Climate change: A cooling consensus

You do realize that the earth has a energy budget where it takes in x radiation and emits y radiation? When the sum of x and y are equal, the earth is in equilibrium. Greenhouse gasses changes the equilibrium because it allows earth's energy budget to increase because the physical properties of those chemicals act kinda like a battery. They store some of the outgoing energy y and emit it back over time, and some of that energy will be brought back into the system; thus, the energy budget goes up.

 

I am backing no horse, just using basic astronomical observation. And you can easily win this argument and shut me up by showing me the data. Why don't you do that?

 

My position requires none . Yours does I'm not the one defending the class war ... oops sorry make that failed hypothesis my mistake

 

Ignoring it, you mean.

We have. Warming and cooling track solar activity on century and millennial time scales. You know this. Why pretend you do not?

 

Wrong again. The earth's energy budget is determined by the sun. All that changes according to albedo and atmospheric composition is the equilibrium surface temperature.

 

The graphs of sunspot activity have been posted many times.

So you are saying that the Maunder Minimum, for example, had no effect on the energy reaching the earth? Whatever caused the total absence of sunspots for several decades could not have affected the sun's energy output? Such views are just idiotic, anti-scientific garbage.

 

Then show me the data. Cycle 23 just went through an extreme minimum, why is there no solar variance associated with it. Why has there been no solar variance above 1/10th of 1 percent ever been recorded in our observations of the sun. You keep parroting this connection but never show any data showing the variance you claim. Feel free to prove me wrong, I have been waiting two weeks for you or your sunspot lovers to show this variance. Why cant any of you do it?

 

I've already told you: sunspots are just a proxy for whatever is going on. Temperature is going down while CO2 is going up. Hello?

Because ALL OUR OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE DURING A 150-YEAR PERIOD OF SUSTAINED HIGH SOLAR ACTIVITY SUCH AS HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN AT LEAST 2000 YEARS. I already provided a url for the peer-reviewed paper.

That is a bald falsehood. We have posted sunspot cycle graphs and data many times.

We have posted solar activity data many times. You know this. Here is one example again:

View attachment 21782

It clearly shows rising solar activity during the period of modern warming. Why do you refuse to know this fact?

 

Because clearly you neither read posts or do any research Solar activity is not linked to solar output. This about the 10th time I have explained this.

If sunspots are so critical to the process why is it that numbers have been steadily declining while the planet moves out of a glacial period. Does that mean sunspots sometimes affect climate, other times it doesn't? Or do you just pick and choose what data fits your little pipe dream?

 

You do realize that arguing for the existance of the greenhouse gas effect doesnt prove catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

 

You know that is false.

But your claim is just false. It IS linked, just not very strongly DURING THE PERIOD OF UNIFORMLY HIGH SOLAR ACTIVITY FOR WHICH WE HAVE MEASUREMENTS. It's an obvious problem of restricted range of observations: we have no observations of solar output during a prolonged solar activity minimum.

They haven't, and it isn't. Solar activity during the last 150 years has been at a sustained high not seen in at least 2000 years, and the earth stopped moving out of the last glacial period more than 10kya.

<sigh> SUNSPOTS ARE JUST A PROXY, they don't affect climate at all. It is some other aspect of solar activity, which sunspots somehow reflect, that affects the earth's heat balance. Sunspots are a useful proxy because we have data on them going back 400 years, unlike the instrumental data, which is all from the recent period of sustained high solar activity.

That's rich: a warmist accusing me of cherry-picking.

 

LOL another swing and a miss



You are clearly playing ignorant as a debating tool. No one is really going to try and sell a theory that requires an unknown energy interacting in an unknown way to produce a random effect. Anytime you want to have a serious discussion about astronomy look me up. For now my time is far to valuable to waste on you

 

The energy budget is decided from all the incoming radiation from the sun vs the outgoing losses as per my description above. The sun only has to do with incoming radiation.

To put this in another context, we couldn't determine much from the US budget by only looking at cash inflows. We also have to look at cash outflows.

 

Your just not following through with recursive thinking. How will raising the energy budget change things?

 

Okay...something real simple. Take two areas of equal square footage and on one put up a clear plastic tent and on the other one put up nothing.

Then check the two different temps in both areas and compare on any day during the day.

Then tell me solar activity is the reason you have two different temperature readings.

 

The Warmers continue to fail to make the rock-solid, air-tight case for AGW that is necessary for their prescription for economic suicide.

Viz:
Sweaters required in Atlanta in mid-August makes AGW look like the lie it is.

 

What the average individual that is caught up in the GW Voodoo science does not realize is that we are looking at just a small segment of time. The first thermometer was not invented until 1638. The current standard scales for thermometers were not invented until 1724 Fahrenheit and 1742 Celsius. The US did not consistently start tracking and recording temperatures until 1860. So we are trying to make sense out of what the weather is doing by evaluating a mere 153 years data.

Additionally, emails that were hacked from the CRU proved that scientists were tweaking data to show warming where they did not exist.

 

?? It might help if you gave some indication what that is supposed to be a graph of.

No, unlike you and the AGW propaganda crowd, but like all genuine scientists, I am being honest about scientific unknowns.

The effect is self-evidently not random. That is what allows science to identify unknown energies and ultimately understand the ways they produce their effects.

Why would I do that? You don't appear to know anything about it.

- - - Updated - - -

<yawn> Try checking one during the day and the other at night. Duh.

 

And to understand the deficit, we would also need to look at taxes avoided and evaded. GET IT??

 

Svenmark would disagree.

 

I haven't advocated any agenda as far as response to global warming.

 

I don't care if Albert Einstein rose from the grave and disagreed. The sun is only part of the overall equation.

To make a kind of EE analogy, people are arguing about the battery in a camera while ignoring the existence and importance of a capacitor.

 

If your going to argue that a budget can be determined from inflows alone, I see little point in continuing this conversation.

 

If you're going to pretend you don't know what ordinary words like "also" mean, I see little point in attempting to have a conversation.

 

Ice-core data goes back pretty far in time.

The CRU scientists were cleared by multiple independent investigations of any wrongdoing. Those emails were picked apart and used out of all context on denier blogs to massage global conspiracy theories.