52 replies to this topic

[Chris]

Hey Ape, look up when you are outside tomorrow.  That's called the Sun.  It's the driver, the mechanism, the master, the cause of all things climate change on Earth.  Always has been, always will be.  You and the GoG continually ignore the Sun for some reason in your climate change argument.....? Can't wait until you progressives come up with a way to tax the amount of sunlight we take in....!   Chris

[apeman45]

Yes Chris it is the sun...and the greenhouse effect trapping energy which causes...........wait for it.................global warming!

[Chris]

Yes Chris it is the sun...and the greenhouse effect trapping energy which causes...........wait for it.................global warming!

So now you are not saying that Man is the problem....?   Please clarify..?   

 

Oh, and some "light" reading for you......  "The Neglected Sun", a best-seller in Germany published in English only in late 2013, by Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a German scientist, industrialist, and environmentalist of impeccable pedigree, and Sebastian Luning, an expert in geology and paleontology.  They basically blow your whole CO2 and man made climate change theory out of the water and make the IPCC look like the fools that they really are.

 

[apeman45]

Chris - If you don't yet understand the greenhouse effect and how greenhouse gasses amplify warming then I don't understand why you think the sun is solely responsible for everything.  I learned about it in 8th grade.  Roll up your windows on your hummer on a hot day and experience science.  

 

This joke of a book you referenced is hysterical.  You take it as fact because these clowns are scientists yet you won't listen to the other 97% of scientists. You know why these guys wrote a book?  Because you don't have to use real data and science or facts to write a book.  They are not experts on climate science and don't even claim to be.  This is not a book about science.  It fits better into the science fiction category.  

 

Maybe the fact that both these guys work for Germanys 2nd largest energy company has something to do with this non scientific novel.  Fritz worked for Shell Oil.  All I hear from you deniers is political agendas create a bias that corrupts all climate science.  Then you reference a book that is the definition of political bias to back up your head in the sand beliefs?  You can't have it both ways Chris.  Again your arguments just reinforce climate science.  I agree with you.  Scientists that are published in scientific journals and are experts in climate science are really smart people that know what they are talking about.  

  

Hanz and Franz or whatever these guys go by are not experts and their book can be found in the bookstore next to Goodnight Moon and the Cat in the Hat.

 

Here's more info about your sun boys.  Do they work for Volkswagen now I wonder?

http://www.skeptical...ate-change.html

[Chris]

Skeptical science is a pro AGW site and promotes nothing but AGW.  So does the EPA, George Soros and Tom Steyer who's billions of dollars go after any scientist that is not a "warmist".  Go ahead and publish a paper challenging the current AGW group think and see what happens to your academic career and reputation.  And please study and read some more from varied sources.  Your qualification that "you hike a lot in the Sierra's" does not really qualify to to talk down to and belittle people who actually studied this stuff in the classroom and have their undergraduate degree in a scientific discipline that is closely related to this very subject.  Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Apeman - I saw that Hanz and Franz are working on a new book titled "The Earth Really IS Flat".   I understand they have overwhelming data to support it too.  They asked 375,000,000 people on the planet to go to a parking lot close by and look at the ground in front of them.  99.745% responded with, "Yes. It's flat."  I understand there is a small group of "deniers" who actually claim the earth is round and are showing images taken from satellites, the space station, and during the moon landings.  Hanz and Franz strongly argue that the cameras used on the satellites and at the space station use deceptive fish-eye lenses that make every image look "round".  They also argue that the images taken during the moon landing are fakes because of the overwhelming evidence that all the moon landings were done at a Hollywood studio.  Hanz and Franz say they have irrefutable evidence that Universal Studios staged all the moon landings in a blatant marketing attempt to promote the word "Universe" in their corporate name.  Hanz and Franz also claim that Universal Studios plans to continue this misguided marketing campaign by faking manned landings on the Sun, and then as the big finale, landing a manned mission on the Universe.  Max Solar, spokesman for the studio, would neither confirm or deny the speculations.  Mr. Solar did indicate, however, that the studio was working on a new feature film that's based on the Hanz and Franz book "The Earth Really IS Flat" and the film will be titled, "Journey to the Under Side of the Earth".  Solar said the studio has already signed Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, stars of the "Dumb and Dumber" series, to play feature parts in the new film.  I'll bet it will be a big hit.

[Chris]

Hey GoG, the real joke here is that you and the Ape deny that the Sun is responsible for climate change while calling we "AGW deniers" flat Earthers....?

 

Oh the irony in that...!   And just what was the CO2 atmospheric ppm just a 100 million years ago....?  Since you won't answer I'll do it for you.  It was approximately 1500 ppm.  Don't think we were around to cause that one....?  The Sun was I am pretty sure.  Chris

[apeman45]

Grumpy Old Guy - I would see that movie for sure but I think it should star the Rock and maybe Arnold because he could pull off the german accent no problem.  He needs to follow up his blockbuster hit San Andreas which also wasn't based on science.

 

Chris - Here's another take on the Hanz and Franz book from a real atmospheric scientist.  Hanz and Franz did not get published in science journals because they can't back up their data.  They just attacked real data by cherrypicking the good stuff while ignoring the troublesome facts.  Much like GOG's parking lot scenario.  That's why they had to write a book.  Had nothing to do with their academic careers.  They sold out long ago to make money in climate changing industries. 

 

https://ourchangingc...bastian-luning/

 

Of course the sun is a major contributor to climate changes.  If you really believe it is the only contributor then I don't have the time or available computer memory to reverence millions of scientific studies and facts that you won't read anyway.  

[Chris]

 

Grumpy Old Guy - I would see that movie for sure but I think it should star the Rock and maybe Arnold because he could pull off the german accent no problem.  He needs to follow up his blockbuster hit San Andreas which also wasn't based on science.

 

Chris - Here's another take on the Hanz and Franz book from a real atmospheric scientist.  Hanz and Franz did not get published in science journals because they can't back up their data.  They just attacked real data by cherrypicking the good stuff while ignoring the troublesome facts.  Much like GOG's parking lot scenario.  That's why they had to write a book.  Had nothing to do with their academic careers.  They sold out long ago to make money in climate changing industries. 

 

https://ourchangingc...bastian-luning/

 

Of course the sun is a major contributor to climate changes.  If you really believe it is the only contributor then I don't have the time or available computer memory to reverence millions of scientific studies and facts that you won't read anyway.  

 

So Varenholt, a PhD Chemist, industrialist and environmentalist, and Luning, a  PhD in Geology and Paleontology can't be believed but of course all of the scientists and bloggers at the sources you reference can....?   All those pro AGW sites...?   What's your scientific training in again...?  Your science credentials are what again...?   Strange that your untrained and uneducated "belief" can out rightly dismiss these two trained PhD scientists...?   Chris

 

p.s.  And just what was the CO2 atmospheric ppm just a 100 million years ago....?   You're still ignoring the question because it does not fit your "theory" does it....?

 

Oh, and I'll shed the "light" on the Sun later when I have the time....  

[apeman45]

Chris - True Hanz and Franz have science degrees.  Their expertise is not in climate science.  The question you should be asking is why you don't believe the vast majority of real climate scientists who back up everything they do with research and data that can be measured and verified. Then Hanz and Franz come along and write what is basically an opinion piece in the Sunday paper with no scientific evidence to back it up and you take it as fact.  You repeatedly ignore and ridicule the 97% percent of scientists that don't agree with you and call them politically biased.  Their life work is science and Hanz and Franz write novels and make their living in the energy sector.  

 

You know why the deniers love Franz?  Because he once gave a crap about chemical poisoning of the environment and so can be labelled a green environmentalist who doesn't believe in climate change.  Your denier websites are all over the very few guys like this because there aren't very many.  I've got 97% of guys to quote and you've got 3%.  The odds are not in your favor.  Of course those 3% also believe in the faked moon landing so you've got that to fall back on.

 

My science training taught me to analyze ALL the data and make a logical conclusion.  Your University of Phoenix degree in Geology doesn't make you right.  It just proves that you had a sub standard education.

[Chris]

My science training taught me to analyze ALL the data and make a logical conclusion.  Your University of Phoenix degree in Geology doesn't make you right.  It just proves that you had a sub standard education.

University of Phoenix....?   Never been to Phoenix....   My degree is not from the internet either....  Got mine from good old SF State back in the 1980's.  I have been published by the way......   Oh, and I have taken several courses at MIT, in the Chem E dept. related to my work over the years.  And did I mention I work in the biological sciences, medical field, pharma...   Have been since 1987.  I'm actually typing this right now from my lab at work....   Getting ready to end my long day.  What was your scientific training in again, do you work in science currently, have you ever....?    Chris   

 

Oh, and you missed my simple question once again, I'll put it in bigger font so you will notice it hopefully:   And just what was the CO2 atmospheric ppm just a 100 million years ago....?  

[Chris]

Some good reading for you "warmists".....  on CO2

 

The basics of the CO2 paradigm are straightforward. The sun delivers energy to the earth. About 30% of it is reflected back into space, and the rest absorbed. The earth then gives up the stored energy, radiating it outward. Some of this outward radiation is absorbed by Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), primarily CO2 and water vapor, and re-radiated back to earth. The general effect is to keep the earth’s temperature at 14º C instead of the –18º C it would be in the absence of GHGs.

CO2 captures only certain wavelengths of energy, so there is a saturation effect as all the energy of a particular wavelength is absorbed. A doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (from, say, 200 parts per million to the present-day 400 ppm) would raise the earth’s temperature by 1º C. A subsequent doubling, from 400 to 800, would raise it only another 1º C. And so on. Other GHGs absorb energy on different wavelengths, so each must be examined separately.  A warming of one degree would be beneficial. The earth has been warmer in the past, as in the Medieval Warm Period of 1000 years ago, and we have still not fully emerged from the Little Ice Age that ended in the mid-19th century. Low temperatures make for hard times.

Water vapor is a far more important GHG than CO2 and accounts for over 90% of the greenhouse effect, In consequence, to attribute to CO2 an alarming rate of temperature increase requires that a link be made between CO2, cloud cover, and water vapor such that positive feedback exists. That is, temperature will rise more than one degree only if an increase in CO2 also leads to an increase in water vapor, and fosters some kinds of clouds while discouraging others.

These links are put together in the form of models. The interactions of the climate are complex, and a model can easily contain up to a million lines of code.

The problem for the CO2 paradigm is that the models do not work. They failed to predict the flat temperatures that have prevailed since 1998, and they cannot be backfit to predict temperature patterns that prevailed before 1970. They have some accuracy for the period 1970 to 1998 only because they were fudged to track the temperature record by making whatever assumptions about the water vapor feedback and about the effects of particulate matter in the atmosphere were necessary to track the observed past temperatures.

In fact, evidentiary support is lacking for the basic proposition that increases in CO2 trigger an increase in water vapor. Recent data indicates the reverse, that feedback is negative in that a rise in CO2 reduces water vapor, which tempers the heating effect.

If this data is confirmed by further experiments, all of the CO2-centric models will crash and burn immediately, because all are based on the opposite assumption.

This cursory account only scratches the surface of the problems with the CO2 models; one must look at the oceans, where the theory is also in disarray, and at the record of prehistoric times, when increases in CO2 concentration appear to have lagged behind rises in temperature.

 

http://www.forbes.co...n/#276c56f37039

[Chris]

Some good reading again for you "warmists"....   on the Sun.

 

A few scientists have reinvigorated an alternative paradigm: the sun. The current state of their work is recounted in The Neglected Sun, a best-seller in Germany published in English only in late 2013, by Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a German scientist, industrialist, and environmentalist of impeccable pedigree, and Sebastian Luning, an expert in geology and paleontology.

As noted, it has long seemed logical that earth’s climate might be related to the 11-year sunspot cycle, but the hypothesis lacked explanatory power because the variation in solar energy over the cycle is only 0.1%, not enough to account for climate changes.

Recent research indicates that this conclusion too simplistic. Total irradiance varies little with the sunspot cycle, but ultraviolet irradiance fluctuates by up to 70%, and UV light is converted to heat in the earth’s atmosphere.

The sun’s magnetic field also fluctuates with the 11-year cycle, and this affects cosmic rays striking the earth, according to a theory associated with Henrik Svensmark. When the magnetic field is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate, and these seed clouds in the lower atmosphere, which has a cooling effect. “Just a few percent variation in cloud cover results in a change in the earth’s irradiative energy budget equal to the projected amount of the warming the IPCC claims that anthropogenic CO2 causes.” [TNS, Kindle loc.720]

Recognition of the possible importance of the 11-year cycle is only the first step. The sun has several other cycles, and the possibilities are tantalizing. There are cycles of 22, 87, 210, 1000, and 2300 years. [loc. 1128] There is 20-year cycle that occurs when Jupiter and Saturn align and exert a gravitational pull on the sun, and 60-year cycle when the two planets are closest to the sun. “It can be shown that the 60-year gravitational cycle peaked during 1880-1, 1940-1, and 2000-1, as did global surface temperature.” [loc. 3403]

On a grander scale, the earth’s orbit around the sun varies between an ellipse and a circle, and its axis changes over time, creating Milankovitch cycles, measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of years,. Their effect is to change the irradiation of the earth with magnitudes of “single to low doubledigit percentages.” [loc. 1560] The cycles play a leading role in ice ages.

Finally, there is a suggestion of a 140 million year cycle, based on the fact that the solar system travels across the spiral arms of the Milky Way on this schedule, and the result is an increase in cosmic rays, and thus a cooling effect. The geologic record supports a cycle of this duration.  The theories about the effect of the sun are incomplete and often tentative, but they can be checked against the geologic record, and against current climate patterns, and they are finding consistencies.

The CO2 Establishment is not giving up its paradigm without a fight. But in a fundamental sense, it has already lost because its claims are untenable, especially the meme that “the science is settled.”

No one in the sun camp would deny that CO2 is a GHG or that it has some effect on climate – it is the degree of that effect that is disputed.

On the other side, the IPCC’s 1552-page report on the state of climate change physical science dismisses the possibility that solar variations or cosmic rays have an effect on 21st century climate. It mentions Milankovitch cycles only twice, accepting that they have a role in ice ages and millennium-scale changes, but discussion immediately turns back to why CO2 is what really counts.  This stance defies logic. For one thing, given that the sun is the prime mover of everything related to earth’s climate, how can an effect ever be assumed away? For another, if solar effects produce millennium-scale changes then they must also affect the short-term, given that any long-term is a series of short-terms. So if one accepts that solar changes are connected to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, then how can one argue that the rise in temperature since 1850 – the recovery from the last cold period – is not also connected to solar effects?

The argument that the sun is relevant only in the long term looks like a jury-rigged patch to shore up a failing paradigm. As Professor Richard Lindzen told the UK Parliament in 2012:

 

"Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly

represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure

to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating."

 

Particularly absurd is the claim that the science is settled. As George Will said, when someone claims that a debate is over, “you may be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it.”

 

http://www.forbes.co...3/#3d842a317e92

[apeman45]

Chris - Congrats on your undergrad degree in geology.  Neither of us are scientists and it does not pertain to an online debate about climate change.  You must be an expert on climate science working for a pharmaceutical company.  I'll bite.  I studied geology at a junior college and environmental science for 3 years at San Jose State.  Worked for a startup company in Silicon Valley for 8 years which resulted in me dropping out of college 2 classes short of graduating.  The tech sector in Silicon Valley in the 80's was amazing.  Cashed in some stock options and moved to Sac and bought a house.  I worked at good old AT&T for 15 years as a tech support guy and a department manager.  Made a couple good investments and made 100k so decided to move on over to Folsom.  Now I have my dream job working outside everyday doing park maintenance work.  I even use a multimeter several times a month to complete my tasks so you know I must be smart! You could say I'm suckling at the teat of government as this will give me a nice pension and medical thanks to the good old union I belong to. When I retire soon I plan on becoming a full-time citizen scientist.

 

 

 

Grumpy Old Guy has answered your question several times about the CO2 levels 100 million years ago.  I'll give you some more data that you can ignore and give you a reason to post your pointless graph again.  I'll take your suggestion and use the bigger font for your benefit.  I prefer the keeling curve's more recent measurements over what was going on 100 million years ago because it is a very accurate measurement of unprecedented CO2 rise over a VERY short time.  It's NEVER happened before.

 

As I have said before you must take in ALL the factors before coming to a conclusion.  Yes CO2 has been high 100's of millions of years ago.  But the sun was dimmer then and wasn't putting out as much energy.  "At present, this is leading to a 1% increase in luminosity every 100 million years, and a 30% increase over the course of the last 4.5 billion years."  Basically the ice caps will be boiling soon but in a geologic timeline, which is a pointless factor in the blip on the graph of humankind, it means nothing in the discussion of what is going on with CO2 over the current few hundred year period.  If the CO2 levels and massive amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted by volcanoes were not so high 100 million years ago the earth would have had just one continuous massive ice age for 100's of millions of years.  Well guess what.  You were right Chris.  It is the sun!  And the damn thing is putting out 1 percent more energy than it was 100 million years ago.  Mankind is also putting out as many greenhouse gasses as the volcanoes were back then.  So those 400ppm numbers from 100 million years ago become a problem now because of the SUN and the greenhouse gasses.  We don't have control over volcanoes but we can control our greenhouse gasses.  Add to that the nearly overflowing land and oceanic carbon sinks and we obviously have problems.  I know you will just say we are just providing trees more food but we are currently losing 80,000 acres of rain forest a DAY!!!  It all boils down to what Grumpy Old Guy has been talking about.  The earth's resources can't support our growing populations and we will have some very uncomfortable consequences in the very near future amplified by climate change.  The good news is we will probably destroy ourselves long before the ice caps boil.

 

 

http://www.universet...ife-of-the-sun/

[apeman45]

That's a lot of text by Hanz and Franz to explain the greenhouse effect.  I guess they had to consider their target audience.  Here's a scientific concise definition of the same thing.

 

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions.