Global cooling in 2030 it's true???

spot wrote:
Short answer; no

Where did you hear that from?

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.

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?

micole66 wrote:It's true that in 2030 it's coming a little ice age?

micole66 wrote:What is more true now? Global warming or global cooling?

spot wrote: How would anyone know if its cooling or warming? you say yourself that it's impossible to measure things.

Leafsdude wrote:
Alright, I'll ask: why can solar magnetic flux be measured but temperature can't?

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

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.


.

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.

spot wrote:
This is why I think your trolling, of course nobody disputes turning off the Sun will make it go cold,

spot wrote:
what you fail to understand is that nobody is claiming that CO2 is a heat source in itself,

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

spot wrote:
Whether you agree or not you surly understand your 'opponents' argument don't you?

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,

spot wrote:
They teach 12 year olds this.

Hank wrote:That is a major misunderstanding of the earths energy balance.

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

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

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

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.

spot wrote: ... what you fail to understand is that nobody is claiming that CO2 is a heat source in itself,

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

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.

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?

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.

* Magnetic flux can be measured using plasma imaging.

Tim the plumber wrote:
It's been freakishly stable in climate terms since 1998

Into the Night wrote:
Hank did. That's why I called him on it.

Into the Night wrote:Which is true.

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

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

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

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.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
It's been freakishly stable in climate terms since 1998

Stop lying, Tim.

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.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Which is true.

We agree on something

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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!

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.

Surface Detail wrote:Of course not, ITN. What would the American Chemical Society know? Or, indeed, every other scientific society on the planet. Idiot.

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.