2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by humy
...to an obvious fact that you now apparently deny which is adverse weather damages crops at any time of year it strikes regardless of what sort of crop it is! Winter wheat or not! Now that's stupid. So, no, planting winter wheat in the spring will not stop adverse weather, which will happen more often from global warming, damaging it. Extreme weather events can strike at any time of the year and doesn't care about the crop variety.

You are retarded. You talk as if extreme weather events are something new. Didn't I give you an example of how weather ruined my father's winter wheat crop? Nothing has or will stop adverse weather. Do you have any more obvious things to point out? 🙄

Being wrong is not something you accept well is it? Most would just leave it be, but not you. I'll never understand why. Do you think you are impressing anybody here? You are like a dog with a bone that will not let go. Nobody understands why you persist. It is like you are the only person that thinks you are accomplishing anything. Do I have to quote Einstein's definition of insanity again?

Originally posted by googlefudge
When I was studying physics my biggest project was looking at solar variability and
Chaos theory.

And one of my best subjects was nuclear and particle physics.

So, you want to lecture me about the sun?

"So, you want to lecture me about the sun?"

Apparently I have to. One look at the graph below is enough to show you don't have a correlation to point to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.png

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"So, you want to lecture me about the sun?"

Apparently I have to. One look at the graph below is enough to show you don't have a correlation to point to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.png

I'm trying to work out how retarded you are... It's difficult because the scale doesn't
generally go down that far.

I talk about the long term energy out put of the sun... And so you show me a chart
of the temperature of the Earth...

My point, which you are far to stupid to grasp, is that due to the movements of the
continents and the significant change in the suns average power output in the VERY
distant past. We can't make comparisons with the temperature then for a given CO2
concentration with the temperature now [or in 'recent' history].

The reason being that less energy coming in from the sun would mean that more insulating
gasses would be needed to achieve the same temperatures. And a completely different
configuration of the continents [along with varying axial tilt] and thus different ocean currents
and different life forms in different distributions would change the energy balance in ways
that make the old Earth incomparable with the current Earth for these purposes.

For example.

The evidence we have shows that when Antarctica finally separated from [I believe Australia]
and the Antarctic current that circles the continent formed, it transformed from a lush forested
continent. To a deep frozen ice cap covered one. With a significant effect on the Earth's overall
energy balance as the ice cap is vastly more reflective than the forests that proceeded it.

Thus, you cannot draw conclusions about what the future climate will be for any given CO2 level
from before that happened because that event introduced a major cooling effect to the planet
making it much harder to achieve [say] an ice free world than it was before that happened.



The long term change in solar energy output is pretty basic solar physics.

As the core gets less proton rich, as the hydrogen is fused into helium, the reaction rate falls in
the core. this reduces the energy output needed to stop the stars collapse. This causes the
core to contract, heating it up, and increasing the reaction rate back up.
This new hotter core causes the outer layers of the sun/star to expand [and slightly increases the
surface temperature] which causes the total energy output to increase.

It's done so by roughly 30% over the last ~4 billion years. [it initially cools and dims as it settles down
and stabilises after formation]

There is shorter term variability overlaid on top of that of course, but the underlying trend is up.

However this effect is utterly insignificant over short time-scales, like a few million years.

But it's a valid concern when looking at Earth temps from 500 million years ago when the sun was
~4% dimmer than it is now.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm trying to work out how retarded you are... It's difficult because the scale doesn't
generally go down that far.

I talk about the long term energy out put of the sun... And so you show me a chart
of the temperature of the Earth...

My point, which you are far to stupid to grasp, is that due to the movements of the
continents and the signif ...[text shortened]... looking at Earth temps from 500 million years ago when the sun was
~4% dimmer than it is now.

"I'm trying to work out how retarded you are... It's difficult because the scale doesn't generally go down that far."

The graph I posted goes back 500 million years. There is no correlation between increased solar output and higher temps. Temps are generally decreasing over time instead of increasing. You have it backwards.

If you want to point out this or that factor is decreasing temps while the sun is shining increasingly brighter knock yourself out. You are going to be very busy trying to explain every temp variation. I even looked at the graph you posted only to see the green line representing temps. Didn't you notice it yourself? It doesn't exactly make your case.

Here is an article that demonstrates how little we really know about thew Sun. Scientists are still trying to understand better but not having much luck.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006141558.htm

Those cycles are not what I was talking about over the long term though. There are other unknown factors that could possibly come into play that do not necessarily contradict your statements. For example, what happens when a comet plunges into the sun? Would it decrease solar output? Would it make no difference at all?

You don't really think you understand the sun well enough to know what happened 400 million years ago, do you?

Also, you are pointing out more variables like continents and such. That just reinforces what I have been saying all along. There are way too many factors to account for when it comes to climate change. If a climate model lacks input from any of them the prediction is way off. That is why climate models have been a miserable failure and cannot be relied on. Since all of your alarmist predictions are based on climate model predictions the odds of you knowing what you are talking about are very unlikely.

I'm willing to entertain your theory if you can show me something compelling, but so far you have not done that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"So, you want to lecture me about the sun?"

Apparently I have to. ...

NO, you don't have to lecture to any of us here that know vastly more about physics than you do. You have repeatedly demonstrated to us your general ignorance of physics and complete ignorance of pretty basic science methodology. That wouldn't matter if you recognized your own ignorance, but you never do. Your delusional arrogance is just unbelievable.

Why do you come to this science forum? to bully? to just make condescending insults? it certainly isn't to debate nor learn something new. If you deny this, tell us something about science you have learned from us.
does it make you, with no science credentials, feel better to belittle scientists, that are more intelligent than you and I?

Originally posted by googlefudge
..The sun has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and over the last ~4 billion years
has increased in brightness from ~75% of it's current luminosity to 100% present
luminosity today.

... less energy coming in from the sun would mean that more insulating
gasses would be needed to achieve the same temperatures.. ..

oh yes! I completely forgot about that one! 🙂

So that alone debunks his claims;

There was less solar output from the sun many millions of years ago so more atmospheric CO2 concentration would have been needed to have the same warming effect as now therefore the same atmospheric CO2 concentration then would have had less warming effect as now.

Sorted.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I'm trying to work out how retarded you are... It's difficult because the scale doesn't generally go down that far."

The graph I posted goes back 500 million years. There is no correlation between increased solar output and higher temps. Temps are generally decreasing over time instead of increasing. You have it backwards.

If you want to point out ...[text shortened]... ntertain your theory if you can show me something compelling, but so far you have not done that.

The graph I posted goes back 500 million years. There is no correlation between increased solar output and higher temps. Temps are generally decreasing over time instead of increasing. You have it backwards.

I didn't claim that there was a correlation between increased solar output and higher temps.

YOU did.

Now all things being equal if the sun gets brighter/hotter then the Earth will heat up. But things are not equal as
I explained at great length.

I even looked at the graph you posted only to see the green line representing temps. Didn't you notice it yourself? It doesn't exactly make your case. ...[quote]

The amount of energy given out by the sun is represented by the LUMINOSITY and not the surface temperature
of the sun in that graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#/media/File:%20Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg

So it in fact says EXACTLY what I said it does.

[quote]For example, what happens when a comet plunges into the sun? Would it decrease solar output? Would it make no difference at all?

It might trigger a solar flare, but it will make no difference to average energy output whatsoever.

The thing you have to understand, and wont because your to stupid, is that the long term energy output is
non-chaotic and dictated by the energy production in the core.

As time goes by the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the core goes down.
This lowers the reaction rate lowering energy output.
This causes the core to shrink and due to increased gravity now require even more energy to prevent collapse.
The increased pressure and temp boost the reaction rate and increase energy output to compensate.

As the core gets hotter and outputs more energy, simple thermodynamics tells us that the total energy output
MUST increase accordingly. Any variation caused by the complex processes happening in the upper layers of
the sun will oscillate around that average as the Sun will only ever be able to emit on average as much energy
as the core produces. This is basic conservation of energy and 2nd law Thermodynamics.

You don't really think you understand the sun well enough to know what happened 400 million years ago, do you?

To know what the average power output was... absolutely.

Also, you are pointing out more variables like continents and such. That just reinforces what I have been saying all along. There are way too many factors to account for when it comes to climate change.

No, it doesn't 'reinforce what you are saying'. It directly contradicts some of the 'points' you have been trying to make.

Continental drift is not a factor in 'recent' climate change history because it's too slow.
Only over multi million year periods does it become significant.

YOU are the one trying to make arguments about our current climate by looking at CO2 records from
hundreds of millions of years ago and it is YOU that is therefore not taking into account salient variables
that render your points irrelevant.

Originally posted by googlefudge

The graph I posted goes back 500 million years. There is no correlation between increased solar output and higher temps. Temps are generally decreasing over time instead of increasing. You have it backwards.

I didn't claim that there was a correlation between increased solar output and higher temps.

YOU did.

Now all things being e ...[text shortened]... hat is therefore not taking into account salient variables
that render your points irrelevant.

"I didn't claim that there was a correlation between increased solar output and higher temps."

Then remind me, what was your claim? What is increasing output of the sun supposed to help explain? You were making some sort of point, right? Didn't you bring this up to explain why there was an ice age 450 million years ago during high CO2 levels? I still have no idea why you think slowly increasing output of the sun explains that. Do you even know what you are talking about? How does one lead to the other? That ice age ended eventually as well. You have not explained why it started or why it ended. Is your goal to digress so you can avoid explaining it? It seems to me that is all you have accomplished. Do you even have a point?????

Originally posted by humy
NO, you don't have to lecture to any of us here that know vastly more about physics than you do. You have repeatedly demonstrated to us your general ignorance of physics and complete ignorance of pretty basic science methodology. That wouldn't matter if you recognized your own ignorance, but you never do. Your delusional arrogance is just unbelievable.

Why d ...[text shortened]... ience credentials, feel better to belittle scientists, that are more intelligent than you and I?

"You have repeatedly demonstrated to us your general ignorance of physics and complete ignorance of pretty basic science methodology."

Give us all an example of how I demonstrated a general ignorance of physics. Since you claim I did that repeatedly you should have no problem providing us all with a couple of examples. 😏

Originally posted by humy
oh yes! I completely forgot about that one! 🙂

So that alone debunks his claims;

[b]There was less solar output from the sun many millions of years ago so more atmospheric CO2 concentration would have been needed to have the same warming effect as now therefore the same atmospheric CO2 concentration then would have had less warming effect as now.

Sorted.[/b]

You are delusional. That does not debunk my claims, not that I really had a claim to debunk in this context. I pointed out that an ice age started with high amounts of CO2. Since my claim was that an ice age happened over 400 million years ago did any of you debunk that? No? Then what has he debunked?

Nothing googlefudge said explains why the ice age started and ended. Did he imagine debunking an imaginary claim? What the heck are you talking about? Do you even know?

Originally posted by googlefudge

The graph I posted goes back 500 million years. There is no correlation between increased solar output and higher temps. Temps are generally decreasing over time instead of increasing. You have it backwards.

I didn't claim that there was a correlation between increased solar output and higher temps.

YOU did.

Now all things being e ...[text shortened]... hat is therefore not taking into account salient variables
that render your points irrelevant.

"The thing you have to understand, and wont because your to stupid"

I'm stupid? You didn't even explain why any of that matters. If you want to make your theory compelling show us that the ratio between CO2 and solar output at that time matches up well to make your case. Until you do that your point is mute.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I didn't claim that there was a correlation between increased solar output and higher temps."

Then remind me, what was your claim? What is increasing output of the sun supposed to help explain? You were making some sort of point, right? Didn't you bring this up to explain why there was an ice age 450 million years ago during high CO2 levels? I still ...[text shortened]... d explaining it? It seems to me that is all you have accomplished. Do you even have a point?????

Yes. I did have a point. You can tell that because I SAID that I had a point AND what it was.

Just to remind you here it is again.

My point, which you are far to stupid to grasp, is that due to the movements of the
continents and the significant change in the suns average power output in the VERY
distant past. We can't make comparisons with the temperature then for a given CO2
concentration with the temperature now [or in 'recent' history].

I still have no idea why you think slowly increasing output of the sun explains that.

Yes. That is because you are too stupid to understand anything. Do try to keep up.

YOU argued that there had been an ice age in the far distant past where CO2 levels were 2000ppm
which is much higher than the 400ppm of today.

I pointed out that for a number of reasons, the climate back then is not comparable to the climate
now because [among other factors] the average power output of the sun was significantly lower then
AND the continents were in totally different positions altering wind and ocean currents, energy absorption
pattens etc etc.

This means that while it might be true that an ice age occurred hundreds of millions of years ago
with much higher CO2 levels. That doesn't mean that such an event could occur today with today's
configuration of continents and level of solar output.

It's not a fair, or valid comparison.

That is my point. Which you are too stupid to apparently even notice, let alone grasp.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

....Since my claim was that an ice age happened over 400 million years ago ...

Totally irrelevant:
whether more than 400 million or less or a lot less than 400 million years ago, the sun's output was lower million years ago than what it is today thus explaining why any higher levels of CO2 million years ago wouldn't have necessarily made it warmer millions of years ago than today.

comprehend?

Originally posted by Metal Brain

. Do I have to quote Einstein's ...

so not only you've got the extreme arrogance to believe that you are another Leonardo da Vinci, I take it you've got the extreme arrogance to you are another Einstein and Einstein himself would have agreed with you?; -you? a nobody with no science credentials that has constantly demonstrated stupidity? not even any of the top scientists here would think of themselves as another da Vinci or Einstein. And you call us scientists delusional?
Where are your great works then? oh, perhaps your condescending insults, such as "you are a coward", to scientists that are far more intelligent than you or I are your great works?

Originally posted by humy
Totally irrelevant:
whether more than 400 million or less or a lot less than 400 million years ago, the sun's output was lower million years ago than what it is today thus explaining why any higher levels of CO2 million years ago wouldn't have necessarily made it warmer millions of years ago than today.

comprehend?

"higher levels of CO2 million years ago wouldn't have necessarily made it warmer millions of years ago than today."

You are so stupid! It was warmer back then!
Take a look at this graph I have already posted several times. 500 million years ago temps were very high, then they dropped and bottomed out at about 450 million years, then rose to a peak at almost 400 and fell to the Permian Glaciations at 300 million. These are very wide swings in temps from very high to very low. Take off your beer goggles and maybe you can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.png