Remember me
▼ Content

Global cooling in 2030 it's true???



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Global cooling in 2030 it's true???29-08-2016 10:08
micole66
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
It's true that in 2030 it's coming a little ice age?
29-08-2016 12:56
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
Short answer; no

Where did you hear that from?
29-08-2016 13:02
micole66
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
spot wrote:
Short answer; no

Where did you hear that from?

I have heared here!!! It's true or fake? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
29-08-2016 13:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
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.
29-08-2016 13:25
micole66
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
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.


What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?
29-08-2016 13:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
micole66 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.


What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?


Do you expect to find out what is going on in the world by just posting random questions to radom internet forums where anyone can say anything? In answer to your query global warming makes sense to me because we are continue to put greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, other people will tell you other things you have to decide if what they say makes 'sense'.
29-08-2016 17:00
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
This news is all over the web. The climate discussion is dominated by extrovert morons.
30-08-2016 21:51
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
31-08-2016 14:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
micole66 wrote:It's true that in 2030 it's coming a little ice age?

Short answer, not an ice age but definitely cooler than today.

The earth will be cooling between now and then (has been cooling for several years now) due to decreasing solar output. Nothing drastic, but a gradual decrease over decades will result in noticeably colder temperatures. Watch for a seemingly unending stream of "record cold" temperatures (that warmizombies will remind you is just "weather) while actual record high temperatures will dwindle (yet will be celebrated as they occur by warmizombies screaming "You see? You see? Global Warming is REAL and is not dead!").

...and today's Church of Global Warming will be tomorrow's running joke, i.e. "They really believed the earth was WARMING CATASTROPHICALLY? They actually believed in violations of basic physics? Thank GOD they didn't succeed in destroying the petroleum industry...please turn up that thermostat!"

That's what to expect in a nutshell.


.


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
31-08-2016 14:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
micole66 wrote:What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?

Global cooling.

The sun's output is decreasing. This is nothing unexpected. The sun goes through these cycles.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/01/31/with-suns-activity-set-to-diminish-is-global-cooling-coming.html


This article is a little hyped. Disregard the words "ice age." All you should take away from this is that solar output is decreasing and that earth's temperature will decrease. Stefan-Boltzmann is the science you can reference if you want an explanation of why the earth's temperature decreases when solar output decreases but you shouldn't need any math for something that obvious.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates


.


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
31-08-2016 14:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
How would anyone know if its cooling or warming? you say yourself that it's impossible to measure things.
31-08-2016 15:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
spot wrote: How would anyone know if its cooling or warming? you say yourself that it's impossible to measure things.

First, no one "knows" that the earth is cooling. The operative word is that the earth is probably cooling right now due to decreased solar output.

Secondly, there are certainly things that can be measured. The average global temperature is not one of them. Solar magnetic flux, however, is. We can also follow historical patterns to anticipate the decreased solar output.

Considering that we are expecting decreasing solar output and that we are measuring decreasing solar flux, Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that the best operating ASSUMPTION is that the earth is cooling right now.


.


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
31-08-2016 16:23
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Alright, I'll ask: why can solar magnetic flux be measured but temperature can't?
31-08-2016 19:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
And isn't the Stefan-Boltzmann law to do with temperature not magnetism?

Explain please in detail how you know that the Suns magnetic field is changing and cite sources, also tell us how you know those sources are not manufacturing data,

Thanks,
31-08-2016 22:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Leafsdude wrote:
Alright, I'll ask: why can solar magnetic flux be measured but temperature can't?

That's right. You can't read. Let me go slowly for you.

* Temperature CAN be measured, at one point, by a sensor (e.g. thermometer).

* Temperature over an AREA requires computations involving data points.

* Temperature over an AREA requires a sufficient dataset of data points to achieve a value within the determined acceptable margin of error.

* Ergo, what is YOUR acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature

* Energy from the sun can be measured at a point with a sensor.

* Magnetic flux can be measured using plasma imaging.


.


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
31-08-2016 22:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
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.


.


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
01-09-2016 00:00
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
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.
01-09-2016 02:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2016 03:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
This is why I think your trolling, of course nobody disputes turning off the Sun will make it go cold, what you fail to understand is that nobody is claiming that CO2 is a heat source in itself, it moderates the amount of heat the planet loses into space. Whether you agree or not you surly understand your 'opponents' argument don't you? It's a simple concept Your trying to convince us that your a renaissance man well read and consulted by people who know you in real life on a wide range of subjects so I can't understand how you fail to grasp this, They teach 12 year olds this.
01-09-2016 03:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
spot wrote:
This is why I think your trolling, of course nobody disputes turning off the Sun will make it go cold,
Hank did. That's why I called him on it.
spot wrote:
what you fail to understand is that nobody is claiming that CO2 is a heat source in itself,
Which is true.
spot wrote:
it moderates the amount of heat the planet loses into space.
Which is false. You also have just denied your own argument.
spot wrote:
Whether you agree or not you surly understand your 'opponents' argument don't you?
I understand my opponents argument better than he or she does.
spot wrote:
It's a simple concept Your trying to convince us that your a renaissance man well read and consulted by people who know you in real life on a wide range of subjects so I can't understand how you fail to grasp this,
Grasp what? The teachings of the Church of Global Warming?
spot wrote:
They teach 12 year olds this.

I know. That's one of the reasons why I consider the current K-12 school system generally a wasteland.

A lot of the kids know it, too.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2016 04:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Hank wrote:That is a major misunderstanding of the earths energy balance.

Earth's energy balance? Is that like earth's feng shui? Maybe earth's chi? There's an energy drink for that, yes?


Hank wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann equation only tells the change in temperature that the sun emits when the energy emitted from the sun changes.

Stefan-Boltzmann specifies:

Energy = Emiss * StefBol * T^4

That says a lot more than your convolution of an oversimplification.

Hank wrote:Since that temperature is the fourth root of the energy the forcing is weak.

There is no such thing in science as a "forcing." It's just more of the bad joke your religion is playing on you.

Hank wrote: Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas that causes the earth to warm if it increases.

Nope.

How do account for the additional energy REQUIRED for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature? Are you saying that "greenhouse gases" can violate the 1st LoT?

Hank wrote: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.

Full stop. You are now wasting everyone's time.

Go learn the difference between thermal convection and thermal radiation. You cannot hope to move forward conflating the two as you do.


.


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
01-09-2016 04:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
spot wrote: ... what you fail to understand is that nobody is claiming that CO2 is a heat source in itself,

You really should stick to speaking for yourself. Into the Night and I certainly do encounter many who claim "greenhouse gas" has the magical, divine superpower to be a heat source so strong that it will overpower any global cooling from a solar minimum.

There are all sorts of religious fanatics who believe all sorts of WACKY things in the name of their respective religions and the Global Warming religion is no different. Warmizombies are among the most scientifically illiterate of humanity yet they are convinced they are fugging geniuses. It's unreal.

Anyway, just stick with what your argument is and don't pretend your church doesn't have any wackos.

spot wrote: it moderates the amount of heat the planet loses into space.

Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise. Earth's emission is a function of temperature only. None of your magical forcings that you claim affect earth's emission exist. Only temperature controls emission.


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
01-09-2016 16:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise. Earth's emission is a function of temperature only. None of your magical forcings that you claim affect earth's emission exist. Only temperature controls emission.

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. This has been explained to you many times, but for some reason you seem unable to grasp this simple fact.
01-09-2016 19:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
micole66 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.


What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?


Probably a little warming but not so much that wil cause any trouble...

Although the natural variability of climate means that whilst you could place bets and give odds having any more confidence in them than the odds is out of place.

It's been freakishly stable in climate terms since 1998. Expect more change than you are used to, up or down. That's odds on. (+50%). But I'm not saying when...

Edited on 01-09-2016 19:17
01-09-2016 19:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Alright, I'll ask: why can solar magnetic flux be measured but temperature can't?

That's right. You can't read. Let me go slowly for you.

* Temperature CAN be measured, at one point, by a sensor (e.g. thermometer).

* Temperature over an AREA requires computations involving data points.

* Temperature over an AREA requires a sufficient dataset of data points to achieve a value within the determined acceptable margin of error.

* Ergo, what is YOUR acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature

* Energy from the sun can be measured at a point with a sensor.


Yep.

In school when we did climate the temperature graphs were shown and it was important to understand that they were average temperature and rainfall figures. Some climates have very low levdels of variability;- Equitorial jungles. Others have very high variance;- Deserts, it might not rain for 20 years. It might have 4 years rainfall in a week. It migh get 25c hotter than average for a month.

You are correct in thinking that measuring the world's temperature to thousanths of a degree is nonsense. To a degree, yes-ish... take it with a pinch of salt.

How you measure world sea levels to the mm is utterly beyond me. Especially when they then comare the modern data with the records from 100 years ago when the harbour master looked out of the window on a stormy night and wrote down his best guess from the ammount of sea water splashing against the window 'cause he could not see any further and was not about to go out there.


* Magnetic flux can be measured using plasma imaging.


I have no idea. I will take your word for it.
Edited on 01-09-2016 19:16
01-09-2016 19:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
It's been freakishly stable in climate terms since 1998

Stop lying, Tim.
01-09-2016 21:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1101)
Into the Night wrote:
Hank did. That's why I called him on it.


That's not the impression I got from reading what he said.


Into the Night wrote:Which is true.


We agree on something

Into the Night wrote:Which is false. You also have just denied your own argument.


I'm not talking about what you think is true or false I'm asking if you understand what I and Hank and Surface Detail and Ceist and everyone one else you have had one of these frustrating exchanges is saying.


Into the Night wrote:I understand my opponents argument better than he or she does.


That as may be however you have failed to demonstrate that you do.

Into the Night wrote:Grasp what? The teachings of the Church of Global Warming?


Call it what you will, I'm sure Richard Dawkins has read the bible although he is famous for being a Atheist I'm also sure he can understand his opponents point.


Into the Night wrote:I know. That's one of the reasons why I consider the current K-12 school system generally a wasteland.

A lot of the kids know it, too.


Nevertheless twelve year olds can understand the simple concept under discussion here.
01-09-2016 21:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
It's been freakishly stable in climate terms since 1998

Stop lying, Tim.


How is that a lie???

You are religious in your ideas on this subject.

Which period has had such a stable climate?

You will need to specify one with the same level of detail in the instrumentation of the records.
01-09-2016 23:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hank did. That's why I called him on it.


That's not the impression I got from reading what he said.

Apparently not. But then, you have reading comprehension problems, already demonstrated in the past quite a few times before.

spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Which is true.


We agree on something

Don't let it go to your head.

spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Which is false. You also have just denied your own argument.


I'm not talking about what you think is true or false I'm asking if you understand what I and Hank and Surface Detail and Ceist and everyone one else you have had one of these frustrating exchanges is saying.

I know what you are saying better then you yourselves do. All three of you often make contradictory arguments, fallacious arguments (even repeating the same fallacies over and over again), mathematical errors, attempt to redefine science, shift contexts (or ignore them completely), and use the same erroneous two arguments of the magick blanket and the magick mirror over and over again.

Though I and others continually point out your various mistakes, you keep making them. The illiteracy you show is appalling.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I understand my opponents argument better than he or she does.


That as may be however you have failed to demonstrate that you do.

Another argument of the Stone. I am not the only one that HAS demonstrated it to you.

spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Grasp what? The teachings of the Church of Global Warming?


Call it what you will, I'm sure Richard Dawkins has read the bible although he is famous for being a Atheist I'm also sure he can understand his opponents point.

No, Dawkins does not understand his opponent much at all. Without using religion at all, it is possible to show his arguments to have many holes in them, usually based on circular arguments.

I still call your circular argument of 'greenhouse' gasses The Church of Global Warming.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I know. That's one of the reasons why I consider the current K-12 school system generally a wasteland.

A lot of the kids know it, too.


Nevertheless twelve year olds can understand the simple concept under discussion here.

Yes. That's why they know your argument is bullshit.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2016 00:04
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
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
02-09-2016 00:57
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Hank wrote:That is a major misunderstanding of the earths energy balance.

IBdaMann wrote:
Earth's energy balance? Is that like earth's feng shui? Maybe earth's chi? There's an energy drink for that, yes?


You have a lot of trouble understanding science?

Hank wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann equation only tells the change in temperature that the sun emits when the energy emitted from the sun changes.

IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann specifies:

Energy = Emiss * StefBol * T^4

That says a lot more than your convolution of an oversimplification.


Well yeah it can be used to calculate the energy emitted by the sun but in climate science it's used to calculate the CHANGE in energy emitted by the sun.

Hank wrote:Since that temperature is the fourth root of the energy the forcing is weak.

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing in science as a "forcing." It's just more of the bad joke your religion is playing on you.


That's what is used when we talk about designing a structure where I work. What word would you suggest be used to indicate something is forcing a change in an object? Or do you think nothing ever forces a change in an object?

Hank wrote: Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas that causes the earth to warm if it increases.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope.


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

IBdaMann wrote:
How do account for the additional energy REQUIRED for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature? Are you saying that "greenhouse gases" can violate the 1st LoT?


Keeping energy from escaping doesn't require 'additional' energy since no energy is being 'added'. It's just retained in a location. The mechanical engineers I work with use heat transfer equations to design exactly that kind of thermal properties for an object all the time. BTW the first statement you didn't seem to understand has a lot to do with the 1st LoT.

Hank wrote: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.

IBdaMann wrote:
Full stop. You are now wasting everyone's time.


I give you permission to not read my posts if you feel that way.

IBdaMann wrote:
Go learn the difference between thermal convection and thermal radiation. You cannot hope to move forward conflating the two as you do.


I'll check with my mechanical engineering friends on that right away. Or maybe you could teach me if you have the time.
02-09-2016 01:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2016 01:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
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.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2016 01:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

The American Chemical Society begs to differ:

Which Gases Are Greenhouse Gases?

"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally and enter the atmosphere as a result of both natural processes (such as decomposition of organic matter) and human activity (such as burning fossil fuels and agriculture). Greenhouse gases that occur both naturally and from human activities include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3). Other greenhouse gases have essentially no natural sources, but are side products of industrial processes or manufactured for human purposes such as cleaning agents, refrigerants, and electrical insulators. These include the fluorinated gases: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), bromofluorocarbons (halons), perfluorcarbons, PFCs, nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6."
02-09-2016 01:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail 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.

The American Chemical Society begs to differ:

Which Gases Are Greenhouse Gases?

"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally and enter the atmosphere as a result of both natural processes (such as decomposition of organic matter) and human activity (such as burning fossil fuels and agriculture). Greenhouse gases that occur both naturally and from human activities include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3). Other greenhouse gases have essentially no natural sources, but are side products of industrial processes or manufactured for human purposes such as cleaning agents, refrigerants, and electrical insulators. These include the fluorinated gases: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), bromofluorocarbons (halons), perfluorcarbons, PFCs, nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6."


The ACS is a political organization, too. It does not own the science any more than anyone else. They are simply defining anything that happens to absorb IR frequencies near a Planck radiation of 50 degrees as a 'greenhouse' gas.

The fact that a gas can absorb light is not the greenhouse effect. Your use of the energy in a colder gas to warm the surface of the Earth is your 'greenhouse' effect. It is utterly wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says so.

Water vapor has a specific heat higher than air, but nothing like the specific heat of liquid water.

A high specific heat does not warm the planet. It is simply a way of saying it takes more time, given the same energy applied, to heat the substance or to cool it. It is just thermal 'intertia'. It is not an energy source.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2016 01:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail 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.

The American Chemical Society begs to differ:

Which Gases Are Greenhouse Gases?

"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally and enter the atmosphere as a result of both natural processes (such as decomposition of organic matter) and human activity (such as burning fossil fuels and agriculture). Greenhouse gases that occur both naturally and from human activities include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3). Other greenhouse gases have essentially no natural sources, but are side products of industrial processes or manufactured for human purposes such as cleaning agents, refrigerants, and electrical insulators. These include the fluorinated gases: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), bromofluorocarbons (halons), perfluorcarbons, PFCs, nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6."


The ACS is a political organization, too. It does not own the science any more than anyone else. They are simply defining anything that happens to absorb IR frequencies near a Planck radiation of 50 degrees as a 'greenhouse' gas.

The fact that a gas can absorb light is not the greenhouse effect. Your use of the energy in a colder gas to warm the surface of the Earth is your 'greenhouse' effect. It is utterly wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says so.

Water vapor has a specific heat higher than air, but nothing like the specific heat of liquid water.

A high specific heat does not warm the planet. It is simply a way of saying it takes more time, given the same energy applied, to heat the substance or to cool it. It is just thermal 'intertia'. It is not an energy source.

The ACS doesn't own science, but it does understand science, which is clearly more than you do!
02-09-2016 03:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail 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.

The American Chemical Society begs to differ:

Which Gases Are Greenhouse Gases?

"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally and enter the atmosphere as a result of both natural processes (such as decomposition of organic matter) and human activity (such as burning fossil fuels and agriculture). Greenhouse gases that occur both naturally and from human activities include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3). Other greenhouse gases have essentially no natural sources, but are side products of industrial processes or manufactured for human purposes such as cleaning agents, refrigerants, and electrical insulators. These include the fluorinated gases: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), bromofluorocarbons (halons), perfluorcarbons, PFCs, nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6."


The ACS is a political organization, too. It does not own the science any more than anyone else. They are simply defining anything that happens to absorb IR frequencies near a Planck radiation of 50 degrees as a 'greenhouse' gas.

The fact that a gas can absorb light is not the greenhouse effect. Your use of the energy in a colder gas to warm the surface of the Earth is your 'greenhouse' effect. It is utterly wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says so.

Water vapor has a specific heat higher than air, but nothing like the specific heat of liquid water.

A high specific heat does not warm the planet. It is simply a way of saying it takes more time, given the same energy applied, to heat the substance or to cool it. It is just thermal 'intertia'. It is not an energy source.

The ACS doesn't own science, but it does understand science, which is clearly more than you do!

Not if they are making statements like this.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2016 03:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail 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.

The American Chemical Society begs to differ:

Which Gases Are Greenhouse Gases?

"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally and enter the atmosphere as a result of both natural processes (such as decomposition of organic matter) and human activity (such as burning fossil fuels and agriculture). Greenhouse gases that occur both naturally and from human activities include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3). Other greenhouse gases have essentially no natural sources, but are side products of industrial processes or manufactured for human purposes such as cleaning agents, refrigerants, and electrical insulators. These include the fluorinated gases: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs), bromofluorocarbons (halons), perfluorcarbons, PFCs, nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6."


The ACS is a political organization, too. It does not own the science any more than anyone else. They are simply defining anything that happens to absorb IR frequencies near a Planck radiation of 50 degrees as a 'greenhouse' gas.

The fact that a gas can absorb light is not the greenhouse effect. Your use of the energy in a colder gas to warm the surface of the Earth is your 'greenhouse' effect. It is utterly wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says so.

Water vapor has a specific heat higher than air, but nothing like the specific heat of liquid water.

A high specific heat does not warm the planet. It is simply a way of saying it takes more time, given the same energy applied, to heat the substance or to cool it. It is just thermal 'intertia'. It is not an energy source.

The ACS doesn't own science, but it does understand science, which is clearly more than you do!

Not if they are making statements like this.

Of course not, ITN. What would the American Chemical Society know? Or, indeed, every other scientific society on the planet. Idiot.
02-09-2016 13:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Surface Detail wrote:Of course not, ITN. What would the American Chemical Society know? Or, indeed, every other scientific society on the planet. Idiot.

Once again you realize that you've been duped by your church, forcing you to retreat into deluding yourself that you are the authoritative spokesperson for everything "scientific" on the planet.

Too funny.

Unfortunately for you, all you are doing is showcasing your scientific illiteracy. You're exactly the kind of gullible moron your church seeks to manipulate...easy-squeezy.


.


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
02-09-2016 15:14
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
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!).
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Global cooling in 2030 it's true???:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
It's not true leftists are climate advocates201-05-2019 00:24
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
The dangerous cooling trend in mainland America. How will it impact?125-03-2019 19:38
▲ 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