The Sun-Climate Effect

I know! Chemistry can seem unintuitive, especially to those who aren't experienced in the field.

 

Nice non sequitur. I guess you skipped a numerical chemistry class or two.

 

No, that was central to your claim.

If you want to cite something from atmospheric chemistry on your concern, please do.

 

"Cite something"? Simple metric system/numerical analysis needs a CITE? You should have learned that stuff before your chair got warmed in CheM 1A.

 

How exactly does "atmospheric chemistry" differ from plain old chemistry? Are there elements that don't exist anywhere else in the real world but mysteriously do in the atmosphere? Who figured that one out? Is there also an "atmospheric physics" that has to be accomodated when, say, flying an airplane?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

That's like trying to find cites for the "theory" that if a marble is sitting at the bottom of a bowl, and you tilt the bowl slightly, the marble will just roll to a new rest position.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, so does biological uptake and sequestration. Plus, fossil fuels are in limited ultimate supply. At some point, the amount of CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels will be balanced by the amount taken up by plants and animals. Then CO2 will resume the downtrend it has shown for ~100My.

Remember, in the long run, we have not had CO2 equilibrium anyway, and may never have it. Over millions of years, CO2 has varied wildly, mostly in response to temperature changes, sometimes because of volcanic emissions, but other times for reasons we don't understand. The notion of equilibrium as anything but a hypothetical mathematical ideal is as wrong in climatology as it is in economics.

 

It is a term used to refer to that chemistry of the atmosphere.

Yes, the air travel of any kind, hang gliders to rockets, have to consider the physics of our atmosphere - how high planes can fly, how much fuel is required, what kind of engines are cost effective, etc.

 

No, plant life is absolutely NOT leveling the percent of CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 percent IS rising.

Not only that, but there are feedback loops that present serious challenges now, and won't be able to be addressed in the future. For example, the melting of the high norther latitudes means that Earth becomes less reflective of solar radiation and that tundra unfreezes, leading to massive amounts of methane - a greenhouse gas that is far worse than CO2.

The "millions of years" argument isn't acceptable. There is no doubt that there have been highs and lows over millions of years. But, humans aren't beings that live in geological time.

The catch right now and through the next many generations is that we are on an upward spike that is fast enough to be seriously expensive (in life and dollars) for humans on Earth to try to live with.

 

What makes you believe THAT?

WTF is a "feedback loop"?

WOW... You act as if there's only melting (and no freezing).

What "upward spike"? What is "seriously expensive" is all of the trillions of dollars being wasted on a completely bogus threat created by globalist elitists in order to fool the ignorant masses into doing their bidding ("climate change").

 

Every major climatological science outlet shows CO2 percent rising.

One is https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

A feedback loop occurs when an effect causes that effect to be exacerbated.

We see this problem in microphones, etc.

In climatology, one such case is that a warming Earth is melting the tundra. That allows tundra to rot and give off methane, which increases the amount that Earth warms.

Another is that sea ice melting causes Earth to be less reflective, allowing oceans to absorb more heat, thus causing more heating.

On average over periods of years climatologists point out that Earth is warming.

"Trillions of dollars"? "Bogus threat"?

Please cite.

 

Ahhhh, so you're just putting your faith in whatever a government agency tells you to believe. Got it.

This I'm okay with.

... and then in Winter a cooling Earth freezes the tundra, so I don't see what the problem is beyond the natural occurrence of seasons.

... and then in Winter that water freezes into ice again, so I don't see what the problem is beyond the natural occurrence of seasons.

They are just making stuff up. They have no idea what Earth's temperature is at any given time.

Yes.

Government spending. Science. Mathematics.

 

No, one can look at various institutions of science throughout the world - universities, etc., etc.

No, the period of tundra freezing is slowing and the latitude for constant freezing is moving upward toward the pole.

The total area of sea ice is decreasing.

???

 

Sure it is. And at some point, biological sequestration will exceed new fossil fuel emissions. It's inevitable.

Non sequitur.

No there aren't.

No, that's just more GHG-centered climate nonscience. The tundra has thawed many times before, and the released methane had no discernible effect.

You don't have to accept it for it to refute you.

Sure we are. More to the point, the perspective of a human lifetime, though irresistibly hypnotic to the acolytes of anti-fossil-fuel nonscience, is irrelevant to natural climate processes that unfold over thousands or even millions of years.

No we aren't. We are merely on a natural cycle that has happened thousands or even millions of times before.

 

Institutions that are politically controlled.

Because the more active sun has returned the earth to more normal Holocene surface temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

Nope. It bottomed in 2012, and shows a slight uptrend since then.

 

Science is not universities... science is not "various institutions".

What period? What are you even talking about?

During what time period? Why is that time period "holy" as opposed to any other time period? Even IF true (for whatever "holy" period of time), so what??

The total surface area of ice cover is not total ice content (as one doesn't know how deep the ice is). So what if there's a bit less or a bit more ice cover at any given time? It naturally decreases and increases over any given "holy" period of time as well as over seasons.

I'm not interested in you pointing towards "ice melting" at the North pole during its Summer time and then at the South pole during its Summer time. Melting tends to occur during Summer, and then during Winter, the season which you and your type love to ignore, FREEZING occurs. That's when you switch over to the opposite pole that is experiencing Summer and then point to all the melting occurring THERE instead of pointing at all the freezing that is occurring at the other pole.

What are you confused about?

 

The mentioned locations are where science takes place, obviously.

Tundra is somewhat seasonal. As Earth warms, the period and location of unfrozen tundra increases.

Longer periods of thawed tundra allows for methane emitting rot, fire, etc.

Reflectivity of Earth is affected by reduction in the surface area of ice. It doesn't matter how deep the ice is.

The issue has to do with the amount of ice coverage over a year, not just during a specific season.

The point is that it is a feedback loop situation. More warming reduces Earths reflectivity, resulting in more warming.

I asked you for a cite.

You gave me "Government spending. Science. Mathematics."

That is not a cite and I'm really curious what makes you think that is an adequate dodge.

 

This sums up the discussion with which this thread began.

The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A
Posted on September 22, 2022 by curryja | 68 comments
by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands climate change.” J. Vinós, paraphrasing Richard Feynman’s words about quantum mechanics.

Continue reading →
. . . .
(17) Q: According to your theory, what should we expect from climate change in the next years and the rest of the century?

A: The current below average solar activity and an expected cooling phase in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation indicate a probable continuation, or even accentuation, of the reduced rate of warming during the first third of the 21st century. A modest cooling during this period is possible. Unlike the 20th century, this century should contain two cooling phases of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Even if another extended solar maximum takes place for most of the century, the 21st century should see significantly less warming than the previous one, regardless of CO2 emissions. A grand solar minimum is highly improbable according to our interpretation of solar cycles, which is a relief. Based on past evidence, a grand solar minimum sets the planet into a severe cooling trend.

(1 Q: What would be a good test of your hypothesis?

A: The expected climate change for the next 30 years, as described above is consistent with several alternative theories to the IPCC’s, based on the effect of the multidecadal oscillations. The Winter Gatekeeper explains better why the shift took place in 1997, and predicts the next shift for c. 2032, i.e., three solar cycles. The best test will be when a very active solar cycle takes place, if Arctic amplification turns into cooling and Arctic sea-ice grows it will support our hypothesis. If this happens, proposed alternatives to our hypothesis will be entertaining.

 

Throughout that period, Earth has warmed.

Any cooling that has been measured is swamped by the overall steadily increasing average temperature of Earth when smoothed by running averages of reasonable length.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

That is a comment that reflects no knowledge whatsoever of the thread topic.

 

The point us that MBH98 and MBH99 are BS as is the hockey stick they professed.

 

Your claims are the opposite of reality. There are many ways climate science can be falsfied. I've listed some of the here before. That's because it's real science.

In stark contrast, there are no ways to falsify denialism, meaning denialism isn't science.

Go on. Prove me wrong. List examples of hard data would falsify your denier beliefs. If your beliefs aren't entirely religious in nature, that should be no problem for you.

 

If the West Side Highway is under water by 2028.

 

Nobody made such a prediction.

If someone on your side told you James Hansen made such a prediction, they lied to your face. You should ask them why they lied to you, and question anything else they told you, since it's probably just as dishonest.

 

We know how this ends.

Even with a very strong La Nina event currently depressing temps, the globe is still seeing warming.

As soon as the first strong El Nino comes along, the global temperature average will explode upward and shatter the old record. No propaganda or garbage pseudoscience will change that.

For the solar theory -- the theory that says stored heat in the oceans from a past strong sun is currently warming the atmosphere -- to be right, then the oceans would either have to be cooling, or at least warming at a decreasing rate.

Instead, we observe the oceans warming at an _increasing_ rate. Hence, the solar theory is debunked.

This is where deniers fall back on to their favorite "All the data that I don't like is faked!" conspiracy.

 

How about Skeptical Science? Not, as I'm sure you know, on my "side."

". . . We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). . . . "

Examining Hansen's prediction about the ... - Skeptical Science
https://skepticalscience.com › news

Mar 10, 2011 — One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts, is that James Hansen erroneously predicted the West Side Highway would ...