Earths Magnetic Field About to Flip?

[BethesdaWX]

I might sound alarmist, but I've been researching magnetic pole flips lately upon reading our current rate of migration E @ 40m annually. Scary what it could do..................If it was happening.

Its been around 780,000yrs since the last magnetic pole flip, we are due. With the rapid changes seen now....Birds dying by the millions, the pole migrating east at 40miles annually, is this the beginning of a maghnetic flip?

My brother sent me this link from some other site. Seems like alot of media hype, but it got me thinking.

http://www.salem-new...erstorms-ta.php

Who knows

http://www.flickr.co...tai/4281910379/

[donsutherland1]

I might sound alarmist, but I've been researching magnetic pole flips lately upon reading our current rate of migration E @ 40m annually. Scary what it could do..................If it was happening.

Its been around 780,000yrs since the last magnetic pole flip, we are due. With the rapid changes seen now....Birds dying by the millions, the pole migrating east at 40miles annually, is this the beginning of a maghnetic flip?

My brother sent me this link from some other site. Seems like alot of media hype, but it got me thinking.

http://www.salem-new...erstorms-ta.php

Who knows

http://www.flickr.co...tai/4281910379/

Among other things, the site states with respect to Yasi, "it was theoretically a category-6.." That's a red flag right there.

IMO, a flip will be a rather quiet and drawn-out event. There will be some issues that will require adaptation/fixes, but mass extinctions, anomalous superstorms, etc., will likely prove to be little more than far-fetched hyperbole.

From one science blog:

Of course, another thing you should get from the Valet et al. paper is that a full reversal sequence is not an instantaneous event; our compasses will not point north today and south tomorrow. Instead, the geomagnetic field will weaken, and the magnetic poles will start to wander to lower latitudes, and possibly multiply, over a period of hundreds and thousands of years.

From another:

There is no firm evidence that the many magnetic field reversals that have taken place throughout our planet's history (see When Compasses Point South) have coincided with or triggered extinctions. Reversals take hundreds if not thousands of years to complete, and because for any one type of animal that represents hundreds or thousands of generations, species have time to accommodate to the change. Moreover, Kirschvink notes that even if the main dipole field were to collapse—an event that can last for up to 10,000 years during a reversal—residual fields 5 or 10 percent as strong as the main field would remain on the surface, and animals would be able to use those quite well for migration.

[salbers]

That would be interesting to have a multi-pole world. Follow that compass.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes....definitely alot of media hype. However, if you understand the relationship between the magnetic interactions between the sun and the earth, and how the planet works to balance such (im)balances, you'd know.......

Magnetic field shifts are definitely not "quiet" by any means. There is evidence, during past shifts, the climate and resulting storms were something to behold. Of course, we never really know, and there is some evidence pointing in a more moderate direction.

However, the issue is what happens during the reversal time period, not the timeframe it occurs in. We are well overdue, and shifts can complete in 50,000yrs. The field itself needs to reshape, and morph, and even the slightest change can have a huge impact on everything. Changes have been observed on other planets, very small changes in this regard, on our planet, can have huge effects on the climate, and life as we know it.

These energy exchanges between the Sun and Earth are a largest driver in climate. The earth is very sensitive to even the slightest changes in relation to the sun.

[A-L-E-X]

That would be interesting to have a multi-pole world. Follow that compass.

I would love to see that

A big metallic asteroid collision might do that. I know Venus' retrograde rotation and Uranus' sideways rotation are due to massive impacts, as well as the formation of our own moon. Big collisions are actually more frequent than we once thought and that plus the orbit of the sun through the spiral arms of our galaxy are probably what leads to periodic mass extinctions-- there's been some connections drawn in the pattern of mass extinctions and the sun's orbit around the denser parts of our galaxy (which would perturb the orbits of asteroids and comets-- maybe even that new class of objects called trans-neptunian objects "plutoids") and then send them careening into the inner solar system.

[A-L-E-X]

Yes....definitely alot of media hype, I tried to put that up there as a diclaimer. The media always hypes this stuff as much as it can. So I'm sure we all know the article is overblown to an extent.

However, the issue is what happens during the reversal time period, not the timeframe it occurs in. We are well overdue, and shifts can complete in 50,000yrs. The field itself needs to reshape, and morph, and even the slightest change can have a huge impact on everything. Changes have been observed on other planets, very small changes in this regard, on our planet, can have huge effects on the climate, and life as we know it.

These energy exchanges between the Sun and Earth are a largest driver in climate. The earth is very sensitive to even the slightest changes in relation to the sun.

A strong gamma ray burst would probably also lead to some interesting phenomena NASA picked up a really intense one last summer. Now, we just need a source of one of these babies to be within ... oh, say.... 3,000 light years or so.

The sun is absurdly mediocre compared to some of the really powerful stuff that goes on in the universe, some of which would probably rewrite physics as we know it (as a matter of fact, highly intense extragalactic cosmic rays are already doing just that, being vastly beyond anything predicted in theory; think natural particle colliders on a massive scale, the bending and warping and pinching off of space-time and the creation of quanttum vortices and wormholes..... the universe is both vast and powerful beyond even the most vivid imagination!)

[BethesdaWX]

A strong gamma ray burst would probably also lead to some interesting phenomena NASA picked up a really intense one last summer. Now, we just need a source of one of these babies to be within ... oh, say.... 3,000 light years or so.

The sun is absurdly mediocre compared to some of the really powerful stuff that goes on in the universe, some of which would probably rewrite physics as we know it (as a matter of fact, highly intense extragalactic cosmic rays are already doing just that, being vastly beyond anything predicted in theory; think natural particle colliders on a massive scale, the bending and warping and pinching off of space-time and the creation of quanttum vortices and wormholes..... the universe is both vast and powerful beyond even the most vivid imagination!)

True that! The Universe fookin insane.

[A-L-E-X]

You remember that article someone posted in the main forum concerning lightning producing antimatter in the upper atmosphere? Imagine what one of these babies could produce....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

The first observation of a cosmic ray with an energy exceeding 1.0×1020 eV (~15 J) was made by John Linsley and Livio Scarsi at the Volcano Ranch experiment in New Mexico in 1962.[1][2]

Cosmic rays with even higher energies have since been observed. Among them was the Oh-My-God particle (a play on the nickname "God particle" for the Higgs boson) observed on the evening of 15 October 1991 over Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Its observation was a shock to astrophysicists, who estimated its energy to be approximately 3×1020 eV[3](50 joules)—in other words, a subatomic particle with kinetic energy equal to that of a baseball (142

g or 5 ounces) traveling at 96 km/h (60 mph).

It was most probably a proton with a speed very close to the speed of light. In fact, the proton was traveling so close to the speed of light, [(1 − 5×10−24) × c], that in a year-long race between light and the cosmic ray, the ray would

fall behind only 46 nanometers (5×10−24 light-years), or 0.15 femtoseconds (1.5×10

−16 s).[4]

The energy of this particle is some 40 million times that of the highest energy protons that can currently be produced in any particle accelerator. However only a small fraction of this energy would be available for an interaction with a proton or neutron on Earth, with most of the energy remaining in the form of kinetic energy of the products of the interaction. The effective energy available for such a collision is the square root of double the product of the particle's energy and the mass energy of the proton, which for this particle gives 7.5×1014 eV, roughly 50 times the collision energy of the Large Hadron Collider.

Since the first observation, by the University of Utah's Fly's Eye Cosmic Ray Detector, at least fifteen similar events have been recorded, confirming the phenomenon. These very high energy cosmic rays are very rare; the energy of most cosmic rays is between 10 MeV and 10 GeV.

[edit]

Active galactic cores as one possible source of the particles

The source of such high energy particles has been a mystery for many years. Recent results from the Pierre Auger Observatory show that ultra-high-energy cosmic ray arrival directions appear to be correlated with extragalactic supermassive black holes at the center of nearby galaxies called active galactic nuclei (AGN).[5] Interactions with blue-shifted cosmic microwave background radiation limit the distance that these particles can travel before losing energy; this is known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit or GZK limit.

