In your face evidence of climate change

[segg]

nigelfr said:

The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

do you know how big the sun is? lets just look at its volume, 0.1% (one thousendth) equals ca. 1300 earths.
However I also read somewhere that this difference is the same or more energy that we produce within a whole year. How can you dismiss something like this so easily?

[turbobloke]

segg said:

nigelfr said:

The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

do you know how big the sun is? lets just look at its volume, 0.1% (one thousendth) equals ca. 1300 earths.
However I also read somewhere that this difference is the same or more energy that we produce within a whole year. How can you dismiss something like this so easily?

nigelfr will doubtless illuminate that query with the brilliance of a Toc H lamp, meanwhile I guess you know already that it's because ignorance is capable of great feats, and because it fits his True Belief to do so.

The reason others do so, who should know better, is that the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide can be calculated theoretically and it's crucial to True Believer junkscientists to make a modelled carbon dioxide factor dominate a solar (TSI) factor. The fact that carbon dioxide and temperature are running along without being introduiced, let alone holding hands - except for a few cherry picked periods and even there the temperature changes precede the carbon dioxide shifts so plant food gas couldn't be the cause of the warming. Nor is there any sign of positive feedback despite feedback inflation in advocacy reports from the UN's spin machine, the IPCC.

So desperate times call for desperate measures. They say it can be tough being a True Believer.

[nigelfr]

turbobloke said:

segg said:

nigelfr said:

The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

do you know how big the sun is? lets just look at its volume, 0.1% (one thousendth) equals ca. 1300 earths.
However I also read somewhere that this difference is the same or more energy that we produce within a whole year. How can you dismiss something like this so easily?

nigelfr will doubtless illuminate that query with the brilliance of a Toc H lamp, meanwhile I guess you know already that it's because ignorance is capable of great feats, and because it fits his True Belief to do so.

The reason others do so, who should know better, is that the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide can be calculated theoretically and it's crucial to True Believer junkscientists to make a modelled carbon dioxide factor dominate a solar (TSI) factor. The fact that carbon dioxide and temperature are running along without being introduiced, let alone holding hands - except for a few cherry picked periods and even there the temperature changes precede the carbon dioxide shifts so plant food gas couldn't be the cause of the warming. Nor is there any sign of positive feedback despite feedback inflation in advocacy reports from the UN's spin machine, the IPCC.

So desperate times call for desperate measures. They say it can be tough being a True Believer.

Oh TB, you forgot to ask where I got this from: National Geographical. Yes that's right the same people who you mentioned earlier:
"Apparently Telewest/Virgin cable TV channel 230 National Geographic has a programme on the Sun driving climate change - now. Strange, third-rate anti-TGGWS rentapaper authors and all the True Believers say it has no effect."

See:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots_2.html

So TB, if I understand correctly, when NG says something you agree with they're great, when they don't they're whatever you said in your last two diatribes.


Segg: "do you know how big the sun is? lets just look at its volume, 0.1% (one thousendth) equals ca. 1300 earths.
However I also read somewhere that this difference is the same or more energy that we produce within a whole year. How can you dismiss something like this so easily?"

I don't want to appear patronising Segg, but it's the proportion that's important: let me make an analogy for you: Bugatti Veyron, 1000 Horse Power, top speed 407km/h
Bugatti Veyron: 1001 Horse power, top speed 407.1 km/h

Increase it's power by 0.1% and it makes bug all difference to it's top speed.

[turbobloke]

nigelfr said:

Oh TB, you forgot to ask where I got this from: National Geographical. Yes that's right the same people who you mentioned earlier

What has that got to do with anything? I gave a heads-up, not a running commentary of everything a magazine / channel has ever written. I subscribe to National Geographic, so what? There's a lot of interesting material and a lot of ecoguff in it. The fact that a TV channel of any type was broadcasting information showing a visible solar impact on climate is newsworthy because most are as blinkered as PH's small group of True Believers.

You still miss the point by a mile and merely offer opinion on one element of solar forcing against data showing the impact of two major aspects. The impact of irradiance and eruoptivity as the major decadal climate forcing is extremely difficult to dispute.



The data shown has the events in the right order, can be traced back 400 years not merely the timescale shown, and uses a measure of solar activity - the reciprocal of the length of the Hale cycle - which is a measure of varous aspects of activity not just spottiness and irradiance. This is shown as the vertical scale decreasing upwards/

What junkscience has tried to do is use recent temperature data and solar activity to claim that the 400 year link, far longer if proxy data is used, has broken down recently. Due, of course, to a claimed but non-existent impact of plant food gas. This isn't credible for several reasons: there's no positive feedback in sight so the major prayer of True Believers has gone unanswered by Gaia, and the effects of additional emissions are decreasing because as ludo has pointed out, the relevant law of radiative absorption is a logarithmic one, a law of rapidly diminishing returns. In addition, the near-surface temperature database has been shown to over-estimate warming by at least 100% for ~ 20 years to 2002 (McKitrick, R. R., and P. J. Michaels, 2007. Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S09, doi: 10.1029 / 2007JD008465), and cold Soviet groundstation data has been omitted following the collapse of the Soviet Union so as the number of groundstations in use fell so the global near-surface temperature amazingly increased, it's magic so it is:



There's plenty of data showing irradiance and eruptivity are the major decadal climate forcings, no data showing a human impact on global climate.

[segg]

nigelfr said:

Segg: "do you know how big the sun is? lets just look at its volume, 0.1% (one thousendth) equals ca. 1300 earths.
However I also read somewhere that this difference is the same or more energy that we produce within a whole year. How can you dismiss something like this so easily?"

I don't want to appear patronising Segg, but it's the proportion that's important: let me make an analogy for you: Bugatti Veyron, 1000 Horse Power, top speed 407km/h
Bugatti Veyron: 1001 Horse power, top speed 407.1 km/h

Increase it's power by 0.1% and it makes bug all difference to it's top speed.

Nigel my point is, albeit its only 0.1%, we are still talking about a massive amount of energy. (1/3 of our earth * 1368w/m², 70% get reflected, and from the remaining 30% * 0.001 = 2.038 * 10^13W <- this is your 1 PS)

this is a good read and you see there are a lot of uncertainties:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sor...

[RegMolehusband]

Now I’m not one for long intellectual arguments any more (though my dwindling capacity to do so might be the reason for this), however I do believe this Anthropogenic Global Warming thing is complete nonsense. I may be at last going loopy to spend time on the following input but this is how I see it.

From memorythe world’s population of humans is in the region of 6446131400. If we could persuade this lot to spread themselves evenly across the surface of the globe with its surface area of 196039900 square miles including the vast watery and icy bits, and I hope you’ll excuse the imperial measurements – then we would each have the luxury of sharing each square mile with 32 other occupants. OK, some would be very cold, very wet or very hot and thirsty but this is theoretical you understand. Anyway, that’s 93,867 square yards each I believe, so we’d each have a circular area to ourselves with a diameter of 346 yards. It is unlikely that we could make out the features or communicate effectively with our nearest neighbour from the respective centres of our circledom 346 yards apart.

So trying to put things into perspective and considering each square mile, in the real world most of our 32 nearest neighbours in our square mile locality will have a miniscule “carbon footprint” being restricted to respiration, the occasional fart and a log fire, only 3 of them would own a car for example.

Now I fail to see how the CO2 production related to the lifestyle of a small proportion of our 32 square mile neighbours is going to affect the planet's climate when surrounding these pinpricks of humanity is a vast complex natural environment of ocean, water vapour, vegetation, volcanoes, interglacial activity and, up above, the sun’s activity. No computer model yet exists that can that can predict the effect of all these factors on the climate. It’s like using an abacus to keep tabs on the IPCC’s payroll and pension funds.

See, I told you I’m going loopy, I look forward to having my calculations corrected - preferably favourably. If I was to email a copy of the above to the IPCC do you think they might vacate their plush offices in Geneva and get back to real jobs ?

Edited by RegMolehusband on Thursday 7th August 08:31

[Blib]

RegMolehusband said:

If I was to email a copy of the above to the IPCC do you think they might vacate their plush offices in Geneva and get back to real jobs ?

Yes. This may be the final straw. Well done.

[mark69sheer]

Even given that man is actually affecting the climate . . . The world runs on a capitalist global system.

If measures that are so punative they create a global downturn they will be ignored or dropped.

The only people benefiting from green taxes are politicians.

Do we really give a stuff about them?

The world will survive and revolve regardless of wether I drive 60,000 miles in a 4 x 4 or 10,000 miles in a mini.

Ironically buying the 4 x 4 will be a greater help to world poverty.

clashing ideals make a world that will never be right so stop trying to halt the unchangable and just start to enjoy your privileged existance.

Lets be honest earning money spouting off hot air about hot air has to be the most decadent axistence imaginable , where does all the bitterness and envy come from?

[nigelfr]

segg said:

nigelfr said:

Segg: "do you know how big the sun is? lets just look at its volume, 0.1% (one thousendth) equals ca. 1300 earths.
However I also read somewhere that this difference is the same or more energy that we produce within a whole year. How can you dismiss something like this so easily?"

I don't want to appear patronising Segg, but it's the proportion that's important: let me make an analogy for you: Bugatti Veyron, 1000 Horse Power, top speed 407km/h
Bugatti Veyron: 1001 Horse power, top speed 407.1 km/h

Increase it's power by 0.1% and it makes bug all difference to it's top speed.

Nigel my point is, albeit its only 0.1%, we are still talking about a massive amount of energy. (1/3 of our earth * 1368w/m², 70% get reflected, and from the remaining 30% * 0.001 = 2.038 * 10^13W <- this is your 1 PS)

this is a good read and you see there are a lot of uncertainties:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sor...

But Segg, compared to the mass of the Earth it's not very significant. Take an elephant , put a 1kW electric fire in the same room, the elephant might notice the heat, now turn it up 1.001 kW: I don't think the elephant will notice the difference.

BTW you do realise that the 0.1% is variation about a mean, so can be negative as well?

[lunarscope]

nigelfr said:

Take an elephant , put a 1kW electric fire in the same room, the elephant might notice the heat, now turn it up 1.001 kW: I don't think the elephant will notice the difference.

BTW you do realise that the 0.1% is variation about a mean, so can be negative as well?

Nigelfr, your example seems nonsensical to me.
No different from my example below:

Same elephant, a 10,000,000 Watt electric fire positioned at such a distance that 10,000 watts of energy (felt as heat) reaches the elephant.
The elephant can certainly feel the heat and at 10,000 Watts it is bearable - any less and it will feel cold, any more and it will feel too hot.
Now, increase the output of the electric fire by 0.1%, the fire now radiates 10,010,000 Watts. The energy reaching the elephant is now 20,000 Watts and is now longer bearable.
In fact, the elephant keels over and dies due to heat exhaustion.

[nigelfr]

turbobloke said:

plant food gas couldn't be the cause of the warming.

Two remarks TB: You refer to CO2 as "plant food gas". Just a thought but as you know, atmospheric CO2 is rising. Can you explain why the plants aren't eating it all?

You also say it couldn't be the cause of the warming: have you spoken to Venus about this? It is twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury, so receives only 25% of the irradiance, yet is hotter than Mercury. The difference, is that it has an atmosphere that consists of 97% CO2.

And don't try to pin it on the albedo, which is 0.12 for Mercury, 0.75 for Venus.

Edited by nigelfr on Thursday 7th August 11:39

[nigelfr]

mark69sheer said:

The only people benefiting from green taxes are politicians.

Do you want to think about that for a bit? In what way are they benefiting? It doesn't go into their pockets, it goes to the Treasury. So if all green taxes were to disappear, what would happen? Other taxes, such as VAT, Income tax, Stamp Duty etc. would have to increase to cover the shortfall.

[lunarscope]

nigelfr said:

turbobloke said:

plant food gas couldn't be the cause of the warming.

Two remarks TB: You refer to CO2 as "plant food gas". Just a thought but as you know, atmospheric CO2 is rising. Can you explain why the plants aren't eating it all?

You also say it couldn't be the cause of the warming: have you spoken to Venus about this? It is twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury, so receives only 25% of the irradiance, yet is hotter than Mercury. The difference, is that it has an atmosphere that consists of 97% CO2.

And don't try to pin it on the albedo, which is 0.12 for Mercury, 0.5 for Venus.

What is the composition of the atmosphere on Mercury ?
What are the relative thicknesses of the atmospheres of Mercury and Venus.

Does Mercury have a thinner atmosphere due to the effect of the Solar Wind ?

[ludo]

lunarscope said:

nigelfr said:

Take an elephant , put a 1kW electric fire in the same room, the elephant might notice the heat, now turn it up 1.001 kW: I don't think the elephant will notice the difference.

BTW you do realise that the 0.1% is variation about a mean, so can be negative as well?

Nigelfr, your example seems nonsensical to me.
No different from my example below:

Same elephant, a 10,000,000 Watt electric fire positioned at such a distance that 10,000 watts of energy (felt as heat) reaches the elephant.
The elephant can certainly feel the heat and at 10,000 Watts it is bearable - any less and it will feel cold, any more and it will feel too hot.
Now, increase the output of the electric fire by 0.1%, the fire now radiates 10,010,000 Watts. The energy reaching the elephant is now 20,000 Watts and is now longer bearable.
In fact, the elephant keels over and dies due to heat exhaustion.

So how does a 0.1% increase at the source result in a 100% increase at the destination?

ETA: Oh, I think I see, the sun for some reason focusses all of the additional energy directly onto the elephant, rather than radiating it in all directions

BTW, if you think a 0.1% increase on solar output will have a significant effect on the climate, why isn't there an obvious 11-year cycle in the temperature data?

Edited by ludo on Thursday 7th August 11:42

[turbobloke]

Energy and Environment Adviser and IPCC REviewer Richard Courtney said:

The global warming issue is political

Junkscience doesn't count as science unless you're a True Believer or politician abusing the propagandised public's baseless concerns.

[lunarscope]

ludo said:

lunarscope said:

nigelfr said:

Take an elephant , put a 1kW electric fire in the same room, the elephant might notice the heat, now turn it up 1.001 kW: I don't think the elephant will notice the difference.

BTW you do realise that the 0.1% is variation about a mean, so can be negative as well?

Nigelfr, your example seems nonsensical to me.
No different from my example below:

Same elephant, a 10,000,000 Watt electric fire positioned at such a distance that 10,000 watts of energy (felt as heat) reaches the elephant.
The elephant can certainly feel the heat and at 10,000 Watts it is bearable - any less and it will feel cold, any more and it will feel too hot.
Now, increase the output of the electric fire by 0.1%, the fire now radiates 10,010,000 Watts. The energy reaching the elephant is now 20,000 Watts and is now longer bearable.
In fact, the elephant keels over and dies due to heat exhaustion.

So how does a 0.1% increase at the source result in a 100% increase at the destination?

BTW, if you think a 0.1% increase on solar output will have a significant effect on the climate, why isn't there an obvious 11-year cycle in the temperature data?

The figures were just an example of nigelfr's logic and certainly not meant to be realistic.
Or maybe the elephant is wearing a CO2 cardigan ?

[Fume troll]

turbobloke said:

Energy and Environment Adviser and IPCC REviewer Richard Courtney said:

The global warming issue is political

Junkscience doesn't count as science unless you're a True Believer or politician abusing the propagandised public's baseless concerns.

Of course it is. What a pointless statement. However that bears no relevance to its legitimacy.

Cheers,

FT.

[turbobloke]

PH True Believers all three and a half of you - probably enough to claim a MMGWT consensus - have you found that human signal in global climate data yet?

No? Really?

You mean you still Truly Belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve in junk science hype with no observational scientific data anywhere in support of your position?

And yet you post more and more unsubstantiated garbage on here?

Oh dear.

[nigelfr]

lunarscope said:

nigelfr said:

Take an elephant , put a 1kW electric fire in the same room, the elephant might notice the heat, now turn it up 1.001 kW: I don't think the elephant will notice the difference.

BTW you do realise that the 0.1% is variation about a mean, so can be negative as well?

Nigelfr, your example seems nonsensical to me.
No different from my example below:

Same elephant, a 10,000,000 Watt electric fire positioned at such a distance that 10,000 watts of energy (felt as heat) reaches the elephant.
The elephant can certainly feel the heat and at 10,000 Watts it is bearable - any less and it will feel cold, any more and it will feel too hot.
Now, increase the output of the electric fire by 0.1%, the fire now radiates 10,010,000 Watts. The energy reaching the elephant is now 20,000 Watts and is now longer bearable.
In fact, the elephant keels over and dies due to heat exhaustion.

No, your maths is wrong:
In case 1, you had 0.1% of the total reaching the elephant i.e. out of 10,000,000 at the source, only 10,000 reach the elephant,
In case 2 you increase the source by 10,000 and all those 10,000 reach the elephant. You have to keep the same proportion, i.e. only 10 of your additional 10,000 watts reach the elephant.

If you prefer: 10,000,000/ 1000 = 10,000
10,010,000/ 1000 = 10,010

No tricks, I'm still dividing by 1000 in both cases.

[ludo]

lunarscope said:

ludo said:

lunarscope said:

nigelfr said:

Take an elephant , put a 1kW electric fire in the same room, the elephant might notice the heat, now turn it up 1.001 kW: I don't think the elephant will notice the difference.

BTW you do realise that the 0.1% is variation about a mean, so can be negative as well?

Nigelfr, your example seems nonsensical to me.
No different from my example below:

Same elephant, a 10,000,000 Watt electric fire positioned at such a distance that 10,000 watts of energy (felt as heat) reaches the elephant.
The elephant can certainly feel the heat and at 10,000 Watts it is bearable - any less and it will feel cold, any more and it will feel too hot.
Now, increase the output of the electric fire by 0.1%, the fire now radiates 10,010,000 Watts. The energy reaching the elephant is now 20,000 Watts and is now longer bearable.
In fact, the elephant keels over and dies due to heat exhaustion.

So how does a 0.1% increase at the source result in a 100% increase at the destination?

BTW, if you think a 0.1% increase on solar output will have a significant effect on the climate, why isn't there an obvious 11-year cycle in the temperature data?

The figures were just an example of nigelfr's logic and certainly not meant to be realistic.
Or maybe the elephant is wearing a CO2 cardigan ?

Except the difference is that nigelfrs logic and example were perfectly reasonable, whereas your was ridiculous as it assumes that all of the energy is deliberately focussed rather than radiated.