Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage

You wanted to know what aspect of the sun has changed. I said to go and look it up.

Yes. I said that. Global warming is real. The quote doesn't say that the Earth is warming now. Actually, many studies I have read conclude that the Earth is actually in a cooling phase right now.

I have seen people say, using the runaway climate nonsense, and using the slippery slope fallacious reasoning style, that the higher CO2 levels will cause a runaway climate that will destroy ecosystems and bla bla bla.

Finally, I am not going to sit here and tell you how the sun changes over time. And, it's not as though I know all the changes it goes through, or that anyone else does either. I am simply saying that if you want to know what aspect of the sun has changed, go and look it up. Heck, you can even check it with NASA.

Changes in total solar irradiance (TSI) have not significantly altered the Earth in recent years, based on observations.

Yet, the Earth is not cooling; instead, it is warming:


So, because someone went to an extreme in their reasoning based on the facts, the facts must be false?

How much has TSI, exactly? Doesn't look like much in recent years; I link to this so you can see the 'changes in the sun' (blue line) compared with what we see from those changes on Earth (the red line).

You might note that graph I posted somewhat exaggerates things, because the changes in TSI are so small - note the range of numbers on the left, which is TWO WATTS PER SQUARE METER; this is annual TSI rather than monthly like CERES. This isn't even what the Earth receives; to calculate that, you have to apply a bit of geometry. TSI ~1361 W/m^2 is striking Earth's disk with an area of πr^2. However, the Earth is not a circle, but spherical (an ellipsoid if you want to be pedantic). The area of a sphere is 4πr^2, which meas that ~1361 W/m^2 becomes ~340 W/m^2 and the fluctuation in that graph becomes 0.5 W/m^2 when translated to Earth.

This is why that CERES graph shows what it does, though it also captures monthly averages and so sees the annual cycle. Still, even that isn't the full picture; the Earth doesn't get all of that energy, and about 30% of it is reflected on average. However, this reflection also changes; you might notice in the monthly averages that TSI peaks near the beginning of each year. The reason for this is because the Earth is closest to the Sun then. Let me emphasize this - TSI is highest in December, because that's when the Earth is closest to the Sun. However, it is also more reflective during this time, as Antarctic ice reflects a lot of energy and it gets very long days then.

There's more that can be said on it, like the influence of the annual carbon cycle, but it's probably a waste of time trying to explain that given that you called Phage dumb.

a reply to: Greven

*facepalm*

You realize you are actually causing me pain, right?

OK...

You cannot adjust the area normal to solar radiation that way. The sun does not illuminate the entire surface, in the first place, so you would have to halve the spherical area. If you do that, then adjust for the angle of incidence of all points on the lit hemisphere, you would arrive at the exact same total energy input as you would using the normal area (pi*r^2) and the normal energy density. That is the same methodology used to determine the equation for the surface area of a sphere, only in reverse.

Your conversion factor, by your own mathematical definition, does not represent the actual power received.

But congratulations! You just proved (sort of) the relationship between the area of a disk and the area of a sphere. I'd clean it up before you publish it... just sayin'.

Your graph: what you are seeing is the temperature being an integral function of the solar input less radiative output. In simple terms, you just proved the sun heats the earth.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Breathing, like decomposition, is part of the carbon cycle. There is no net increase in atmospheric carbon levels as a result of either. Breathing is carbon neutral.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

*facepalm*

You realize you are actually causing me pain, right?

OK...

You cannot adjust the area normal to solar radiation that way. The sun does not illuminate the entire surface, in the first place, so you would have to halve the spherical area. If you do that, then adjust for the angle of incidence of all points on the lit hemisphere, you would arrive at the exact same total energy input as you would using the normal area (pi*r^2) and the normal energy density. That is the same methodology used to determine the equation for the surface area of a sphere, only in reverse.

Your conversion factor, by your own mathematical definition, does not represent the actual power received.

But congratulations! You just proved (sort of) the relationship between the area of a disk and the area of a sphere. I'd clean it up before you publish it... just sayin'.

Your graph: what you are seeing is the temperature being an integral function of the solar input less radiative output. In simple terms, you just proved the sun heats the earth.

Why would you halve the surface area of the Earth to get the average received W/m^2 of the Earth?

Think about it for a minute, then you'll perhaps be embarrassed about your post.

Also, no. Your analysis of that chart is way the hell off.

a reply to: Phage

Breathing is part of the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle, by definition, is carbon neutral, simply because nothing on earth is creating or destroying carbon atoms. Only stars do that.

No single part of the carbon cycle is carbon-neutral. Your statement indicates a blatant misunderstanding of the basic scientific principles involved, and IMO, your refusal to consider your error indicates a complete lack of scientific integrity. You are good with links, Phage, but that does not make you an expert.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

www.khanacademy.org...
www.khanacademy.org...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. It is carbon neutral.

I have never claimed to be an expert on any topic. Nice strawman.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

www.khanacademy.org...
www.khanacademy.org...

This is just getting sad.

Maybe this will help?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you, I appreciate that. I noticed your thinking and reasoning was better than most I see herein.

It's nice to have a conversation with intellects, especially of differing fields.
I am in healthcare.

a reply to: Phage

Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. It is carbon neutral.

Wrong.

Respiration creates carbon dioxide. It is not carbon-neutral. Respiration is offset by photosynthesis, making the combination carbon-neutral if balanced.

That is not a strawman; it is an accurate description of a very well understood process that you wish to twist with misrepresentation of terminology intended to insinuate an agenda. Pop-sci at it's finest.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

OK, so there are several problems with this reasoning.
(a) One cannot state that one's own belief, based on research is the sole fact.
(b) A simple chart is completely insufficient to prove any point whatsoever.
(c) Theory, as stated: There are known cycles of both Earth, Sun, and the relationship. The studies, however, have been unable to show a link between the Sun and Earth's weather. However, there is a recent study that shows a direct link.
(d) One must always consider the unknown.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Respiration has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. It is carbon neutral.

a reply to: Greven

This is just getting sad.

Yes, it really is. You just proved my previous post.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Without photosynthesis to offset it, would respiration produce carbon dioxide?

Yes, it would. Yes it does in crowded indoor rooms. Ergo, Respiration is not carbon neutral.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Your reasoning does not actually make sense, logically. There is no carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is an economic idea. It was created in theory to try and control the population via carbon control. It's too much to explain herein.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Without photosynthesis to offset it, would respiration produce carbon dioxide?

Without photosynthesis there would be no plants, no food, no respiration.

Yes, it would. Yes it does in crowded indoor rooms. Ergo, Respiration is not carbon neutral.

We are talking about the carbon cycle. You know, the real world and the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. About how the combustion of fossil fuels is fundamentally different in that regard.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

This is just getting sad.

Yes, it really is. You just proved my previous post.

Are you going to tell NASA that they are wrong?

Because clearly you didn't look at the link I put in the original rebuttal.

a reply to: rxh0272

There have been recent episodes that made me wish I had gone into healthcare.

My major is in Control Theory with a minor in Communications; not real sure yet what I will pursue when I get to my doctorate. I am working on a grant application to examine high-sensitivity flexible touch sensors. My work as an intern is with the NASA EUSO project, primarily on sensors and support equipment, but my true love is mobile robotics.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Greven

OK, so there are several problems with this reasoning.
(a) One cannot state that one's own belief, based on research is the sole fact.
(b) A simple chart is completely insufficient to prove any point whatsoever.
(c) Theory, as stated: There are known cycles of both Earth, Sun, and the relationship. The studies, however, have been unable to show a link between the Sun and Earth's weather. However, there is a recent study that shows a direct link.
(d) One must always consider the unknown.

a) Counter with data, not your own belief. Total solar irradiance has not significantly changed in awhile, as is shown on that graph.
b) Counter with data, not your own belief. The sun hasn't changed much, yet the measured temperature has increased, as is shown on that graph.
c) # your and everyone else's 'it's a cycle' nonsense. CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GREENHOUSE GAS:

d) Here's a known: increasing greenhouse gas redistributes warmth towards the surface