So the upper atmosphere is rapidly cooling and contracting.
Is this because the Sun is warming it up? The warmists give very long disjointed circular explanations that it is. Just like the guilty child makes with his excuses for his naughty deeds.
Not a clue which you mean but if you expect a statement to be a question the maybe you are in denial of the DYE-2 station being crushed by the ever deepening ice cap?
@drkstrong Al Gore has made +$800M from it. The NWO think it is a convenient global trading opportunity. Of course one mans taxes are another mans gain where the money will go from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Now lets enjoy another cold Winter while our energy bills are rising.
@m1aws And Exxon made nearly $10B last quarter from polluting our air and reducing the oxygen available for us to breath.
None of Gore's money came from taxes it was the sale of an interest in a carbon trading company - ie good old capitalism. (Ps the $800M is wildly inaccurate) His net worth including the family farming business is less than $100M as of 2 October 2011
@m1aws Your passion is commendable, your logic is anything but.
FACT: the increase in CO2 corresponds to the decrease on O2 - the more CO2 the less O2 (O2 is where the O2 in CO2 comes from)
Actually I have run a multi tens of millions $s per year business, grew it from a few $M per year, that kept over 200 americans in high paying jobs and made a tidy profit for our shareholders. I am retried now
Exxon has been trying desperately stop the carbon trading business, so I dont need to help
@drkstrong Lies! No real scientist in the world will say heat precedes CO2 yet AGW scientists say it does. The Vostock ice cores cannot be argued against. Yet you do. How odd.
For someone who claims to of made big money you are easily taken for a fool.
Yes, Exxon is trying to stop sending nugatory price increases from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
@m1aws Once again you have it upside down. Every meteorologist & climatlogist will tell you that the rise in global temperature that preceeded the end of each ice age was caused by shifts in the Earth's orbital parameters. This has been known for decades. But it cant explain the magnitude of the warming. So the accepted scenario is orbital shifts, melting of ice, decrease in albedo, more melting ice, rotting of trapped biomass, more CO2 & CH4, more warming put those together & it fits prefectly
@drkstrong Nice excuse but have you attempted to correlate all the shifts and relate them to the ice ages? It's like attempting to herd two dozen cats into a pond with an electric cattle prod in a rainy field under a thunderstorm.
There are plenty of graphs out there which show this from all sides of the belief fence.
@drkstrong Exactly! Thank you for confirming the Vostock ice core data et al.
Now please correlate with all the isotope data's and we have a climate match. Ironically, the isotope amounts happen in line with Sunspot activity. The CO2 climbs always happen late to the temperature rise. (Henrys law).. As you agree.
@m1aws The conformation supports my original assertion not yours.
The next sentance "Now please correlate with all the isotope data's and we have a climate match" makes no scientific sense whatsoever. Please clarify - correlate what with what to match what?
Which isotope(s) in what correlates with what aspect(s) of sunspot activity?
Why do you think Henry's Partial Pressure Law has anything to do with the price of apples? It is non sequitor.
@drkstrong Odd, you are asking me what I have already told you.
None of the isotope quantity records argue with each other. Some are better at shorter or longer depths of time. Take your pick. All these are records of Sunspot activity. Which directly correlates with climate and later, the CO2 rises because it is out gassed from the warmer water..
@m1aws You are avoiding being specific. "isotope quantity records" has no scientific meaning unless you state which isotopes from where. If it is the isotopes that I think you mean they are a measure of cosmic ray activity which is a measure of the large-scale magnetic structure of the Sun (its N-S dipole field) and has nothing to do with sunspots.
The correlation of sunspots with climate is still a very contraversal subject but you treat it as gospel, it isnt.
@drkstrong These "contraversal" findings ironically provide a perfect fit. So I presume you haven't bothered to check. As an active pro-AGW'er with a concern which is far outside the remaining energy. You should of.
C14 is best for the last 1200 years. Use that. Compare with the Sunspot record for proof then compare with the temperature record. Freakily a bit too obvious and ironic.
@m1aws We only have a sunspot record for the last 400 years & the first 250 of that is spotty (if you will forgive the pun). The C14 record has been screwed up by the atomic tests so at most we have overlap in the 3 data sets (sunspots, temperatures, & isotopes) from about 1870 to 1945 when global temperatures were relatively constant & solar activity was not - so not much to compare and what there is has a poor correlation. It seems that it is you that has not bothered to check on their facts.
@drkstrong 400 years of DIRECT observation. Which mirrors the isotope quantities so records now go back MUCH further. C14 like all isotope records are screwed with the last 50 years nuclear that's all. All isotope records cannot fit within 20 years anyway. Two pixels.
Don't forget early 1960's and the Dalton minima. How about the warmer times. All correlate. Why are you squirming, looking for excuses?
@m1aws The period of overlap of the C14 isotope record (30,000 ybp - 1945), the accurate sunspot record (1870-present), & global temperatures (1880-present). Leaves us an ioverlap of 1870 to 1945 for isotope - SSN. In that time the solar activity does not correlate with global temperatures very well. If you believe it does, show me a source. Who's squirming now?
PS a correlation is not proof of a connection just an indication that further investigation will be possibly fruitful
@m1aws Look i have written papers and a book on solar varaibility. I am currently writting a series of papers on it at the invitation of the American Meteorological society. I havbe chaired NASA and NSF committees on the subject.
And your source is wiki and YT? Game, set and match!
@drkstrong And you tell me to read the bbc ffs! Why is your data fully lacking over this last half decade? You call yourself a scientist. Then why is your mind made up like a politician?
You only need to cast your eyes to the right and we are inundated with scientists making assertions about everything. You calling them all liars? I will quote you.
I've also had papers totally rewritten off after damage was done. Mainly over electronics and lithium cells.
@drkstrong Oh yes, I would suggest that untrustworthy source called google "Scholarly articles for solar variability and climate". I hope you don't make an arse of yourself again.
@m1aws It is relatively sane, however it is an old paper. It does point out that for the NH (not the globe) up to 1800 the influence of the Sun maybe greater than that of other factors. However after 1800 it is CO2 that plays the biggest role. I know Judith very well & have written a couple of papers with her, since this very old paper was piblished she has changed her mind. The recent warming cannot be attributed to the Sun for reasons that not known then & GW fingerprint doesnt match the Sun
@drkstrong The CO2 o/p from 1800 was piffle. Our real use of carbon as you cannot argue has been the last 50 years. Its been going warmer with fits n starts since the maunder minimum. Why are you in denial?
@m1aws Piffle? Just let me show you how wrong you are on this (and everything else).
Preindustrial (ie before1800) level of CO2: 270 ppm (max)
1958 (when Keeling started measurements): 315 ppm an increase of 45 ppm (over 17%) since 1800.
So not piffle. Embarassed? - well you should be, getting something so basic wrong
Global temperatures were basically constant from 1840 to 1920 with small rise of at most 0.1 - 0.2 C (see the Berkeley Study) which agrees with borehole data
@drkstrong Putting actions into my life now? I never read pro-agw sites. I used to believe in AGW but responses like yours only entrenches me into being less like you.
I'm not interested in re-reading what I already know. Done that too many times and each time there are bigger holes than the one over the Antarctic.
120/270 = 44% *0.5*0.35 = Piffle.
ps. Heat the Earth and you get more clouds. Negating positive feedback. Not positive!
@drkstrong So its a ratio of temperature! Why as a supposed scientist why did you not say so? This makes the simple maths incorrect. A pity you could not understand my simple premise or what are you twisting?.
I'm on about Absorption on the light bandwidth. But oh what a mistaken failure I am!! I forgot, only around 5% of the worlds CO2 is "man made"! So lets reduce my figure by a factor of 20 shall we.
@drkstrong you said 120/270.. Meaningless on its own where I supplied the very generous 7% bandwidth. The very one you say broadens as it goes deeper on the very same premise "Measured and theoretical spectra, from Goody & Yung (1989)".
Thats right.... Guesswork. A research value hovering around zero. A graph that looks nothing like real day absorption bands. I know IR. After spending nearly a decade working on such systems for the military.
@m1aws Odd my lab used to build such instruments for the military & NASA. Most of the IR research seekers were designed by us. You were probably using our instruments. I was directly involved in the building of two IR systems for NASA (e.g., look up NIRCAM on JWST), a groundbased IR focal plane for use at the University of Arizona Observatory, & I also funded the research for a IR atmospheric spectrometer at my company for looking at the broadening of atmospheric CO2 bands for NOAA applications
@drkstrong And what really pee's me off about you warmists is the fact its not possible to make a CO2 detector in the IR bands because its absorption bands are shared with water.
@drkstrong "There are 3 main CO2 bands of IR absorption at wavelengths 1388, 667, 2349 cm-1 (HITRAN) and these are already saturated at current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Infra Red measurements from space show that the atmosphere is opaque at these wavelengths. However at high levels in the atmosphere this is not no longer true and this is the only argument for the enhanced greenhouse warming by CO2 warming."
So upper heating is proven? No! No! No! Proof of super cooling and contraction.
@m1aws True to a point. There 3 MAIN bands but there are others. Also some may be saturated but when you add more CO2 the wings broaden closing the radiation window more.
Here is a little mind bender for you. If you remove all the H2O from the air (by magic) global temperatures would fall by just 7 C and would recover quickly once you stopped removing the H2O. If you removed all the CO2 and CH4 from the air global temperatures would drop by nearly 30 C & could not recover. Can you say why?
@drkstrong Haha! I have seen that premise on scienceofdoom's blog and his maths contradict.
Seen the "wings broaden" lie too. Print it out and apply ruler. Its a lie.
CH4 is not worth responding to.
Global warming is reversible. Icing over the Earth is not!
One guy, "Henry Pool" (Chemist) is like me, an ex-believer who saw Gores video and now does not believe. He really rips SoD's arguments to bits so well!
@m1aws Let me see first it was 7% then it was 44%, then it was 5%, then it was 7% - now thats being inconsistent.
No body seems to have heard of Henry Pool (AGU, AMS, ACS) - there are some comments by a Henry Pool in some climate blogs but they are assinine to say the least. He even says "I am not the man who claims to be the expert" Is that the best you can come up with? Pathetic.
@drkstrong Not you. Your mate. SoD; doomie and his acolytes. The guy really.got up his craw when he was pulled up on his circular arguments, presumptuous maths and theories.
Like I say. The CO2 is being returned to the atmosphere and belongs in the air. The Sun is now a lot cooler over the past millions of years ago. The past three years have been grim and this winter will be lovely and cold. Whining about AGW is meaningless, no matter how many Gore wants killed.
@drkstrong Haha. Keith its all in fun. He lives on your side of the fence so defacto he, (scienceofdoom) is your mate :D
On the wiki page "solar variation" at the first picture. Do you agree with it. It shows an uncharacteristic drop in the Solar flare index. Is the Sun still statistically low? I know HF is still c*ck. The poles are weakening yet we have had some Upper atmosphere neon effects. I'm getting sick of these cold winters from the past few years.
@m1aws The solaer flare index is a construct that almost nobody uses in solar physics. The reason is that the intensity times the duration of a flare has little or nothing to do with the energy. First the instensity at what wavelength and the duration of what is not defined. The energy depends on the temperature of the event (which you have to derive the differenttial emission measure for the entire event), density (no diagnostics available) and the dynamics (kinetic energy) which is not known.
@drkstrong Yet the historical data (facts) is (are) undeniable. It happens.
It's all well and good saying there's not enough power in Sunspot activity but on the same thought process there is not enough power in a spark plug to power a car engine that creates all that heat.
I once put forward a conundrum about gravity heating of planets as like perpetual motion. Loved the responses! This is why I will not live with your belief set.
Our present minima was predicted. Gravity is a two way market.
@drkstrong If you want to furnish your recent global cooling with photos. I suggest some of Greenland. The DYE-2 radar units that had to be abandoned due to being inundated with ice before their use was over. "tmo/grenlandia/galeria/g_raven_en".
w w w[dot]lswilson[dot]ca/ferry5[dot]jpg
These sites were high on tall stilts and huge! But nothing to the advances of snows.
@m1aws And I suggest you read the infromation in the literature about the fact that by two indpendent measures (radar altimetry and gravity well detection) Greenland is losing over 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year (the Antarctic too)
stretching observations/data to the limit to keep things riding along smoothly and keep their cushty jobs aswell as prying eyes away is not good. I'd heard of the misclassification of mini storms as hurricanes, meteorology... but never bfore heard about them twisting the results with sunspots. quite shocking.
5/5 Chris.....I like how you call em out like this. I only wish the 2012 people would stop putting "Solar Cycle 24" as a keyword....It would make me researching this much more easier....lol. Very interesting Cycle indeed when compared to what the mainstream was saying the past few years.
I've monitored the sun and the magnetosphere of the Earth intently since January. -since about April it seems there is heavy alterations of the real time animations and blatant editing of the LASCO data.
I had thought it was just me not understanding the data streams.. (i am just an innate pattern junkie hunting for trends)
good to see i was not mistaken.
When will they realize the sun as an Electrified ball of plasma and that the Universe is electrical in nature?
I really like this channel you have here, Chris, thank you for showing us the truth and very cool data sets. I think I will look to buy myself another heater for our home. I have a feeling we are going to have a cold winter.
*****, "Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.", NASA
interesting info under video..
think the weakening of the mag field is integral to the effects we feel. .
and did u know the sun is not actually hot..!
SovereignBeing 3 weeks ago
So the upper atmosphere is rapidly cooling and contracting.
Is this because the Sun is warming it up? The warmists give very long disjointed circular explanations that it is. Just like the guilty child makes with his excuses for his naughty deeds.
m1aws 4 months ago
i love how drkstrong owned you haha. silly non-scientists, leave science to the professionals.
dr3amstat3s 4 months ago
@dr3amstat3s Not checked the real live photos of the old early warning radar stations that had to be abandoned due to being crushed?
Are you on meds?
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws was that whole thing a question...?
dr3amstat3s 4 months ago
@dr3amstat3s Both statements and questions.
Not a clue which you mean but if you expect a statement to be a question the maybe you are in denial of the DYE-2 station being crushed by the ever deepening ice cap?
m1aws 4 months ago
Very well told things in the description. You made me think again, Chris. I was, too, afraid of us facing another bigger minimum.
DragonFlyback256 8 months ago
You dont seem to have a reason why they are "manipulating the data" I dont see how it is to anybody's advantage.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Al Gore has made +$800M from it. The NWO think it is a convenient global trading opportunity. Of course one mans taxes are another mans gain where the money will go from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Now lets enjoy another cold Winter while our energy bills are rising.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws And Exxon made nearly $10B last quarter from polluting our air and reducing the oxygen available for us to breath.
None of Gore's money came from taxes it was the sale of an interest in a carbon trading company - ie good old capitalism. (Ps the $800M is wildly inaccurate) His net worth including the family farming business is less than $100M as of 2 October 2011
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong You have trouble breathing because 0.0038% of our air is what plants need to survive?
Then stop breathing!
Al Gore does not hold the money in his pocket lest he pays taxes on it. Have you never run a big business?
You want Exxon to stop the carbon trade? Stop buying their products.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Your passion is commendable, your logic is anything but.
FACT: the increase in CO2 corresponds to the decrease on O2 - the more CO2 the less O2 (O2 is where the O2 in CO2 comes from)
Actually I have run a multi tens of millions $s per year business, grew it from a few $M per year, that kept over 200 americans in high paying jobs and made a tidy profit for our shareholders. I am retried now
Exxon has been trying desperately stop the carbon trading business, so I dont need to help
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Lies! No real scientist in the world will say heat precedes CO2 yet AGW scientists say it does. The Vostock ice cores cannot be argued against. Yet you do. How odd.
For someone who claims to of made big money you are easily taken for a fool.
Yes, Exxon is trying to stop sending nugatory price increases from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Once again you have it upside down. Every meteorologist & climatlogist will tell you that the rise in global temperature that preceeded the end of each ice age was caused by shifts in the Earth's orbital parameters. This has been known for decades. But it cant explain the magnitude of the warming. So the accepted scenario is orbital shifts, melting of ice, decrease in albedo, more melting ice, rotting of trapped biomass, more CO2 & CH4, more warming put those together & it fits prefectly
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Nice excuse but have you attempted to correlate all the shifts and relate them to the ice ages? It's like attempting to herd two dozen cats into a pond with an electric cattle prod in a rainy field under a thunderstorm.
There are plenty of graphs out there which show this from all sides of the belief fence.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws None of them in the scientific literature. This "excuse" has been known for at least 50 years - it was confirmed by the icecore data.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Exactly! Thank you for confirming the Vostock ice core data et al.
Now please correlate with all the isotope data's and we have a climate match. Ironically, the isotope amounts happen in line with Sunspot activity. The CO2 climbs always happen late to the temperature rise. (Henrys law).. As you agree.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws The conformation supports my original assertion not yours.
The next sentance "Now please correlate with all the isotope data's and we have a climate match" makes no scientific sense whatsoever. Please clarify - correlate what with what to match what?
Which isotope(s) in what correlates with what aspect(s) of sunspot activity?
Why do you think Henry's Partial Pressure Law has anything to do with the price of apples? It is non sequitor.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Odd, you are asking me what I have already told you.
None of the isotope quantity records argue with each other. Some are better at shorter or longer depths of time. Take your pick. All these are records of Sunspot activity. Which directly correlates with climate and later, the CO2 rises because it is out gassed from the warmer water..
Why is that difficult?
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws You are avoiding being specific. "isotope quantity records" has no scientific meaning unless you state which isotopes from where. If it is the isotopes that I think you mean they are a measure of cosmic ray activity which is a measure of the large-scale magnetic structure of the Sun (its N-S dipole field) and has nothing to do with sunspots.
The correlation of sunspots with climate is still a very contraversal subject but you treat it as gospel, it isnt.
On CO2 - see Henry's Law.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong These "contraversal" findings ironically provide a perfect fit. So I presume you haven't bothered to check. As an active pro-AGW'er with a concern which is far outside the remaining energy. You should of.
C14 is best for the last 1200 years. Use that. Compare with the Sunspot record for proof then compare with the temperature record. Freakily a bit too obvious and ironic.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws We only have a sunspot record for the last 400 years & the first 250 of that is spotty (if you will forgive the pun). The C14 record has been screwed up by the atomic tests so at most we have overlap in the 3 data sets (sunspots, temperatures, & isotopes) from about 1870 to 1945 when global temperatures were relatively constant & solar activity was not - so not much to compare and what there is has a poor correlation. It seems that it is you that has not bothered to check on their facts.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong 400 years of DIRECT observation. Which mirrors the isotope quantities so records now go back MUCH further. C14 like all isotope records are screwed with the last 50 years nuclear that's all. All isotope records cannot fit within 20 years anyway. Two pixels.
Don't forget early 1960's and the Dalton minima. How about the warmer times. All correlate. Why are you squirming, looking for excuses?
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws The period of overlap of the C14 isotope record (30,000 ybp - 1945), the accurate sunspot record (1870-present), & global temperatures (1880-present). Leaves us an ioverlap of 1870 to 1945 for isotope - SSN. In that time the solar activity does not correlate with global temperatures very well. If you believe it does, show me a source. Who's squirming now?
PS a correlation is not proof of a connection just an indication that further investigation will be possibly fruitful
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Its a shame you must be looking at the over sensitive figures that have been over doctored from the IPCC et al.
A correlation of cars going down a one-way road is not proof they are all going in the same direction?
Even youtube and wiki is full of datasets that mirror whats happened. Why do you have an issue with them?
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws So you have nothing you can show me or specifically reference. I thought not.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong just look in obvious places like wiki. "solar variation". Thats a start. Or would you like me to baby walk you everywhere?
There must be over 100 references about it on youtube alone!
