How the GW myth is perpetuated

[darkbeaver]

The earth emits 44 trillion watts, half thought to be because of radioactive decay.
Since the Sun can affect Earth's magnetic field through geomagnetic storms, fluctuations in telluric currents can occur when solar activity increases. This happens because of oscillations in the ionosphere. The slight variations that have been found are probably accounted for in this way.Forty-four Trillion Watts

When there's variation in the suns output there;s a variation in the earths output.

I've seen no mention of that in the climate models.

you still here? :lol:

your little posts are always interesting kid but you've got a long way to go to reach my level of internet.

Lemme guess, his name is Handsome.

 

[Zipperfish]

I've seen no mention of that in the climate models.[/FONT]

.

Have you looked? I've never seen a climate model that doesn't use solar irradiance as an input.

 

[darkbeaver]

Have you looked? I've never seen a climate model that doesn't use solar irradiance as an input.

Well I have looked a bit, perhaps not enough. I was trying to point out that there is more to the earths gain than what is collected on the surface alone by line of sight. There are interesting arguments about the homo polar nature of the planet and ground current that's not well accounted for in the models I have scanned. In other words I'm simply not satisfied with the commonly preached explanations. I'm a bit surprised that you seem to be.

 

[Zipperfish]

Well I have looked a bit, perhaps not enough. I was trying to point out that there is more to the earths gain than what is collected on the surface alone by line of sight. There are interesting arguments about the homo polar nature of the planet and ground current that's not well accounted for in the models I have scanned. In other words I'm simply not satisfied with the commonly preached explanations. I'm a bit surprised that you seem to be.

The models don't rely just on "line of sight" at the surface. For instance outgoing radiation is also measured. Temperature in the stratosphere is measured. Ice cores realting CO2 concetrnation to temperatures. Modelling of solar output based on the life cycle of stars similar to our own.

I'm not swayed by preached explanations. I've done the math myself. I've investigated it quite thoroughly--no offence, but probably a lot more thoroughly than you. I've come to my own conclusions not all of which are completely in agreement with the IPCC.

 

[darkbeaver]

The telluric currents come up from the center not in from the surface and that current enters at the poles I think they say..

 

[Tonington]

I'd like to know where "expect" came from.

When you said should, I interpreted it as the emphasized meaning below:

should (shd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

Did you mean something else? If the theory dictates something, such as an amount of warming like you claimed, that seems an awful lot like expectation to me.

I'm fine to stick with the words you used, and to which my original question remains:

Theoretically CO2 is a GHG and going by CO2 content there SHOULD be warming but it's not acting as theory dictates.

How much warming should there be? Let's see your math.

 

[darkbeaver]

The models don't rely just on "line of sight" at the surface. For instance outgoing radiation is also measured. Temperature in the stratosphere is measured. Ice cores realting CO2 concetrnation to temperatures. Modelling of solar output based on the life cycle of stars similar to our own.

I'm not swayed by preached explanations. I've done the math myself. I've investigated it quite thoroughly--no offence, but probably a lot more thoroughly than you. I've come to my own conclusions not all of which are completely in agreement with the IPCC.

Thank you for your measured diplomacy. It is clear to me that you are a gentleman and a scholar. Which theory do you favour with respect to star modelling, if I might be so bold as to inquire? I'm loath to mention your two claring spelling mistakes but if we are to continue our intercourse I must insist that you employ an editor.

 

[petros]

When you said should, I interpreted it as the emphasized meaning below:

should (shd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

Did you mean something else? If the theory dictates something, such as an amount of warming like you claimed, that seems an awful lot like expectation to me.

I'm fine to stick with the words you used, and to which my original question remains:

How will you know if I'm right or wrong? Wait 30 years?

Or maybe you should link my reply to the post I was commenting on?

 

[Zipperfish]

Thank you for your measured diplomacy. It is clear to me that you are a gentleman and a scholar. Which theory do you favour with respect to star modelling, if I might be so bold as to inquire? I'm loath to mention your two claring spelling mistakes but if we are to continue our intercourse I must insist that you employ an editor.

I happen to be an excellent speller. I'm just a realy lousy typer. Which is funny because I'm a piano player. If I hit as many wrong keys on the pianio as I do on the keyboard, I's have a hard time finding a gig.

