Fatal Flaw In Climate Change Science

#11
(Mar 8, 2019 01:54 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:That's the same TSI that completely ignores all other space contributions to climate change aside from UV light.

Right..like X rays and the solar wind and cosmic rays. lol!

So you don't believe in x-rays, cosmic rays, or solar wind?

How ignorant can you be?

So how much heat is transmitted by Xrays and the solar wind and cosmic rays? Has he measured this? And how does this correlate to the rising temps of the 20th and 21st centuries?
Reply
#12
(Mar 8, 2019 01:57 AM)confused2 Wrote: Science is about observation and numbers. Syne's video has a problem with both observation and numbers.

The video claims solar activity influences the weather - fine - solar activity varies on an 11 year cycle - the video doesn't show an 11 cycle in the weather - I have to assume this is because speaker has no evidence to support his claim. I'm seeing a guy using science words and waving his hands - nothing more.

"0.1% UV Forcing Changes over the 11-year Solar Cycle"

Yeah, that's the ONLY part current climate models account for. So your little criticism only applies to those models.

Quote:During a solar storm X-rays, solar wind and energetic particles increase dramatically - from what to what? The claim that during a solar storm solar irradience fell by 0.044% is supported by data but no data about how much additional energy was received - just 'thousands' and hand waving. How much additional energy as a percentage of 1,360 W/m^2 ? Trying to convince an audience that 'the numbers' will turn out to be what others are missing isn't science - you need numbers. He has no numbers - he has nothing.

The figure is easy enough to find, if you're the least bit intellectually honest:

Solar flares occur in a power-law spectrum of magnitudes; an energy release of typically 10^20 joules of energy suffices to produce a clearly observable event, while a major event can emit up to 10^25 joules.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare


It doesn't matter how that compares to the intensity of sun that reaches the earth, as the total solar irradiance (TSI), again, doesn't include anything but the UV, which actually drops during a solar flare.

It's clear that the sun radiates more energy to the earth than UV light, and that the dip in UV radiance during solar flares wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
Apparently his description was overly optimistic: "This video shows that fact in a way that anyone can understand."





(Mar 8, 2019 02:10 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 01:54 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Right..like X rays and the solar wind and cosmic rays. lol!

So you don't believe in x-rays, cosmic rays, or solar wind?

How ignorant can you be?

So how much heat is transmitted by Xrays and the solar wind and cosmic rays? Has he measured this? And how does this correlate to the rising temps of the 20th and 21st centuries?

No one has "measured" the heat transmitted by human activity. It's all just by definition in the models. So this is a case of you hypocritically demanding more for one view than your own.
Reply
#13
(Mar 8, 2019 03:31 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 01:57 AM)confused2 Wrote: Science is about observation and numbers. Syne's video has a problem with both observation and numbers.

The video claims solar activity influences the weather - fine - solar activity varies on an 11 year cycle - the video doesn't show an 11 cycle in the weather - I have to assume this is because speaker has no evidence to support his claim. I'm seeing a guy using science words and waving his hands - nothing more.

"0.1% UV Forcing Changes over the 11-year Solar Cycle"

Yeah, that's the ONLY part current climate models account for. So your little criticism only applies to those models.

Quote:During a solar storm X-rays, solar wind and energetic particles increase dramatically - from what to what? The claim that during a solar storm solar irradience fell by 0.044% is supported by data but no data about how much additional energy was received - just 'thousands' and hand waving. How much additional energy as a percentage of 1,360 W/m^2 ? Trying to convince an audience that 'the numbers' will turn out to be what others are missing isn't science - you need numbers. He has no numbers - he has nothing.

The figure is easy enough to find, if you're the least bit intellectually honest:

Solar flares occur in a power-law spectrum of magnitudes; an energy release of typically 10^20 joules of energy suffices to produce a clearly observable event, while a major event can emit up to 10^25 joules.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare


It doesn't matter how that compares to the intensity of sun that reaches the earth, as the total solar irradiance (TSI), again, doesn't include anything but the UV, which actually drops during a solar flare.