AGN have been proposed as likely sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and results from the Pierre Auger Observatory suggest that these objects may be their source. However, since the angular correlation scale is fairly large (3 degrees or more) these results do not unambiguously identify the origins of such cosmic rays. In particular, the AGN could merely be closely associated with the actual sources, which may be found, for example, in galaxies or other astrophysical objects that are clumped with matter on large scales within 100 Mpc.

Additional data collection will be important for further investigating a possible AGN source for these highest energy particles, which might be protons accelerated to those energies by magnetic fields associated with the rapidly growing black holes at the AGN centers. According to a recent study,[6] short-duration AGN flares resulting from the tidal disruption of a star or from a disk instability can be the main source of the observed flux of super GZK cosmic rays.

Some of the supermassive black holes in AGN are known to be rotating, as in the Seyfert galaxy MCG 6-30-15[7] with time-variability in their inner accretion disks.[8] Black hole spin is a potentially effective agent to drive UHECR production,[9] provided ions are suitably launched to circumvent limiting factors deep within the nucleus, notably curvature radiation[10] and inelastic scattering with radiation from the inner disk. Low-luminosity, intermittent Seyfert galaxies may meet the requirements with the formation of a linear accelerator several light years away from the nucleus, yet within their extended ion tori whose UV radiation ensures a supply of ionic contaminants.[11] The corresponding electric fields are commensurably small, on the order of 10 V/cm, whereby the observed UHECRs are indicative for the astronomical size of the source. Improved statistics by the Pierre Auger Observatory will be instrumental in identifying the presently tentative association of UHECRs (from the Local Universe) with Seyferts and LINERs.[12]

[edit]

Other possible sources of the particles

Other possible sources of the UHECR are:[13]

radio lobes of powerful radio galaxies

intergalactic shocks created during the epoch of galaxy formation

hypernovae

gamma-ray bursts

decay products of supermassive particles from topological defects, left over from phase transitions in the early universe

Particles undergoing the Penrose effect.

[A-L-E-X]

True that! The Universe fookin insane.

I showed this to Nate a few weeks ago, the OMG particle was a cosmic ray the size of a proton that could hit you with the force of a baseball going 60 mph. That doesnt sound like a lot, but comparing a single proton to a baseball..... what kind of force must that one cosmic ray have been packing lol. And it probably wasnt even from our galaxy and traveled hundreds of millions of light years to get here from a supermassive black hole at the center of another galaxy.

[salbers]

I showed this to Nate a few weeks ago, the OMG particle was a cosmic ray the size of a proton that could hit you with the force of a baseball going 60 mph. That doesnt sound like a lot, but comparing a single proton to a baseball..... what kind of force must that one cosmic ray have been packing lol. And it probably wasnt even from our galaxy and traveled hundreds of millions of light years to get here from a supermassive black hole at the center of another galaxy.

I guess that would be noticeable if you were out spacewalking without the protection of the atmosphere...

[BethesdaWX]

WOW you type fast Alex.

[A-L-E-X]

There's actually quite a bit of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change.... there are some really nice sources at the end of this article and some maps/graphs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays

there is more on the highly intense cosmic rays on this other entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

Basically, there are three sources of cosmic rays--- the sun, stars or other objects within our galaxy, and the most highly intense ones, which come from other galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extragalactic_cosmic_ray

Unlike solar or galactic cosmic rays, little is known about the origins of extragalactic cosmic rays. This is largely due to a lack of statistics: only about 1 extragalactic cosmic ray particle per square meter per year reaches the Earth's surface (see figure).

Image of an active galactic nucleus of the active galaxy M87.

