Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much

Posted: February 7, 2018 by oldbrew in climate, Cycles, Natural Variation
Tags: ,


Well, they may think they do. But once they accept that the Sun can vary its output they have to accept it can vary up or down. If there’s a ‘grand minimum’ then there should be a ‘grand maximum’ (which may have just happened), and all points in between. Claims of ‘human-induced climate change’ have to be weighed against natural variation. The fact that reports like this are starting to appear suggests the writing is on the wall for climate warmists, due to natural factors they used to claim were too trivial to mention.

The sun might emit less radiation by mid-century, giving planet Earth a chance to warm a bit more slowly but not halt the trend of human-induced climate change, says Phys.org.

The cooldown would be the result of what scientists call a grand minimum, a periodic event during which the sun’s magnetism diminishes, sunspots form infrequently, and less ultraviolet radiation makes it to the surface of the planet.

Scientists believe that the event is triggered at irregular intervals by random fluctuations related to the sun’s magnetic field.

Scientists have used reconstructions based on geological and historical data to attribute a cold period in Europe in the mid-17th Century to such an event, named the “Maunder Minimum.” Temperatures were low enough to freeze the Thames River on a regular basis and freeze the Baltic Sea to such an extent that a Swedish army was able to invade Denmark in 1658 on foot by marching across the sea ice.

A team of scientists led by research physicist Dan Lubin at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego has created for the first time an estimate of how much dimmer the sun should be when the next minimum takes place.

There is a well-known 11-year cycle in which the sun’s ultraviolet radiation peaks and declines as a result of sunspot activity. During a grand minimum, Lubin estimates that ultraviolet radiation diminishes an additional seven percent beyond the lowest point of that cycle. His team’s study, “Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs,” appears in the publication Astrophysical Journal Letters and was funded by the state of California.

“Now we have a benchmark from which we can perform better climate model simulations,” Lubin said. “We can therefore have a better idea of how changes in solar UV radiation affect climate change.”

Lubin and colleagues David Tytler and Carl Melis of UC San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences arrived at their estimate of a grand minimum’s intensity by reviewing nearly 20 years of data gathered by the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite mission. They compared radiation from stars that are analogous to the sun and identified those that were experiencing minima.

The reduced energy from the sun sets into motion a sequence of events on Earth beginning with a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer. That thinning in turn changes the temperature structure of the stratosphere, which then changes the dynamics of the lower atmosphere, especially wind and weather patterns.

The cooling is not uniform. While areas of Europe chilled during the Maunder Minimum, other areas such as Alaska and southern Greenland warmed correspondingly.

Lubin and other scientists predict a significant probability of a near-future grand minimum because the downward sunspot pattern in recent solar cycles resembles the run-ups to past grand minimum events.

Continued here.
– – –
The Next Grand Minimum: Three New (2018) Papers Link Modern Warming And Past Cooling Periods To High, Low Solar Activity

New Scientist: Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries – By Fred Pearce (2013)

Comments
  1. Curious George says:

    Too many “might”s.

  2. hillario says:

    Swedes in 1685 marched from one Danish island to another, not across the Oeresund from Sweden to Denmark.

  3. lsvalgaard says:

    The current prediction of solar cycle 25 calls for a cycle slightly larger than cycle 24 taht is just ending, so no grand minimum this time around.

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘not halt the trend of human-induced climate change’

    What trend? Everyone knows the climate model forecasts are all wrong.

  5. Windchaser says:

    The fact that reports like this are starting to appear suggests the writing is on the wall for climate warmists, due to natural factors they used to claim were too trivial to mention.

    This doesn’t really follow. Nor is it correct — the climate models always included natural factors like volcanic and solar forcings, it’s just that we didn’t have any decent data that would let us predict how these would change in the future. (beyond the simple 11-year solar cycle).

    As for “doesn’t follow”: unless you’re saying that the natural forcings are going to decrease steadily for the next century in such a way as to cancel out the warming effects of CO2, this doesn’t really mean much for the future. Heck, natural variability cuts both ways, and can cause warming as well as cooling.

    Short of actual predictive work on future natural forcings (as in the OP), our best option is to estimate the range of natural variability we can expect from variability in natural forcings, and consider that as part of our risk estimates. But even a full-blown Maunder Minimum would only cause cooling of ~0.3C, which is relatively small compared to warming estimates.

  6. Bitter@twisted says:

    It’s called the “Trump effect”.

  7. oldbrew says:

    ‘Warming estimates’ don’t have a great record, being consistently well in excess of observations.

  8. ivan says:

    Windchaser, can you please point any definitive proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming? bear in mind that water vapour is much more likely to be the warming agent.

  9. Windchaser says:

    Windchaser, can you please point any definitive proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming? bear in mind that water vapour is much more likely to be the warming agent.

    Ivan, I’d point you towards the IPCC’s summary of the literature, which is a good starting place for finding sources in the primary literature (not unlike how Wikipedia can be a good place to start looking into a subject, but you should check the sources).

    There are literally hundreds (thousands?) of pieces of original research which look at the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, the attribution of recent warming, and the effects of CO2 vs other greenhouse gases. Note that you don’t need complex computer models to begin tackling these questions, just some basic physics and calculations.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

  10. […] “Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much“ — over at Tallbloke’s place — features the illustration of the solar cycle at the left and refers to a story at Phys.org by the same title. [More on this further on.] […]

  11. […] “Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much“ — over at Tallbloke’s place — features the illustration of the solar cycle at the left and refers to a story at Phys.org by the same title. [More on this further on.] […]

  12. oldbrew says:

    ‘Note that you don’t need complex computer models to begin tackling these questions, just some basic physics and calculations.’

    Just as well because the computer models can’t predict the present. Either the models or the physics fell short, or both.

    Any mention of more snow in IPCC ‘basic physics’?

  13. tom0mason says:

    Windchaser as far as I understand it the UN-IPCC is just a POLITICAL organ not a scientific one.

    While here could you show where the global average temperature has fallen out of natural range, here’s a graphic to help —

    IMO, it’s normal looking slow rise from just after the last LIA, with microscopic variation on the top. Nothing alarming, nothing unprecedented, all looks quite natural.

    Also of note is that this planet is good at regulating upper temperature extremes while poor at regulating the lower temperature range, as show by this graphic —

    Funny that when the global temperature of this planet is disinterestedly analyzed, no CO2 fingerprint of warming is found. Not tropical tropospheric warming, nothing unnatural.

    I understand that CO2 and some more warmth is good for all life on the planet, are you against life on this planet?

  14. Windchaser says:

    Windchaser as far as I understand it the UN-IPCC is just a POLITICAL organ not a scientific one.

    Again: read the scientific literature.

    This is a scientific subject, yah? And when we want to study a scientific subject, the normal places to start are textbooks and scientific literature (and university classes if you’re feelin’ fancy).

    So, if you think that CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m going to refer you to the scientific literature. Of which the IPCC’s WG1 does an excellent summary, with literally thousands of sources, all of which you can follow up.

    The evidence is there. Just requires some reading.

    While here could you show where the global average temperature has fallen out of natural range, here’s a graphic to help —

    Hmm, a graph where you’ve expanded the y-axis so that all of the relevant details are gone.

    Do you really believe that this graph is helpful? It seems to hide a lot of data, which is contrary to the normal purpose of a graph — to illustrate data, not to hide it.

  15. tom0mason says:

    Windchaser again as far as I understand it the UN-IPCC is just a POLITICAL organ not a scientific one.
    Your inability to recognize this says it all.

  16. BigWaveDave says:

    Windchaser

    Apart from all the claims, is there anything that offers a theory that explains how it could be physically possible for atmospheric CO2 to be having any measurable temperature effect?

  17. JB says:

    Pease & Glenn published a paper some time ago projecting the coming solar cycles to 2057:

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.03553.pdf

    Their projection of a minimum is much flatter than Maunder Minimum

  18. Windchaser says:

    Windchaser again as far as I understand it the UN-IPCC is just a POLITICAL organ not a scientific one.

    tom0mason,

    Ivan asked for evidence that CO2 causes warming. I pointed him to some.

    Now, maybe you don’t like the IPCC. But it doesn’t make sense to disregard thousands of pieces of research just because you don’t like the group who cited them.

    If you’d rather, I can point you towards some college textbooks on atmospheric physics or climate. “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumberts is excellent, and you can find a pdf online for free (–>google). It really is pretty good — I couldn’t put it down.

    Or, go down to your local university’s geoscience library and grab some books off the shelf, and start readin’. Textbooks are more friendly to read than the primary literature, but also a step removed. You should still be able to follow their citations back to the primary literature, though.

    The climate works a certain way, and follows rules like all physical systems. Climate science is just the exploration of those physical rules.

