12 Jan 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainIt seems so. Weird that a lack of sunspots would cause that drastic a change in the weather.
Oops.
I meant to say "was the mini ice age caused by the maunder minimum?"
There are some indications we are headed for another minimum, which sucks for hams like me. It really screws up long range radio communications, bringing down reflections off the ionosphere to around 4 megahertz, whereas in a solar maximum, it can reflect 150 megahertz. Ten meter ham and 11 meter CB bands go nuts during max solar. I remember back in 1957, I was 16, had a portable 10 meter 100 milliwatt rig, AM only, and was talking halfway across the country. Now ten is dead as a doornail.
13 Jan 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseDo you think it is possible the sun is the main cause of natural climate change? We might not know all the solar cycles yet. What if there is a solar cycle every 100,000 years causing the ice ages?
It seems so. Weird that a lack of sunspots would cause that drastic a change in the weather.
There are some indications we are headed for another minimum, which sucks for hams like me. It really screws up long range radio communications, bringing down reflections off the ionosphere to around 4 megahertz, whereas in a solar maximum, it can reflect 150 meg ...[text shortened]... lliwatt rig, AM only, and was talking halfway across the country. Now ten is dead as a doornail.
Wouldn't it be foolish to rule out that possibility?
13 Jan 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainOnce again, "main" cause is very misleading. The sun causes climate change similar to the way that gasoline causes a car to accelerate. Is gasoline the "main" cause? It is required, but there are lots of other essential moving parts, and the process can be instigated by many different variables.
Do you think it is possible the sun is the main cause of natural climate change?
15 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassOne biggie being the ocean currents, now going up around the US and back down to Antarctica. Right now the volume change is around 30% less than 50 years ago. That transport of heat is what makes the east and west coast of the US more stable and European coasts and Asia. That current goes away, we could be in for another ice age.
Once again, "main" cause is very misleading. The sun causes climate change similar to the way that gasoline causes a car to accelerate. Is gasoline the "main" cause? It is required, but there are lots of other essential moving parts, and the process can be instigated by many different variables.
Here is a PDF image of the major ocean currents, whether they are warm or cold:
http://fofweb.com/Electronic_Images/ImageGallery/SciEESS202-OcnCrnt.pdf
Originally posted by @wildgrassPlease stop making comparisons that do not help at all. A car and the sun are so very different it makes no sense to do that. I cannot even tell if you are comparing a car's moving parts to the sun's moving elements and magnetic fields or the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, clouds and other factors.
Once again, "main" cause is very misleading. The sun causes climate change similar to the way that gasoline causes a car to accelerate. Is gasoline the "main" cause? It is required, but there are lots of other essential moving parts, and the process can be instigated by many different variables.
Kazetnagorra has a bad habit of that as well. Normally I don't have a problem with that if it makes sense without having to ask how it compares and in what way, but you both don't seem to care.
Do me a favor and just compare the sun to whatever you are really comparing it to. You are just causing unnecessary confusion for no apparent reason.
I'm not being misleading at all. Either the sun is the main factor or it is not. Stop trying to obfuscate.
Originally posted by @wildgrassYes, it certainly is.
Once again, "main" cause is very misleading.
In terms of total amount of heat energy, the Sun would warm the surface of the Earth 'almost' (in percentage terms) as much without CO2 so perhaps you can say in that narrow sense that the Sun is the "main" cause of the 'warming' of the Earth. And yet without any CO2 we would be in an ice age while a tripling of CO2 will make the climate way too hot even though either case will make only a small percentage of difference (perhaps ~2% ) purely in terms of the total amount of heat energy (as opposed to temperature in centigrade) in the climate system.
I also see a big potential here for the physics-ignorant to readily confuse the concept of the total amount of heat energy with the concept of temperature (the two don't equate) and how that could lead to all sorts of erroneous thinking on the subject.
16 Jan 18
Originally posted by @humy" And yet without any CO2 we would be in an ice age"
Yes, it certainly is.
In terms of total amount of heat energy, the Sun would warm the surface of the Earth 'almost' (in percentage terms) as much without CO2 so perhaps you can say in that narrow sense that the Sun is the "main" cause of the 'warming' of the Earth. And yet without any CO2 we would be in an ice age while a tripling of CO2 will make the climate ...[text shortened]... the two don't equate) and how that could lead to all sorts of erroneous thinking on the subject.
What is your source of information?
"a tripling of CO2 will make the climate way too hot"
It has already tripled and the climate is still very stable. It is not as warm as the Pliocene despite about the same CO2 levels. You are still in that horribly bad habit of over-estimating how much CO2 warms the climate. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are just spewing nonsense!
17 Jan 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainDid you notice the part where temperature and heat energy are not the same? That would be because the atmosphere and oceans absorb heat but do not produce the same temperatures doing it so there can be a lot of heat stored in the ocean and distributed around the world by the currents. Did you bother to look at the ocean current link I posted?
" And yet without any CO2 we would be in an ice age"
What is your source of information?
"a tripling of CO2 will make the climate way too hot"
It has already tripled and the climate is still very stable. It is not as warm as the Pliocene despite about the same CO2 levels. You are still in that horribly bad habit of over-estimating how much CO ...[text shortened]... the climate. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are just spewing nonsense!
Originally posted by @metal-brain
" And yet without any CO2 we would be in an ice age"
What is your source of information?
"a tripling of CO2 will make the climate way too hot"
It has already tripled and the climate is still very stable. It is not as warm as the Pliocene despite about the same CO2 levels. You are still in that horribly bad habit of over-estimating how much CO ...[text shortened]... the climate. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are just spewing nonsense!
What is your source of information?
The known basic laws of physics which I intensively studied at university and which clearly imply CO2 should cause that much warming and that has been independently calculated by many scientists.
In contrast, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Take your talk to the Delusional Arrogant Ignorant Moron Forum.
20 Jan 18
Originally posted by @humyThere is Co2 warming in the atmosphere and warming NOT in the atmosphere. The former is what matters and you have no source of information to prove it. Bluffing isn't science.What is your source of information?
The known basic laws of physics which I intensively studied at university and which clearly imply CO2 should cause that much warming and that has been independently calculated by many scientists.
In contrast, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Take your talk to the Delusional Arrogant Ignorant Moron Forum.
Take it to the arrogant bluff forum.
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhether CO2 causes warming or not, how can there be the contradiction of BOTH "warming in the atmosphere" AND "warming NOT in the atmosphere"?
There is Co2 warming in the atmosphere and warming NOT in the atmosphere.
That is a self-contradiction thus necessarily false.
As usual, you make no sense.
The former is what matters and you have no source of information to prove it.
You just asserted the former as correct. Make up your mind. I have given you the evidence/reasons hundreds of time before but here it is yet again with just one of the science links;
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
"...
The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.
...
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all.
...
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
(...see graph on link...)
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
..."
But that isn't the half of it because there are also many other sources of evidence, which I have shown many times before, and all of it points the same conclusion.
In contrast, not one of your links has ever shown evidence against CO2 warming.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @humyWarming/non-warming I think he is talking about atmospheric warming Vmaybe land or ocean warming.
Whether CO2 causes warming or not, how can there be the contradiction of BOTH "warming in the atmosphere" AND "warming NOT in the atmosphere"?
That is a self-contradiction thus necessarily false.
As usual, you make no sense.The former is what matters and you have no source of information to prove it.
You just asserted the former as c ...[text shortened]... ame conclusion.
In contrast, not one of your links has ever shown evidence against CO2 warming.
25 Jan 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseThere are too many factors involved. Humy has no idea how much co2 warms the atmosphere. He is just talking crap. The sad thing is that he knows it just as well as I do. Just another illogical humy bluff. That is why he doesn't provide any source of info.
Warming/non-warming I think he is talking about atmospheric warming Vmaybe land or ocean warming.
The fact that humy never could explain why the Pliocene was so much warmer than today demonstrates his ignorance. Another moronic bluff!