It's clear that the sun radiates more energy to the earth than UV light, and that the dip in UV radiance during solar flares wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
Apparently his description was overly optimistic: "This video shows that fact in a way that anyone can understand."





(Mar 8, 2019 02:10 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 01:54 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Right..like X rays and the solar wind and cosmic rays. lol!

So you don't believe in x-rays, cosmic rays, or solar wind?

How ignorant can you be?

So how much heat is transmitted by Xrays and the solar wind and cosmic rays? Has he measured this? And how does this correlate to the rising temps of the 20th and 21st centuries?

No one has "measured" the heat transmitted by human activity. It's all just by definition in the models. So this is a case of you hypocritically demanding more for one view than your own.

LOL! So this crank doesn't even know how much heat his so called space weather transmits? What a moron. And he expects us to buy his bullshit theory?
Reply
#14
(Mar 8, 2019 03:37 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Mar 8, 2019 03:31 AM)Syne Wrote: No one has "measured" the heat transmitted by human activity. It's all just by definition in the models. So this is a case of you hypocritically demanding more for one view than your own.

LOL! So this crank doesn't even know how much heat his so called space weather transmits? What a moron. And he expects us to buy his bullshit theory?

No one knows how much heat human activity supposedly transmits. Have a tiny bit of intellectual honesty.


Oh, that's right, this is one of your sacred cows. Angel
Reply
#15
If what is talked about is as of much relevance as they pose it is, then it should be observable in regards to the weather on other planets within our solar system since we aren't the only planet effected by our star. (It's the only way to look at the posed evidence without looking at it with bias.)
Reply
#16
(Mar 8, 2019 07:11 PM)stryder Wrote: If what is talked about is as of much relevance as they pose it is, then it should be observable in regards to the weather on other planets within our solar system since we aren't the only planet effected by our star.  (It's the only way to look at the posed evidence without looking at it with bias.)

Abstract
Solar forcing by x-ray, FUV, EUV and the solar wind, have major implications for planets orbiting near the Sun. After solar system formation to present times, the accumulated radiation and solar wind has substantially modified the volatile inventory of the Terrestrial planets. The effect is most pronounced for Mercury and Venus, but significant also for Mars. Earth is an exception. Why so, is a pending question with no obvious answer, and does this have a bearing on today's climate change? Solar forcing is known to lead to mass loss of atmospheric constituents, such as hydrogen and oxygen. From satellite instruments orbiting Earth, Mars and Venus we have gained substantial knowledge of such mass losses. The mass loss from the Earth primarily originates from water. More recent results suggest that the same applies for Mars and Venus, despite water being a minor constituent in the atmosphere of these planets. Water therefore appears to be an important marker, bearing the signature of the past planetary evolution. Conversely, carbon dioxide, the major molecule in the atmosphere of Mars and Venus, seems more resistant to solar forcing. Since carbon dioxide plays a major role in today's discussion on Earth's climate change, the atmospheric evolution of Mars and Venus must be considered an interesting reference to climate change. This is particularly relevant considering the complexity of solar forcing of the Terrestrial planets. In this talk aspects of how solar forcing affects Earth, Venus and Mars will be discussed. Particular emphasis is put on the impact of solar variability on the mass loss and the electromagnetic coupling between the Sun and the planets.
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ems..confE.597L

Reply
#17
Let's try to get rid of some of the snow.

First looking at global temperature https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/glo...mperature/

To start let's asume the equilibrim temperature at the surface of the earth is 14 C or 287K.
Now let's look at the extra amount of energy required to shift that equilibrium up by a degree (as over the last 50 years). We need the Stephan-Boltzman Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%...tzmann_law and it tells us (for a black body) the extra energy is given by (288/287)^4 = 1.014. So to shift the equilibrium of a black Earth by 1C the amount of energy absorbed has to increase by about 1.5% or the amount of energy lost has to decrease by about 1.5%. I'm not trying to snow anyone by claiming the Earth is black when clearly it isn't but what should be obvious is that to shift the equilibrium temperature you need a change in the energy balance in the order of 1%.
We could try Stephan-Boltzmann on the upper atmosphere at (say) 200K and an increase to 201K (201/200)^4=1.02 or a 2% change in energy balance so things don't get any better (for deniers) as you look higher.

Syne's video makes the claim that there is no greenhouse effect (as a result of CO2 emissions) and introduces a few effects claiming they have increased naturally during the last 100 years.

Looking at one claim...

Cosmic Mass Ejections -

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare

Energy of the least observable flare from 20^20 Joules up to 10^25 Joules. Let's take a big one. 10^25 Joules spread over 2 days is 10^25/(2*24*3600) 5.7E20 Watts. The energy from the sun is 3.8e26 watts so the increase due to a flare is 0.00015% and that only for a few days. The effect he draws attention to is too small to explain global warming by at least three orders of magnitude.

Protons and cosmic rays - I really can't be bothered to start on.

I imagine there are people (like Syne) looking at this nonsense and thinking they've found real 'science' explanations for the global increase in temperature which don't involve CO2. There may be other explanations but does anyone truly believe Dr Wiener has found any of them?
Reply
#18
(Mar 8, 2019 12:43 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Sounds all so theoretical to me. Does he have any evidence to back up his claims?

it wont be scientific evidence because all scientists are put on the other side of the table of facts & truths and listed as "political foreign actors" lol


i love how the nut jobs call scientists actors(or anyone they think is ideologically opposed to them)
its quite a clear self admission of transference
Reply
#19
Another paper by the author Syne referenced...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...07GL032884
Quote:1. Introduction

[2] The solar wind and solar XEUV provide a permanent forcing of the upper atmosphere of planets in our solar system. Solar forcing is most powerful for the inner planets in our solar system the Earth‐like planets. Solar radiation and solar wind forcing heat ionizes, chemically modifies and gradually erodes the upper atmosphere of a planet. Energization and outflow of ionospheric plasma is an example of non‐thermal mass‐loss induced by solar forcing, a process studied in more detail above the Earth's polar region (see, e.g., Moore et al. [1999a] for a review). A reasonably good understanding of how solar forcing controls the Earth's ionospheric ion outflow has been acquired, but little is known about the solar forcing influence on ionospheric ion escape from the weakly magnetized Mars and Venus. Mars is the Earth‐like planet furthest away from the Sun. Mars has a tenuous, dry atmosphere, where water is found primarily as ice in the polar cap. However, the Martian surface bears signatures of a wet past, implying that the water lost is a consequence of evolution, the water inventory having been modified by long‐term solar forcing [e.g., Chassefière et al., 2007; Lundin et al., 2007].
Solar radiation and solar wind forcing heat ionizes, chemically modifies and gradually erodes the upper atmosphere of a planet. Is he speaking of erosion over a hundred years or a billion years? Mars seems to have water in the past - this is the type of research to find out where it went. Syne's point seems to be along the lines of "If scientists don't know where Mars water went how can they know how much the solar wind heats the planet?". Elephant? What elephant?
Reply
#20
(Mar 8, 2019 08:28 PM)confused2 Wrote: Let's try to get rid of some of the snow.

First looking at global temperature https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/glo...mperature/

To start let's asume the equilibrim temperature at the surface of the earth is 14 C or 287K.
Now let's look at the extra amount of energy required to shift that equilibrium up by a degree (as over the last 50 years). We need the Stephan-Boltzman Law  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%...tzmann_law and it tells us (for a black body) the extra energy is given by (288/287)^4 = 1.014. So to shift the equilibrium of a black Earth by 1C the amount of energy absorbed has to increase by about 1.5% or the amount of energy lost has to decrease by about 1.5%. I'm not trying to snow anyone by claiming the Earth is black when clearly it isn't but what should be obvious is that to shift the equilibrium temperature you need a change in the energy balance in the order of 1%.
We could try Stephan-Boltzmann on the upper atmosphere at (say) 200K and an increase to 201K (201/200)^4=1.02 or a 2% change in energy balance so things don't get any better (for deniers) as you look higher.