  19. stpaulchuck says:

    Ivan, you should read the recent papers by Nikolov and Zeller regarding CO2 (and the other Satanic Gases). Very informative. It relies strictly on gas laws and a bit of thermodynamics, all really ordinary science with no special magic numbers or “adjustments”.

    Add Scafetta’s papers on the effects of orbital mechanics and Earth’s wobbly axis to Nikolov-Zeller and you have it all without any hocus pocus.

  20. tom0mason says:

    Windchaser AGAIN —

    The UN-IPCC is ALL politics not science —

    Well Rajendra Pachauri, who chaired the IPCC for 13 years, said that its “main customer” was something called the UNFCCC. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele an IPCC official who vigorously attempted to become the next chairman, said he was “eager to continue serving the UNFCCC process.”
    The South Korean, Hoesung Lee did become chairman and said “The IPCC remains deeply committed to providing policymakers with the highest quality scientific assessment of climate change…” He has also voice remarks that as chairman he shall also be serving the UNFCCC process.

    So what is the UNFCCC?

    The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty. If you’re the UN, and you’re trying to persuade nearly 200 different parties to act together, you need to start from somewhere. You need an established body of facts, a master document, a bible that everyone can use as a jumping-off point. IPCC reports, it turns out, serve that purpose.

    In other words, the IPCC’s primary function is to enable a political instrument – a treaty between nation states.

    And that is POLITICS!

    Conversly science is about the disinterested persute of knowledge of the natural universe about us. To observe, to measure, to formulate systems to explain how things work — regardless of the politics!

    The UN-IPCC is not about finding out about how things work it is about supporting the treaty of the UNFCCC, and that is not science!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    It may be of interesting to note the Seoul-based Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) issued a celebratory press release informing us that Mr. Lee, the UN-IPCC chairman, has a seat on one of the GGGI’s governing bodies (see https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/19/the-preposterous-green-institute-and-the-ipcc/) The GGGI appears to have all the advantages of a nation state’s diplomatic status, with none of that tedium of being answerable to a government, populous, shareholders, or board of directors. Also of Mr. Lee’s CV tells us his first job was a three-year stint (1975-1978) as an economist with oil giant Exxon.

  21. tom0mason says:

    @Windchaser February 7, 2018 at 10:48 pm

    That graph is there to give people like you (who have swallowed the UN-IPCC’s political clap-trap hook, line, and sinker) a sense of perspective, it hides nothing. Obviously it is lost on you.

    I understand that some more CO2 (800-1000ppm) and some more warmth(~+2°C) would be good for life on this planet. The problem is (and science shows) that these two parameters are all but independent of each other (except the oceanic out-gassing during historical warm periods) and NOT linked in an obvious, coherent way.

    So I ask you Windchaser, are you against life thriving on this planet?

  22. Windchaser says:

    stpaulchuck,

    I think it’s great if ivan reads Scafetta and Nikolov, but y’all should also read the mainstream positions, outlined in atmospheric physics textbooks all over the world and in the rest of the primary scientific literature.

    If your goal is just to hear views that reinforce your beliefs, by all means, go ahead. If your goal is to hear all sides and weigh the evidence, then read both skeptical and mainstream views, and really look at the evidence of each.

  23. Windchaser says:

    That graph is there to give people like you (who have swallowed the UN-IPCC’s political clap-trap hook, line, and sinker) a sense of perspective, it hides nothing. Obviously it is lost on you.

    Yep, it is indeed lost on me. It doesn’t show anything of import, and is specifically designed in order to hide the changes in temperature over the last ~140 years. No? C’mon, you can hardly deny that.

    If you want to argue that a ~1 degree C temperature change is irrelevant, just do that. You don’t need to change the y-scale of your graph in order to hide the change.

    I don’t care much for UN politics. But I have read a fair bit of the scientific literature, some textbooks, checked the math, compared it where I can to my own field (which overlaps quite a bit on the thermodynamics, optics, and numerical methods parts). Sure, I don’t have a PhD in climate science, but I’ve got one in another field, not that far away.

    And I’ll trust what I know with my own math and science skills over what I’m told I should believe by “skeptics”. If you want to convince me, you’ll have to convince me with evidence, rather than just insulting me into submission. That shit doesn’t work, and if it’s all you’ve got… well, then, I’ll understand that that’s all you’ve got, and your understanding doesn’t go any deeper than that.

  24. Bitter@twisted says:

    I’ve been reading your comments, Windchaser and whilst I thought you were wrong, I did not comment. However when you finally state that “you will trust what you know with your own maths and science…..”, demonstrates an arrogant disdain for others on this site.
    FYI, there are a lot of highly qualified scientists here who are fed up of been derided by ignorant trolls.

  25. Phoenix44 says:

    Windchaser, your own “maths and science skills”?

    Are you better at maths and science than say Freeman Dyson? Judith Curry? Roy Spencer? All sceptics, all read the same stuff as you.

    The question is far more complex than you admit in any event. Few sceptics claim that CO2 is not a GHG or hat GHGs do not have an effect on temperature. The question is to what extent does an increase in CO2 affect temperature? The IPCC and all your skills have not answered that because the vast majority of what we need to know about our climate in order to answer tha remains unknown.

  26. “The reduced energy from the sun sets into motion a sequence of events on Earth beginning with a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer. That thinning in turn changes the temperature structure of the stratosphere, which then changes the dynamics of the lower atmosphere, especially wind and weather patterns. ”

    Except that observations show more ozone above 45km whilst less is created below 45km.
    Hence my hypothesis about the cause of jet stream variability.

  27. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser says: February 8, 2018 at 6:27 am
    “And I’ll trust what I know with my own math and science skills over what I’m told I should believe by “skeptics”. ”

    OK, let’s test your so called maths and skills.
    What is the Ratio of CO2 molecules in the Atmosphere when compared to H2O?
    If there are 400ppm of CO2 at Sea Level what ppm level is at 10km altitude where CO2 is supposed to be effective, compared to the rest of the Atmosphere?
    What is the Energy of a CO2 LWIR Photon compared to a Solar Radiation photon?
    What is the Temperature of CO2 Molecules at 10km altitude?
    What is the “Free Path Length” of a LWIR Photon?
    What is the time taken for a LWIR Photon to exit the Atmosphere?
    What is the average time taken for a LWIR Photon to be emitted by a CO2 Molecule that has absorbed one?
    What is the average time taken for a CO2 Molecule to lose the excess energy from absorbing a LWIR Photon by collision with another Atmospheric Molecule?
    What approximate %age of LWIT CO2 Photons head towards the Surface?

    That will do just for a start, then we can look at how the other methods og Surface heat leaves the surface, how much energy gets stored in the Oceans compared to the land etc etc.

  28. oldbrew says:

    Phoenix: re ‘Few sceptics claim that CO2 is not a GHG or that GHGs do not have an effect on temperature.’

    The atmosphere itself is the significant ‘greenhouse gas’. Planets with little or no atmosphere are cold (relative to their distance from the Sun). For planets with a proper atmosphere, the average pressure at the surface is the key factor.
    – – –
    Longer winters are coming in reality and will partially blunt global warming for 50 years
    February 7, 2018

    http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/longer-winters-are-coming-in-reality-and-will-partially-blunt-global-warming-for-50-years.html

    Partially blunt? Bad news for hockeystickers :/

  29. Windchaser says:

    Are you better at maths and science than say Freeman Dyson? Judith Curry? Roy Spencer? All sceptics, all read the same stuff as you.

    I dunno. I’ve never actually seen any of them do complex math by hand. Based on her blogs, I’m pretty skeptical that Curry could construct a proof (e.g., prove that sqrt(2) is non-rational, or prove the Mean Value Theorem), but I could be wrong.

    In any case, this is an argument from authority — “these scientific people say you must agree, so YOU MUST SUBMIT”.

    I’m sure you’d reject the same argument if I listed a bunch of prominent scientists who do agree with mainstream climate science and implied you should agree with them, or else.

    Few sceptics claim that CO2 is not a GHG or hat GHGs do not have an effect on temperature.

    And yet, just a couple comments later, Oldbrew is saying that the atmospheric density/pressure is what matters, not greenhouse gases. From what I see and hear, it’s both pretty common for skeptics to say that GHGs have no effect (or minimal effect) on temperature, and to say that it’s not currently warming (i.e., NASA and many other organizations are part of a conspiracy to fake data).

    If you’ve read the scientific literature (not cherry-picking, but actually read broadly) and/or read university textbooks that cite the scientific literature, there’s really quite a lot of evidence showing CO2 causes warming.

  30. ren says:

    The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is in the phase of division into two vortices. This is indicated by the areas with the least amount of ozone.

    Current temperature in North America.

    Extreme temperature on the Hudson Bay.
    Feels like temperature -51.5 degrees C.

  31. oldbrew says:

    Re: ‘quite a lot of evidence showing CO2 causes warming’

    The atmosphere of Mars is the layer of gases surrounding Mars. It is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth’s mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1.013 bar).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

    Mars – nearly all CO2, low atmospheric pressure. Hot or cold?

    Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently < 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F)

    No ‘runaway warming’ there, in fact not much warming at all. With the same atmospheric CO2 content Venus hits 462 C. Distance from Sun on its own is not going to account for the huge difference, but surface atmospheric pressure can: Venus 93 x Earth, Mars 0.6 x Earth.

  32. Sparks says:

    Since the end of SC23 we’ve entered into a period where solar minimums have become longer, the solar polar field has and is slowing down and will continue to slow down after SC25 until 2050, you can see the indicator I have used in this graph:

    The anomaly (in red) is related to the speed and timing of the Suns polar field reversal, lower values equates to a slower reversal and higher values relate to a faster reversal, slower polar field reversals equate to lower sunspot activity and lower TSI, faster polar field reversals equate to higher sunspot activity and higher TSI.

    SC25 will be much the same as SC24 with the exception of longer solar minimums before and after, for the next 50 years solar minimums will be longer than the last 50 years before 2008, there will be an overall reduction of energy from the sun by mid century regardless of the sunspot intensity of SC5 and SC26, it’s not about solar cycle maximums having similar or slightly more sunspots than SC24 (which has been the weakest in a century), the sun has slower polar field reversals now and it is all about the length of solar minimums. Longer stretches of having little to no sunspots are the result of a slower field reversal on the sun, along with weaker solar cycles energy is expected to gradually fall.

  33. Bitter&twisted says:

    Windchaser, Your arrogance amazes me
    “Are you better at maths and science than say Freeman Dyson? Judith Curry? Roy Spencer? All sceptics, all read the same stuff as you”.

    And your reply “I dunno. I’ve never actually seen any of them do complex math by hand”

    Just look up the maths and physic s prizes that Freeman Dyson has been awarded, including:
    Lorentz Medal
    Henri Poincaré Prize
    Wolf Prize in Physics
    Max Planck medal
    Hughes Medal
    and more.

    Not only arrogant, but ignorant.
    So what, exactly, are your achievements?

  34. ren says:

    This is the forecast of circulation in the lower stratosphere.

  35. ren says:

    This is the cross-section of temperature in the troposphere and the stratosphere in winter.

  36. ren says:

    Ned Nikolov:
    “On Earth and any other planet, the average atmospheric pressure at the surface (P, Pa) is determined by the mass of gas above a unit area (Ma/Ap) and gravitational acceleration (g,, m s-2), i.e. P = (Ma/Ap)*g, where Ma is total atmospheric mass (kg) and Ap is planet’s surface area (m^2). This definition implies: (a) the average surface atmospheric pressure is INDEPENDENT of temperature and air density; (b) the thermodynamic processes at the surface are ISOBARIC in nature meaning that they occur under nearly constant pressure for a given elevation.

    It follows from the above that a differential heating of a planetary surface by the Sun will cause variation in air density due to a differential expansion of the atmosphere. This is clearly observed in the different heights of the tropopause between equatorial and polar regions. At the Equator, the troposphere extends to about 17 km altitude, while at the Poles its depth is only 8-9 km. Yet, the pressure measured at equivalent altitudes is nearly the same between Equator and the Poles. Therefore, on a planetary scale, air density is a DEPENDENT variable governed by pressure & temperature. In the real atmosphere, gas volume (thus density) is controlled by pressure and solar heating.

    Please take a look at this paper, which demonstrates, how to properly predict average planetary temperatures using two truly INDEPENDENT drivers – solar radiation and surface atmospheric pressure:”
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

  37. Windchaser says:

    Not only arrogant, but ignorant.
    So what, exactly, are your achievements?

    Degrees, published papers, etc. The usual.
    Annnddd that’s enough of that. I’m not going to follow down your Argument From Authority path any more.

    And I reject the idea that it’s arrogant to analyze the evidence for yourself. That’s the basis of science. In nullius verba.

    No ‘runaway warming’ there, in fact not much warming at all.

    You should be looking at partial pressures of CO2, not its percentage of atmosphere. It’s the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that matters, as this is what sets the optical depth for the outgoing IR. There’s hundreds of times as much CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere as in Mars’ atmosphere, because Venus has a much denser atmosphere overall.

    Obviously other factors matter, too — pressure broadening, the overall IR spectra (which is changed by other greenhouse gases), distance from the Sun, albedo, etc. These all also change how much of an effect CO2 will have.

  38. Bitter@twisted says:

    Well done, Windchaser.
    Join the club.
    As for me, first degree and PhD in Natural Sciences, from Cambridge. Published papers etc.
    And the point is that I (and others on this site) have analysed the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
    I referred to you as ignorant because you seemed to know nothing of Freeman Dyson’s achievements and were not convinced of his mathematical ability.

  39. oldbrew says:

    ‘It’s the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that matters’

    Earth 0.04%, Mars 96%, Venus 96%. Not much ‘amount’ in that 0.04% compared to the vast atmosphere of Venus…

    The atmosphere of Venus is very thick and is about 90 times more massive than Earth’s atmosphere
    http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/43-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Venus-like-

    (96 / 0.04) x 90 = 216000 so Earth:Venus CO2 ratio by amount is about 1:216000

  40. ren says:

    Windchaser
    In many ways Venus is the hell planet. Results of spacecraft investigation of the surface and
    Surface temperature 735K: lead, tin, and zinc melt at surface, with hot spots with temperatures in
    excess of 975 K
    Atmospheric pressure 96 Bar (1300 PSI); similar to pressure at a depth of a kilometer under the
    ocean
    The surface is cloud covered; little or no solar energy
    Poisonous atmosphere of primarily carbon dioxide, with nitrogen and clouds of sulfuric acid
    droplets.
    However, viewed in a different way, the problem with Venus is merely that the ground level is too far
    below the one atmosphere level. At cloud-top level, Venus is the paradise planet. As shown in figure 2, at
    an altitude slightly above fifty km above the surface, the atmospheric pressure is equal to the Earth surface
    atmospheric pressure of I Bar. At this level, the environment of Venus is benign.
    above the clouds, there is abundant solar energy
    temperature is in the habitable “liquid water” range of 0-5OC
    atmosphere contains the primary volatiles required for life (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen,
    Nitrogen, and Sulfur)
    Gravity is 90% of the gravity at the surface of Earth.
    atmosphere of Venus are summarized by Bougher, Hunten, and Phillips [ 19971:
    While the atmosphere contains droplets of sulfuric acid, technology to avoid acid corrosion are well
    known, and have been used by chemists for centuries.
    In short, the atmosphere of Venus is most earthlike environment in the solar system. Although
    humans cannot breathe the atmosphere, pressure vessels are not required to maintain one atmosphere of
    habitat pressure, and pressure suits are not required for humans outside the habitat.
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668.pdf

  41. Windchaser says:

    As for me, first degree and PhD in Natural Sciences, from Cambridge. Published papers etc.

    Nice. Mine was in materials science, from Penn State. My building was literally next door to the geoscience building (they’re in the same school, as the materials science department originally came out of metallurgy).

    And the point is that I (and others on this site) have analysed the evidence and come to a different conclusion.

    And that’s fine! I don’t think you’re arrogant for coming to your own conclusions about global warming. We just disagree about the evidence. And the evidence is what the conversation should be about.

    You’ve looked at the basic papers on CO2, right? You understand how the physics of how it works, and how we might calculate its effect?

    Do you agree with ren about GHG not being a real thing, or would you agree that optical absorption & scattering can have a real effect? (e.g., ~1C for a doubling of CO2, not counting any feedbacks)

  42. oldbrew says:

    Hawking’s qualifications haven’t saved him from spouting this nonsense…

    Stephen Hawking widely criticized by scientists for his doomsday claim that Trump will push the planet “over the brink”

    “We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid,” Hawking said in an interview with the BBC.

    https://newstarget.com/2017-07-19-stephen-hawking-widely-criticized-by-scientists-for-his-doomsday-claim-that-trump-will-push-the-planet-over-the-brink.html

    Venus has 960,000 ppm CO2, Earth 400 or so. And Venus has 90 times as much atmosphere as Earth.

  43. ren says:

    Windchaser
    All tropospher gases have the same meaning. Water vapor, which is produced in packets above the oceans is a dynamic factor in the atmosphere because it is lighter than the surrounding air.

  44. ren says:

    The influence of gravity is visible above the equator, where the average air temperature depends on the altitude.

  45. ren says:

    Temperature above the polar circle is more dependent on sunlight changes.