There are many ideas about which processes may be responsible for cosmic rays with such high energies. In the 'bottom-up' approach, cosmic rays gain more and more energy through electromagnetic processes. Bouncing randomly back and forth in the shock waves of some violent object allows some of the particles to gain energy. Eventually they may build up enough speed that the object can no longer contain them, and they escape. Proposed sites for this type of acceleration include gamma ray bursts and active galactic nuclei.[1] Indeed, recent analysis of cosmic ray measurements with the Pierre Auger Observatory suggests a correlation between the arrival directions of cosmic rays of the highest energies of more than 5×1019 eV and the positions of nearby active galaxies.[2]

There are many more possible sources scientists are considering. These include colliding galaxy systems, accretion flow shocks to clusters of galaxies, and more exotic processes from the very early universe, such as the decay of superheavy particles trapped in the galactic halo, or topological defects.[3]

[edit]

Composition

Due to the very low flux of extragalactic cosmic particles received on Earth, little is known about their composition. Most estimates, based on theoretical and numerical models, predict that light atomic nuclei such as protons are the dominant particle type.[4]

[A-L-E-X]

WOW you type fast Alex.

haha mostly reading, researching and pasting some links and short excerpts

But that first link has a lot of info on it, including some research that was ignored by the AGW crowd. I dont take a strong position on it, but I think the "truth" likely lies between both extremes.

[BethesdaWX]

I showed this to Nate a few weeks ago, the OMG particle was a cosmic ray the size of a proton that could hit you with the force of a baseball going 60 mph. That doesnt sound like a lot, but comparing a single proton to a baseball..... what kind of force must that one cosmic ray have been packing lol. And it probably wasnt even from our galaxy and traveled hundreds of millions of light years to get here from a supermassive black hole at the center of another galaxy.

Earth is constantly raped by all sorts of forces. Thing is, there are most likely billions of diffeent ways the earth is being effected by extra-terrestrial forcings/impacts, and we know almost none of them.

Galactic cosmic rays in relation to the Sun/Earth, being at that close distance, are definitely aplayer in some form. We just don't know how much, as of yet.

[BethesdaWX]

There's actually quite a bit of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change.... there are some really nice sources at the end of this article and some maps/graphs:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cosmic_rays

there is more on the highly intense cosmic rays on this other entry

http://en.wikipedia....ergy_cosmic_ray

Basically, there are three sources of cosmic rays--- the sun, stars or other objects within our galaxy, and the most highly intense ones, which come from other galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia....ctic_cosmic_ray

Unlike solar or galactic cosmic rays, little is known about the origins of extragalactic cosmic rays. This is largely due to a lack of statistics: only about 1 extragalactic cosmic ray particle per square meter per year reaches the Earth's surface (see figure).

Image of an active galactic nucleus of the active galaxy M87.

There are many ideas about which processes may be responsible for cosmic rays with such high energies. In the 'bottom-up' approach, cosmic rays gain more and more energy through electromagnetic processes. Bouncing randomly back and forth in the shock waves of some violent object allows some of the particles to gain energy. Eventually they may build up enough speed that the object can no longer contain them, and they escape. Proposed sites for this type of acceleration include gamma ray bursts and active galactic nuclei.[1] Indeed, recent analysis of cosmic ray measurements with the Pierre Auger Observatory suggests a correlation between the arrival directions of cosmic rays of the highest energies of more than 5×1019 eV and the positions of nearby active galaxies.[2]

There are many more possible sources scientists are considering. These include colliding galaxy systems, accretion flow shocks to clusters of galaxies, and more exotic processes from the very early universe, such as the decay of superheavy particles trapped in the galactic halo, or topological defects.[3]

[edit]

Composition

Due to the very low flux of extragalactic cosmic particles received on Earth, little is known about their composition. Most estimates, based on theoretical and numerical models, predict that light atomic nuclei such as protons are the dominant particle type.[4]

Cosmic Rays are too powerful to be a non factor.... the energy is absolutely immense, more than we can possible begin to fathom in regards to Co2.

[A-L-E-X]

I guess that would be noticeable if you were out spacewalking without the protection of the atmosphere...

Yea, I was thinking that too and the more lightweight cosmic rays would probably be damaging also. This is another thing to consider when we decide to go further out into space. I imagine establishing some kind of moon mining colony or a settlement on Mars or an asteroid or wherever they would chose to go would all need to have protection against asteroids, meteoroids and cosmic rays-- since they all lack the protection of a dense atmosphere.

[k***]

Among other things, the site states with respect to Yasi, "it was theoretically a category-6.." That's a red flag right there.

[A-L-E-X]

Earth is constantly raped by all sorts of forces. Thing is, there are most likely billions of diffeent ways the earth is being effected by extra-terrestrial forcings/impacts, and we know almost none of them.

Galactic cosmic rays in relation to the Sun/Earth, being at that close distance, are definitely aplayer in some form. We just don't know how much, as of yet.

I agree and the link between them and cyclic climate change is actually growing; some of the graphs on the first link are pretty telling. More research = more knowledge = more actual science (minus all the crappy politics).

[A-L-E-X]

Sounds like a bad sci fi movie. Or should I say "SyFy". Another NBC fail.

[BethesdaWX]

I agree and the link between them and cyclic climate change is actually growing; some of the graphs on the first link are pretty telling. More research = more knowledge = more actual science (minus all the crappy politics).

Exactly. And as our knowledge grows, our scientific formulas/methods/physics will all change. Computer modeling of Co2/atmospheric warming result is hypothesis, as is everything in that regard, to science in general.

[donsutherland1]

Magnetic field shifts are definitely not "quiet" by any means.

I mean that it will be "quiet" on the basis of a seasonal/annual/probably human life span-scale. It will not provoke conflicts or pose a threat to human civilization. On a scale of centuries/thousands of years, it will not be quiet.

[skierinvermont]

Exactly. And as our knowledge grows, our scientific formulas/methods/physics will all change. Computer modeling of Co2/atmospheric warming result is hypothesis, as is everything in that regard, to science in general.

I'll tell you what is not a hypothesis. The following are three empirical facts.

1) The earth is rapidly accumulating heat. Satellite measurements of net energy flow into and out of the atmosphere tell us this. So do observational networks of the oceans and atmospheres. The accumulation of energy is occurring at a rate of .9W/m².

2) This rapid accumulation of heat is occurring because of declining radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere precisely at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

3) CO2 absorbs LW radiation emitted by the earth at particular wavelengths that have been observed to be escaping the earth's atmosphere less and less each year, but transmits SW radiation from the sun.

If anybody has a theory that fits with the EMPIRICAL FACTS 1+2+3 above other than CO2 is in fact causing the rapid accumulation of heat, I would love to hear about it.

[wokeupthisam]

I'll tell you what is not a hypothesis. The following are three empirical facts.

1) The earth is rapidly accumulating heat. Satellite measurements of net energy flow into and out of the atmosphere tell us this. So do observational networks of the oceans and atmospheres. The accumulation of energy is occurring at a rate of .9W/m².

2) This rapid accumulation of heat is occurring because of declining radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere precisely at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

3) CO2 absorbs LW radiation emitted by the earth at particular wavelengths that have been observed to be escaping the earth's atmosphere less and less each year, but transmits SW radiation from the sun.

If anybody has a theory that fits with the EMPIRICAL FACTS 1+2+3 above other than CO2 is in fact causing the rapid accumulation of heat, I would love to hear about it.

It seems you are mixing nouns, ie, 'the atmosphere' is not equal to 'the earth'. The satellite measurements you cited are only measuring one piece of the earth's system. The last picture I saw of earth from space showed an awful lot of water out there, under that atmosphere. The earth system (land, atmosphere, oceans) could be losing heat and you wouldn't know it from the satellite measurements you cited.

[BethesdaWX]

I'll tell you what is not a hypothesis. The following are three empirical facts.

1) The earth is rapidly accumulating heat. Satellite measurements of net energy flow into and out of the atmosphere tell us this. So do observational networks of the oceans and atmospheres. The accumulation of energy is occurring at a rate of .9W/m².

2) This rapid accumulation of heat is occurring because of declining radiation escaping the earth's atmosphere precisely at those wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

3) CO2 absorbs LW radiation emitted by the earth at particular wavelengths that have been observed to be escaping the earth's atmosphere less and less each year, but transmits SW radiation from the sun.

If anybody has a theory that fits with the EMPIRICAL FACTS 1+2+3 above other than CO2 is in fact causing the rapid accumulation of heat, I would love to hear about it.

NO, absolutely not. You cannot scew 2 and 2 together to make 5, as you are accustomed to doing....that doesn't fly with me.

Less energy reflection is probably due to changing standalone water vapor amounts, but, lets get to the real issue at hand, my argument doesn't chenge whether it is or isn't.

SCALE OF IMPACT is the issue. If there earth were building up energy, we would see an increase in longwave release, not a decrease.....its how the GHE works. Even if the earth could build up overwhelming amounts of energy, "heat" is not an exchange....because no matter the amount of energy in the atmosphere, it is recycled, just as all forms are of such.

The energy released from earth does not stand at the same wavelength frequency as that entering, but exact numbering from each forcing alone is another story. The relation between each stand-alone value, in tandom with changes in energy throughout processing in the atmosphere, makes this an impossible tactic to base computer models off of! Well, if you want to be inaccurate at doing so, be my guest, but its the exact reason why exact #'s are not my target at this time, nor should the be yours, because as we Learn, the Formulas change, we still will never understand the concept of each forcing.

When I say "equilibrium", what do you infer from that? (FYI, it has nothing to do with energy release in DIRECT RELATION TO WHAT ENTERS the atmosphere, by any means, more in context of where it goes, and what we'd see in the longwave release FROM earth). You seem to imply that I feel there is no distance in wavelengths beterrn incoming & outgoing energy. Not true.

However, this is something that we'd need our current measurements to apply to, if we want a match to obervations. (aka, OBS to the "formula", or visa versa).

Our understanding of the Co2 molecule and its forcings, is not hypothesis... but, the atmospheric ebd result of Co2 and its significance is complete hyphtoesis. We base our models off the assumption that Co2 and its properties are the result of the warming.

Problem is, Co2 forcings/properties, and the end result in the atmosphere, are not the same thing, and CANNOT BE SCEWED TOGETHER.

This is the problem with AGW, and why it is a Failure in science. There is a reason why the SM has been thrown out of the IPCC process.....because....it would ruin the Theory.

The Theory is corrupted, and we will know it high and well by 2030. Count on it.

[k***]

Things I've learned today because of bethesdawx:

-AGW theory is flawed.

-Catastrophic pole shifting theory isn't.

-Yasi was a theoretical cat 6.

[BethesdaWX]

Things I've learned today because of bethesdawx:

-AGW theory is flawed

-Yasi was a theoretical cat 6.

The media can hype and dipsh*t all it wants about superstorms, massive pole shifts and the wreaking havoc, and whatnot.

Point being pole shifts & the Sun/earth relationship against GCR & the altering of the Magnetic Field in its own, will have effects on the climate. Sun/Magnetic relationship is the largest driver of the climate.

AGW is flawed for other reasons.

[BethesdaWX]

Andrew, you're posting less than 1 minute after you entered the thread...thus your response will probably list some hypothesized computer model forcings attempting to relate Co2 and its properties to an atmospheric change, or end result, of such forcings...........that don't even fit.....there-for it will need to be dismissed yet again.

Either way, lets get back on topic. This thread has nothing to do with CO2.

[skierinvermont]

Most of your post is not worth responding to because it does not make any sense. As I have said before you need to slow down and THINK before you post because NOBODY can understand what it is you are saying. As it is, I will correct a few glaring errors.

NO, absolutely not. You cannot scew 2 and 2 together to make 5, as you are accustomed to doing....that doesn't fly with me.

Less energy reflection is probably due to changing standalone water vapor amounts, but, lets get to the real issue at hand, my argument doesn't chenge whether it is or isn't.

Declining LW radiation escaping earth is not entirely due to increasing water vapor because much of the decline has occurred at the absorption spectrum of CO2 and not H2O. Also, you have previously (erroneously) claimed that water vapor was decreasing which would allow MORE LW radiation to escape, so you are contradicting yourself.

If there earth were building up energy, we would see an increase in longwave release, not a decrease.....its how the GHE works. Even if the earth could build up overwhelming amounts of energy, "heat" is not an exchange....because no matter the amount of energy in the atmosphere, it is recycled, just as all forms are of such.

It's not a question of if the earth is building up energy. The earth IS building up energy. This is an empirical fact measured by net radiation flow into and out of the atmosphere, as well as observational networks of the atmosphere and oceans themselves.

The build of energy in the atmosphere and in the oceans has indeed increased LW radiation emissions from the earth relative to what they would be if we looked solely at the increasing greenhouse effect from CO2 and water vapor. The increasing greenhouse effect from water vapor and CO2 have applied a net forcing of 1.8W/m2, but due to the buildup of heat (IE higher mean temperatures) we are left with a remaining imbalance of .9W/m2. This is because the rising temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere have caused a .9W/m2 increase in outgoing LW radiation.

[BethesdaWX]

Most of your post is not worth responding to because it does not make any sense as I have said before you need to slow down and THINK before you post because NOBODY can understand what it is you are saying. As it is, I will correct a few glaring errors.

Declining LW radiation escaping earth is not entirely due to increasing water vapor because much of the decline has occurred at the absorption spectrum of CO2 and not H2O. Also, you have previously (erroneously) claimed that water vapor was decreasing which would allow MORE LW radiation to escape, so you are contradicting yourself.

It's not a question of if the earth is building up energy. The earth IS building up energy. This is an empirical fact measured by net radiation flow into and out of the atmosphere, as well as observational networks of the atmosphere and oceans themselves.

The build of energy in the atmosphere and in the oceans has indeed increased LW radiation emissions from the earth relative to what they would be if we looked solely at the increasing greenhouse effect from CO2 and water vapor. The increasing greenhouse effect from water vapor and CO2 have applied a net forcing of 1.8W/m2, but due to the buildup of heat (IE higher mean temperatures) we are left with a remaining imbalance of .9W/m2. This is because the rising temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere have caused a .9W/m2 increase in outgoing LW radiation.

Again, 2 and 2 don't make 5. You cannot make a chain with a missing link.

If there were a buildup of energy in the earths atmosphere, the laws of the GHE state that longwave radiation emitted back into space would have to increase, not decrease. "Building up energy" can be taken in different terms..................Its one thing if there is more energy present, being processed at once in a larger load.....its another if the earth is somehow closing off and the GHE is mysteriously altered whil earth heats up like a Motha****a.

This, regardless, has nothing to do with the fact that "heat" is not a necessary result of such energy increase.....and that "heat" being derived by modeling through the assumption that Co2 is the cause for such warming, is like shooting arrows in the dark. The notion that the planet recycles everything, including all energy.....to maintain equilibrium.....is much less farfetched than the former conclusion, which is simply laughable.

Earth recycles everything....name one thing that earth does not recycle, and I'll pay up.

FYI... You know that water vapor is not directly correlated to GCC, right? And, have you ever heard of the stratosphere? perhaps you need to expand your knowledge base a bit.

[salbers]

Most of your post is not worth responding to because it does not make any sense as I have said before you need to slow down and THINK before you post because NOBODY can understand what it is you are saying. As it is, I will correct a few glaring errors.

Declining LW radiation escaping earth is not entirely due to increasing water vapor because much of the decline has occurred at the absorption spectrum of CO2 and not H2O. Also, you have previously (erroneously) claimed that water vapor was decreasing which would allow MORE LW radiation to escape, so you are contradicting yourself.

It's not a question of if the earth is building up energy. The earth IS building up energy. This is an empirical fact measured by net radiation flow into and out of the atmosphere, as well as observational networks of the atmosphere and oceans themselves.

The build of energy in the atmosphere and in the oceans has indeed increased LW radiation emissions from the earth relative to what they would be if we looked solely at the increasing greenhouse effect from CO2 and water vapor. The increasing greenhouse effect from water vapor and CO2 have applied a net forcing of 1.8W/m2, but due to the buildup of heat (IE higher mean temperatures) we are left with a remaining imbalance of .9W/m2. This is because the rising temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere have caused a .9W/m2 increase in outgoing LW radiation.

Skier - are you referring to a ground based perspective? I think the following from the perspective of a satellite above the atmosphere. During the warming phase the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere is reduced from the equilibrium value (particularly at those CO2 wavelengths). If warming eventually reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, the OLR returns back up to match the incoming radiation.