Climate-gate

[Aqueous Id]

None of the consequences that the fool gore came out with ever existed, or come to be, and people are still trying to push this moron science con on people.

Gore did not invent climate science. The principal chain of experts were Fourier (1824) -> Tyndall (1850s) -> Arrhenius(1890s) -> Callendar(1930s) -> Roger Revelle (1950s). By the 1970s a 1960s report by Revelle floated to the White House, carrying with it measured evidence of anthrpogenic global warming. Your buddy Nixon created NOAA, around the people and technology that were sharing information with Revelle. When Al Gore was in college, Revelle happened to be one of his lecturers. Gore learned enough of the science to understand that scientists had been warning about it as early as 1900.

Therefore your statement fails on the following grounds
(1) You falsely state that anthropogenic global warming never happened. It was confirmed by 1958 by Revelle's protege Charles D Keeling.
(2) You characterize climate science as a "moron con". You therefore are attacking not Gore, who was only the messenger, but all of the scientists above who actually bothered to take measurements to find out what is causing global warming.

Amazing the theory was so rubbish they had to change it to climate change

False and incorrect:

global warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.

climate change: a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

when thats happening all the time,

That makes no sense. Human emissions are continually pumping more greenhouse gases into the air, accelerating the rate of global warming and hastening climate change.

morons actually believed that the weather stayed the same, lol.

False and incorrect. Regional climate patterns are changing faster due to human activity, accelerating global ice melt, destroying ecosystems, and driving countless species into extinction. The issue has nothing to do with local weather, but rather changing patterns over regions. As spring arrives earlier and winter arrives later, migratory birds, for example, do not arrive on time for blossoms which host insects they feed on during breeding. Human activity therefore is driving them into extinction since they can not adapt fast enough to the changing regional patterns.

The weather is always changing normally and no dunce moron called humans could ever predict it,

The shrinking length of winter is shrinking global ice and driving species into extinction. The rising heat over tropical waters in producing more energy capable of producing ever stronger hurricanes and cyclones. Increased atmospheric energy leads to more frequent and more severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. The Greenland ice sheet alone will raise ocean levels several feet as it melts. Coastal areas will flood, and wetlands will be destroyed by sea water. When all of the ice is gone, major rivers and countless tributaries will dry up.

so how can they say what will happen.

Because:

(1)CO[sub]2[/sub] is a greenhouse gas in small quantities
(2)humans are producing large quantities of CO[sub]2[/sub]
(3)average surface temperatures are rising faster than by natural causes
(4)global ice is melting more rapidly than by natural causes
(5)climate patterns are changing
(6)warm seasons are arriving earlier and ending later
(7)species sensitive to high heat are being driven into extinction
(8)species sensitive to earlier springs are being driven into extinction
(9)species sensitive to ice melt are being driven into extinction.

The morons whom were seen to bring this con,

. . . scientists who have been studying the climate for 190 years . . .

are still trying to convince people that change is manmade,

Deduced that human produced CO[sub]2[/sub] would cause global warming by 1900, measured it in 1958, announced it in 1964, received funding to study it in detail from the 1970s to present, and have repeatedly measured it ever since.

when change is normal within normal cycles.

Average surface temperatures are climbing faster than normal. Human produced CO[sub]2[/sub] is causing this increase.

 

[Billy T]

Right, but there was plenty of water and plenty of methane. Billy T's claim is that enough methane will flip us into a permanent "steam planet" where all the water on the planet is turned to steam and the steam then forms a permanent greenhouse cap so strong that it never changes, which means that today we would have a steam atmosphere. Given that there is now a thousand times less methane than there was back then, and given that we do not have a steam atmosphere, his statement is unsupportable.

No. In post 928 I explained why you concluions (that my POV is "unsupportable") is COMPLETELY FALSE, even though your argument is entirely logical. It is the fact that back when Earth had that high methane concentration, the solar out put was much lower* that makes your argument, not mine, "unsupportable."

If you are honest, your will make post admitting you forgot that sun was much weaker back then. I don't like your false statement that my POV is unsupportable (in your post 927) remaining, uncorrected or not withdrawn by you. - That is not correct behavior. That is beneath your normally high standards.

When you are wrong, your should at least admit it.

* BTW, unless he has changed his POV, Trippy, thinks even today's much hotter, stronger, sun does not send Earth enough energy to make the switch to the Hot Stable State possible. - Again I am not claiming it will, never have, but am still waiting to read a valid proof why it can not. Your post 927 definitely is not that.

 

[billvon]

No. In post 928 I explained why you concluions (that my POV is "unsupportable") is COMPLETELY FALSE, even though your argument is entirely logical. It is the fact that back when Earth had that high methane concentration, the solar out put was much lower* that makes your argument, not mine, "unsupportable." If you are honest, your will make post admitting you forgot that sun was much weaker back then. I don't like your false statement that my POV is unsupportable (in your post 927) remaining, uncorrected or not withdrawn by you. - That is not correct behavior. That is beneath your normally high standards.

Your POV is unsupportable, since the "faint young sun" theory is not only just a theory, but is contradicted by evidence; namely, that the Earth wasn't frozen solid, as it would have been if the sun's output was that low. Indeed, it is such a commonly discussed contradiction that it has a name - "the faint young sun paradox." (Google it.)

So in twenty years we may better understand the the faint young sun paradox. It may be that the total solar output was higher than we currently predict, which is the most likely. We may discover another factor which allowed water to exist. Until we do, using the faint young sun as the foundation of your theory will leave it with very weak support indeed.

When you are wrong, your should at least admit it.

What was I wrong about? I am not taking the faint young sun theory as fact since facts contradict it. Are you claiming that there IS no "faint young sun paradox?"

BTW, unless he has changed his POV, Trippy, thinks even today's much hotter, stronger, sun does not send Earth enough energy to make the switch to the Hot Stable State possible. - Again I am not claiming it will, never have

Hmm, OK. If that's the case I _will_ apologize because I thought you were promoting that as a possibility.

 

[Trippy]

* BTW, unless he has changed his POV, Trippy, thinks even today's much hotter, stronger, sun does not send Earth enough energy to make the switch to the Hot Stable State possible. - Again I am not claiming it will, never have, but am still waiting to read a valid proof why it can not. Your post 927 definitely is not that.

So what you're saying then is that in spite of the evidence you have been presented with, you still think a Venusian end point is somehow viable?

 

[Billy T]

Your POV is unsupportable, since the "faint young sun" theory is not only just a theory, but ...

Non-Sense! Only you, not one reputable scientist disputes the FACT the sun was weaker. I. e. that back when the atmosphere had no free oxygen, the sun was much weaker - they argue only about whether it was 25 or 35% weaker.

All paradoxes have two conflicting parts. When one is certainly true, the other is false. The dynamic of the sun's fusion process are very well understood, ever since Beta's work on the question. Thus it is as certain as anything concerning Earth's history that the solar radiation coming to Earth was much lower – so low that it is a paradox why some liquid water even existed back then.

One simple resolution is: That it did not. – That life evolved more rapidly than currently believed, later when the sun was hotter. Evolutionary time scales, especailly back when their was no free oxygen, only anaerobic microbes, are very poorly known – basically subjective. Liquid water with very high GHG concentrations is ONLY inferred to have existed.

Here is a solution to the paradox, published 1 April 2010, is based on lower albedo absorbing more of the weaker sun light:

... the Sun’s luminosity {was} about 25 to 30 per cent {lower} over the Earth’s history. It has been inferred that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 and/or CH4 compensated for the lower solar luminosity and dictated an Archaean climate in which liquid water was stable in the hydrosphere. Here we demonstrate, however, that the mineralogy of Archaean sediments … is inconsistent with such high concentrations of greenhouse gases and the metabolic constraints of extant methanogens. Prompted by this, and the absence of geologic evidence for very high greenhouse-gas concentrations, we hypothesize that a lower albedo on the Earth, owing to considerably less continental area and to the lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei, made an important contribution to moderating surface temperature in the Archaean eon.

Interestingly, and clear evidence of how uncertain conditions back then were, is that other rocks from the era, suggest they had to form under water. Again what is certain and ignored in your “proof” that my POV is “unsupportable” is that the sun was much too weak back then to switch Earth to its Hot Stable State, even with CH4 blocking IR escape (in its absorption bands) 100%. As more evidence of how uncertain things were (except for the much weaker sun) this POV is challenged here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html

Again: your logic was fine, but you forgot the most important fact, which destroys your conclusion.

Another parodox resolution published 30 March 2012, is:

... we argue that: (1) climates having a lower than present mean surface temperature cannot be discarded as solutions to the faint young sun paradox, (2) the detrainment from deep convective clouds in the tropics is a well-established physical mechanism for the formation of high clouds that have a positive radiative forcing (even if the possible role of these clouds as a negative climate feedback remains controversial) and (3) even if some cloud properties are not mutually consistent with observations in radiative transfer parameterizations, the most relevant consistency (for the purpose of hypothesis testing) is with observations of the cloud radiative forcing. Therefore, we maintain that cirrus clouds, as observed in the current climate and covering a large region of the tropics, can provide a solution to the faint young sun paradox, or at least ease the amount of CO2 or other greenhouse substances needed to provide temperatures above freezing during the Archean.

I. e. Even the idea, and that is all it is, that CH4 & CO2 were with high concentration may be false - it is basically based on the idea that without free oxygen, their concentrations would grow, but obviously there are no measurements. Fact that sun was very much weaker is certain.

Also it is conceivable that the oceans were frozen and then slowly started to melt with chunks of ice floating and corresponding masses of water sinking taking the gasses they had absorbed down into long term deep storage. AFAIK, there is no hard evidence, like ice cores, that proof the CH4 & CO2 concentrations were vastly higher than today. - Only the argument that they should have been without oxidation or up take by green plants.

More than five resolution are suggested in Wiki's brief article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Inclucling some far out ones like: “In 2009 a group of scientists including Yuichiro Ueno from the University of Tokyo proposed that carbonyl sulfide (OCS) was present in the Archean atmosphere. Carbonyl sulfide is an efficient greenhouse gas and the scientists estimate that the additional greenhouse effect would have been sufficient to prevent the Earth from freezing over."

In SUMMARY, it is far from certain the high CH4 levels you postulate even existed but even if they did, your neglect of the fact that solar output was about 30% less back then invalidates your conclusion that Billy T's POV is “unsustainable.”

Note also, no one, except you, is trying to resolve the paradox by suggesting the sun was not weaker back then.

Just admit that when you wrote post 927's "proof" you either forgot, or did not know, that the sun was much weaker back then. There is no shame in being ignorant of certain facts, but plenty of shame in trying to defend a falsehood.

 

[Billy T]

So what you're saying then is that in spite of the evidence you have been presented with, you still think a Venusian end point is somehow viable?

Yes, sort of. More accurately, I say I have never found any solid proof that Earth switching to its hot stable state is impossible.

You, as I recall* have presented one argument suggesting that and a paper. The argument had something to do with the difference between Earth's and Venus's "plate tectonics" but that implicitly implies earth must follow the same path to switch. (Only one way to skin a cat?) In reply, I noted the major and much more important difference is that Venus never had civilizations spewing out tones of GHG every second!

As I really would like to read a solid proof that the switch is impossible, I carefully read the paper, twice. I found four or five assumptions, some of which they even admitted were false, but made to reduce computation costs; however by far the worst, made simply by assumption, made it more likely that the oceans would freeze than heat up! I. e. they noted that the lower half or so of the troposphere is well mixed, so POSULATED a kilometers thick band near surface at it low constant temperature and chemical composition.

Of course, with this cold air contacting the ocean surface, even in the equator, very little of the most powerful GHG, water vapor, would even exist in the air to be the strong positive feed back it is in the global warming problem.

SUMMARY: I'm still waiting, with hope, that some proof exists, at least that global wet bulb temperature of 35C is impossible, as that alone makes man (and all warm blooded creatures that cool by sweet - water evaporation) go extinct. I no longer have much interest in the question, whether or not, switching to the hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at the surface) is possible as just global 35C wet bulb kills all.

* Over the years we have, reasonably amiably, but strongly, disagreed on several subjects. I spent nearly an hour, looking for some of these old threads two days ago. They seem to have been lost or irretrievable archived. Can you find the one in which we earlier discussed why I did not find you reference convincing?

 

[brucep]

Yes, sort of. More accurately, I say I have never found any solid proof that Earth switching to its hot stable state is impossible.

You, as I recall* have presented one argument suggesting that and a paper. The argument had something to do with the difference between Earth's and Venus's "plate tectonics" but that implicitly implies earth must follow the same path to switch. (Only one way to skin a cat?) In reply, I noted the major and much more important difference is that Venus never had civilizations spewing out tones of GHG every second!

As I really would like to read a solid proof that the switch is impossible, I carefully read the paper, twice. I found four or five assumptions, some of which they even admitted were false, but made to reduce computation costs; however by far the worst, made simply by assumption, made it more likely that the oceans would freeze than heat up! I. e. they noted that the lower half or so of the troposphere is well mixed, so POSULATED a kilometers thick band near surface at it low constant temperature and chemical composition.

Of course, with this cold air contacting the ocean surface, even in the equator, very little of the most powerful GHG, water vapor, would even exist in the air to be the strong positive feed back it is in the global warming problem.

SUMMARY: I'm still waiting, with hope, that some proof exists, at least that global wet bulb temperature of 35C is impossible, as that alone makes man (and all warm blooded creatures that cool by sweet - water evaporation) go extinct. I no longer have much interest in the question, whether or not, switching to the hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at the surface) is possible as just global 35C wet bulb kills all.

* Over the years we have, reasonably amiably, but strongly, disagreed on several subjects. I spent nearly an hour, looking for some of these old threads two days ago. They seem to have been lost or irretrievable archived. Can you find the one in which we earlier discussed why I did not find you reference convincing?

BillyT

You've probably read this paper but in case you haven't I'll link it.

An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress
Steven C. Sherwooda, and Matthew Huberb
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

 

[Trippy]

Yes, sort of. More accurately, I say I have never found any solid proof that Earth switching to its hot stable state is impossible.

That all depends on what you mean by a 'hot stable state'.

You, as I recall* have presented one argument suggesting that and a paper. The argument had something to do with the difference between Earth's and Venus's "plate tectonics" but that implicitly implies earth must follow the same path to switch. (Only one way to skin a cat?) In reply, I noted the major and much more important difference is that Venus never had civilizations spewing out tones of GHG every second!

Your recollection is flawed.
What I have said is that tere are some fundamental differences between earth and venus. One of those fundamental differences is the amount of insolation they receive. The other is plate tectonics. What I have said is that the erosion of places like the Himalayas, the Southern Alps of New Zealand, and the Colarado Plateau have the net effect of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in the oceans. This particular sink takes place over long time scales, is slow to respond to changes, but is ultimately the largest sink available. This process ultimately results in the deposition of carbonates, which are subsequently recycled into the mantle.

As I really would like to read a solid proof that the switch is impossible, I carefully read the paper, twice. I found four or five assumptions, some of which they even admitted were false, but made to reduce computation costs; however by far the worst, made simply by assumption, made it more likely that the oceans would freeze than heat up! I. e. they noted that the lower half or so of the troposphere is well mixed, so POSULATED a kilometers thick band near surface at it low constant temperature and chemical composition.

You're understanding of the paper is flawed. They made no such assumptions. James F Kasting is a planetary scientist who's work lead to our current understanding of planetary habitability and the 'goldilocks zone'. I have endeavoured to explain to you on several occasions, using citations from that particular paper how your objections are based on a flawed understanding. Even Hansen has admitted that Kastings CKD approach was the correct one to take. Here's another link to the paper, you should take another look at it: James Kastings, Runaway and Moist Grenhouse Atmospheres and the Evolution of Earth and Venus

Of course, with this cold air contacting the ocean surface, even in the equator, very little of the most powerful GHG, water vapor, would even exist in the air to be the strong positive feed back it is in the global warming problem.

There is no cold air in contact with the oceans. It was the stratosphere that was assumed to be isothermal, not the troposphere, and that's an assumption that more recent modules, including Hansen's 'golden paper' still make.

SUMMARY: I'm still waiting, with hope, that some proof exists, at least that global wet bulb temperature of 35C is impossible, as that alone makes man (and all warm blooded creatures that cool by sweet - water evaporation) go extinct. I no longer have much interest in the question, whether or not, switching to the hot stable state (high pressure steam atmosphere at the surface) is possible as just global 35C wet bulb kills all.

These are two very different questions.

* Over the years we have, reasonably amiably, but strongly, disagreed on several subjects. I spent nearly an hour, looking for some of these old threads two days ago. They seem to have been lost or irretrievable archived. Can you find the one in which we earlier discussed why I did not find you reference convincing?

I'll have a nose around and see if I can find them again.

 

[billvon]

no one, except you, is trying to resolve the paradox by suggesting the sun was not weaker back then.

Except NASA:
=============================
Evidence in meteorites for an active early sun
Caffe, M. W.; Hohenberg, C. M.; Swindle, T. D.; Goswami, J. N.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 - Letters to the Editor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 313

High-sensitivity noble gas mass-spectrometric analyses of meteorite grains having solar flare heavy ion tracks show large enrichments of spallation-produced Ne-21 and Ar-38 when compared to nonirradiated grains from the same meteorite. The enhanced spallation effects in the irradiated grains are due to irradiation by energetic protons early in the history of the solar system, before compaction of the host meteorite. They require a proton fluence (E greater than 10 MeV) of 10 to the 16th to 10 to the 18th/cu cm. These results are best explained by solar flare irradiation in the early solar system with a proton flux several orders of magnitude higher than contemporary solar flares. The Ne isotopic structure suggests a harder energy spectrum than is characteristic of contemporary flares. These observations provide direct evidence for an active early (T Tauri) sun.
=====================
And JPL:
=====================
Title:
The Faint Young Sun Paradox: An observational test of an alternative solar model
Authors:
Gaidos, Eric J.; Güdel, Manuel; Blake, Geoffrey A.
Affiliation:
AA(Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California), AB(Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland), AC(Division of Geology & Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California)
Publication:
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 4, p. 501-503 (GeoRL Homepage)

Abstract
We report the results of deep observations at radio (3.6 cm) wavelengths of the nearby solar-type star pi01 Ursa Majoris with the Very Large Array (VLA) intended to test an alternative theory of solar luminosity evolution. The standard model predicts a solar luminosity only 75% of the present value and surface temperatures below freezing on Earth and Mars at 4 Ga, seemingly in conflict with geologic evidence for liquid water on these planets. An alternative model invokes a compensatory mass loss through a declining solar wind that results in a more consistent early luminosity. The free-free emission from an enhanced wind around nearby young Sun-like stars should be detectable at microwave frequencies. Our observations of pi01 UMa, a 300 million year-old solar-mass star, place an upper limit on the mass loss rate of 4-5 × 10-11 M&sun;yr-1. Total mass loss from such a star over 4 Gyr would be less than 6%. If this star is indeed an analog of the early Sun, it casts doubt on the alternative model as a solution to the faint young Sun paradox, particularly for Mars.
==================

 

[Billy T]

Except NASA:
=============================
Evidence in meteorites for an active early sun
Caffe, M. W.; Hohenberg, C. M.; Swindle, T. D.; Goswami, J. N.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 - Letters to the Editor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 313

High-sensitivity noble gas mass-spectrometric analyses of meteorite grains having solar flare heavy ion tracks show large enrichments of spallation-produced Ne-21 and Ar-38 when compared to nonirradiated grains from the same meteorite. The enhanced spallation effects in the irradiated grains are due to irradiation by energetic protons early in the history of the solar system, before compaction of the host meteorite. They require a proton fluence (E greater than 10 MeV) of 10 to the 16th to 10 to the 18th/cu cm. These results are best explained by solar flare irradiation in the early solar system with a proton flux several orders of magnitude higher than contemporary solar flares. The Ne isotopic structure suggests a harder energy spectrum than is characteristic of contemporary flares. These observations provide direct evidence for an active early (T Tauri) sun.
=====================
And JPL:
=====================
Title:
The Faint Young Sun Paradox: An observational test of an alternative solar model
Authors:
Gaidos, Eric J.; Güdel, Manuel; Blake, Geoffrey A.
Affiliation:
AA(Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California), AB(Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland), AC(Division of Geology & Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California)
Publication:
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 4, p. 501-503 (GeoRL Homepage)

Abstract
We report the results of deep observations at radio (3.6 cm) wavelengths of the nearby solar-type star pi01 Ursa Majoris with the Very Large Array (VLA) intended to test an alternative theory of solar luminosity evolution. The standard model predicts a solar luminosity only 75% of the present value and surface temperatures below freezing on Earth and Mars at 4 Ga, seemingly in conflict with geologic evidence for liquid water on these planets. An alternative model invokes a compensatory mass loss through a declining solar wind that results in a more consistent early luminosity. The free-free emission from an enhanced wind around nearby young Sun-like stars should be detectable at microwave frequencies. Our observations of pi01 UMa, a 300 million year-old solar-mass star, place an upper limit on the mass loss rate of 4-5 × 10-11 M&sun;yr-1. Total mass loss from such a star over 4 Gyr would be less than 6%. If this star is indeed an analog of the early Sun, it casts doubt on the alternative model as a solution to the faint young Sun paradox, particularly for Mars.
==================

Neither of these raises any doubt about the FACT THE SUN WAS 25 TO 35% WEAKER.

The first concern SOLAR FLARES, NOT SOLAR LUMINOSITY. I don't know their dynamics well but do know they make an insignificant, and brief change in solar luminosity. Perhaps even a slight decease as sun spots do that correlate now with flare activity. I. e. not the slightest suggestion that the solar luminosty was not 25 to 35% LOWER. If anything the suggestion there supports it was even weaker if the flares correlated with sun spots back then too.

The second also is not any suggestion that the sun was not much weaker back then either. It does, however, mention that some one has suggested it might have been if the sun had "compensatory mass loss through a declining solar wind that results in a more consistent early luminosity." - called an "alternate theory" This second paper is a test of that alternate theory (sun not much weaker, due to different mass loss rate) and concludes:

" If this star is indeed an analog of the early Sun, it casts doubt on the alternative model as a solution to the faint young Sun paradox. "

Thus it does appear not only do very few "crack pots" doubt that the sun was much weaker, but this particular crack pot's "alternate theory" does not survive experimental test with observation on distant sun-like star (Pi01 UMa). I. e. its microwaves left it long ago when Pi01 UMa was in the stage of heating up that the sun was back when Earth had no free oxygen in the atmosphere and DO NOT SUPPORT this crackpot's ALTERNATIVE THEORY."

Any one rejecting a well established scientific fact deserves to called a crack pot. You should stop trying to refute the very well known, and very widely accepted, FACT that the sun was much weaker back then. - Don't join a few crack pots in a false belief. Your post 927 "proof" that my POV is "unsupportable" Is is invalid.

 

[Billy T]

BillyT You've probably read this paper but in case you haven't I'll link it.
An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress Steven C. Sherwooda, and Matthew Huberb http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

No. I had not seen it. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. It confirms that extincition comes long before any switch to the hot stable state. Here, with some bold added, is start of Abstract:

" Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible.* While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning. "

It makes the same point I have been stressing for more than a year, but does not go one step further as I do. I.e. even Eskimos would not survive the plagues that would come with 500 million unburied bodies decomposing (human + animals). Also CO2's ocean acidification would probably have killed them via starvation a decade earlier as that eliminates the basis of the oceanic food chain. Some estimates I have read, if I recall correctly, indicate already it is 25% reduced.

* Perhaps very tiny mammals, smallest of mice, etc. might survive as their surface to volume ratio are much higher. As the bible says: "The meek shall inherit the Earth."

 

[Billy T]

That all depends on what you mean by a 'hot stable state'. ....

By that I have been referring to large water vapor concentration in the atmosphere do to boiling oceans, but of course they will eventually be lost to space (assuming sun continues to have luminosity increasing at about 10% per billion years) so that is not exactly the final stable state. Assuming red giant sun does not vaporized Earth, as most believe it will not quite be able to do, and finally fades back into a white dwarf, Earth would be and remain, much like Mars of today but a little colder, perhaps even in roughly Mars' orbit as solar gravitation will be less with mass being converted into radiant energy.

Due to extinction with 35C TW, I am no longer interested in knowing whether or not Earth will go thru a phase with high pressure steam (120C?) at the surface, but find it strange that the best refutation you have supplied that it will not happen is now 27 years old. Is there nothing more recent on the subject?

 

[Trippy]

Due to extinction with 35C TW, I am no longer interested in knowing whether or not Earth will go thru a phase with high pressure steam (120C?) at the surface, but find it strange that the best refutation you have supplied that it will not happen is now 27 years old. Is there nothing more recent on the subject?

I find you being so hung up on the age of the paper odd, especially when the work is still supported by more recent work - I once explained to you the reason why I cited Kastings original paper on the matter rather than any of the three hundred odd papers that have cited it since then, or the similar more recent work that has occured, including a paper that was cited by you at one stage.

 

[brucep]

No. I had not seen it. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. It confirms that extincition comes long before any switch to the hot stable state. Here, with some bold added, is start of Abstract:

" Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible.* While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning. "

It makes the same point I have been stressing for more than a year, but does not go one step further as I do. I.e. even Eskimos would not survive the plagues that would come with 500 million unburied bodies decomposing (human + animals). Also CO2's ocean acidification would probably have killed them via starvation a decade earlier as that eliminates the basis of the oceanic food chain. Some estimates I have read, if I recall correctly, indicate already it is 25% reduced.

* Perhaps very tiny mammals, smallest of mice, etc. might survive as their surface to volume ratio are much higher. As the bible says: "The meek shall inherit the Earth."

What's so depressing, at this juncture, is members of the human race continue to look for [bogus] reasons why this isn't a threat to everything on this planet.

 

[zgmc]

What do you guys think about this? Is there any merit to the science?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/

 

[sculptor]

What do you guys think about this? Is there any merit to the science?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/

yes, of course

the confusion remains in and derives from the predictions

 

[rpenner]

What do you guys think about this? Is there any merit to the science?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/

No science at all. It's not a solar model, it's just fudging with part of the data until you get it to tell the story that you want to hear. No part of that methodology is science.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...s-skeptical-climate-model-is-one-giant-circle

And all you need to know is this key sentence, which is found near the top of part 2:

We are envisaging some sort of black box, whose input is TSI and whose output is temperature.

Aaaaand there's the problem in a nutshell. Evans starts by assuming the result he wishes to demonstrate: that Sun drives global surface temperature. And from here on out we're on a gigantic 12,000 word circular argument, bringing us right back to where we started.

Even non-climate scientists skeptical of global warming recognize this:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/06/david-evans-notch-filter-theory-of.html

In other words, there is certainly no precision evidence – and probably no significant evidence at all – that there exists any universal function R̃ (f) that would describe the behavior of the hypothetical solar-driven climate.

The ungrateful bastards didn't thank Motl for his contribution, even while acknowledging its validity:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/ar...he-white-noise-point-beware-your-assumptions/

Some people are claiming that the transfer function is meaningless because you could use white noise instead of temperature data and get the same notch. It’s true, you could.

But as Pickering wrote at my first link: "And it just gets worse: the "unexpected" discovery at the heart of this whole thing is that -- now hold on to your hats -- the Sun has an 11-year cycle, but surface temperature does not!"

This insanity of trying to use this as a climate model has no basis in reality and when they are laughed at, they just revise their story:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/denier-weirdness-magical-mysterious.html

Wow. They've reduced their estimate from between 0.6°C and 0.8°C within a solar cycle starting this year, to 0.1°C in ten years. That's backtracking a whole heap more than their "small portion" is from CO2 comment would suggest.

But eventually they gave up on this round of self-promotion:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/a-memorial-to-notch-rip.html

Is the "Force X" stuff really RIP? Nova and Evans don't seem like the types to give up easily, even when it's shown beyond doubt that they're talking tosh.
And I couldn't believe they came up with that self-parodying term for it.The Notch is RIP, dead but not quite buried.

Finally, trying to blame the sun for global warming is about the oldest trick in the denial of anthropogenic global warming, and according to this site still the second most common.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

“That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

 

[zgmc]

No science at all. It's not a solar model, it's just fudging with part of the data until you get it to tell the story that you want to hear. No part of that methodology is science.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...s-skeptical-climate-model-is-one-giant-circle​

Thanks for the reply. Its funny that the retraction, well partial retraction, doesn't readily come up in the google.

 

[Billy T]

Thanks for the reply. Its funny that the retraction, well partial retraction, doesn't readily come up in the google.

It did for me. See: http://www.wired.com/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/

I think there are noticeable cyclic variation of sun's activity 11 year sun spot cycle, for example, but very little variation in its radiation.* Stands to reason - It is a hot ball with huge thermal inertia.

Either on time scale in which that has been accurately measure by space craft outside the atmosphere, or millions of year. Once you focus on billions of years, yes, the out put is increasing.

 

[zgmc]

It did for me. See: http://www.wired.com/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/

I think there are noticeable cyclic variation of sun's activity 11 year sun spot cycle, for example, but very little variation in its radiation.* Stands to reason - It is a hot ball with huge thermal inertia.

Either on time scale in which that has been accurately measure by space craft outside the atmosphere, or millions of year. Once you focus on billions of years, yes, the out put is increasing.

THats not the retraction that joannenova recently made, which was not a full admition of faulty science, but a maybe we need to tweak some stuff to make it work kind of retraction.