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Look i have written papers and a book on solar varaibility. I am currently writting a series of papers on it at the invitation of the American Meteorological society. I havbe chaired NASA and NSF committees on the subject.
And your source is wiki and YT? Game, set and match!
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong And you tell me to read the bbc ffs! Why is your data fully lacking over this last half decade? You call yourself a scientist. Then why is your mind made up like a politician?
You only need to cast your eyes to the right and we are inundated with scientists making assertions about everything. You calling them all liars? I will quote you.
I've also had papers totally rewritten off after damage was done. Mainly over electronics and lithium cells.
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong Oh yes, I would suggest that untrustworthy source called google "Scholarly articles for solar variability and climate". I hope you don't make an arse of yourself again.
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong This seems reasonably sane with little forcing due to politics:
"Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change".
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws It is relatively sane, however it is an old paper. It does point out that for the NH (not the globe) up to 1800 the influence of the Sun maybe greater than that of other factors. However after 1800 it is CO2 that plays the biggest role. I know Judith very well & have written a couple of papers with her, since this very old paper was piblished she has changed her mind. The recent warming cannot be attributed to the Sun for reasons that not known then & GW fingerprint doesnt match the Sun
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong The CO2 o/p from 1800 was piffle. Our real use of carbon as you cannot argue has been the last 50 years. Its been going warmer with fits n starts since the maunder minimum. Why are you in denial?
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Piffle? Just let me show you how wrong you are on this (and everything else).
Preindustrial (ie before1800) level of CO2: 270 ppm (max)
1958 (when Keeling started measurements): 315 ppm an increase of 45 ppm (over 17%) since 1800.
So not piffle. Embarassed? - well you should be, getting something so basic wrong
Global temperatures were basically constant from 1840 to 1920 with small rise of at most 0.1 - 0.2 C (see the Berkeley Study) which agrees with borehole data
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong I'm not slightly interested in the levels of CO2 being only slightly returned to normal levels.
The CO2 absorption band is approx 7% of the full black body spectrum.. yes or no?
CO2 at this time absorbs 50% of that 3.5% of this narrow spectrum already. Yes or no?
Mankind is responsible for approx 7% of that 50% absorption, yes or no?
Lets do the maths.0.07*0.5*0.35 = A very very small number.
Maybe remove mans CO2 influence and make it 100% just so plants can breathe.
Still piffle.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws You change tack when your first point was reduced to rubbled rather than admit you were wrong.
In answer to your questions No, no, & no (respectively). You should realy stop reading blogs and Exxon pr sites and crack open a science text book.
On IR spectra and absorption try the 3 Hertzberg books.
On how to calculate percentages any HS math book. (120/270 is not 7%)
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Putting actions into my life now? I never read pro-agw sites. I used to believe in AGW but responses like yours only entrenches me into being less like you.
I'm not interested in re-reading what I already know. Done that too many times and each time there are bigger holes than the one over the Antarctic.
120/270 = 44% *0.5*0.35 = Piffle.
ps. Heat the Earth and you get more clouds. Negating positive feedback. Not positive!
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws 120/270 = 44% *0.5*0.35 = 2.62 C (you really need to look at some maths books!)
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong So its a ratio of temperature! Why as a supposed scientist why did you not say so? This makes the simple maths incorrect. A pity you could not understand my simple premise or what are you twisting?.
I'm on about Absorption on the light bandwidth. But oh what a mistaken failure I am!! I forgot, only around 5% of the worlds CO2 is "man made"! So lets reduce my figure by a factor of 20 shall we.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Actually you just agreed it was 44% (by your own calculation). Now you are being silly.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong you said 120/270.. Meaningless on its own where I supplied the very generous 7% bandwidth. The very one you say broadens as it goes deeper on the very same premise "Measured and theoretical spectra, from Goody & Yung (1989)".
Thats right.... Guesswork. A research value hovering around zero. A graph that looks nothing like real day absorption bands. I know IR. After spending nearly a decade working on such systems for the military.