  46. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser, when are you going to show your understanding of CO2 DWLIR which you say is warming the surface and answer my questions?

  47. J Martin says:

    The temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at the same pressure as planet Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure is virtually the same as Earth, in fact it’s very slightly lower. So on the two planets, Earth and Venus at the same pressure the temperatures are also the same, adjusting of course for the different distance from the sun. Yet one has 0.04% co2 and the other has 96% co2.

    From the above there would seem to be no real cause for concern about additional co2 increase on Earth.

    If co2 worries some people then they should direct their efforts into promoting nuclear energy generation in order to dissuade Asia of the need to build the additional 1600 coal fired power stations they have planning permission for.

  48. Bitter&Twisted says:

    State Penn, eh, Windchaser?
    Where that well-known climate psientist Mann works?
    Next you will be telling us that the statistics behind his infamous “Hockey Stick” graph is methodologically sound.

  49. Windchaser says:

    B&T, I haven’t looked into that statistics enough to say. I saw the before-and-after, though, of the first draft and what happened after the math was criticized, then fixed. The uncertainty widened a fair bit, and the MCA showed up a fair bit more after it was fixed. (Though, the MCA mostly disappears again once you consider global paleoclimate proxies).

    I’ve looked at the math for some of the climate models a bit, and looked the most into the temperature series calculations (GISTEMP and BEST). I’ve had some extremely tedious arguments about the surface series with some folks who thought the best way to calculate it was just a flat average of all stations, without even considering the station density or station moves. Eeek. That’s what you get with “skeptics” like Goddard running around.

    On the subject of whether greenhouse gases matter, the math also doesn’t add up here for “skeptics”. Without greenhouse gases, heat flow and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law would have energy being lost from the surface pretty quickly, until the daily temperature equilibrated close to the Moon’s temp. (adjusting for albedo, yada yada). Much colder than the Earth’s surface actually is.

    I dunno — maybe there are some valid criticisms of AGW somewhere under there. But most of the arguments I hear are like that one. I’d have gotten flunked out of grad school for those. They contradict known, tested physical laws dating back to the 1800s. The anti-AGW movement seems to be more motivated around politics than an actual testable, verifiable scientific position explaining why GHG theory is wrong.

  50. BigWaveDave says:

    Bitter@twisted +1

    Windchaser identifies the problem with “I dunno — maybe there are some valid criticisms of AGW somewhere under there. But most of the arguments I hear are like that one. I’d have gotten flunked out of grad school for those. They contradict known, tested physical laws dating back to the 1800s. “.

    Personal gain trumped intellectual honesty.

  51. Sparks says:

    Windchaser:

    You are discussing “Green House Gases” as if they have some magical property of heat flow and “energy being lost from the surface pretty quickly” under the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, when in-fact all atmospheric gases have spectral properties which they absorb and radiate at various frequencies.

    To help you understand the basics behind the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, (which you like to throw about as a straw-man argument) I’ll give you an analogy.

    They sky is blue, the reason our planet is a “blue marble” is because it absorbs more radiation from the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum (the red part), these are longer frequencies and lower energies that are being absorbed, on the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum is the ultraviolet (the blue part) which our planet reflects more of, these are shorter frequencies and higher energies that are being reflected into space.

    The radiation being absorbed from the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum on Earth is saturated, this means that you can not add any further property to the frequencies that are saturated, i.e. increasing the composition of gases that absorb frequencies that are already saturated such as Carbon Dioxide will not increase the energy of that frequency,

    Energy from the electromagnetic spectrum on a specific frequency entering a saturated system, is equal to the energy leaving the system.

    The Moon does not have much of an atmosphere and contrary to your claims it abides by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, where the energy from the electromagnetic spectrum on specific frequencies absorbed by the Moon to saturation is equal to the energy leaving the Moon.

    While I’m on the topic, why are the Icecaps white?

    The correct answer is that they absorb shorter frequencies from the Ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum and reflect frequencies from the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The frequencies from the Ultraviolet part of the spectrum are the frequencies that vary most with solar activity. You will notice that Icecaps also vary a lot, this is because the electromagnetic frequencies that Icecaps absorb are unsaturated.

  52. p.g.sharrow says:

    GHG is BS!
    Any engineer that can design a greenhouse knows better. The earth surface is warmer then the Moon because of the insulation effect of it’s atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen that slows the leakage of energy into space. Radiation from the sun is more intense on the Moon’s surface then on the Earth’s, but still the Earth’ surface is warmer over all.

    Carbon Dioxide at 400 parts per MILLION is not significant in any case when it’s cousin Di-hydrogen Oxide is present in parts per HUNDRED ! Di-hydrogen Oxide,

    WATER is the working fluid here that creates and maintains Earth’s habitable surface and Atmosphere…pg

  53. Windchaser says:

    The radiation being absorbed from the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum on Earth is saturated, this means that you can not add any further property to the frequencies that are saturated, i.e. increasing the composition of gases that absorb frequencies that are already saturated such as Carbon Dioxide will not increase the energy of that frequency,

    I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. You’ll have to explain it to me; it’s in a different language than the physics I’m used to. What does it mean to “add any further property” to a frequency? Or “increase the energy of a frequency”?

    To put it simply: like all other gases, CO2 absorbs EM energy according to its optical absorption spectra. Most of our atmosphere is rather optically inert (or transparent), as you need a dipole moment in order to absorb light, which O2 and N2 do not have.

    Now, at the surface, the emitted radiation is pretty close to a smooth blackbody spectrum. So if CO2 is absorbing at one wavelength, then yeah, this can become “saturated”. This is not because the CO2 cannot absorb any more energy at that wavelength — it can — the point is that the loss of energy at other wavelengths ends up dominating the rate at which energy leaves the system. So adding more CO2 still changes the optical depth at the spectra it absorbs; this just doesn’t matter for the overall energy flow or temperature of the system. (or, more rigorously, it matters less and less as you add more and more; the effect of additional CO2 is sub-logarithmic).

    This was the state of the science in the early 1900s, after Tyndall corrected Arrhenius’ calculations by finding that CO2’s effect was essentially saturated. However… Tyndall’s calculation was at sea level, and used the measurements of CO2’s spectra that they had at the time. This resulted in two errors.

    (1) as you ascend through the atmosphere, the atmosphere thins and cools. H2O, the other main greenhouse gas, precipitates out very quickly with decreasing temperature. The loss of pressure broadening also makes the peaks of CO2 more pronounced. At higher altitude, CO2’s optical spectra are not saturated.

    (2) In the early 1950s, we got better spectroscopic equipment. There are side bands of CO2 that are not saturated which Tyndall did not know about. When you incorporate these, you’ll again find that CO2 is not saturated in the atmosphere, even at sea level.

    If you haven’t already, i again recommend checking out that book on atmospheric physics.

  54. Sparks says:

    I’m far too busy to have a discussion with a copy ‘n paste jockey who applies a poor understanding of known laws and doesn’t comprehend the topic further than some worn out talking points copied of a script.

    This is most likely the only sentence you typed,
    “If you haven’t already, i again recommend checking out that book on atmospheric physics.”
    it’s the insult part of your script, suggesting to someone you have never had a conversion with, to go read a book!!

    Not impressed at all…

  55. Windchaser says:

    Pffft, copy-and-paste jockey. I wrote that all by hand.
    And I said Tyndall’s calculations were wrong, but should’ve said Angstrom. My apologies. Derp.

    to go read a book!!

    If someone said “how do we know the stars in the sky are suns like ours?”, I’d suggest they go read a book.

    If someone said “how do we know the Earth is over 4 billions years old? People weren’t around back then”, I’d point them to a book.

    And if someone says “how do you know that increasing CO2 causes the Earth’s surface to warm?”… again, I’d hand them a book.

    Books are great. They contain the stores of human knowledge. Don’t knock ’em.

    (And yes, there are scores of books that talk about the effects of greenhouse gases, and that answer literally every objection I’ve seen here).

    It’s always either gonna be “here’s a book” or “let’s do the math”. Your pick. Maybe, occasionally, “let’s do an experiment”, but all of the stuff we’re talking about has been experimented on already hundreds of times.

  56. Windchaser says:

    Now, if you want to point out an actual factual error in what I said… by all means, go ahead. I’m happy to provide sources, citations to the primary literature or to textbooks, if you like, so you don’t feel like I’m talking out of my ass.

  57. ren says:

    In France, today, heavy snowfall will be shifting towards Paris.

  58. ren says:

    Windchaser
    Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres
    set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency
    T. D. Robinson1,2* and D. C. Catling2,3,4
    A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs
    at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1
    ,
    Titan2
    , Jupiter3
    , Saturn4
    , Uranus and Neptune4
    , despite great
    differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat
    and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates
    a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled
    by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region
    below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6
    .
    However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the
    specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically
    based model7
    to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures
    lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows
    short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At
    higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal
    radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and
    convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared
    opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of
    molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason
    that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is
    characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets
    and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this
    rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus
    the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.8585&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  59. ren says:

    The distribution of ozone at the jet stream level shows the effect of the polar vortex on the circulation in the upper troposphere. You can see where the coldest air masses are directed.

  60. ren says:

    For comparison, the current distribution of ozone in the whole column in the northern hemisphere.

  61. Bitter@twisted says:

    I really can’t be @rsed.

  62. oldbrew says:

    From Paul Homewood: Grand Minimum May Usher In 50 Years Of Global Cooling
    FEBRUARY 8, 2018

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/grand-minimum-may-usher-in-50-years-of-global-cooling/

    PH writes: There will be another post tomorrow with more detail.

  63. Bitter&twisted says:

    Oldbrew

    If less solar activity equates to a few tenths lower global temperatures.
    Then the solar maximum we have just been through must mean a few tenths warming.
    Not much room for CO2’s influence is there?

    [reply] nope

  64. oldbrew says:

    Sun is cooling. Are we heading for another Little Ice Age? Or Worse: Back to Ice Age?
    posted by Geoff Brown on February 09, 2018

    Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks commented on this article:

    As an astrophysicist, let me agree with UC San Diego physicist Dan Lubin about the probability of a grand minimum of solar cycles during this century. We have already seen a drop in sunspot number since the 1960s, and a more dramatic falloff since the turn of the century. That portends a colder climate, as was observed during the Maunder Minimum and to a lesser extent during the Dalton Minimum long ago.

    Combining this downward trend in solar activity with an expected shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation toward a negative value (more La Niñas), you have a very clear signal for a cooler climate.
    . . .
    Human contributions of CO2 are minor compared with the amounts of CO2 regularly exchanged between the atmosphere and other sinks like the biosphere and the oceans. That says that Mother nature is solidly in control here too.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)Corbett, Oregon USA

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/sun-is-cooling-are-we-heading-for.html
    – – –
    Bitter Cold In Every Direction
    February 8, 2018

    In January the global mean temperature anomaly dropped to +0.26°C, with the tropics (where most of the heat is found) posting a nippy -0.12°C anomaly, according to Dr. Roy Spencer.

    Other cooling factors include the current La Nina and possibly the low solar activity playing a role. IceAgeNow here reported last July that solar activity was at its most rapid decline in 9300 years.

    A lot of winter, snow and cold for a planet that is supposedly warming rapidly.

    https://www.iceagenow.info/bitter-cold-every-direction/

  65. ivan says:

    Windchaser, I have read some of the stories at the link you gave but am unable to find any difinitive proof that CO2 is responsible for any global warming.

    Much of what is there depends on unvalidated computer models. In industry such unvalidated models would be tossed out as worthless yet the ‘scientists’ of the IPCC lap them up, is that because they assist in some political agenda perchance?

    Now I ask again, where is the solid validated proof the CO2 is the deadly greenhouse gas that the political IPCC makes it out to be or is it just a convenient scapegoat that the UN is using to assist its Agenda 21 program?

  66. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser, when are you going to show your understanding of CO2 DWLIR which you say is warming the surface and answer my questions?

    You keep talking about the Earth’s surface being close to a black body, this if of course totally impossible due to the number of different surface types, especially the Oceans.
    It can only ever be a grey body and unfortunately for you the “Black or Grey Body Radiation” is not the primary method of heat transfer in to the Atmosphere, so any calculation incorporating it can only ever be wrong for the Surface.

  67. Sparks says:

    The copy ‘n paste jockey, doesn’t realize their error when they incorrectly apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earths atmosphere as a way to prove a “green house warming” caused by CO2 argument.

    You should never over complicate straightforward calculations, that’s where errors creep in,

    Let’s see if our “well read” friend can workout their fundamental error for themselves.

    Derive an approximation of Earths atmospheric temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, take this figure in Kelvin and increase the composition of earths carbon dioxide content to 100%.

    1. In Kelvin. by how much did Earths atmospheric temperature increase by?
    2. Explain why your results are negligible.

    If you need help, use the “standard figures” from the same source that you copy ‘n paste from.

  68. tom0mason says:

    @Windchaser,
    You say —
    “If you want to convince me, you’ll have to convince me with evidence, rather than just insulting me into submission. That shit doesn’t work, and if it’s all you’ve got… well, then, I’ll understand that that’s all you’ve got, and your understanding doesn’t go any deeper than that.”

    I concluded early on in this exchange that you are beyond ‘convincing’ of anything. So like a cat with a mouse I decided to has some fun at your expense.

    Enjoy ☺…

  69. oldbrew says:

    CO2 has gone up a lot in the last 20 years or so, but temperature has stalled apart from El Niño blips and man-made data tweaks. Correlation lacking.

    JAMES HANSEN ADMITS GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL IS REAL
    Date: 17/01/13 Dr David Whitehouse

    In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade.
    http://www.thegwpf.com/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/

    NASA’s James Hansen Knew Climate Models Are Fudged
    Published on February 6, 2018
    Written by Kyoji Kimoto

    New study from Japan reveals climate scientists who originally calculated the greenhouse gas effect knowingly used a wrong calculation that is “theoretically meaningless” when determining the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on atmospheric temperatures.

    http://principia-scientific.org/nasas-james-hansen-knew-models-are-fudged/

  70. BA2204 says:

    Yes Oldbrew, the arse-covering has begun. As for ‘Windpasser’, I have seen that troll’s style before. Much pretence of skill, little in reality. You’d think they’d learn, but no…… Anyone who has actually read the IPCC assessment reports knows they are unable to back up the claims made in the Bumpf for Policymakers at their tops. Indeed, Windy should know they gave up trying long ago when Santer committed his barefaced act of fraud. Brett

  71. oldbrew says:

    Winter storm in US Midwest snarls roads, hits flights
    February 9, 2018

    The Windy City has not seen this much snow at once since 2011

    http://phys.org/news/2018-02-winter-storm-midwest-snarls-roads.html

  72. Windchaser says:

    A C Osborn:

    You keep talking about the Earth’s surface being close to a black body, this if of course totally impossible due to the number of different surface types, especially the Oceans.
    It can only ever be a grey body and unfortunately for you the “Black or Grey Body Radiation” is not the primary method of heat transfer in to the Atmosphere, so any calculation incorporating it can only ever be wrong for the Surface.

    Radiation is responsible for nearly all of the energy transfer in and out of the Earth. The Earth cools almost entirely by radiation.

    Oceans radiate very evenly, close to a blackbody spectrum (meaning, the smoothness of the resulting spectrum). Liquid water is good for that. Sure, its albedo isn’t 1, so it’s not a blackbody; you’re right about that. But the point there (when discussing saturation) is that the *spectrum* is smooth, and greenhouse gases absorb only at specific wavelengths/bands, so they could theoretically be “saturated” if they allowed energy to escape at other wavelengths.

    Carbon dioxide’s effect isn’t saturated, though, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

    ivan:

    Windchaser, I have read some of the stories at the link you gave but am unable to find any difinitive proof that CO2 is responsible for any global warming. Much of what is there depends on unvalidated computer models.

    Most of what is there just depends on the laws of radiative physics. You can simplify, if you like, going to 2-D models of an atmosphere (though you’ll lose plenty of detail, obviously). Or even use a very simple 1-D model like Arrhenius did back in the 1800s.

    But after a century of looking into it, there is absolutely no way to explain the Earth’s surface temperature without relying heavily on greenhouse gases. And what’s more, we understand how they work, how they absorb outgoing infrared and share the thermalized energy with other molecules, resulting in significant slowing of outgoing energy, leading to accumulation of thermal energy.

    oldbrew:

    CO2 has gone up a lot in the last 20 years or so, but temperature has stalled apart from El Niño blips and man-made data tweaks. Correlation lacking.

    Yeah, it’s not supposed to have strong correlation over 20-year periods. That’s a strawman; not how the physics works.

    But your point is also wrong. The surface temperature trend over the last 2 decades is 0.19 C/decade, right in line with the IPCC projections of 0.2C/decade.

    I concluded early on in this exchange that you are beyond ‘convincing’ of anything.

    Ayep, I am indeed incapable of being convinced by people who don’t provide evidence for their claims.

    I’ve got a century of science on my side. And roughly 80-90% of chemists and physicists today, and higher numbers among climate scientists. And a helluva lot of evidence.

    The reason I haven’t changed my mind is because of how these conversations go — insult, insult, incredulity, political attack, insult, maybe a reference to the Daily Mail. Very little data, very little evidence. Lots of rejection of the scientific literature and the data behind it. Y’all can’t even agree on whether greenhouse gases actually warm the Earth at all — a point that scientists settled in the 1800s.

    So why would you expect to convince another scientist that the last century of data is wrong? You reject the evidence.

    (Cue your political attack)

  73. Windchaser says:

    This is also the part of the argument where people start saying that NASA is part of a conspiracy to fake temperature data. That the temperature data is wrong — even though the same data sets were fine a few years ago, when you thought it said the warming had slowed.

    At the same time, they argue that we can say with great certainty the CO2 and temperature of 300 million years ago, enough that we know that CO2 and temperature aren’t correlated, even though apparently we can’t get good readings of the global temperature with actual thermometers today.

    Never mind that the temperature series have also been re-calculated by Berkeley Earth, a group funded by the Koch brothers, and they found the same results. Never mind that no one can actually point out any problem with the methodology that NASA/NOAA uses — nah, it’s all self-contradictory conspiracy theories and political attacks.

    In science, you’re expected to bring data to back up your claims. If you think NOAA’s recent adjustments to the sea surface temperatures are wrong, then show it. Don’t engage in political attacks — address the science.

    And stop cherry-picking data sets according to whether they say what you like or not. It’s intellectually dishonest. Use the highest quality data sets, and change your beliefs to fit that evidence.

  74. ren says:

    The ocean temperature is falling in the southern hemisphere.

  75. Bitter@twisted says:

    You have a lot of time on your hands, Windchaser.
    Could you be a paid troll?
    Or just a common or garden, swivel-eyed, climate alarmist?

  76. Windchaser says:

    B&T, just another scientist who gets his kicks arguing about science. :-p I’ve always been this way; you can ask my mum. It’s why I ended up in STEM.

    Arguing about science gives me a break from my work, which is programming science.

    Thanks for fulfilling my wish for a political attack, though. =D In any scientific issue I’ve ever tussled over, I’ve never had so much politics come up as when arguing with climate skeptics.

  77. Sparks says:

    Hilarious!!!

  78. ren says:

    The temperature in the tropics drops, so the temperature of the lower troposphere will drop.

  79. ren says:

    Today in London there may be freezing rain and snow.

  80. oldbrew says:

    The Death of Sunspot Cycle 24, Huge Snow and Record Cold
    Posted on January 31, 2018 by Euan Mearns

    In this post I want to take a tour of the Northern hemisphere this winter in pictures and headlines. The reader can decide if there is possibly any link between “the weather” and The Sun.

    http://euanmearns.com/the-death-of-sunspot-cycle-24-huge-snow-and-record-cold/

  81. Sparks says:

    [Maybe a duplicate]

    The copy ‘n paste jockey Windbag has obviously written an app that follows a script, something similar to a Climate change flow chart:on How to win any global warming argument.

    Maybe it’s more likely they just have a notepad open with a template that they just fill in, it would explain this caveat “(Cue your political attack)” when politics was not the topic.

    It would be interesting to know which, but the exercise gets the following grade from me.

    0/10 for originality.
    0/10 for creativity.
    0/10 for believability and conversational flow (clearly outed by blog participants).
    2/10 for intentions and disruption. (the intention was there but the blog is mostly used by highly educated people).
    0/10 for information and content.
    0/10 for factually based arguments (Being manipulative with a fact and not applying known laws correctly in discussions and also presenting an argument from authority is not a factual argument)
    5/10 for personality (Being an obnoxious, argumentative science programmer who makes the coffee at STEM is a clear personality that came across).

    Conclusion: The windbag receives 7 points out of a possible 70, (-F)

  82. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser says: February 9, 2018 at 8:11 pm
    A C Osborn:
    “Radiation is responsible for nearly all of the energy transfer in and out of the Earth. The Earth cools almost entirely by radiation. ”

    You are totally clueless, The erngy in to the Surface is 100% solar radiation, but the Cceans cool by Evaporation, Convection, Conduction (totalling 65%) and lastly Radiation (35% which includes the land Surface), 25% of which goes straight out of the Atmospheric Window.
    The Earth cools by Radiation at the top of the Atmosphere where the CO2 is, the majority of the heat gets there by Convection.

    You still have not answered any of my questions regarding how the CO2 in the troposphere actually Warms the Surface, you obviously do not know the answers that anyone interested in the ACTUAL PHYSICS would want to know.

  83. oldbrew says:

    ‘Yeah, it’s not supposed to have strong correlation over 20-year periods. That’s a strawman; not how the physics works.’

    ‘The physics’ must have changed then – but it was settled in the 1800s?

    According to Santer, “tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.” Seventeen years was a rather arbitrary number with no peer review or consensus, but it served to kick the can down the road — until new excuses and models could be produced.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/26352-top-climate-alarmist-computer-models-wrong-skeptics-right-on-pause

    What’s the correlation period these days?

  84. B Lynch says:

    A Climate Science analogy:

    A guy goes to the gym and works out for a year wearing the same green shirt. An observer sees this and proclaims that green shirts cause muscle growth.

    Some observers say, “That makes no sense. There are all sorts of other colored shirts on people who are building muscle equal to the guy in the green.”

    While another group spends countless years debating shades of green, fabric type and size of shirts to get at just why exactly the green shirt does what it does.

  85. ren says:

    Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, Ice and Snow Cover.

    Snow Water Equivalent.

  86. Windchaser says:

    Conclusion: The windbag receives 7 points out of a possible 70, (-F)

    I can leave your circle-jerk alone, if you like. I know it can be hard having people challenge your cherished beliefs with science. Can’t have people rocking the boat! Everyone has to walk in lock-step here, I guess.

    The Earth cools by Radiation at the top of the Atmosphere where the CO2 is, the majority of the heat gets there by Convection.

    By “Earth”, I very obviously am including the atmosphere.

    There is no significant energy leaving the Earth via convection. Convection just moves energy from one part of the atmosphere to another — to actually leave the atmosphere, the energy has to leave via radiation.

    So: nearly all energy transfer in or out of the Earth’s system (atmosphere, surface, oceans, core, the whole shebang) is via radiation.

    Not quite sure what you mean “at the top of the atmosphere where the CO2 is”. Carbon dioxide is pretty well-mixed through the atmosphere. Measured in ppm, it drops by just a few % as you climb through the atmosphere. (See Foucher, Bernath, et al (2011), Atmos. Chem. Phys.).

    You still have not answered any of my questions regarding how the CO2 in the troposphere actually Warms the Surface, you obviously do not know the answers that anyone interested in the ACTUAL PHYSICS would want to know.

    Sorry, I didn’t figure you were serious. I thought you were just asking a bunch of questions in order to try to make a point, not to actually get into the mechanics of how the greenhouse gas effect works.

    Some of the questions are not sufficiently defined to have relevant answers. E.g., “What is the Ratio of CO2 molecules in the Atmosphere when compared to H2O?”

    We could look at the average CO2 and the average H2O, but given that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere and H2O is not, the average doesn’t tell us much about the greenhouse gas effects of either. We have to look at the spatial distribution.

    Or, similarly, you asked “What is the Energy of a CO2 LWIR Photon compared to a Solar Radiation photon?”

    You can’t tell the energy of a photon based on where it came from. The Sun emits in a spectrum, and CO2, likewise, can emit in a spectrum. If you want to know the energy of a given photon, look at its frequency, as that’s directly proportional to its energy.

    ————-
    If I wanted to calculate the radiative effects of a greenhouse gas on the atmosphere (in a simplified model), I’d break the atmosphere down into parcels. Each parcel has its own concentration of gases, its own temperature, and a spectra of light passing through it.

    Each gas radiates isotropically according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and its spectrum. And then each gas can also absorb, again according to its spectra at that temperature and pressure (e.g., accounting for pressure broadening effects, etc.). Absorbed energy can be scattered or thermalized, though with CO2, thermalization is dominant as inelastic collisions happen much more quickly than re-emission. This is also pressure-dependent.

    Obviously, you also need to include incoming solar radiation, as some of that will be absorbed or scattered on the way in. And you need to have a rough model for how solar energy heats the surface (i.e. heat capacity), and for the surface’s albedo and emission. These will all effect the heat flows of the system. For frequency-dependent albedo, determining how much energy is absorbed vs reflected. For the spectra of the surface emission, this feeds back into the first step — the radiation passing through a parcel of atmosphere.

    Then solve numerically with an appropriate numerical schema (leapfrog, forward difference, etc.). And this is just to get radiative effects; it doesn’t touch convection, condensation, or precipitation. Very, very basic. But it should give you a feel for how I’d attack this part of the problem.

    Does that make sense? If you know these physical parameters, you should be able to get a very rough idea of how strong of an effect a greenhouse gas has.

    This is how physics results in a greenhouse gas effect.

  87. ren says:

    GLCFS Annual Comparison
    Lake Superior, Feb 10, 2018
    https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/compare_years/

  88. ren says:

    Windchaser see what you write about.
    Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration
    the fraction of carbon dioxide present in air at the earth’s surface
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/02/10/0730Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular

  89. Bitter@twisted says:

    Windchaser, as you know I am a scientist.
    I also know a bit about modelling.
    I developed and validated mathematical models of a biological process under steady state and oscillating conditions. They key thing was the validation against real-time measurements of the actual process. The results were presented at a meeting of the Royal Society and published in their Transactions.
    I have yet to see a GCM that can replicate actual climate data. They have been serial failures.
    Yet they underpin climate “science” and Governmental policies.
    Can you, as a scientist, explain this? Because I’m struggling.

  90. oldbrew says:

    Whatever theories say, it’s observations that tell the story. Temperature rise has slowed to a crawl just as their supposed main driver has boomed in the last 20 years with the rise of China, India etc. Only El Ninos have saved the warmists from greater embarrassment.

  91. Sparks says:

    Windbag,

    We’re all watching your side of science crumble, it’s the stance that you have taken on the hypothetical manmade global warming issue.
    You like to impose your dichotomy upon all those that you perceive as a scientific opponent and demonize them for some short-term self-gain, it’s a false perception to believe that you have won some ground for “the cause”, the reality is; you really don’t know much about your opposition, their views, opinions or even their beliefs and political persuasion.

    Here’s another fact you can ignore, the majority of individuals that you will have a discussion with on this site are Independent individuals from all walks of life, we all have different backgrounds and various stages of education, age and personalities, we are meant to be different and bring on a debate from a wide range of perspectives, it’s a force that surrounds us and binds us (ha couldn’t resist).

    Over the last 10 years or so, looking back, this site and the individuals talking part in lengthy debates, being involved in research, sharing ideas, insults, theories and more insults, disagreeing/agreeing, bonding, falling out with one another, winning admiration or falling from grace, some have raised a glass to lost colleagues and friends over the years, someone actually got raided at one point (can you even believe it?) and through all the drama, it has had a huge impact, a positive impact! And there are so many other brilliant sites which have an impressive record of beating the odds stacked up against them (can’t mention any sites or I’ll get jumped outside by the rest).

    Do you know what has had the biggest impact, your own self-righteous conformity to a scientific failure with excuse after excuse, endless soundbites and huge scripted political presentations, the flexing of scientific egos, academic bullying, wack a doodle hair brained schemes, inefficient expensive energy programs and poverty (kinda sadistic when you’re actively involved in suppressing educated warnings of a cooling period).

    So while you’re over there at STEM with your fancy coloring books chewing crayons, remember I took the time after a long day painting my elderly parents home to put you straight. Because I’m a caring person 😉

  92. p.g.sharrow says:

    When you are hot, you are hot.
    When you are not,……… is it cool! or just not so hot?

    I’d rather be warm, rather then cold… pg

  93. oldbrew says:

    Forecast for Solar Cycle 25
    Guest Blogger / 1 day ago February 9, 2018
    James A. Marusek

    The sun has undergone a state change. It transitioned from a Grand Solar Maximum, which typified the 20th century to a magnetically quiet solar period similar to a Dalton Minimum.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/09/forecast-for-solar-cycle-25/
    – – –
    Solar cycles 15-22 were all 10.5 years or less, except SC 20 (11.4y).
    Solar cycle 23 (Aug.1996 – Dec.2008) was 12.3 years, the longest since SC 9 (12.4y).

    Data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles

  94. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser says: February 10, 2018 at 6:44 pm

    Yet again your reponses show that you know little about Radiative Energy or the Physics and Mechanics of how the Atmosphere works.
    You quote from other sources without really understanding what you are writing.
    For instance “You can’t tell the energy of a photon based on where it came from.”
    and then you go on to say ” If you want to know the energy of a given photon, look at its frequency”
    Have any idea how the Frequency is established?

  95. ren says:

    The current range of arctic air in North America (11/02/2018).

  96. oldbrew says:

    Land Of The Rising Cold …Japan Sees One Of Its Worst Winters In Decades …Heavy Snow And Bitter Cold
    By P Gosselin on 11. February 2018

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/11/land-of-the-rising-cold-japan-sees-one-of-its-worst-winters-in-decades-heavy-snow-and-bitter-cold/
    – – –
    Reporter’s Notebook: So cold at Olympics it hurts to go outside
    By ALEX STONE
    Feb 11, 2018

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/reporters-notebook-cold-olympics-hurts/story?id=53000280

    Earthquake, wind and fire: extreme conditions hit Olympics
    February 11, 2018

    Temperatures are forecast to plunge to -14 degrees Celsius (6.8 Fahrenheit) on Monday, will feel like a shivering -25C in the strong, mountainside wind.

    “People are advised to dress warmly and wear hats and gloves to keep themselves warm,” warned Sung.

    The wind has made life tough so far for competitors, with several athletes complaining of difficult conditions.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2018-02-earthquake-extreme-conditions-olympics.html#jCp

  97. oldbrew says:

    Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased.
    — posted by Geoff Brown on February 11, 2018

    Although it is obvious from data that there has been a 20 year plateau in global warming even as atmospheric CO2 keeps rising; the denying alarmists keep trying to hide the hiatus.

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/despite-ongoing-increase-in-atmospheric.html
    – – –
    Sooner or later the reliance on strong El Niños won’t work any more.

  98. Bitter@twisted says:

    Had to hit the winning run and get the century.
    What is the definition of someone who is clearly intelligent, but incapable of seeing the contradictions in a “theory of everything”?
    Windchaser have you read, or even heard of Karl Popper?

  99. Windchaser says:

    B&T: yeah, sure, I’ve read Popper. I don’t accept everything he says uncritically, any more than I do of anyone else.

    For instance “You can’t tell the energy of a photon based on where it came from.”
    and then you go on to say ” If you want to know the energy of a given photon, look at its frequency”
    Have any idea how the Frequency is established?

    Frequency of a photon comes from the bandgap from which it was emitted, accounting for blue/red-shift.

    I’ve no idea where you’re going with this. You’d agree that you can’t tell where a photon is from just by looking at its energy, yeah? An infrared photon from the Sun looks just like an infrared photon of the same frequency coming from the Earth’s atmosphere. They’re literally indistinguishable; you can at best make probabilistic guesses about where it’s from, based on which source is emitting more.

    Sooner or later the reliance on strong El Niños won’t work any more.

    So use linear regression to take away the effects of El Ninos and La Ninas. What do you get? Still warming.

    It’s funny, I harped on the problems with cherry-picking a start date in a major El Nino (1998) for nearly a decade, but the “skeptics” were fine with it when it “showed” that the warming had stopped. Then when the next big El Nino came long, suddenly the ideas about proper methodology shifted.

    That’s the kind of thing that showed me the “skepticism” isn’t really skepticism. A good methodology is a good methodology, period. You don’t drop it when it doesn’t show you the results you like.

    (Cue a Tu Quoque argument from one of you).

    So yeah, you can remove the effects of El Ninos / La Ninas manually, and still show warming. Or you can just average over a long enough period that they become irrelevant (2-4 decades). What do you get? Still warming.

    The fact of the matter is: it’s still warming. And we understand why. We have literally over a century of physics research on the subject.

  100. Windchaser says:

    Sooner or later the reliance on strong El Niños won’t work any more.

    Odd that the strong El Ninos keep getting warmer and warmer. Same for the La Ninas.

    It’s almost like there’s an underlying warming trend from something else… hmmm…

  101. A C Osborn says:

    You can’t even get the El Nino data correct, they are not getting warmer. The El Nino raises the overall temperature to a new plateau.
    The 1997/98 El Nino was an increase of 0.75C from it’s inception, the 2010/11 one was 0.6C and the 2015/16 one was 0.70C.

    I am glad you have now looked up where a Photon’s Energy & Frequency come from, however you only compare LWIR to LWIR and ignore the Energy & Frequencies of the rest of Solar Radiation.

    Now answer the rest of my questions about CO2 and we can then discuss the physics & mechanics of how you think that CO2 can actually warm the surface as per the Trenberth diagram.

  102. Bitter@twisted says:

    Windchaser, had you got an open, rather than closed mind, you will know that Popper was a philosopher, rather than a scientist.
    However his thoughts on falsifiability are key to AGW.
    It has become unfalsifiable. Hotter, colder, dryer, wetter are all explainable, by illogical contortions.
    Climate science has been self-relegated to what Popper calls a “pseudoscience”.
    You could more accurately describe it as “climastrology”.

  103. Windchaser says:

    You can’t even get the El Nino data correct, they are not getting warmer.

    Factually incorrect. The latest big El Nino (2015/16) was warmer than the previous one (97/98). And that one (97/98) was warmer than the previous big one (83/84, if I recall right).

    If the El Ninos aren’t getting warmer, then why would it be a problem to cherry-pick temperature periods that begin with them? That doesn’t make much sense.

    I am glad you have now looked up where a Photon’s Energy & Frequency come from

    Yeah, or, you know, they might have covered it in undergraduate. In organic chemistry, we looked at the bandgaps between sigma and pi orbitals in alkene chains (which explains why these double-bonded carbon chains are often used as organic textile dyes. We even had a lab on this!) In crystal chemistry, we talked about how an atomic vacancy can leave an energy well behind in a different energy gap, so doping a material can create a new bandgap, coloring a material differently. In solid-state chemistry, we talked about the difference between direct and indirect band gaps, about Fermi levels, Schottky barriers, tunneling…

    But hey, if you can’t play the physics, I guess you try to play me instead, right? I swear, 3/4 of this conversation is you guys ranting against me rather than focusing about science. No wonder you’re on the opposite side of it from the rest of us scientists — you can’t stay on topic to save your life. It’s primarily about tribalism and circle-jerking for you, not science.

    Can you stay focused on the science?

    Windchaser, had you got an open, rather than closed mind, you will know that Popper was a philosopher, rather than a scientist.

    I never said otherwise. (Seriously, wtf, guys. Reading comprehension).

    [AGW] has become unfalsifiable.

    Not at all. It’s still falsifiable. You could show that CO2 does not absorb in the infrared. You could show that there are large negative feedbacks which limit CO2’s effect on climate to less than 1.5 C/doubling. You could show that it isn’t actually warming on climatic timescales (~30 years), despite the increase in CO2 and the relatively little change in other forcings over the last ~60 years. Etc.

    Climate science is built up from physics, just like other fields. If you can disprove the base physics, then you have disproved AGW.

    Didn’t you already spend part of the thread arguing that AGW has been falsified? But now you’re claiming it’s unfalsifiable?

  104. p.g.sharrow says:

    Windchaser, can you tell the difference between parts per Million and parts per Hundred?

    CO2 percentage in atmospheric gases is too small to have any real effect in the earth’s atmosphere average temperature. H2O is the active fluid here and drowns out any other contributing constituent.
    We can ignore the BS (Bad Science) of CO2 being a “GHG” that increases the average surface temperature…pg

  105. Windchaser says:

    CO2 percentage in atmospheric gases is too small to have any real effect in the earth’s atmosphere average temperature.

    This is just an assertion. Can you show it?

    There are literally hundreds of research papers showing the opposite. You can trace their calculations for yourself.

    Would you mind showing me your calculations?

  106. Bitter@twisted says:

    Windchaser and there are literally hundreds of failed alarmist predictions.
    AGW theory has been mugged by reality.
    The only thing keeping this absurd monstrosity alive is politicians and money.
    Always follow the money.
    And prats like you.

  107. A C Osborn says:

    No you definitely can’t get the El Nino facts correct, they end up at a higher temperature than the previous one because they start off at a higher point,.
    Check the latest UAH chart, 1997/98 whas a larger increase than 2015/16.

  108. Windchaser says:

    AC Osborn, check the latest RSS chart. Or the surface temperatures — GISS, BEST, C&W, etc.

    Yes, the El Ninos keep getting warmer and warmer. The Earth keeps getting warmer.

    ————–

    B&T, so there are literally hundreds of failed predictions, but AGW is also unfalsifiable?

    No. If you can refute the core principles of AGW, then it is most definitely falsifiable. The problem is that no one has done so.

    And the core predictions line up with observations. The surface is warming on timescales of 20-40 years? Check. Radiative window of CO2 being absorbed more? Check. Oceans warming? Check. Troposphere warming faster than stratosphere? Check. Nights warming faster than days and winters faster than summer? Check. Etc.

    We have observed the core mechanics of how CO2 warms the surface, in action. It is happening. And we have witnessed many of the secondary expectations also being upheld.

    Always follow the money. And prats like you.

    Some ~80-90% of scientists in natural science fields agree that AGW is real and significant. (roughly 80-85% agree, about 10% are unsure, and 5-10% think it’s not real). This includes chemists, physicists, other geoscientists, etc.

    I mean, you can call all of us “prats” if you like, but when you’re the guy that’s standing both against the bulk of the other scientists and against observations, well, you might want to reconsider your position…

    So, no, the core science is pretty solid. (Obviously, findings on the bleeding edge are not yet solid). And it’s the core science that is what keeping AGW alive.

    But, hey, keep telling us how it’s fake, even while the Earth keeps warming.

  109. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser, before the 1970s and the fast increase in CO2
    The surface is warming on timescales of 20-40 years? Check.
    Oceans warming? Check.
    Oceans Rising? Check
    Sea Ice Shrinking? Check
    Since 1970s
    CO2 incresing? Check
    Outgoing Radiation Increasing? Check
    Troposphere warming faster than stratosphere? Check. – NO.

    Seeing as how you now want to talk about how it works let’s go through a few items.
    1. H2O 62 molecules for every 1 CO2 on average.
    2. Both absorb LWIR.
    3. Troposphere the only place CO2 molecules outnumber H20 at approximately up to 10km.
    4. Density at 10km one third of that at sea level where the majority of 400ppm CO2 are.
    5. So approximately 2/3rds of the Atmosphere is below 10km.
    6. Ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules at around 10km compared to H2O in the lower Atmosphere – approximately 180 to 1.
    7. LWIR Photons from CO2 in the troposphere 1 to every 180 photons from H2O in the total Atmosphere.
    8. Approximately 48% of CO2 photons head downwards towards the surface.
    9. Free mean path of LWIR approximately 25 metres.
    10. Every 25 metres the number of those photons heading surfacewards (survivors) are halved (48% down 52 up or sideways) due to collisions with other Molecules of CO2 or H2O.
    11. The lower a photon survivor gets in the Atmosphere the denser the CO2 and H2O molecules are packed together and the more collisions occur or deflected by all the other molecules.

    Now you tell me how far the Energy of a CO2 photon gets by being passed from photon to Molecule to emit another photon and halved every 25 metres, as only those going down count remember.
    But of course that only includes the LWIR radiation that actually gets thermalised by a CO2 molecule which manages to emit a photon rather than by losing their energy to another molecule by collision, which actually happens more often than photons are emitted.

    The proof of this is of course is the Dry Desert Diurnal Temperature swings, which are closer to the moon than the tropics where H2O reigns supreme.

    The only thing a CO2 molecule in the troposphere can do is delay the time taken for the LWIR to escape the Atmosphere and slightly warm the atmosphere (never the Surface) on it’s way out to space.

    The Energy from an H2O or CO2 Molecule that actually makes it to the surface ie from the lower Atmosphere cannot penetrate the Oceans (70% of the Earth’s surface) so their energy cannot be stored the way Solar radiation can.
    Solar Radiation Storage in the Oceans are the Energy supplied to the El Nino.
    H2O, not CO2 is the dominant factor in delaying the heat leaving the Earth.
    However that is offset by the much more energetic Solar Radiation that it blocks from reaching the Surface.
    See this graph to see what I mean.

  110. A C Osborn says:

    Windchaser you stated “AC Osborn, check the latest RSS chart. Or the surface temperatures — GISS, BEST, C&W, etc.
    Yes, the El Ninos keep getting warmer and warmer. ”

    What was the actual Global Temperature declared by NASA/NOAA in 1988 for 1997 and in 1999 for 1998?
    What was the Actual Global Temperature declared by NASA/NOAA for 2016?

  111. Bitter@twisted says:

    Windchaser, history is full of failed consensus.
    Oxygen replaced phogiston
    Einstein overturned Newton.
    Plate tectonics disproved crustal shrinking.
    Bacteria as a cause of peptic ulcers, rather than excess acid.
    I could go on.
    Unlike the above, however, AGW is also a money-making scam.
    Which is why it has survived despite being riddled with errors and inconsistencies.
    “In an age of universal lies, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act”

  112. Roger Clague says:

    Bitter@twisted says:
    February 16, 2018 at 8:44 am

    Plate tectonics disproved crustal shrinking.

    Don’t agree. Off topic but would like a post on this.

    Crust shrinking causes land movement to tetrahedral shape. It explains plate techtonics.
    So is not disproved by that idea.

    https://www.books4jobs.com/world-geography-part-5-for-civil-services-examination/

  113. Bitter@twisted says:

    Roger, with respect, I have to disagree with you on this issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s