Vergent Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No results found for "operating atmospheric albedo". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No results found for "operating atmospheric albedo". ??? Please do not trollfook yet another thread. If you don't understand me or are skeptical of my wild claims you can ask me for evidence or give reasons why I'm high off my a**, but really please don't go trolling your head off again. This is an ok thread for me to keep my geomag sh*t contained in without being a CC-forum parasite. Atmospheric Albedo = Clouds Driver of Clouds = Magnetic relationship between the Sun and Earth. If you think I'm jumping the gun on the Magnetic correlation to clouds you can ask me to show evidence in any way possible and determine for yourself whether or not the evidence is conclusive. But please do not start another trollfest. Thanks, Mitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 oh no... PhillipS, I beg you please make a respectful on topic post, without the accusations and name calling? I'd appriciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No results found for "operating atmospheric albedo". You notice that Becky once again doesn't link to any peer-reveiwed research. So it's probably best to consider this more delusional noise from the denialist fringe. Not worth anybody's time to debunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You notice that Becky once again doesn't link to any peer-reveiwed research. So it's probably best to consider this more delusional noise from the denialist fringe. Not worth anybody's time to debunk. How about you ask me to provide peer reviewed sources? I've done that numerous times btw, provided links to all sorts of datasets, correlations, and papers. But you keep attacking me left and right with false accusasions that it gets hard to determine what your post is really trying to say. I really doubt you or Vergent know what I am talking about, simply judging by your trolling and name calling with no science. I predict soon I'll be seeing TSI graphs, how TSI has decreased since 1980, how TSI fluctuates by a minute 0.1W/m^2 between cycles, so on and so forth. I hope I am wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 ??? Please do not trollfook yet another thread. If you don't understand me or are skeptical of my wild claims you can ask me for evidence or give reasons why I'm high off my a**, but really please don't go trolling your head off again. This is an ok thread for me to keep my geomag sh*t contained in without being a CC-forum parasite. Atmospheric Albedo = Clouds Driver of Clouds = Magnetic relationship between the Sun and Earth. If you think I'm jumping the gun on the Magnetic correlation to clouds you can ask me to show evidence in any way possible and determine for yourself whether or not the evidence is conclusive. But please do not start another trollfest. Thanks, Mitch. "operating atmospheric albedo" = "magnetic clouds"? Pardon me if I did not get the connection. I at least read your post and tried to understand what you were trying to say. Magnetic interactions follow a 1/r^3 relationship. Which means that a refrigerator magnet in NYC has a bigger influence on a magnetic cloud in London than the sun does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole%E2%80%93dipole_interaction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 "operating atmospheric albedo" = "magnetic clouds"? Pardon me if I did not get the connection. I at least read your post and tried to understand what you were trying to say. Magnetic interactions follow a 1/r^3 relationship. Which means that a refrigerator magnet in NYC has a bigger influence on a magnetic cloud in London than the sun does. http://en.wikipedia....ole_interaction Oh my gosh, you have to be trolling. I have no idea what a "magnetic cloud" is, or what a "operating atmospheric albedo" is. What on earth are you talking about. Can someone tell me if this guy is serious? Mods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 BethesdaWX, WTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Oh my gosh, you have to be trolling. I have no idea what a "magnetic cloud" is, or what a "operating atmospheric albedo" is. What on earth are you talking about. Can someone tell me if this guy is serious? Mods? Nope, Skier and Rusty are both incorrect. There is very small change in solar output, there is thermal energy...and then there is potential energy + kinetic energy in the earth system subject to kinetic directional forcing between the Earth's own magnetic field and the solar magnetic flux, operating atmospheric albedo. ??? Please do not trollfook yet another thread. If you don't understand me or are skeptical of my wild claims you can ask me for evidence or give reasons why I'm high off my a**, but really please don't go trolling your head off again. This is an ok thread for me to keep my geomag sh*t contained in without being a CC-forum parasite. Atmospheric Albedo = Clouds Driver of Clouds = Magnetic relationship between the Sun and Earth. If you think I'm jumping the gun on the Magnetic correlation to clouds you can ask me to show evidence in any way possible and determine for yourself whether or not the evidence is conclusive. But please do not start another trollfest. Thanks, Mitch. All I am doing is trying to figure out what you are saying. It seems like you too are confused by your own words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 BethesdaWX, WTF Back at you, I have recieved all non scientific trolling remarks in return and I'm not pleased with it at all. You talk about TOA all the time and do not mention the kinetic budget which accounts for the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation. An imblance has always existed because the infrared radiation Earth re-emits does not account for all of what went in. Look at the kinetic budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 All I am doing is trying to figure out what you are saying. It seems like you too are confused by your own words. No, you are inventing ideas that were never mentioned. I don't understand anything you're saying or trying to say. Help me understand. I claim the varying magnetic relationship between thw Sun and Earth modulate atmospheric albedo [clouds]. You can rebut me with data that says to the contrary, but please do not troll me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Without greenhouses gases, our atmosphere would be legitimately warmer. I'm sure you know why this is, [think convective overturning] and the kinetic budget that is represented both in convection and in the wind that coincides in the base value. The GHE drives convective overturning. There is always going to be an imbalance in TOA because the GHE simply exists, and not all the energy in the climate system is thermal, visible in the SW, or any of that. It is the kinetic portion of the total budget that is responsible for the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energies that has always been present, and it is prevolent in the GHE itself, during convective overturning which is 100% induced by GHE. So convection = [means] evaporation and condensation, cloud cover, which reflects SW radiation...rain falls, stabilizing the temperature profile, while SW is reflected to complete transfer. The kinetic budget is what prevents imbalance within the GHE. You can dampen the CO2 spectrum all you want with very little effect aside from warmer nights and colder days to put it simply. I am going to quote portions of my own post for reading purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Back at you, I have recieved all non scientific trolling remarks in return and I'm not pleased with it at all. You talk about TOA all the time and do not mention the kinetic budget which accounts for the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation. An imblance has always existed because the infrared radiation Earth re-emits does not account for all of what went in. Look at the kinetic budget. The kinetic budget? What is that? Kinetic energy is nothing more than the energy of motion. What is the kinetic energy of a mass weighing X grams moving at a velocity of Y? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The kinetic budget? What is that? Kinetic energy is nothing more than the energy of motion. What is the kinetic energy of a molecule weighing X grams moving at a velocity of Y? It is the kinetic energy in the Earth system, which makes up a portion of our total energy budget. Not all incoming radiation will be re-emitted thermally, it also exists in kinetic form which you see in global winds, convection, rains, all the waves in the ocean, so on and so forth. There you have thermal processes like convection but all the winds, weather, etc that must exist in those processes represent kinetic energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rusty, does the inside of the red box look familiar in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It is the kinetic energy in the Earth system, which makes up a portion of our total energy budget. Not all incoming radiation will be re-emitted thermally, it also exists in kinetic form which you see in global winds, convection, rains, all the waves in the ocean, so on and so forth. There you have thermal processes like convection but all the winds, weather, etc that must exist in those processes represent kinetic energy. If it is not re-emitted by thermal radiation then how does it eventually escape to space? The energy must either be lost to space or absorbed by the system in chemical bonds or by increasing OHC. Remember, electromagnetic radiation is never stationary and when forming molecular bonds the electromagnetic force locks up the energy forming the bonds. Molecular bonding will not affect climate, the energy is locked away. OHC will affect climate and it's energy is in constant motion. All that kinetic energy you talk of is constantly being dissipated and lost to space by the only means available. Thermal radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 If it is not re-emitted by thermal radiation then how does it eventually escape to space? The energy must either be lost to space or absorbed by the system in chemical bonds or by increasing OHC. Remember, electromagnetic radiation is never stationary and when forming molecular bonds the electromagnetic force locks up the energy forming the bonds. Molecular bonding will not affect climate, the energy is locked away. OHC will affect climate and it's energy is in constant motion. All that kinetic energy you talk of is constatly being dissipated and lost to space by the only means available. Thermal radiation. Even though there is something called 'lightning' which is is flashing like a paparazzi camera storm as we speak, lets pretend that it doesn't exist. The point isn't that thermal energy would increase along with kinetic energy [it would, it has to eventually, or visa versa], but that the FULL BUDGET that we compare in TOA is not present in thermal form, it also exists in kinetic form all over, from the waves in the ocean, to the winds over the deserts, and most importantly in the convection that is DRIVEN BY THE 'GHE'. So you'll never have as much thermal energy leaving as you will entering. Changes in the temperature are driven by cloud cover changes or repositionings, ENSO is a way the climate responds to achieve balance against the Magentic impulse that altered albedo many years beforehand (lag exists because of the transferring of energy modes relative to conductive bodies). And the thermal energy can easily escape to space enough to achieve equilibrium, it is natural regulation. What happens during convection? Aside from the fact that kinetic energy is present in the convective process, clouds develop, which reflect SW radiation as the process is ongoing, it isn't an imbalanced process at all. Kinetic energy is required for convective overturning that results from the 'GHE', it is part of the budget. The GHE and CO2 being a GHG are very real facts, but it is our understanding of this 'GHE' that is the problem. Without GHGes, our atmosphere would be warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Maybe visual interpretations will help here? There are two aspects of solar activity that matter in terms of long term climate change, meaning a decadal to centennial scale. 1) The Planetary index representing solar magnetic activity reaching the Earth's atmosphere, also known as the AP index. 2) My brother brought this up to me a little while ago but the correlation is legitimate. Doesn't mean causation, but it is there. The Sun's magnetic poles, in relation to the Earth's magnetic poles. A southward pointing agreeing alignment between the Earth's and Sun's magnetic striations results in more direct solar forcing on the climate, while the misaligned northward field in relation to Earth's field results in weaker impact on the climate. Here is the AP index since 1932. Tell me if you can find anything in there [hint, think ONI lagging]. Where the fields are not aligned, what happens to the AMO? [Or in this case, the 'precurser'] My Again this is my bro's doing, this is Hale's cycle, which is usually a 22 year process but it varies depending on the strength [indirectly meaning length] of the solar cycles. The theory here ties into the PDO oscillation and AMO oscillation through the affecting of the jet stream patterns and asociated cloud cover anoms, which modulate the oscillations..where every northward spike correlates to an AMO flip, and every southward spike correlates to a PDO flip. This is very basic, but are you catching me so far? No results found for "vuk polar field". Your search - "vuk polar field" - did not match any articles. No results found for "vuk sunspot curve" Your search - "vuk sunspot curve" - did not match any articles. As I said above, you are posting without providing ANY links to peer-reviewed research or to the sources for your charts. Furthermore you are using terms that even Google has never heard of in research journals or in the popular press. So the science content of your postings = 0.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rusty, does the inside of the red box look familiar in any way? I need to get going, but first.. I quote this post just to say the AP index won't correlate to the global temp in trend, so don't even think about using that as an excuse Instead it is closer in similarity to a stove and pot relationship, the water will warm to equilibrium regardless of the flame strength. The weaker activity in the 2000s was still relatively strong compared to the period before the modern maximum, so we did not warm or cool much in the 2000s but rather peaked. The ENSO correlation works better in the 2000s too, a sign that equilibrium is/was near. When the AP plummets later on [which we will see manifest in the energy around us within a year] we will begin our cooling trend. Again a special thanks to my stepbro for filling me in on the correlative datasets. Where the fields are not aligned, what happens to the AMO? [Or in this case, the 'precurser'] My Again this is my bro's doing, this is Hale's cycle, which is usually a 22 year process but it varies depending on the strength [indirectly meaning length] of the solar cycles. The theory here ties into the PDO oscillation and AMO oscillation through the affecting of the jet stream patterns and asociated cloud cover anoms, which modulate the oscillations..where every northward spike correlates to an AMO flip, and every southward spike correlates to a PDO flip. So it does work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No results found for "vuk polar field". Your search - "vuk polar field" - did not match any articles. No results found for "vuk sunspot curve" Your search - "vuk sunspot curve" - did not match any articles. As I said above, you are posting without providing ANY links to peer-reviewed research or to the sources for your charts. Furthermore you are using terms that even Google has never heard of in research journals or in the popular press. So the science content of your postings = 0.0 Those are image file names, why would you google the file name of an image? That makes absolutely zero sense. Geesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 How about you ask me to provide peer reviewed sources? I've done that numerous times btw, provided links to all sorts of datasets, correlations, and papers. But you keep attacking me left and right with false accusasions that it gets hard to determine what your post is really trying to say. I really doubt you or Vergent know what I am talking about, simply judging by your trolling and name calling with no science. I predict soon I'll be seeing TSI graphs, how TSI has decreased since 1980, how TSI fluctuates by a minute 0.1W/m^2 between cycles, so on and so forth. I hope I am wrong about that. http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/04/4593/ Is this whatt you are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/04/4593/ Is this whatt you are talking about? No, not at all. In ny view, TSI [which is what you just referenced] on it's own is irrelevant to climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No, not at all. In ny view, TSI [which is what you just referenced] on it's own is irrelevant to climate. How about this http://www.lightinthestorm.com/archives/tag/correlation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 All he is doing is throwing out big words. His use of phrases such as the kinetic budget are vague and nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 All he is doing is throwing out big words. His use of phrases such as the kinetic budget are vague and nonsensical. You can only throw out big words when you understand them, and skier cmon you know what you see now. Kinetic energy represents a portion of the total energy budget, it isn't all thermal. Not sure how that is a "big phrase", it is simple. PS congrats on the ski instructor position brooote. And vergent: NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You can only throw out big words when you understand them, and skier cmon you know what you see now. Kinetic energy represents a portion of the total energy budget, it isn't all thermal. Not sure how that is a "big phrase", it is simple. PS congrats on the ski instructor position brooote. And vergent: NO No KEis not part of the earths energy budget. Energy does not enter or exit the earth system as kinetic energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No KEis not part of the earths energy budget. Energy does not enter or exit the earth system as kinetic energy. You are obviously correct, in that it doesn't enter or exit as kinetic energy, but it is still part of the energy budget because it's energy and it's present in the Earth system, just not in thermal form. This is because some of the Sun's energy is tranferred into kinetic form though convective overturning which is actually only possible because of the GHE [GHGes including CO2, H2O, etc], and with more GHE the faster and more constant/widespread convective overturning will be. And knowing that low cloud cover is basically an in-step correlation to convection you can see where this is going, evaporation occurs, clouds form, reflect SW energy, precipitation occurs which balances the temperature anomaly profile in the LT. TOA will never be in balance because not all of the energy the Earth has relative to the Sun is thermal at once, the variation in kinetic energy is where the Earth's magnetic field and the solar magnetic flux come into play. The only way to significantly impact temperature and/or change the budget is to alter how much energy gets in, this has to be achieved through changes in atmospheric albedo. This is why there is the correlation between the magnetic flux and the behavior of ENSO, temps, the PDO, the AMO, the NAO, really everything. Watch what happens in the next year or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 http://notrickszone....010/10/04/4593/ Is this whatt you are talking about? Bethesda claims TSI Is irrelevent to climate and if it were not for the greenhouse effect the world would be warmer because convective overturning would be reduced. The main source of solar energy is irrelevent and greenhouse gases cool the surface.....everyone got that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Bethesda claims TSI Is irrelevent to climate and if it were not for the greenhouse effect the world would be warmer because convective overturning would be reduced. The main source of solar energy is irrelevent and greenhouse gases cool the surface.....everyone got that? Thats not what I said, in fact thats the opposite of what I was implying 'The atmosphere' includes more than just the surface and troposphere, 'ole Rusty. And TSI varies very little between solar cycles, much too minor of a net change to have any noticable effect on the climate, and it isn't in the same category as magnetism which is something else completely in terms of potential effects linked to the kinetic portion of the energy budget. Are we resorting to trolling now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rusty, does the inside of the red box look familiar in any way? The Ap Index doesn't appear to show the 1997 super El Niño. Do you have the monthly numeric values for the Ap Index? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.