Now who is being silly.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Odd my lab used to build such instruments for the military & NASA. Most of the IR research seekers were designed by us. You were probably using our instruments. I was directly involved in the building of two IR systems for NASA (e.g., look up NIRCAM on JWST), a groundbased IR focal plane for use at the University of Arizona Observatory, & I also funded the research for a IR atmospheric spectrometer at my company for looking at the broadening of atmospheric CO2 bands for NOAA applications
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Mine were all looking down, built for certain purposes and did not have the luxury of benchtop applications when its an inch in size.
So you will know its a pig to distinguish CO2 from water vapour with sensibly sized gear. Especially when CO2 bands are so tiny thin and so few.
The broadening? As in "Stuff the Q factor, lets hit the noise". lol
There was a good paper in Earthlight using the moon. Lost it but you really should read it for an Earth wide observation on CO2 cooling.
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong And what really pee's me off about you warmists is the fact its not possible to make a CO2 detector in the IR bands because its absorption bands are shared with water.
CO2 does not create global warming, get over it.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws We built one and got the development funded by NASA. You should have come to us.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong "There are 3 main CO2 bands of IR absorption at wavelengths 1388, 667, 2349 cm-1 (HITRAN) and these are already saturated at current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Infra Red measurements from space show that the atmosphere is opaque at these wavelengths. However at high levels in the atmosphere this is not no longer true and this is the only argument for the enhanced greenhouse warming by CO2 warming."
So upper heating is proven? No! No! No! Proof of super cooling and contraction.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws True to a point. There 3 MAIN bands but there are others. Also some may be saturated but when you add more CO2 the wings broaden closing the radiation window more.
Here is a little mind bender for you. If you remove all the H2O from the air (by magic) global temperatures would fall by just 7 C and would recover quickly once you stopped removing the H2O. If you removed all the CO2 and CH4 from the air global temperatures would drop by nearly 30 C & could not recover. Can you say why?
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Haha! I have seen that premise on scienceofdoom's blog and his maths contradict.
Seen the "wings broaden" lie too. Print it out and apply ruler. Its a lie.
CH4 is not worth responding to.
Global warming is reversible. Icing over the Earth is not!
One guy, "Henry Pool" (Chemist) is like me, an ex-believer who saw Gores video and now does not believe. He really rips SoD's arguments to bits so well!
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Let me see first it was 7% then it was 44%, then it was 5%, then it was 7% - now thats being inconsistent.
No body seems to have heard of Henry Pool (AGU, AMS, ACS) - there are some comments by a Henry Pool in some climate blogs but they are assinine to say the least. He even says "I am not the man who claims to be the expert" Is that the best you can come up with? Pathetic.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong I say it is 7%, you said 120/270. The man made contribution to the Earths CO2 is around 5%. A number you warmists agree with.
He pwned them and was blocked for it. asinine or not. Attacking the man when the science fails eh?
Blocking is pathetic. Like your response.
The upper atmosphere is cooling and collapsing therefore its AGW.... Pull the other one :)
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws Who is blocking whom?
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Not you. Your mate. SoD; doomie and his acolytes. The guy really.got up his craw when he was pulled up on his circular arguments, presumptuous maths and theories.
Like I say. The CO2 is being returned to the atmosphere and belongs in the air. The Sun is now a lot cooler over the past millions of years ago. The past three years have been grim and this winter will be lovely and cold. Whining about AGW is meaningless, no matter how many Gore wants killed.
The fuels 1/2 burned away.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws I have not mate called SoD - you are making this up.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Haha. Keith its all in fun. He lives on your side of the fence so defacto he, (scienceofdoom) is your mate :D
On the wiki page "solar variation" at the first picture. Do you agree with it. It shows an uncharacteristic drop in the Solar flare index. Is the Sun still statistically low? I know HF is still c*ck. The poles are weakening yet we have had some Upper atmosphere neon effects. I'm getting sick of these cold winters from the past few years.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws The solaer flare index is a construct that almost nobody uses in solar physics. The reason is that the intensity times the duration of a flare has little or nothing to do with the energy. First the instensity at what wavelength and the duration of what is not defined. The energy depends on the temperature of the event (which you have to derive the differenttial emission measure for the entire event), density (no diagnostics available) and the dynamics (kinetic energy) which is not known.
