wording. It could take that long.

Try to be someone who says what he means and who means what he says.


DRKTS wrote:The question is about whether changes on the Sun are causing global warming



No. The question is exactly what I asked you:

Do you acknowledge that solar output is decreasing, right now, by a non-zero figure...or are you living in denial? Again, review your own slides if you must.


DRKTS wrote:(actually my next video will be about that). Wait a couple of days and all your questions will be answered.

OK, I look forward to seeing it. Tell me. Will it hinge entirely on your assumption of "greenhouse effect"? Will your video likely be dismissed by those who don't share your beliefs?

DRKTS wrote:Odd how just about every professional physicist on the planet would disagree with you about GHGs violating the laws of physics.

It is odd that you still believe you speak for countless untold others. In this case you delude yourself into believing that you somehow speak for "about every professional physicist."

I have never met any scientist who would claim belief in your professed violations of physics. You speak for physicists as much as I speak for Tibetan monks.

You have no business critiquing anyone's understanding of science. Your devotion to your faith does not equate to scientific acumen.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2016 11:19
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann



.


Lots of bluster, pseudoscience, and unsupported assertions. Try giving us a single checkable fact (with a reference) to support any of your "scientific" points... cue the crickets.
11-02-2016 11:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1088)
It is odd that you still believe you speak for countless untold others. In this case you delude yourself into believing that you somehow speak for "about every professional physicist."

I have never met any scientist who would claim belief in your professed violations of physics.


Lets remind ourselves those countless untold others include secondary school students that managed to stay awake in science class.

You having a converstaion about physics in real life with someone who knows what they are talking about, I would love to be a fly on that wall. Mind you if you display the belligerent ignorance in real life as you do on the internet its no wonder that you cant find anyone to disagree with you, If I were in the same room as you I would move the converstaion on to keep the peace.
11-02-2016 15:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote:Lots of bluster, pseudoscience, and unsupported assertions.

That would be you. I'm not the one preaching that Global Warming is real and active in our lives. You are, and the full burden of support resides with you, not with me. Unfortunately all your support has been pseudobabble, unsupported assertions and violations of physics.

DRKTS wrote:Try giving us a single checkable fact (with a reference) to support any of your "scientific" points... cue the crickets.

I'll give you the two facts that destroy your "greenhouse effect" dogma and that you can't seem to overcome:

1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st LoT), and

2. Temperature driives thermal radiation (Planck's Law)

These items come from science so you don't get a citation. You're supposed to be a big boy who can verify science on your own or, as you seem want to do, deny the science.

I look forward to your upcoming presentation which, I am guessing, will DODGE the issue of how the above two points are violated while merely stating that they aren't violated.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2016 15:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann



.


Lots of bluster, pseudoscience, and unsupported assertions. Try giving us a single checkable fact (with a reference) to support any of your "scientific" points... cue the crickets.


{{{{crickets}}}} would at least be more peaceful.

Unfortunately, you'll get just get more loud donkey brayings, pseudoscience, and unsupported assertions from him... and no references.



Edited on 11-02-2016 15:50
11-02-2016 19:26
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:Try giving us a single checkable fact (with a reference) to support any of your "scientific" points... cue the crickets.

I'll give you the two facts that destroy your "greenhouse effect" dogma and that you can't seem to overcome:

1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st LoT), and

2. Temperature driives thermal radiation (Planck's Law)

These items come from science so you don't get a citation. You're supposed to be a big boy who can verify science on your own or, as you seem want to do, deny the science.

I look forward to your upcoming presentation which, I am guessing, will DODGE the issue of how the above two points are violated while merely stating that they aren't violated.


.


You need to explain how energy being transformed from one form to another is in any way is against the 1st law.

Planck's Law merely says spectral irradiance is related to wavelength and temperature, again how does the greenhouse effect violate that?
11-02-2016 20:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
DRKTS wrote:You need to explain how energy being transformed from one form to another is in any way is against the 1st law.

Not at all. I am not making this claim.
It is you who must explain how the earth magically increases in temperature without creating additional energy in violation of the 1st LoT.

This is worth repeating since you continue to EVADE this fundamental point.

You claim an increase in temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Physics. You can't get around it.

You claim that the existence of "greenhouse gas" causes this temperature increase. You are implicitly stating that "greenhouse gas" causes the required additional energy to somehow come into existence. Logic 101. You can't get around it.

I know, I know, ...you realize you have an insurmountable problem on your hands called "science" so you make a last ditch effort to fool the scientifically illiterate by claiming that "greenhouse gas" has the magical superpower to somehow "slow" it's own thermal radiation as well as the thermal radiation of other substances (pure fantasy for the gullible). Even if such a fiction were to exist in reality, any such "slowing" of earth's thermal radiation would have to be accompanied by a DECREASE in temperature, not an increase.

Why? Because temperature drives thermal radiation and it is a DIRECT relationship, i.e. if temperature increases then thermal radiation increases. Period. You can't get around this. If you tell me that the earth's thermal radiation has decreased then any physicist knows that you have just stated that earth's temperature has decreased.

For the record, and for clarification purposes, would you state your denial of the above? It would really make it clear to others what your beliefs are, how strong they are, and would greatly assist others in evaluating them.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2016 20:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Ceist wrote: ...and no references.

Correct.

While we're on the subject, would you explain why you believe science needs to be accompanied by citations?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

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

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2016 21:13
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:You need to explain how energy being transformed from one form to another is in any way is against the 1st law.

Not at all. I am not making this claim.
It is you who must explain how the earth magically increases in temperature without creating additional energy in violation of the 1st LoT.

This is worth repeating since you continue to EVADE this fundamental point.

You claim an increase in temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Physics. You can't get around it.

You claim that the existence of "greenhouse gas" causes this temperature increase. You are implicitly stating that "greenhouse gas" causes the required additional energy to somehow come into existence. Logic 101. You can't get around it.

I know, I know, ...you realize you have an insurmountable problem on your hands called "science" so you make a last ditch effort to fool the scientifically illiterate by claiming that "greenhouse gas" has the magical superpower to somehow "slow" it's own thermal radiation as well as the thermal radiation of other substances (pure fantasy for the gullible). Even if such a fiction were to exist in reality, any such "slowing" of earth's thermal radiation would have to be accompanied by a DECREASE in temperature, not an increase.

Why? Because temperature drives thermal radiation and it is a DIRECT relationship, i.e. if temperature increases then thermal radiation increases. Period. You can't get around this. If you tell me that the earth's thermal radiation has decreased then any physicist knows that you have just stated that earth's temperature has decreased.

For the record, and for clarification purposes, would you state your denial of the above? It would really make it clear to others what your beliefs are, how strong they are, and would greatly assist others in evaluating them.


.


You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate But the Climate is Always Changing!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Changing Climate of Public Opinion325-07-2019 01:59
The Changing Climate of Social Media012-07-2019 00:49
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
This is how our changing climate could increase the risk we face from hurricanes027-03-2019 15:54
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact