The Debate is Over

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

Kurmugeon,
Like I had said, to think man has any control what so ever over the climate or mother nature, you would be a fool.

Why speak in objective possibilities & probabilities when it isnt possible or probable?

Because in the civil discourse of debate over a scientific theory, even if, and especially if, you think such is silly, you need to phrase your language in terms of open minded review.

This is mainly because you won't be able to bring the by standing community to your point of view, if you appear pigheaded and closed minded.

But there is a very important, but often forgotten second reason. You could actually be WRONG!

In such a debate, you should look at your opponents evidence, not just with the critical eye searching for flaws or fraud, but also genuinely consider the possibility that his theory is correct, and you have it all wrong.

Keep in mind that, science and the complexity of the world being what it is.... more than likely, you're BOTH wrong.

-

 

[Moot]

Re: The debate is over...

Yes, he is biased, and there is a valid place for adversarial investigative reporting and commentary.

Look, no one else is stepping up to challenge the Dogma and Fraud of the Left on Climate Change?!

The Left repeatedly makes the statement of "The Debate is Over", when in reality, hard scientific measurements have only begun to be made.

We don't even have the data yet to make any debate of climate change theories scientifically valid. We have not yet had a scientific debate on the subject.

What the Left and the AGW crowd is doing is Propaganda, not Science.

So a Biased Commentator calls them on it... would you reasonably expect anyone else to do so?

Somebody, allot of somebodies, NEED To!

-

Facts aren't debatable...that's why they're called facts.

 

[Moot]

Re: The debate is over...

According to the polls, three out of four Americans agree that climate change is fact.

97% of all scientist's agree that climate change is a fact.

Almost every government in the world agree climate change is a fact.

Climate change is happening now...that is fact.

The climate change debate is over and a new debate begins on what to do about it.

 

[mmi]

Re: The debate is over...

It seems strange to me that climate science mixes so well with right-wing politics.

I'm not a scientist, but I think I do a pretty good job of looking at things logically. Does it make sense for me to question the objectivity of someone who speaks to me about "liberal fascists"?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: The debate is over...

We cannot predict the weather two weeks from now, but they claim to be able to forecast a global temperature change of 0.05 degrees per decade for 200 years....

And based on this extremely sketchy "Science" we are superposed to give up many of our freedoms to the State, and sacrifice Trillions of Dollars.

Well, given the demanded money and power, it doesn't take Rocket-Science to see the intent.

-

Here, nestled behind an island amid the highest coastal mountains in the world, there are three sayings about the weather: "if you look north and can see the mountains it means it is going to rain. If you cannot, it means it is raining." The next is "if you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes, it will change." And "only fools will tell you what it will be doing at lunch when it isn't time for breakfast."

And, when you live in the north with 19 hours of daylight in the summer and 6 hour days in winter, you have more respect for cold temperatures. They didn't used to like to focus on all the cold records being broken until someone altered the theory and that colder meant the same thing, disaster with a new name: "climate change."

A few years ago the salmon runs had virtually depleted, there were no fish and a multi-billion dollar a year industry was howling like a General Motors executive board. This was all due, according to the newly minted incompetents at Fisheries Canada, to global warming, they even had tables showing the rate of change, about that of the hockey stick, in the mighty Fraser River. 2005 they got caught with their pants down and the most massive sockeye run even seen...went unfished because these boys refused to believe the data, there were too many fish for their global warming data.

The same the next year, and the next.

You see, what no one allowed for was the words of an old seiner captain "the scientists don't know anything about salmon, no one really does".


You see in all this frenzied forecasting of the end of lox on our bagels forever, everyone forgot that the track record of Fisheries Canada is unblemished: 100% wrong on every count since the beginning of the end of the cod fishery off Labrador 30 years ago, to every, single, prediction on the west coast fishery being wrong. Consider this, "new": research on the "settled science" of salmon spawning now shows that they don't follow strict patterns of return, there are huge variances in the cycles which will take decades to even figure out if there is a predictable pattern.

What was "certain" in science one day, becomes a whole new avenue of study the next. If the belief that man would not survive the rigors of flying faster than sound had been believed, the "G" suit would never have been invented to prove that wrong.

Science is like divorce, nothing is ever "settled" only bureaucratically regulated.

 

[polgara]

Re: The debate is over...

Here, nestled behind an island amid the highest coastal mountains in the world, there are three sayings about the weather: "if you look north and can see the mountains it means it is going to rain. If you cannot, it means it is raining." The next is "if you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes, it will change." And "only fools will tell you what it will be doing at lunch when it isn't time for breakfast."

And, when you live in the north with 19 hours of daylight in the summer and 6 hour days in winter, you have more respect for cold temperatures. They didn't used to like to focus on all the cold records being broken until someone altered the theory and that colder meant the same thing, disaster with a new name: "climate change."

A few years ago the salmon runs had virtually depleted, there were no fish and a multi-billion dollar a year industry was howling like a General Motors executive board. This was all due, according to the newly minted incompetents at Fisheries Canada, to global warming, they even had tables showing the rate of change, about that of the hockey stick, in the mighty Fraser River. 2005 they got caught with their pants down and the most massive sockeye run even seen...went unfished because these boys refused to believe the data, there were too many fish for their global warming data.

The same the next year, and the next.

You see, what no one allowed for was the words of an old seiner captain "the scientists don't know anything about salmon, no one really does".


You see in all this frenzied forecasting of the end of lox on our bagels forever, everyone forgot that the track record of Fisheries Canada is unblemished: 100% wrong on every count since the beginning of the end of the cod fishery off Labrador 30 years ago, to every, single, prediction on the west coast fishery being wrong. Consider this, "new": research on the "settled science" of salmon spawning now shows that they don't follow strict patterns of return, there are huge variances in the cycles which will take decades to even figure out if there is a predictable pattern.

What was "certain" in science one day, becomes a whole new avenue of study the next. If the belief that man would not survive the rigors of flying faster than sound had been believed, the "G" suit would never have been invented to prove that wrong.

Science is like divorce, nothing is ever "settled" only bureaucratically regulated.

Excellent post! :thumbs: Among other things, I wasn't aware of the Fisheries Canada unblemished record till now! :mrgreen:

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

 

[Lord of Planar]

<snip>
And so does Bill Whittle.

Gaslighting
​

I think Bill is great.

Have you seen this one:

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

It seems strange to me that climate science mixes so well with right-wing politics.

I'm not a scientist, but I think I do a pretty good job of looking at things logically. Does it make sense for me to question the objectivity of someone who speaks to me about "liberal fascists"?

What we call Liberals in 2014 are not very "Liberal" about anything.

In my youth, one of my heroes, John Kennedy, he was a called in his era Liberal, a classic Liberal who stood against Soviet Aggression and for Tax cuts to promote the economy.

Today's Liberals are about as open minding and tolerant as the 1950s Republicans.

They give lip service to "Tolerance", but the only tolerated is their own dogma.

They give lip service to inclusiveness, but don't bat an eye at excluding Whites and Males.

They want Alternatives for Energy, but I have learned personally that they will viciously attack anyone who anyone with an idea that doesn't give them control, power and wealth, regardless of how beneficial it would be to the environment.

They call a crucifix in a jar of urine fine art, but won't acknowledge that the world trade centers were brought down by Islamic Terrorism.

They are Neo-Liberals, and that means Fascists.

I am hardly the first American to recognize this fact:

Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Yet they still think they can Gaslight U.S. into thinking that they're the same Classic Liberals of our Father's Democratic Party.

No. Its over.

-

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

97% of all scientist's agree that climate change is a fact.

Bull****! 97% of government paid and funded scientists, fear, and with very good reason, to publicly admit they think the whole think AGW is load of propaganda.

They're afraid that if they stand against the BS, they'll get treated the same way the TEA Patriots were by the IRS.

I worked at several Government Labs for 15 years, and what Scientists say to each other is not what get reported to the litmus test poll takers run by Lefties who are a blend of Rahm Emanuel and Lois Lerner.

Once the Obama/Liberal Fascist house of cards collapses, you'll find that most never put much faith in AGW, but most will also state that they don't have the measurements and data to be able to make a clear cut determination, and that the nature of the scientific problem is such that 300+ years of new measurements would be needed to make any such determination.

-

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: The debate is over...

What we call Liberals in 2014 are not very "Liberal" about anything.

In my youth, one of my heroes, John Kennedy, he was a called in his era Liberal, a classic Liberal who stood against Soviet Aggression and for Tax cuts to promote the economy.

Today's Liberals are about as open minding and tolerant as the 1950s Republicans.

They give lip service to "Tolerance", but the only tolerated is their own dogma.

They give lip service to inclusiveness, but don't bat an eye at excluding Whites and Males.

They want Alternatives for Energy, but I have learned personally that they will viciously attack anyone who anyone with an idea that doesn't give them control, power and wealth, regardless of how beneficial it would be to the environment.

They call a crucifix in a jar of urine fine art, but won't acknowledge that the world trade centers were brought down by Islamic Terrorism.

They are Neo-Liberals, and that means Fascists.

I am hardly the first American to recognize this fact:

Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 67166724



Yet they still think they can Gaslight U.S. into thinking that they're the same Classic Liberals of our Father's Democratic Party.

No. Its over.

-

American liberals are socialists hiding behind a cool sounding name......

They're platform is relatively thre same as that of Canada's New Democratic Party complete with the 100 year old bleat of a "higher minimum wage", a petard hoisted when their other "ideas" are getting ignored...as they have been here.

Like warmists, they want laws to prevent people from disagreeing with them, censorship of the news, lest the "wrong" story be mentioned and of course revision of culture to remove the word "nigger" from the works of Mark Twain and "faggot" from Mark Knopfler's "Money For Nothing".

they will imperil the economy and people's lives to save animals that are not extinct, fly the globe demanding an end to the internal combustion engine and turn their backs on the starving and sick in Africa, denying them the damning of rivers for power.

One point, Kennedy was no liberal. He began his administration with the deliberate conservative words "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He so sold out to big business through Henry Cabot Lodge and his dad's connections he may not have gotten the nomination had he not been killed.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

One point, Kennedy was no liberal. He began his administration with the deliberate conservative words "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He so sold out to big business through Henry Cabot Lodge and his dad's connections he may not have gotten the nomination had he not been killed.

In my youth, very long ago, the very word "Liberal" had a very different meaning. Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt were Liberals. As were the founding fathers James Madison and Benjamin Franklin. Classic Liberals, which meant something different than the word means today.

Classic Liberals owned businesses, reviled taxes, stood for second amendment rights, and would have been appalled by both the Welfare state and Race Card Politics.

You are correct that JFK in the end fell from his principles into petty politics. That doesn't make him any less Heroic, just tragically flawed. Winston Churchhill, Marcus Aurelius and King Henry also fall into that category.


P.S. To this day, I consider myself a Classic Liberal, though I don't use the label often, for fear of being lumped with the Liberal Fascists.

-

 

[Moot]

Re: The debate is over...

Bull****! 97% of government paid and funded scientists, fear, and with very good reason, to publicly admit they think the whole think AGW is load of propaganda.

97% of the pseudo science is funded by oil companies with a vested interest in suppressing competitive alternative energy sources. They would deny that sun shines if it helped their bottom line.

They're afraid that if they stand against the BS, they'll get treated the same way the TEA Patriots were by the IRS.

Organized shout downs at town meetings to prevent public discussion isn't debating...it's fascism.

I worked at several Government Labs for 15 years, and what Scientists say to each other is not what get reported to the litmus test poll takers run by Lefties who are a blend of Rahm Emanuel and Lois Lerner.

Once the Obama/Liberal Fascist house of cards collapses, you'll find that most never put much faith in AGW, but most will also state that they don't have the measurements and data to be able to make a clear cut determination, and that the nature of the scientific problem is such that 300+ years of new measurements would be needed to make any such determination.

-

It's been my observation that most low level government employees are conservative and not very intelligent beyond what they were trained to do.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Re: The debate is over...

97% of the pseudo science is funded by oil companies with a vested interest in suppressing competitive alternative energy sources. They would deny that sun shines if it helped their bottom line.

Organized shout downs at town meetings to prevent public discussion isn't debating...it's fascism.

It's been my observation that most low level government employees are conservative and not very intelligent beyond what they were trained to do.

Interesting that both figures are 97%. Maybe you have observed that they are the same group.

 

[Moot]

Re: The debate is over...

Interesting that both figures are 97%. Maybe you have observed that they are the same group.

Or maybe you can't read very well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: The debate is over...

According to the polls, three out of four Americans agree that climate change is fact.

97% of all scientist's agree that climate change is a fact.

Almost every government in the world agree climate change is a fact.

Climate change is happening now...that is fact.

The climate change debate is over and a new debate begins on what to do about it.

That 97% dramatically drops to something like 27%, maybe 37% when you refine it to those who think anthropogenic is greater than natural.

 

[Moot]

Re: The debate is over...

That 97% dramatically drops to something like 27%, maybe 37% when you refine it to those who think anthropogenic is greater than natural.

It would likely be with 100% certainty if not for a scientific theory to be valid it has to be falsifiable. So the science on climate change is 97% certainty and 3% falsifiable. A theory remains valid until it is disproven with observable evidence. So 97% of scientists have come to a consensus that climate change is certain and 3% are uncertain. If you were a gambling man wouldn't you think 97% was a sure bet?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: The debate is over...

In my youth, very long ago, the very word "Liberal" had a very different meaning. Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt were Liberals. As were the founding fathers James Madison and Benjamin Franklin. Classic Liberals, which meant something different than the word means today.

Classic Liberals owned businesses, reviled taxes, stood for second amendment rights, and would have been appalled by both the Welfare state and Race Card Politics.

You are correct that JFK in the end fell from his principles into petty politics. That doesn't make him any less Heroic, just tragically flawed. Winston Churchhill, Marcus Aurelius and King Henry also fall into that category.


P.S. To this day, I consider myself a Classic Liberal, though I don't use the label often, for fear of being lumped with the Liberal Fascists.

-

Teddy Roosevelt was the first United States politician to have openly advanced the idea of women's right to vote...he was a freshman in college and later a state Senator.

The word "liberal" comes from the Magna Carta and was taken from the concept of a "charter of liberties" as rights granted all free men.

The term today is a lie, the most conservative philosophy today is the one clinging to old ideas, those of the failed left over the last 100 years, wrapped in new paper and sold as "liberal" when in fact it is liberal socialism......which if you think about it is a real oxymoron.....there is nothing liberal about making people do things...er.....I mean mandating

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: The debate is over...

It would likely be with 100% certainty if not for a scientific theory to be valid it has to be falsifiable. So the science on climate change is 97% certainty and 3% falsifiable. A theory remains valid until it is disproven with observable evidence. So 97% of scientists have come to a consensus that climate change is certain and 3% are uncertain. If you were a gambling man wouldn't you think 97% was a sure bet?

You completely missed my point.

I am a skeptic, and so many call me a denier. That said, I have almost no doubt that mankind has contributed to warming.

That 97% included those like me. It is not only those who claim man-made warming is greatest, whereas the 27% or 37% I have read in strictly those who believe man has cause more warming than natural factors.

The only reason why I reserve the possibility that CO2 doesn't warm the earth is because by the same method it returns IR to the surface, it radiates IR from the atmosphere to space. The question here becomes, which is greater, and if it is enough more to counteract the warming from soot also.

 

[Moot]

Re: The debate is over...

You completely missed my point.

I am a skeptic, and so many call me a denier. That said, I have almost no doubt that mankind has contributed to warming.

That 97% included those like me. It is not only those who claim man-made warming is greatest, whereas the 27% or 37% I have read in strictly those who believe man has cause more warming than natural factors.

The only reason why I reserve the possibility that CO2 doesn't warm the earth is because by the same method it returns IR to the surface, it radiates IR from the atmosphere to space. The question here becomes, which is greater, and if it is enough more to counteract the warming from soot also.

For me the debate is over. You can debate the causes of climate change, but you can not debate that climate change isn't happening because it is an observable and provable fact that is. Observable evidence is difficult to disprove especially when it hits close to home. I am a believer in that fore warned is fore armed.....prepare for the worst and hope for the best....a stitch in time saves nine and all that good stuff. The debate for me now is what are we going to do to prepare for it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: The debate is over...

For me the debate is over. You can debate the causes of climate change, but you can not debate that climate change isn't happening because it is an observable and provable fact that is. Observable evidence is difficult to disprove especially when it hits close to home. I am a believer in that fore warned is fore armed.....prepare for the worst and hope for the best....a stitch in time saves nine and all that good stuff. The debate for me now is what are we going to do to prepare for it?

Yes. Climate change is happening. It always has, it always will.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

You completely missed my point.

I am a skeptic, and so many call me a denier. That said, I have almost no doubt that mankind has contributed to warming.

That 97% included those like me. It is not only those who claim man-made warming is greatest, whereas the 27% or 37% I have read in strictly those who believe man has cause more warming than natural factors.

The only reason why I reserve the possibility that CO2 doesn't warm the earth is because by the same method it returns UV to the surface, it re-radiates UV from the atmosphere to space. The question here becomes, which is greater, and if it is enough more to counteract the warming from soot also.

A much bigger issue is the affect of Solar Magnetic Storms, and Sun Spots. When the Sun in "Quiet" the total Flux out of star is slightly less, but the Spectrum also cools, assuming something closer to the Black Body Radiation curve, minus the absorption bands. When the Sun is "Lively" with lots of Sun spot, the total flux is slightly great, but much more of the energy which gets to the Earth's upper atmosphere is in the Blue and IR bands, which is Raleigh Scattered off of our Nitrogen Rich upper atmosphere, sending much of it back out into space.

For a number of years, I helped field a long stand off, microscopic, fast response, optical pyrommeter being used for fusion experiments. Out primary calibration source was a large magnetic induction heated flat matte iron back body source in a large anti-reflection absorptive surround, which weighed about 4000lbs. We couldn't take it out to the various accelerators or other test sites, so we on site calibrated by pointing the pyrommeter at the sun.

Consequently, we daily took very accurate measurements of the aggregate solar flux. Not as accurate as those from Helios, ( Helios (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )the satellite made to watch the sun, but enough to see the pattern. And it was something that I did personally, and can attest to the data.

Among my other duties at the lab, I worked as a backup technician for the Optics Lab doing filter scans and maintaining the Synchronized Slit diffraction grating and high accuracy radiometer. Among other things, for a project which I know zero details about, I had to characterize the Raleigh Scattering potential of dozens of wedge shaped gas samples, which included various mixes of upper atmosphere air. This taught me to calculate the relative scattering by wavelength of upper atmosphere light, which was what they were applying the data too.

One of the problems we ran into in the equipment, was that the Waste Heat, from the diffraction grating filtered source, which was a deuterium Arc Lamp, with first pass glass filter, was designed to mimic the output of the sun.

When scanning the low end of the Sol Spectrum, the heat sink had no problems, but the pass through target optical dump would over heat. When we were scanning the upper bands, the pass through load was fine, as long as we were using any one of the atmosphere simulation load cells. This is what initially led me to running the numbers of solar flux after Raleigh scattering of the Solar Maximum spectum verses the Solar Minimum ( no sun spots)

I wasn't initially looking to make a model simulation of the earth and sun, and global climate at all, I was simply trying to keep a piece of lab equipment, which happened to fill the role the earth does in the system, cool. The Lab had a water cooling loop that should have taken care of all of the heat, but a construction worker had accidentally hit the lines while drilling a hole for the new building power mains.

What I discovered was a dramatic difference between the total flux hitting the far side of the simulated Sun -> Earth setup, when scanning the lower end of the spectrum only. The upper end, as long as we were not using the vacuum filled calibration glass wedge, scattered enough of the Blue and UV band light to keep the system cool.

Well, all of that got me to thinking, and calculating with the real numbers from the earth and sun, and sure enough, it fits the observed patterns very nicely.

When the Sun is quiet, it makes more of its energy in the Red and IR, which penetrates the Earth's atmosphere more, and makes the total deposited energy higher.

In short, a quiet sun, is a warmer sun, to an Earth sitting behind UV scattering Nitrogen atmosphere.

A Spotted Sun, is overall, a cooler sun, because a larger portion of the Blue and UV light goes back to space.

-

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

For me the debate is over. You can debate the causes of climate change, but you can not debate that climate change isn't happening because it is an observable and provable fact that is. Observable evidence is difficult to disprove especially when it hits close to home. I am a believer in that fore warned is fore armed.....prepare for the worst and hope for the best....a stitch in time saves nine and all that good stuff. The debate for me now is what are we going to do to prepare for it?

How are you going to change the output of the Sun or its level of sun spots? ( See post #71)

Its not the IR light that is the primary issue, it is the amount of Blue and UV light that changes with changes in solar storm activity. The amount of Nitrogen, the primary gas responsible for Blue and UV Raleigh scattering, is fixed. Also, the amount of Nitrogen is MUCH larger than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is why the AGW scientists keep getting their predictions wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...al-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/

Its not CO2, it is Nitrogen and Raleigh scattering, combining with patterns of varying spectral out of the sun, associated with Sun Spot Activity.

CO2 and IR capture has a minor impact, but it is small compared to the total flux variance driven by the sun spot cycle.

Its not changes in the Earth's Atmosphere, its spectral changes in the Sun's output.

-

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: The debate is over...

A much bigger issue is the affect of Solar Magnetic Storms, and Sun Spots. When the Sun in "Quiet" the total Flux out of star is slightly less, but the Spectrum also cools, assuming something closer to the Black Body Radiation curve, minus the absorption bands. When the Sun is "Lively" with lots of Sun spot, the total flux is slightly great, but much more of the energy which gets to the Earth's upper atmosphere is in the Blue and IR bands, which is Raleigh Scattered off of our Nitrogen Rich upper atmosphere, sending much of it back out into space.

For a number of years, I helped field a long stand off, microscopic, fast response, optical pyrommeter being used for fusion experiments. Out primary calibration source was a large magnetic induction heated flat matte iron back body source in a large anti-reflection absorptive surround, which weighed about 4000lbs. We couldn't take it out to the various accelerators or other test sites, so we on site calibrated by pointing the pyrommeter at the sun.

Consequently, we daily took very accurate measurements of the aggregate solar flux. Not as accurate as those from Helios, ( Helios (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )the satellite made to watch the sun, but enough to see the pattern. And it was something that I did personally, and can attest to the data.

Among my other duties at the lab, I worked as a backup technician for the Optics Lab doing filter scans and maintaining the Synchronized Slit diffraction grating and high accuracy radiometer. Among other things, for a project which I know zero details about, I had to characterize the Raleigh Scattering potential of dozens of wedge shaped gas samples, which included various mixes of upper atmosphere air. This taught me to calculate the relative scattering by wavelength of upper atmosphere light, which was what they were applying the data too.

One of the problems we ran into in the equipment, was that the Waste Heat, from the diffraction grating filtered source, which was a deuterium Arc Lamp, with first pass glass filter, was designed to mimic the output of the sun.

When scanning the low end of the Sol Spectrum, the heat sink had no problems, but the pass through target optical dump would over heat. When we were scanning the upper bands, the pass through load was fine, as long as we were using any one of the atmosphere simulation load cells. This is what initially led me to running the numbers of solar flux after Raleigh scattering of the Solar Maximum spectum verses the Solar Minimum ( no sun spots)

I wasn't initially looking to make a model simulation of the earth and sun, and global climate at all, I was simply trying to keep a piece of lab equipment, which happened to fill the role the earth does in the system, cool. The Lab had a water cooling loop that should have taken care of all of the heat, but a construction worker had accidentally hit the lines while drilling a hole for the new building power mains.

What I discovered was a dramatic difference between the total flux hitting the far side of the simulated Sun -> Earth setup, when scanning the lower end of the spectrum only. The upper end, as long as we were not using the vacuum filled calibration glass wedge, scattered enough of the Blue and UV band light to keep the system cool.

Well, all of that got me to thinking, and calculating with the real numbers from the earth and sun, and sure enough, it fits the observed patterns very nicely.

When the Sun is quiet, it makes more of its energy in the Red and IR, which penetrates the Earth's atmosphere more, and makes the total deposited energy higher.

In short, a quiet sun, is a warmer sun, to an Earth sitting behind UV scattering Nitrogen atmosphere.

A Spotted Sun, is overall, a cooler sun, because a larger portion of the Blue and UV light goes back to space.

-

I do believe the sun is the biggest contributor to temperature changes on the earth, and by the increased visible and UV taking hundreds of meters to be absorbed. I see the change as being driven by ocean heat changes, and taking around 55 years average for the atmosphere to equalize.

As for CO2 having a low possible of cooling the earth rather than warming it, that is based on CO2 being well mixed at nearly all altitudes, and the more CO2, with it's emissivity, shedding away more heat from the thermosphere. More CO2, more radiant output to space from the upper atmosphere.

Then there is soot on ice... My number one for anthropogenic warming. Melting ice faster, exposing more ocean, ocean absorbing more solar energy.

Question...

Why did you change "IR" to "UV" in the quote?

 

[Kurmugeon]

Re: The debate is over...

I do believe the sun is the biggest contributor to temperature changes on the earth, and by the increased visible and UV taking hundreds of meters to be absorbed. I see the change as being driven by ocean heat changes, and taking around 55 years average for the atmosphere to equalize.

As for CO2 having a low possible of cooling the earth rather than warming it, that is based on CO2 being well mixed at nearly all altitudes, and the more CO2, with it's emissivity, shedding away more heat from the thermosphere. More CO2, more radiant output to space from the upper atmosphere.

Then there is soot on ice... My number one for anthropogenic warming. Melting ice faster, exposing more ocean, ocean absorbing more solar energy.

Question...

Why did you change "IR" to "UV" in the quote?

Because you miss the point. The difference is in spectrum, with and without sun spots.

Consider these two graphs of Solar Spectrum with the space outer curve, and the sea level measured earth curve. The difference between the two comes from two mechanisms, Atmospheric absorbed light, which heats the earth, and Raleigh Scattered light, which sends some of the energy back out into space (a mirror effect).

Sorry, fighting a medical issue, and can't always post correctly. Military injury come back to haunt me.





The area between the two curves is largely energy sent back out into space by Raleigh Scattering.

During high sun spot activity, the total flux out of the sun is slightly higher, but much more of the energy is up in the 400nm wavelength region, which scatters allot more than Red and IR light.

Scattered light, some of it, goes back out into space.

Overall, a spotted sun is cooler to the planet, because the light made is at frequencies that scatter away.

This is why the AGW people, totally focused on CO2, and IR light keep getting their predictions wrong.

The mechanism that really matters, to the tune of Billions of Joules of Energy, is blue light scattering back out into space.

The earth is a soft black (absorptive) to Green and below wavelengths, and a Mirror (Reflective - partially) to Blue-UV wavelengths.

The element in the atmosphere responsible for the Blue Scattering is Nitrogen, not CO2. This is why our sky is Blue.


The energy in the blue-UV photons never makes to the ocean or land surface to be absorbed, it gets scattered back out into space, in the thinnest portions of the Earth's upper atmosphere.
-

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: The debate is over...

Because you miss the point. The difference is in spectrum, with and without sun spots.

Consider these two graphs of Solar Spectrum with the space outer curve, and the sea level measured earth curve. The difference between the two comes from two mechanisms, Atmospheric absorbed light, which heats the earth, and Raleigh Scattered light, which sends some of the energy back out into space (a mirror effect).

Sorry, fighting a medical issue, and can't always post correctly. Military injury come back to haunt me.

View attachment 67166736

View attachment 67166737

I didn't miss the point, my point is simply different that yours. We are speaking of two different mechanisms. I understand the scattering, but besides sunspot activity, the sun changes heat (TSI) as well. One doesn't provide a reliable measurement for the other. With the new SOURCE satellite, scientists have seen that the UV spectra changes with TSI changes even more than they previously presumed. Previous assessments were probably based on through the atmosphere observations, but like you say, diatomic molecules scatters and reflects this spectra.