There is no Planet B

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Looks like thew Hubble all over again. Let's get it in space and quibble over calibration when it's up there. For some reason I'm not feeling confident in the data.

Wow. You really don't know much about this stuff.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Q: From where did the carbon in fossil fuels originate?
A: The same sky that is supposedly presently falling.

Correct, with ONE important caveat. Carbon that was captured over millions of years is being released into the atmosphere over decades of years now.


Rain is natural; imagine 1000 years' worth of normal rainfall falling in one year. Not so great, right?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Newhaul,

Jim posted longer term statistics that show a definite warming trend. In fact those statically images are skewed so as the warming is under appreciated because the data set is time limited. Older data would show more.

But I think that this shows your complete lack of credibility because....

In several recent posts YOU have said:
There has been 1.1°F of warming
It has been warming up through 2016
And you most recently attributed that warming to a solar maxima in 1957.

Now when Jim, or Gord or I say something that supports that the world has been warming you try to deny it.

Shame on you.

question what does your rant have to do with the chart I posted showing near normal ice growth in the eastern arctic region ? ( the only area that is not seeing normal average ice growth is the bearing sea) that is due to the weather in the high Pacific .pushing the ice edge north where it is pancakeing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Newhaul,

Jim posted longer term statistics that show a definite warming trend. In fact those statically images are skewed so as the warming is under appreciated because the data set is time limited. Older data would show more.

But I think that this shows your complete lack of credibility because....

In several recent posts YOU have said:
There has been 1.1°F of warming
It has been warming up through 2016
And you most recently attributed that warming to a solar maxima in 1957.

Now when Jim, or Gord or I say something that supports that the world has been warming you try to deny it.

Shame on you.

the difference that you keep missing is the REASON for that warming over the 6 decades .
it was the modern grand maximum.
There is a significant difference than just a maximum.
Read what is posted not what you want to read.
You really should relearn your thermodynamics wrt a dynamic liquid heat sink.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

.


Rain is natural; imagine 1000 years' worth of normal rainfall falling in one year. Not so great, right?

there are theories out there that cover this .
Called the micro nova theory.
I am not a believer.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Correct, with ONE important caveat. Carbon that was captured over millions of years is being released into the atmosphere over decades of years now.


Rain is natural; imagine 1000 years' worth of normal rainfall falling in one year. Not so great, right?

If you take pebbles out of a bucket over a million years, then throw them back in in 10 seconds - you still only have a bucket of pebbles.

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

At present, we can't regulate our atmosphere to account for the random sun spot activity. We know sun spot activity is random and therefore the earths average temperature will vary accordingly.

Sunspot activity is far from random. There are well-documented 11-year cycles where sunspots go from very numerous to almost none at all. And superimposed on those 11-year cycles are longer 90-100 year cycles. And on top of that a roughly 900-1000 year cycle. There may be even longer solar cycles we haven't discovered yet, as we haven't been civilized long enough to record the data.

The scientific basis for the prediction of a coming solar minimum is based on the observations that the solar activity was low in 1880s, rose to a peak in the 1960s, and is now declining again to levels not seen since the little ice age.

Given the thermal inertia of the oceans, the peak of solar activity in the 1960s correlates well with the global warming seen from the 1970s through the 1990s.

That does not negate the CO2 GHG theory, but it does offer an alternative interpretation. It could be that both factors are contributing to the warming, or it could be that it's all one or all the other. Or any percentage of one vs the other.

The argument all boils down to how much is natural and how much is man--made? No one can answer that yet with any degree of certainty. We have seemingly all decided which team we are rooting for, and that's something that is just part of man's nature - to pick sides, to make is us vs them.

It is a fascinating discussion to follow. I'm rooting for team Sun, by the way.

https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

[kmacdonald]

Very interesting oldjags. Looks like the magnitude of the sun spot activity varies greatly. Is it enough to cause the speculated temperature increases we think we are seeing?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you take pebbles out of a bucket over a million years, then throw them back in in 10 seconds - you still only have a bucket of pebbles.

Not quite useful as an analogy.

If a bucket contained 40% of all the pebbles in the world, collected from the world's beaches over millions of years, and you released them back quickly...

Because that's what's happening. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% over the last 200 years.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Sunspot activity is far from random. There are well-documented 11-year cycles where sunspots go from very numerous to almost none at all. And superimposed on those 11-year cycles are longer 90-100 year cycles. And on top of that a roughly 900-1000 year cycle. There may be even longer solar cycles we haven't discovered yet, as we haven't been civilized long enough to record the data.

The scientific basis for the prediction of a coming solar minimum is based on the observations that the solar activity was low in 1880s, rose to a peak in the 1960s, and is now declining again to levels not seen since the little ice age.

Given the thermal inertia of the oceans, the peak of solar activity in the 1960s correlates well with the global warming seen from the 1970s through the 1990s.

That does not negate the CO2 GHG theory, but it does offer an alternative interpretation. It could be that both factors are contributing to the warming, or it could be that it's all one or all the other. Or any percentage of one vs the other.

The argument all boils down to how much is natural and how much is man--made? No one can answer that yet with any degree of certainty. We have seemingly all decided which team we are rooting for, and that's something that is just part of man's nature - to pick sides, to make is us vs them.

It is a fascinating discussion to follow. I'm rooting for team Sun, by the way.

https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

well written .
There is also the highly prominent and traceable 400 year cycle which we are IMO heading into the low of now.
Just look at the rise and fall of the Chinese dynasties through the ages .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not quite useful as an analogy.

If a bucket contained 40% of all the pebbles in the world, collected from the world's beaches over millions of years, and you released them back quickly...

Because that's what's happening. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% over the last 200 years.

I disagree with your 40% bit please provide the empirical evidence via the c12/13 to c14 ratios to prove your theory.
Also include the a mount of c13 that has been affected by cosmic rays stripping an electron thereby converting it to c14 in the upper thermosphere .

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

question what does your rant have to do with the chart I posted showing near normal ice growth in the eastern arctic region ? ( the only area that is not seeing normal average ice growth is the bearing sea) that is due to the weather in the high Pacific .pushing the ice edge north where it is pancakeing.

What it has to do is with you undermining your own personal theory that Earth has been warming since the 1950’s and is now going into a cooling phase. You support warming to give credence to your Cosmic Ray Cooling Theory but then attack it when it is attributed to AWG.

To be specific you are arguing BOTH that Earth warmed since the 50’s until 2016 and that supports your CRC theory AND that Earth has not warmed since the 50’s.

You are consistent only in being contrarian.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by oldjags

The argument all boils down to how much is natural and how much is man--made? No one can answer that yet with any degree of certainty.

No, it has been answered with some certainty. Basically, it's been shown that the amount of CO2 released by human activity over the last 200 years is more than sufficient to tip the atmosphere from slight cooling into warming. And of course the amount of CO2 being emitted by us at present is still huge.

Tons of cites are out there besides that link.

Sounds like a problem to me.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you take pebbles out of a bucket over a million years, then throw them back in in 10 seconds - you still only have a bucket of pebbles.

If some one throws a bucket of pebbles at you over the course of a day you are annoyed. If someone hits you with a bucket of pebbles in one instant you are severely hurt or dead.

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Very interesting oldjags. Looks like the magnitude of the sun spot activity varies greatly. Is it enough to cause the speculated temperature increases we think we are seeing?

Many on the CO2 GHG side say no, there is not enough difference in insolation to account for the observed temperature increases we have seen in the historical record. However, insolation is measured at the surface of the earth, and doesn't account for what happens in the upper atmosphere and thermosphere.

The sun is in a very quiescent phase right now - no sunspots, greatly reduced output of x-rays - and each succeeding 11-year cycle has been weaker than the one preceding it since the 1970s. The temperature of the earth's thermosphere has dropped over 600C due to the drop in x-ray emissions from the sun.

What effect that can have on surface temperatures, we don't know. But, if you subscribe to the GHG theory - that gasses warmed by IR radiation from the surface can further warm the surface - then you also have to at least consider the possibility that gasses higher up warmed by x-ray radiation can also warm the surface.

And along with the decrease in sunspot activity and x-ray emissions, the solar magnetic field has also weakened, allowing more cosmic rays from deep space to strike the earth. There is a theory that increased cosmic rays results in increased cloud cover over the earth, resulting in a cooler surface.

We clearly don't have the full picture yet, but it is coming into better focus. I will say that the next 10-20 years will make it a lot clearer.