Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 50
Latest Activity: on Sunday

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Jet Stream Mayhem begins Tues

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Sunday. 3 Replies

Siberian air…Continue

Tags: jet stream waves

Framing Climate Destabilization

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Nov 8. 19 Replies

The words we use and the images they evoke shape public comprehension of Catastrophic Climate Destabilization's immanence. Here are a few terms from the past few days. It's a tiny…Continue

Tags: communicating climate science, Climate Destabilization, framing

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 8:39pm

I wasn't aware of this huge spectral shift in solar irradiance, and it's outside of my expertise. I may have misunderstood your argument. I thought you suggested that CO2 wasn't a significant greenhouse gas, or that it's increase isn't largely responsible for recent global temperature change (ignoring that methane has had a huge effect too, for the moment).

It will take a few days for me to look at this more closely.

I can't imagine that valid data is being ignored by the entire climate science community.

Different substances absorb different frequencies.

Indeed. Some think Albedo changes could double the net warming caused by human emissions.

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 6:47pm

Just to make that graph more concrete, what you are seeing is a huge spectral shift away from frequencies that aren't readily absorbed by earth toward frequencies that are readily absorbed by earth. Thus, more heat retained, less earthshine reflection into space. 

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 6:43pm

Thank you I've seen that data before. You again tell me I'm using unreliable sources. Did you check the sources I linked? There isn't any more reliable than that. I shall try again this time with basic science and if I am made into another straw man I shall consign this group to the ranks of the climate religion true believers.

If one doesn't understand absorption spectrum and other physical sciences then my argument cannot be comprehended and one is instead just trusting some authority. This act doesn't behoove a skeptic.

I didn't write that CO2 has zero impact. I wrote that it has zero absorption at 11µm. There is no scientific argument on this fact. 

The sun output in W/m^2 is quite constant. I didn't claim otherwise. In fact I linked where it showed exactly that. My earlier sources explain how a fundamental law in physics (Plank's law) demonstrates that the EM wavelength of a body is proportional to its heat.  

Thus any photon emitted from a body must have the same total energy at any temperature. 

The temperature of the sun varies. It's output spectra varies even more. There are complex reasons that we still don't fully understand yet. But there is no doubt as to its spectral variance. 

Different substances absorb different frequencies. This accounts for thousands of phenomenon from why we see colors to why your microwave oven heats unevenly despite the food being evenly irradiated.

When the sun changes it's spectra the earth alters temperature according to whether the spectra are of a type absorbed.

Now do you understand? Sunspots are correlated though rather poorly to spectral shifts. And the hard data we have on sol's spectra is disbelieved even though the same instrument used to measure far away spectra is believed. It's ludicrous. 

SIM (the Spectral Irradiance Monitor) vs the orthodox prediction model NRLSSI (Naval Research Laboratory Solar Spectral Irradiance)

In my book, DATA trumps HYPOTHESIS any day, any time. But not so in climate science? Why do you think that is?

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 3:26pm

Čenek, you must be using unreliable sources if you think CO2 has zero impact as a greenhouse gas on rising global temperature.

The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the solar input argument. You should have been alerted to cherry picking by the fact that the comparison used was The Maunder Minimum. Nor is solar output during ice ages a helpful standard of comparison.

Solar activity accounts for current warming. This isn't so much misleading as it is flat-out wrong. Total solar activity has been declining over approximately the past 35 years.

NASA says

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

Here's an interactive graph from June, 2015 comparing various causes of climate warming. What’s Really Warming the World?


Temperature is the grey line and solar forcing is the beige line.

Temperature is the grey line and greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are the green line.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 2:17pm

Compare 2016 so far with previous years global averages.

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 12:51am

Yes Ruth we're in a low. But as always the question is: compared to what? Nearly all the data on solar output in one graph

There are short and long cycles in every natural process we've observed from earthquakes, volcanism, carbon release, carbon reuptake, ice formation, ice loss, and solar output. 

In terms of the long cycle of solar output, we're up, way up. And we've been up for a long time. Heat can be cumulative if the input exceeds output. Long established fact that the solar input max is 1380 W/m^2 with the mean being 340 W/m^2

What is the output of the earth? Let's look at spectra. Earth vs sun. The earth reradiates primarily at 11µm (keep firmly in mind it is on a log scale). Now look at the (non-logarithmic) absorption spectra for co2

That's right:  Zero. 

For those who might not be following the science, this means that the idea of energy from the sun being 'trapped' on earth by co2 is ridiculous. Yes, some is. But clouds are many orders of magnitude more influential than co2. Are we banning clouds? 

Having done the work, I stopped worrying and just enjoy my bigger veggies.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 14, 2016 at 3:10pm

Here's the reference for that 6 year old quote.

Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect

Sorry I forgot.

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 14, 2016 at 3:04pm

Ruth, thanks for the information. 

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 14, 2016 at 3:03pm

Donald, let me amend that. Six years ago it was thought...

...there is significant variation in estimates of climate. A paper by James Hansen and others [iii] estimates the time required for 60% of global warming to take place in response to increased emissions to be in the range of 25 to 50 years. The mid-point of this is 37.5 which I have rounded to 40 years.

You still see recent secondary sources that mention a 30 year delay, but I think that's outdated information.

That claim of an 800 year delay between CO2 increase and temperature rise is a misunderstanding of ice core data from when ice ages ended. The full explanation is here.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 14, 2016 at 2:34pm

Donald, it's true that CO2 influences temperature for 100,000 years, but the maximum effect isn't in 800 years. Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission.

Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emis...


Members (50)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service