Syne's video makes the claim that there is no greenhouse effect (as a result of CO2 emissions) and introduces a few effects claiming they have increased naturally during the last 100 years.

Looking at one claim...

Cosmic Mass Ejections -

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare

Energy of the least observable flare from 20^20 Joules up to 10^25 Joules. Let's take a big one. 10^25 Joules spread over 2 days is 10^25/(2*24*3600) 5.7E20 Watts. The energy from the sun is 3.8e26 watts so the increase due to a flare is 0.00015% and that only for a few days. The effect he draws attention to is too small to explain global warming by at least three orders of magnitude.

Protons and cosmic rays - I really can't be bothered to start on.

I imagine there are people (like Syne) looking at this nonsense and thinking they've  found real 'science' explanations for the global increase in temperature which don't involve CO2. There may be other explanations but does anyone truly believe Dr Wiener has found any of them?

We show that the Northern winter hemisphere stratosphere is influenced by solar activity driven energetic particle forcing at a level that is comparable to that of the solar irradiance forcing. Our results show that this effect starts early in the winter season. Furthermore, with a comparable effect on stratospheric polar night jet, the further late winter EPF influence on the troposphere presented by Rozanov et al. and Seppälä et al. [6, 8] and Baumgaertner et al. [10] could be understood along the lines of the solar UV top–down coupling propagating downwards via the stratosphere–troposphere connection at high latitudes in later winter. Even though the initial effects on stratospheric dynamics differ, both influence the stratospheric polar night jet—key for providing the downwards coupling to the troposphere. Since the irradiance and particle forcing driven by the Sun typically have different magnitudes and phases of variation during the solar cycle, energetic particle forcing could provide an out-of-phase forcing mechanism from the Sun to the climate of the Earth's winter hemisphere.
- https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00025/full


Day to day correlations are not understandable in tern of total solar irradiance or UV changes; but are understandable as solar wind/particle forcing. If solar wind/particle forcing can produce short tern weather responses, it could also produce decadal and longer term climate responses. A possible chain of amplifying and coupling mechanisms involves: stratospheric ionization, electric fields and chemistry; aerosol nucleation; sublimation, freezing and condensation nuclei; cloud microphysics and particle size distributions; winter storm intensification; and changes in circulation.
- https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi....003177.pdf


If energetic particle forcing (EPF) is comparable to that of solar irradiance forcing and explains day to day variability that also accounts for the UV discrepancy during high energy flare events, it should stand to simple reason that EPF is a major contributor to the climate that TSI alone doesn't account for. This is a sustained, day to day, input comparable to solar irradiance. So if solar irradiance can impact the climate, it follows that EPF can as well.

And that's not even touching your little "spread over 2 days", which is not in your cited link.

(Mar 8, 2019 10:44 PM)confused2 Wrote: Syne's point seems to be along the lines of  "If scientists don't know where Mars water went  how can they know how much the solar wind heats the planet?".  Elephant? What elephant?

What a nonsense straw man. Rolleyes

Never made any argument about water on Mars, dipshit.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Change will NOT end human civilization by 2050 C C 1 42 Jun 8, 2019 12:14 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate change responsible for uptick in kidney disease? C C 0 99 Feb 17, 2019 09:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why climate change skeptics are backing geoengineering C C 0 164 Jan 4, 2019 06:01 AM
Last Post: C C
  It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change C C 1 146 Dec 11, 2018 06:32 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Is Climate Change Draining Nutrients From Crops? C C 0 221 Aug 27, 2018 06:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Climate change to overtake land use as major threat to global biodiversity C C 1 162 Jun 21, 2018 04:43 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate Change Can Be Stopped by Turning Air Into Gasoline C C 2 271 Jun 20, 2018 12:10 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Climate Change Is Weakening a Crucial Ocean Current C C 0 233 Apr 11, 2018 08:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Can We “See” Climate Change? C C 9 1,127 Oct 25, 2017 07:42 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Will Climate Change Make Rockslides Worse + Shield to protect Earth from solar storms C C 0 253 Oct 3, 2017 05:01 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)