|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 12, 2015 15:56:37 GMT
Usoskin et al. "present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity" covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them "to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail." "IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun's influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth's atmosphere." www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N32/C1.phpThe actual paper is here ... arxiv.org/pdf/1402.4720.pdf
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 12, 2015 17:52:06 GMT
Of course there is no effect from the sun etc. Scientific consensus ya know? It is only an illusion that continents move as well. There is only small differential in the total output of the sun by all of it's characteristics, and its change has a very limited effect on earth's climate. Didn't you know that? No point in studying it any more. CO2 caused the warming that occurred over that period, not the higher solar activity during the same period. www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/There have been many arguments as to whether or not the eleven-year sunspot cycle affects our weather and climate. With our increased ability to monitor the sun, we are now aware that there is a small change in the total solar irradiance accompanying shifts from solar maximum conditions (with many sunspots) to solar minimum (with, basically, none). There is also a more substantial change in the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the solar spectrum, with direct impacts primarily in the stratosphere (above ~10km). UV....the thing that heats water...as opposed to IR which does not....our world is mostly covered in water.....my country depends on it being warm or we're more like south canada and siberia....
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 12, 2015 20:09:15 GMT
There is only small differential in the total output of the sun by all of it's characteristics, and its change has a very limited effect on earth's climate. Didn't you know that? No point in studying it any more. CO2 caused the warming that occurred over that period, not the higher solar activity during the same period. www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/There have been many arguments as to whether or not the eleven-year sunspot cycle affects our weather and climate. With our increased ability to monitor the sun, we are now aware that there is a small change in the total solar irradiance accompanying shifts from solar maximum conditions (with many sunspots) to solar minimum (with, basically, none). There is also a more substantial change in the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the solar spectrum, with direct impacts primarily in the stratosphere (above ~10km). UV....the thing that heats water...as opposed to IR which does not....our world is mostly covered in water.....my country depends on it being warm or we're more like south canada and siberia.... There are 'windows' in the atmosphere, through which certain spectral portions of the UV supposedly penetrate to the surface. Do not have figures for what portion this amounts to. Spain supposedly provided a 'refuge' to our ancestors during the last ice age. Have you asked your spouse what she thinks about animal skins and caves??? On a brighter note, I hear there are still real estate bargains to be had there.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 12, 2015 20:21:50 GMT
Yeah...er....thx for that mboy...next time I need comforting ill drop u a PM!!! :-D
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Aug 12, 2015 20:30:50 GMT
we are now aware that there is a small change in the total solar irradiance accompanying shifts from solar maximum conditions (with many sunspots) to solar minimum (with, basically, none). that's the thing if something that big has a small change then it will effect us think of it like turning down a gas fire in a house surrounded by ice your going to feel the cold ..
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 12, 2015 20:58:58 GMT
Yeah...er....thx for that mboy...next time I need comforting ill drop u a PM!!! :-D That's alright ... por nada ... the warmists tell ME that I'm going to need a boat and sonar to find my southwest Florida lot!!!! But, at least the water's warm!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 17, 2015 18:26:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 21, 2015 18:16:30 GMT
There is only small differential in the total output of the sun by all of it's characteristics, and its change has a very limited effect on earth's climate. Didn't you know that? No point in studying it any more. CO2 caused the warming that occurred over that period, not the higher solar activity during the same period. www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/There have been many arguments as to whether or not the eleven-year sunspot cycle affects our weather and climate. With our increased ability to monitor the sun, we are now aware that there is a small change in the total solar irradiance accompanying shifts from solar maximum conditions (with many sunspots) to solar minimum (with, basically, none). There is also a more substantial change in the ultraviolet (UV) portion of the solar spectrum, with direct impacts primarily in the stratosphere (above ~10km). UV....the thing that heats water...as opposed to IR which does not....our world is mostly covered in water.....my country depends on it being warm or we're more like south canada and siberia.... Here is an article with a good diagram showing UV windows in the atmosphere. No composite data yet on watts per square m (or cm) of UV penetrating to the surface ... but it would appear to be significant proportion. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_02.phpThere is a good map in this section showing penetration depths of UV radiation in the oceans. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 2, 2015 18:11:41 GMT
Good find that Missouriboy...quite a balanced informative piece. ..Even helpfully points out the IPCC states as much as 50% of 0.6°c temp rise in last 150 years is down to changes in uv emittance of sun!!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 2, 2015 21:40:11 GMT
Good find that Missouriboy...quite a balanced informative piece. ..Even helpfully points out the IPCC states as much as 50% of 0.6°c temp rise in last 150 years is down to changes in uv emittance of sun!! This is a good reference for use in converting wavenumbers to UV, Visible and iR portions of the spectrum. (UV= 25000 +, Visible ~14000 to 25000, and IR ~14000 and below). www.laser2000.co.uk/technotes/TN_Measuring_Light.pdfI think this covers just about everything ... no doubt about it ... the science IS settled! At least this section of NASA is acting like true scientists ... they deserve some plaudits for that!"The total change in TSI over the 11-year cycle is believed to be 0.1 percent of the Sun’s total energy on a yearly average. Individual sunspot events are very accurately reproduced in independent TSI measurements, so that the relative accuracy on weekly and 11-year time scales is sufficient to characterize such changes. However, the most accurate estimates of the long-term average TSI are uncertain by several times the amplitude of the 11 year cycle. This large uncertainty in absolute calibration of the instruments means that any possible trend from one 11 year cycle to the next, the most important change for global warming, is not known accurately enough to even decide whether the trend is positive, negative, or zero. With such data, scientists have a good approximation of the 11 year cycle, but no real insight into more subtle changes that may occur over many decades and centuries.
Even larger uncertainties exist for measurements of the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, and land. As of now, researchers know that the atmosphere absorbs between 20 and 25 percent of the TSI and that the land absorbs 45 to 50 percent. With solar radiation, a 5 percent difference is huge. A difference of even 1 percent would completely throw off climate models of global warming and scientist’s understanding of convection (warm, upward moving air currents) in the atmosphere.
The other big problem scientists face is too little data. Even in instances when solar energy measurements are accurate, researchers often don’t have enough information with which to draw conclusions. Building models to forecast long term trends, in particular, requires a tremendous amount of past data on those trends. At this time, scientists only have roughly twenty years of satellite data on the Sun —an equivalent of just two 11-year cycles. Most of the data researchers do have on the Sun are for TSI. Relatively very little data have been gathered on the spectral changes in the Sun. Scientists haven’t determined with precision how the fluctuations in the Sun’s output of visible wavelengths differ from near infrared or from ultraviolet. The dearth of spectral data presents another serious obstacle for climate modelers since distinct wavelengths are absorbed by different components of the Earth’s climate system, which react differently with one another as their energy levels change." (From: Uncertainties in Solar Measurement Section)
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 2, 2015 21:57:15 GMT
Tbh, when I initially found out the sun had cycles about 18 months ago, 2 of the next facts I discovered were tsi doesn't change much, uv does.
That did it for me in that uv is what heats water, a very common molecule on this planet.
Unlike co2, which effects ir, which can't heat anything. ...
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 3, 2015 1:22:22 GMT
My gut feeling says you're right.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 24, 2015 6:10:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2015 7:13:23 GMT
Tbh, when I initially found out the sun had cycles about 18 months ago, 2 of the next facts I discovered were tsi doesn't change much, uv does. That did it for me in that uv is what heats water, a very common molecule on this planet. Unlike co2, which effects ir, which can't heat anything. ... The variation of UV is not very large and mainly impacts the upper atmosphere which does get very hot but there is almost no atmosphere up there. IR is what you feel when you stand in front of any hot object. Ie heat rays that can cross distances even when you are not touching an object. The relative absence of IR is what you feel when you are cold. Without the heating effect of IR the planet would be extremely cold, and far far colder than the 20 or so extra degrees provided by the GHE.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2015 8:55:01 GMT
" ... 20 or so extra degrees provided by the GHE." Andrew, what do you mean by "extra"?
|
|