|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 12, 2015 2:18:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 27, 2016 17:04:13 GMT
I found a web site that allows you to view solar output in watts by spectral wavelength in nm. lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html There have been multiple conversations on this site about the effect of the upcoming(?) solar minimum on the TSI and ultraviolet energy reaching the Earth's surface. I took several samples in the UV and visible light range. Noting that UV radiation below 310nm is largely absorbed by the ozone layer, we have the range between 310-400nm that can penetrate the atmosphere. 400nm is the usual cutoff between UV and visible. Two charts below show timeseries graphs at 310nm and 400nm. The series starts in 2003, 3 years after solar max (SC23). You see that these decline over the TS with barely a nudge by SC24 peak, followed by fairly steep decline in 2015. Overall, energy in these bands declined by about 2.5%. The third chart is in the visible at 500nm. Interesting that there is a small steady increase into SC24 (almost like energy output was shifting slightly to longer wave lengths - mere speculation). The increase amounted to only 0.50%. The opening screen on the link seems set at 121.5nm. At this wave length total watts are very small, but the time series mimicks the solar cycle shape. While it MAY NOT BE VERY LIKELY that there is a direct correlation between SSTs and UV radiation (triple bold type) ... I note just for 'brain candy', that a 2.5% reduction in average ocean surface temperature, at say 20C, amounts to 0.5C.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 27, 2016 19:33:16 GMT
Good find mboy.....also a solar influence, cosmic ray increase as solar cycle progresses to minimum.. www.spaceweather.com/The lead story may change within 24hrs, apologies if the relevant article has cycled off the front page
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 27, 2016 19:39:37 GMT
I found a web site that allows you to view solar output in watts by spectral wavelength in nm. lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html There have been multiple conversations on this site about the effect of the upcoming(?) solar minimum on the TSI and ultraviolet energy reaching the Earth's surface. I took several samples in the UV and visible light range. Noting that UV radiation below 310nm is largely absorbed by the ozone layer, we have the range between 310-400nm that can penetrate the atmosphere. 400nm is the usual cutoff between UV and visible. Two charts below show timeseries graphs at 310nm and 400nm. The series starts in 2003, 3 years after solar max (SC23). You see that these decline over the TS with barely a nudge by SC24 peak, followed by fairly steep decline in 2015. Overall, energy in these bands declined by about 2.5%. The third chart is in the visible at 500nm. Interesting that there is a small steady increase into SC24 (almost like energy output was shifting slightly to longer wave lengths - mere speculation). The increase amounted to only 0.50%. The opening screen on the link seems set at 121.5nm. At this wave length total watts are very small, but the time series mimicks the solar cycle shape. While it MAY NOT BE VERY LIKELY that there is a direct correlation between SSTs and UV radiation (triple bold type) ... I note just for 'brain candy', that a 2.5% reduction in average ocean surface temperature, at say 20C, amounts to 0.5C. View AttachmentView AttachmentView Attachment Can I fix your comment? "MAY BE VERY LIKELY"
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 27, 2016 20:41:39 GMT
I'm with you on that one Sig....Missouriboy. ..what's your rational on that one???
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 27, 2016 21:22:38 GMT
I found a web site that allows you to view solar output in watts by spectral wavelength in nm. lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html There have been multiple conversations on this site about the effect of the upcoming(?) solar minimum on the TSI and ultraviolet energy reaching the Earth's surface. I took several samples in the UV and visible light range. Noting that UV radiation below 310nm is largely absorbed by the ozone layer, we have the range between 310-400nm that can penetrate the atmosphere. 400nm is the usual cutoff between UV and visible. Two charts below show timeseries graphs at 310nm and 400nm. The series starts in 2003, 3 years after solar max (SC23). You see that these decline over the TS with barely a nudge by SC24 peak, followed by fairly steep decline in 2015. Overall, energy in these bands declined by about 2.5%. The third chart is in the visible at 500nm. Interesting that there is a small steady increase into SC24 (almost like energy output was shifting slightly to longer wave lengths - mere speculation). The increase amounted to only 0.50%. The opening screen on the link seems set at 121.5nm. At this wave length total watts are very small, but the time series mimicks the solar cycle shape. While it MAY NOT BE VERY LIKELY that there is a direct correlation between SSTs and UV radiation (triple bold type) ... I note just for 'brain candy', that a 2.5% reduction in average ocean surface temperature, at say 20C, amounts to 0.5C. Can I fix your comment? "MAY BE VERY LIKELY" I LIKE YOUR STYLE. I was hedging like crazy.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 27, 2016 21:24:35 GMT
I'm with you on that one Sig....Missouriboy. ..what's your rational on that one??? Shot myself in the foot once too often!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 27, 2016 22:46:59 GMT
I'm with you on that one Sig....Missouriboy. ..what's your rational on that one??? Shot myself in the foot once too often! Bloody hell guys...stop shouting! :-D
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 5, 2016 0:07:19 GMT
I think you are mixing up ideas there. Water is likely to gain heat very quickly but the surface layer of water cannot easily be heated or cooled quickly because it has access to/contact with the sub surface layers via IR and mixing. The solid surface does not have the access to distant layers via IR or mixing and is only able to transfer heat to and from the very next molecule of material via conduction Andrew it might be useful to point out that all you are doing is disputing the language that Acidohm is using. It can be confusing to say that water gains heat very slowly and ground easily. However, it doesn't seem a stretch to understand he is talking about degrees temperature rather joules of heat. Heat and temperature are often not used precisely and often interchanged so you may as well be complaining he did not put a period at the end of a sentence. I read the sentence and was thinking temperature instead of joules also. It took a while to figure out what new infinitesimal point you were trying to make. It seems a more intelligent and imaginative individual would ask a question first, like "don't you mean temperature instead of heat?" if one was actually thinking he meant joules instead of degrees. I should point out at this point you made a boner too. Subsurface layers of water are affected not by IR and mixing, but by instead uniquely via UV, Visible Light, and mixing and indeed the solid surface does not have access to sublayers by anything except conduction. Probably the biggest piece of scientific BS passed around by the warmists is that lightwaves absorbed by the atmosphere have no impact on surface climate, except of course to the degree they need it to. Such deception regarding the state of science is central to the claim that variations in the sun does not in any significant part affect surface climate. But that seems disputed by the affects of solar cycles on surface warming rates. If somebody wants to actually dispute how a shifting of the solar light spectrum may or may not affect climate one needs to first explain the above chart. Poohing poohing solar variation has been a favorite pastime of warmists. First it had no measurable effect despite it being a NOAA favorite theory before Al Gore started firing people for believing in it. Then when the pause came the effect was selectively used as an explanation for the pause but not the initial warming. I am still trying to figure how Foster and Rahmstorf can turn on and off the effect whenever they choose. What I see in the above chart is a complete elimination of any warming effect by what ever was inducing it each and every solar cycle. This is using Phil Jones temperature data so its certainly not a skeptic invention. Why Phil Jones can't see the problem in his own data might be associated with either the amount of green in his pocket or grey matter in his skull. I am completely aware that the above chart which only depicts variation of surface warming is insufficient to explain the general warming over the past 100 years. That is where glacial and ocean rates of change and their equilibrium points help complicate the entire situation beyond any modeled theory to an extent that climate models have been unable to accurate hindcast ever, and currently can't forecast either. It seems clear to me that TSI variation has been discounted by you and the warmist community but I do not see how that is consistent with the above chart. If solar cycles lasted 40 years instead of 11 we would have opportunity to see their full effect on the surface and upper oceans which are the only elements currently in climate models. They won't include the solar cycles except when they try to explain the pause and even then its put in as an unquantified value so as to try to avoid an overall quantification in some smoke and mirrors study like the trash that Foster and Rahmstorf study whose basis has evaporated with the coming of an El Nino and Solar Maximum never to see the light of day again. The effects on this variation on the mid ocean, deep ocean, and glacial ice are much longer processes extending for thousands of years so in fact we don't know what the full effect of solar cycles are much less what effects longer periods of solar quietness is. I can't see a basis for handwaving anything away until we have a better understanding of natural variation. The theory that natural variation had been overridden, sold to us in IPCC's AR3, has been falsified and it rested on the concept of no natural variation currently occurring, yet the chart above proves they were lying. It was bolstered by the notion of omniscience (yes warmist scientists think they are Gods!) being sufficient to push political change. Icefisher, you posted this chart a few months ago. Could you explain what temperature (anomaly?) is plotted?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 2:14:11 GMT
Icefisher, you posted this chart a few months ago. Could you explain what temperature (anomaly?) is plotted? This chart was extracted from Hadcrut 3. I have not extended if for a couple of years because Hadcrut 3 was terminated. But what the plot is of a monthly recalculation of the 10 year warming trend by degree C per century. Since they are 10 year trends it would have been more appropriate to use trend per decade. But you can get that by dividing the vertical axis by 10. So strictly speaking its not an anomaly but actual warming over the 10 years prior to the month plotted on the horizontal axis. So on the vertical axis a 4 indicated that an extrapolation of the 10 year warming trend ending on the month on the horizontal axis was 4 degC per century. Looking at the recent post as I have several versions of this graph with different axis labeling laying around it looks like a label was produced every 13 months. I probably fixed that in another version. If you look at the graph it looks like the only times a 10 year trend reached or exceeded 4 degC/century was in 1983 and 2002. Low trend rates correlate to solar minimums, except recently where it started to breakdown with no resumption of the warming seen in the previous 4 solar cycles. What this graph says is there is an underlying trend as the chart shows more warming that cooling. But it shows the effect of the solar variation quite nicely. Dr Akasofu plotted a similar graph without as much detail and attributed the underlying trend as a recovery from the Little Ice Age. . . .which for various reasons I think is a reasonable hypothesis. 10 year trends work well because they screen out ENSO and longer trends screen out solar cycles. As I recall a 7 year trend works for this display pretty well too. So technically in Excel what I did was use the "linest" function which because the data being monthly returns a warming trend for ten years (by including 120 months in the function) of what the average monthly rate of the trend is. So to get a century trend I multiplied by 1200 for 1200 months in a century. If you want a decadal trend multiply by 120. I think the final iteration of the chart has a legend to specifies all that if I can find it. this is really pretty easy to do as the data is available usually monthly. Hardest part is getting all the formatting done.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 5, 2016 17:07:00 GMT
Icefisher, you posted this chart a few months ago. Could you explain what temperature (anomaly?) is plotted? This chart was extracted from Hadcrut 3. I have not extended if for a couple of years because Hadcrut 3 was terminated. But what the plot is of a monthly recalculation of the 10 year warming trend by degree C per century. Since they are 10 year trends it would have been more appropriate to use trend per decade. But you can get that by dividing the vertical axis by 10. So strictly speaking its not an anomaly but actual warming over the 10 years prior to the month plotted on the horizontal axis. So on the vertical axis a 4 indicated that an extrapolation of the 10 year warming trend ending on the month on the horizontal axis was 4 degC per century. Looking at the recent post as I have several versions of this graph with different axis labeling laying around it looks like a label was produced every 13 months. I probably fixed that in another version. If you look at the graph it looks like the only times a 10 year trend reached or exceeded 4 degC/century was in 1983 and 2002. Low trend rates correlate to solar minimums, except recently where it started to breakdown with no resumption of the warming seen in the previous 4 solar cycles. What this graph says is there is an underlying trend as the chart shows more warming that cooling. But it shows the effect of the solar variation quite nicely. Dr Akasofu plotted a similar graph without as much detail and attributed the underlying trend as a recovery from the Little Ice Age. . . .which for various reasons I think is a reasonable hypothesis. 10 year trends work well because they screen out ENSO and longer trends screen out solar cycles. As I recall a 7 year trend works for this display pretty well too. So technically in Excel what I did was use the "linest" function which because the data being monthly returns a warming trend for ten years (by including 120 months in the function) of what the average monthly rate of the trend is. So to get a century trend I multiplied by 1200 for 1200 months in a century. If you want a decadal trend multiply by 120. I think the final iteration of the chart has a legend to specifies all that if I can find it. this is really pretty easy to do as the data is available usually monthly. Hardest part is getting all the formatting done. Icefisher, thanks for the explanation. There are many studies which claim the Solar Cycle has no measurable affect on global temperatures. Your chart indicates there may be an affect. I'd be interested in seeing an update, perhaps with Hadcrut4 anomalies. Would you see the same cycle if you plotted 11-year cumulative anomalies?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 7, 2016 10:35:22 GMT
This chart was extracted from Hadcrut 3. I have not extended if for a couple of years because Hadcrut 3 was terminated. But what the plot is of a monthly recalculation of the 10 year warming trend by degree C per century. Since they are 10 year trends it would have been more appropriate to use trend per decade. But you can get that by dividing the vertical axis by 10. So strictly speaking its not an anomaly but actual warming over the 10 years prior to the month plotted on the horizontal axis. So on the vertical axis a 4 indicated that an extrapolation of the 10 year warming trend ending on the month on the horizontal axis was 4 degC per century. Looking at the recent post as I have several versions of this graph with different axis labeling laying around it looks like a label was produced every 13 months. I probably fixed that in another version. If you look at the graph it looks like the only times a 10 year trend reached or exceeded 4 degC/century was in 1983 and 2002. Low trend rates correlate to solar minimums, except recently where it started to breakdown with no resumption of the warming seen in the previous 4 solar cycles. What this graph says is there is an underlying trend as the chart shows more warming that cooling. But it shows the effect of the solar variation quite nicely. Dr Akasofu plotted a similar graph without as much detail and attributed the underlying trend as a recovery from the Little Ice Age. . . .which for various reasons I think is a reasonable hypothesis. 10 year trends work well because they screen out ENSO and longer trends screen out solar cycles. As I recall a 7 year trend works for this display pretty well too. So technically in Excel what I did was use the "linest" function which because the data being monthly returns a warming trend for ten years (by including 120 months in the function) of what the average monthly rate of the trend is. So to get a century trend I multiplied by 1200 for 1200 months in a century. If you want a decadal trend multiply by 120. I think the final iteration of the chart has a legend to specifies all that if I can find it. this is really pretty easy to do as the data is available usually monthly. Hardest part is getting all the formatting done. Icefisher, thanks for the explanation. There are many studies which claim the Solar Cycle has no measurable affect on global temperatures. Your chart indicates there may be an affect. I'd be interested in seeing an update, perhaps with Hadcrut4 anomalies. Would you see the same cycle if you plotted 11-year cumulative anomalies? The longer you make a trend the more it screens out short term cycles. Making the trend 10 years worked out the best because of screening out ENSO that sometimes operates over a 7 year cycle. After 10 it starts working on the average 10 to 12 year solar cycle fairly quickly since its about an average of 11 years from minimum to minimum. Shorter than 10 years starts creating more bumps for ENSO and the major Volcanos. I haven't located a monthly series for Hadcrut 4 but I haven't looked either. Not real enthusiastic because of all the adjusting that Phil Jones and GISS hung on it trying to resurrect a warming trend out of the pause. plus the big reason for it to be was to get their favorite studies on polar temp increases via modeling historic arctic temps and the huge extapolations they use even for recent temps. i would actually prefer a reduced but better vetted smaller series than hadcrut 3 even. like isuspect hadcrut 2 was even better since phil jones was not in charge then. i think tom wigley was and though he is abig warmist i have no reason to doubt his integrity
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 16, 2016 16:55:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 11, 2016 14:17:39 GMT
Several articles have been posted here which claim there will be a drop in Solar activity over the next 50 years or so. Here on the other hand is is a recent predict1on based on an extensive analysis of past long term cycles that says" ...solar activity during the 21st century should be similar to solar activity enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century." euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 11, 2016 15:31:50 GMT
Several articles have been posted here which claim there will be a drop in Solar activity over the next 50 years or so. Here on the other hand is is a recent predict1on based on an extensive analysis of past long term cycles that says" ...solar activity during the 21st century should be similar to solar activity enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century." euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/Very good article duwayne. One item (at least) was missing. He states that ... The climatic effect is also probably not due to changes in radiation reaching the surface, as we know they are very small. He does not address the issue of a shift in the radiation spectrum, e.g. changes in the amount of UV radiation under different solar conditions, which could significantly affect ocean heating. Whatever happens, we are in a 'favorable' position temporally to observe what actually happens. That may (or not) change many paradigms. It seems we may be cursed (or blessed) to live in interesting times. Bring on the 'true' scientists.
|
|