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong Yet the historical data (facts) is (are) undeniable. It happens.
It's all well and good saying there's not enough power in Sunspot activity but on the same thought process there is not enough power in a spark plug to power a car engine that creates all that heat.
I once put forward a conundrum about gravity heating of planets as like perpetual motion. Loved the responses! This is why I will not live with your belief set.
Our present minima was predicted. Gravity is a two way market.
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong Oh yes, what caused the big loss of temperature after 1940? Was it the wrong kind of CO2? lol
The Maunder minimum was bad enough.
What caused the evil cold in the early 1960's?
What caused the Dalton minimum drop in temperature?
What's causing the recent drop?
What caused people to think we were heading for massive cooling in the early 70's followed by the high's thereafter?
Must be unable to keep up feeding CO2 fast enough!
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong If you want to furnish your recent global cooling with photos. I suggest some of Greenland. The DYE-2 radar units that had to be abandoned due to being inundated with ice before their use was over. "tmo/grenlandia/galeria/g_raven_en".
w w w[dot]lswilson[dot]ca/ferry5[dot]jpg
These sites were high on tall stilts and huge! But nothing to the advances of snows.
m1aws 4 months ago
@m1aws And I suggest you read the infromation in the literature about the fact that by two indpendent measures (radar altimetry and gravity well detection) Greenland is losing over 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year (the Antarctic too)
drkstrong 4 months ago
@drkstrong And the massive 80' high radar stations are crushed as the ice rises 5.4cm per anum.
The argument is over. Get over matey.
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong Here's a nice piece about it here:
"2008/12/pictures-that-tell-thousand-stories"
Happy hunting :)
m1aws 4 months ago
@drkstrong If you look here, there's lots about the people and their comments who work on the DEW line in Greenland.
"wattsupwiththat 2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/"
They even mention of the greening of the coastlines... Err, was the greening of the coastlines.
m1aws 4 months ago
Thanks so much for all of your awesome videos.....I'm getting a science(& reality) education just by watching & reading your commentary.
ggmorvaj 2 years ago
stretching observations/data to the limit to keep things riding along smoothly and keep their cushty jobs aswell as prying eyes away is not good. I'd heard of the misclassification of mini storms as hurricanes, meteorology... but never bfore heard about them twisting the results with sunspots. quite shocking.
misterwolf29 2 years ago
5/5 Chris.....I like how you call em out like this. I only wish the 2012 people would stop putting "Solar Cycle 24" as a keyword....It would make me researching this much more easier....lol. Very interesting Cycle indeed when compared to what the mainstream was saying the past few years.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Outstanding work Chris.
I've monitored the sun and the magnetosphere of the Earth intently since January. -since about April it seems there is heavy alterations of the real time animations and blatant editing of the LASCO data.
I had thought it was just me not understanding the data streams.. (i am just an innate pattern junkie hunting for trends)
good to see i was not mistaken.
When will they realize the sun as an Electrified ball of plasma and that the Universe is electrical in nature?
soundwash1 2 years ago
I really like this channel you have here, Chris, thank you for showing us the truth and very cool data sets. I think I will look to buy myself another heater for our home. I have a feeling we are going to have a cold winter.
Good luck!
Nyhee7 2 years ago 4
@Nyhee7 maybe an iceage
vexman7 1 year ago
Scientific manipulation of data??
The scientific community would NEVER do that.. lol
teshnic 2 years ago 6
Is that NASAs' David R. Hathaway referred to in the description?
We can let the hounds loose and sniff the money trail...betcha it leads to the Jet Propulsion pigs.
Yoetah 2 years ago
*****, "Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.", NASA
ubuibiok 2 years ago
Oops, Hathaways' middle initial is H.
David H. Hathaway....NASA's pretty thorough about covering their stinky money trail but the
lid will blow soon enough hopefully.
We deserve the truth. We fund the research w/taxes...don't need no stinky lying@
Yoetah 2 years ago 3