I don't know much about star life-cycles to be honest. The hypotheisis is that the behaviour (and irradiance) from the sun may have been different hundreds of millions of years ago. According to the sun nucelar fusion models, the sun would have been significantly dimmer 500 million years ago. This would explain why you had glaciation events on the Earth 450 million years ago even though CO2 levels may have been ten or fifteen times higher than today.

HEre's an artilce on Main Sequence Star modelling. I'm going to read it myself later!

Main Sequence Stars

 

[petros]

Tiny Sun Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate | Solar Sunspot Cycle

Throw in a f-cked up magnetosphere and what happens?

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than thought in the Western Hemisphere | Daily Mail Online

 

[Locutus]

Tiny Sun Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate | Solar Sunspot Cycle

Throw in a f-cked up magnetosphere and what happens?

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than thought in the Western Hemisphere | Daily Mail Online

It's like shouting at a bag of rocks in white coats I'm afraid.

 

[petros]

Rocks keep their story straight.

 

[Locutus]

oh right...ok, a bag of hair then.

 

[Zipperfish]

Rocks keep their story straight.

I wish. Unfortuantely, you're left with the Venus anomaly which your theory doesn't explain. Your theory cannot explaion, in physical terms, why the temperature of the night-time earth doesn't drop to about -200 deg C. There's more to science than throwing around high-falutin' words. You have to have an internally consistent theory.

It's like shouting at a bag of rocks in white coats I'm afraid.

Shouting at scientists isn't going to change the properties of a carbon dioxide molecule, I'm afriad.

 

[captain morgan]

Shouting at scientists isn't going to change the properties of a carbon dioxide molecule, I'm afriad.

Nor will it change the global history of frequent periods of glaciation followed by warming

 

[petros]

I wish. Unfortuantely, you're left with the Venus anomaly which your theory doesn't explain. Your theory cannot explaion, in physical terms, why the temperature of the night-time earth doesn't drop to about -200 deg C. There's more to science than throwing around high-falutin' words. You have to have an internally consistent theory.



Shouting at scientists isn't going to change the properties of a carbon dioxide molecule, I'm afriad.

Which planet do you live on? No magnetosphere = no earth atmosphere. Venus has one BTW.

Nor will it change the global history of frequent periods of glaciation followed by warming

I wish it wasn't getting colder on the geological scale.

 

[captain morgan]

Fortunately for us, we do not even qualify as a blip of a nanosecond on that scale

 

[petros]

Fortunately for us, we do not even qualify as a blip of a nanosecond on that scale

Noooope. 150 years equates to the mustering up the energy long before the chemical concoction to fire neurons to blink an eye is created.

 

[Zipperfish]

Which planet do you live on? No magnetosphere = no earth atmosphere. Venus has one BTW.

Venus has a very weak magnetosphere. And yet it's night-time temperature is similar to it's sday time temperature. Your theory about magnetism holding heat in fails there. Not to mention you have no physical basis for your model. You may be able to fool the non-scientists here with your chicanery, but you won't fool me.

 

[Tonington]

How will you know if I'm right or wrong?

Math isn't voodoo magic.

You could do something as straightforward as, take the amount of CO2 that has entered the atmosphere for whatever time period you think is relevant, and then calculate what the percentage increase is. From there, you could use any of a number of published values for the warming expected from a doubling of CO2... well I'm not going to do your work for you. I'd like to know how much warming you think should have happened, based on your understanding of the greenhouse theory.

That's not a trick question. If it helps you I can remind you again what you said:

Theoretically CO2 is a GHG and going by CO2 content there SHOULD be warming but it's not acting as theory dictates.

Not to mention you have no physical basis for your model. You may be able to fool the non-scientists here with your chicanery, but you won't fool me.

:lol: Really though.

They have no causal relationship to stand on. The only one that's been tested to my knowledge is the galactic cosmic rays and Earth's cloudiness, which is an idea that's been around since 1959. The hypothesis being more GCR means more nucleation of cloud condensating particles. Despite years of testing, and failures to produce robust evidence, this hypothesis still hangs around with a few folks devoted to it.

So yeah, there are changes in the magnetic field. So what? There's energy going through my body all the time, some of it from the sun, a lot of it doesn't even interact with me, yet my blood doesn't boil. Some of it is harmful, some of it passes through with no effect at all. Not all energy, not all radiation is the same. Likewise, for the climate, not all radiation, not all energy will have an effect. It's so obvious, that it's ridiculous that this has to be pointed out.

Sometimes, it's like talking to rats in lab coats. Oh wait, rats can learn... :lol: