|
Post by Ratty on Feb 7, 2018 21:23:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 7, 2018 22:08:11 GMT
Nice, thx Ratty!! Maybe someone can find more specific papers to Duwaynes question, but with limited time that was at least containing references
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 8, 2018 1:39:16 GMT
As Acid has said - the short wavelengths and especially the UV penetrate hundreds of feet into the oceans. Infrared is absorbed by the first water molecule it hits - usually less than 5 microns - and the energy given to that molecule on the surface is likely to be sufficient for it to evaporate taking with it the latent heat of evaporation, the reason the 'skin' of a water surface in the sun is cold - infrared actually cools the surface of the water. 75% of the surface is water - 'downwelling' infrared cannot warm that 75% and cools the surface, similarly any plants on the remaining 25% that is land.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 8, 2018 6:35:31 GMT
As Acid has said - the short wavelengths and especially the UV penetrate hundreds of feet into the oceans. Infrared is absorbed by the first water molecule it hits - usually less than 5 microns - and the energy given to that molecule on the surface is likely to be sufficient for it to evaporate taking with it the latent heat of evaporation, the reason the 'skin' of a water surface in the sun is cold - infrared actually cools the surface of the water. 75% of the surface is water - 'downwelling' infrared cannot warm that 75% and cools the surface, similarly any plants on the remaining 25% that is land. the water absorption of IR characteristics varies by IR frequency. The radiation from the surface is highly absorbed by water vapor and less so by CO2 to an extent that 90 to 95% is absorbed by the atmosphere (which is effectively what about an inch of water on average?). However, average surface IR radiation is a lot longer wavelength than average solar IR radiation which is mostly in the near IR range. The article at fondriest above points out that 90% of IR is absorbed by the time it reaches one meter in depth and is virtually completely absorbed by the time it reaches 2 meters. I would presume that is because nearIR absorbs less readily than IR of a 15degC radiating body. UV-C doesn't even reach the surface being absorbed by ozone in the atmosphere. UV-B the article says reaches a max of 20 meters into water. UV-A deeper. Visible light reaches up to 1000 meters in really clear water but very little penetrates beyond 200 meters. Something like only 22% of all light remains after 10 meters and only about .5% of light after 100 meters. Bottom line I think is the ocean absorbs heat from all frequencies. Then heat rises by convection to the surface where it is dispatched upwards by both all means evaporation/convection/conduction/electromagnetic radiation. Some of it might be radiating heat into the sky a fraction of an inch below the surface.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 8, 2018 15:03:14 GMT
DuWayne: A couple of decades ago, I had an extended visit with my now deceased friend who chaired the Atmospheric Science School at UND. We were chatting about the interconnect between the Pacific and Atlantic, how they affected climate/weather in our area. He told me to watch the UV bandwidth to determine long term weather/climate patterns. His reasoning was other light bands are pretty constant, but UV was highly variable, as he put it. Since that time, I have followed his advice and it appears to be very good advice. I have read a couple of papers indicating his advice was sound science. The past 15 years or so, it seems that UV variation is completely ignored. Is that because it doesn't amount to anything, or is it because it is "out of favour"? I don't know. I do know that UV "seems" to have an effect on Jet Stream placement. Looking at UV variations, the tie in to ocean temps appears to continue. Hence, my statement that a reduction in UV will slowly become visible as a reduction on OHC. As good as we can in regards to OHC. That is a very slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 9, 2018 2:05:21 GMT
Sigurdur, your statement was that “UV is by far the dominant energy source for our oceans.” That’s what I was questioning. I think the other parts of the solar spectrum, visible light and infrared individually and together are significantly greater than UV as Solar energy sources. What you may have meant to say was that that UV variations can have significant effects on global temperatures. To buttress that argument, here’s a recent paper which says the following: “Reduced sunspot activity has been observed and indicates the sun is heading into a 50 year reduced solar activity similar to what happened in the mid-17th century (Maunder Minimum). Comparison to similar stars indicates the reduced activity will cause 0.25% less UV for 50 years. Modeling indicates that this will cause a few tenths of a degree of cooling. This will counteract global warming for 50 years.” www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/longer-winters-are-coming-in-reality-and-will-partially-blunt-global-warming-for-50-years.html So, what are the odds of a Maunder Minimum in the near future?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 9, 2018 3:46:04 GMT
That area I have not diligently studied so will defer to anyone who has.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 9, 2018 11:20:38 GMT
Sigurdur, your statement was that “UV is by far the dominant energy source for our oceans.” That’s what I was questioning. I think the other parts of the solar spectrum, visible light and infrared individually and together are significantly greater than UV as Solar energy sources. What you may have meant to say was that that UV variations can have significant effects on global temperatures. To buttress that argument, here’s a recent paper which says the following: “Reduced sunspot activity has been observed and indicates the sun is heading into a 50 year reduced solar activity similar to what happened in the mid-17th century (Maunder Minimum). Comparison to similar stars indicates the reduced activity will cause 0.25% less UV for 50 years. Modeling indicates that this will cause a few tenths of a degree of cooling. This will counteract global warming for 50 years.” www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/longer-winters-are-coming-in-reality-and-will-partially-blunt-global-warming-for-50-years.html So, what are the odds of a Maunder Minimum in the near future? I hope you note the illogicality. >>Less UV - cooling that may counteract {CO2 caused} global warming >>More UV - as was the case in the last solar cycles - no effect Yet by definition they are saying when the UV returns to what it was in the 90's warming will return but that will be due to CO2? I fully expect if we were to drop into a little ice age, we would be being told that after the ice age global warming will accelerate pass a tipping point and the world will fry. The 'warmists' cannot accept that their CO2 causes global warming hypothesis may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 9, 2018 16:50:57 GMT
To buttress that argument, here’s a recent paper which says the following: “Reduced sunspot activity has been observed and indicates the sun is heading into a 50 year reduced solar activity similar to what happened in the mid-17th century (Maunder Minimum). Comparison to similar stars indicates the reduced activity will cause 0.25% less UV for 50 years. Modeling indicates that this will cause a few tenths of a degree of cooling. This will counteract global warming for 50 years.” www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/longer-winters-are-coming-in-reality-and-will-partially-blunt-global-warming-for-50-years.html So, what are the odds of a Maunder Minimum in the near future? The Warmists Are Establishing A Fallback PositionMore details on how the world will experience something like the Game of Thrones – Winter is Coming
The Sun might emit less radiation by mid-century, giving planet Earth a chance to warm a bit more slowly but not halt the trend of human-induced climate change.
The cooldown would be the result of what scientists call a grand minimum, a periodic event during which the Sun’s magnetism diminishes, sunspots form infrequently, and less ultraviolet radiation makes it to the surface of the planet. Scientists believe that the event is triggered at irregular intervals by random fluctuations related to the Sun’s magnetic field.Their message to the faithful is ... "Fear not, for our God is strong and cannot be moved by mere forces of Nature". So it has been sold ... and so it must remain. Or their position will be overrun and routed. It is why they have expended so much effort in grooming the data to fit the monotonic image and message of their God. So, what are the odds of a Maunder Minimum in the near future? I don't know. We have been delivered with one small solar cycle and those who prognosticate expect another (of similar magnitude + or -). This will be the setting for the next decade. We know that past occurrences of same have generally been associated with cooler surface temperatures and a host of related weather conditions. We will not need a Maunder Minimum to destroy the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. In world of nearly instantaneous communication, the "climate swamp" will not be able to control the data. An anarchic host of deplorable, computer savy worker bees will see to that. Here I make ONE assumption ... that being that, for whatever ultimate reasons, we will experience a-yet-to-be determined climate cooling associated with the series of low solar cycles and their progressions through our oceans. To ensure a "fair" scientific test, we must control the data and systematically release results. The "soft" public will compare their experience with God's message and "progressively" shift to a new paradigm. If it doesn't happen then so be it. Those scientists that have thrown in their "political" lot with the extremists must not be allowed to retreat one inch from their chosen burial ground. As the facts warrant, let the extermination begin. In a "collegial" fashion of course. As per Cassius, perhaps they will choose to do the honorable thing ... but oxymoron's don't mix.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 10, 2018 17:33:17 GMT
spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=10&month=02&year=2018SUNSPOT FACES EARTH: Sunspot AR2699 is directly facing Earth this weekend. If it explodes, the eruption would surely be geoeffective. However, the growth of the sunspot has stalled during the past 24 hours, prompting NOAA forecasters to downgrade the chance of a strong M-class solar flare to only 15%. Flares or not, this big sunspot is a beautiful target for backyard solar telescopes. Free: Solar Flare Alerts
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 10, 2018 17:42:41 GMT
spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=10&month=02&year=2018SUNSPOT FACES EARTH: Sunspot AR2699 is directly facing Earth this weekend. If it explodes, the eruption would surely be geoeffective. However, the growth of the sunspot has stalled during the past 24 hours, prompting NOAA forecasters to downgrade the chance of a strong M-class solar flare to only 15%. Flares or not, this big sunspot is a beautiful target for backyard solar telescopes. Free: Solar Flare Alerts They do say the greatest chance of a Carrington type event comes from lone, infrequent spots such as these...
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 11, 2018 21:38:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 11, 2018 23:04:08 GMT
watchers.news/2017/12/20/solar-activity-cycle-falls-to-the-bottom-1-5-years-earlier-than-expected/Solar activity cycle falls to the bottom 1.5 years earlier than expected
Posted by TW on December 20, 2017 in categories Featured articles, Space weather Solar activity cycle falls to the bottom 1.5 years earlier than expected According to the Laboratory for X-ray Solar Astronomy of the PN Lebedev Physical Institute in Russia, the solar activity cycle has, by all indications, practically reached its minimum 1.5 years ahead of expected time. Given that the previous solar maximum in 2012 was one of the weakest in the last century, it is possible, that we are now waiting for an earlier and substantially more "severe" minimum of the cycle. There were no magnetic storms and field disturbances observed in the last two months related to solar activity, the laboratory said in a news release. Thus, space weather in the vicinity of our planet is increasingly losing its connection with the Sun, which by all indications practically fell to the bottom of the next minimum of the 11-year solar cycle 1.5 years earlier than expected. At 5.7, the average monthly number of sunspots (one of the main indicators of the level of solar activity) reached a minimum value for the last 8 years of observations in November 2017. The last time the lower value was recorded in the last decade was in August 2009. Although the decrease in the number of sunspots on the Sun is normal for our star, in this case, it occurs unexpectedly early, the laboratory wrote in an earlier release."Up to the minimum point of the solar cycle, there are still about 18 months, and usually at this stage, the sunspot activity of the Sun is higher." The average number of sunspots in September was 43, it dropped to 13 in October and to 5 in November. "It is possible that this indicates a faster approximation of the next solar minimum than was expected. Such cases, when intervals between solar minima were reduced from 11 to 10 and even 9 years, are known in the history of astronomy, but occurred quite a long time ago - about 200 years - called the Dalton minimum. 400 years of sunspot observations "Given that the previous solar maximum in 2012 was one of the weakest in the last century, it is possible, that we are now waiting for an earlier and substantially more "severe" minimum of the cycle. "If so, it is impossible to exclude that solar activity is now falling to the bottom of a 100-year or even 1000-year cycle. Although the question of the presence of such global recessions in the Sun is still debatable, radiocarbon analysis of rocks and plants provides much evidence of the existence of such changes in the past." You did already Missouri!! 🤣😂
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 11, 2018 23:10:12 GMT
I didn’t have time to respond when Nautonnier wrote above….
“…the reason the 'skin' of a water surface in the sun is cold - infrared actually cools the surface of the water.”
Here’s another view.
Water evaporates if the air above isn’t water saturated (100% relative humidity). The molecule must scavenge enough heat from the molecules around it to get the latent heat required to transform from vapor to liquid. This evaporation cools the water surface (skin). Whether it’s day or night or indoors or outdoors as long as the air above the water isn’t water saturated, the process of evaporation will cool the skin.
The skin is cooler than the water immediately below because of evaporation.
Infrared heats the skin. It doesn’t cool the skin.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 11, 2018 23:13:01 GMT
I didn’t have time to respond when Nautonnier wrote above…. “…the reason the 'skin' of a water surface in the sun is cold - infrared actually cools the surface of the water.” Here’s another view. Water evaporates if the air above isn’t water saturated (100% relative humidity). The molecule must scavenge enough heat from the molecules around it to get the latent heat required to transform from vapor to liquid. This evaporation cools the water surface (skin). Whether it’s day or night or indoors or outdoors as long as the air above the water isn’t water saturated, the process of evaporation will cool the skin. The skin is cooler than the water immediately below because of evaporation. Infrared heats the skin. It doesn’t cool the skin. Infrared provides the energy required to hasten evaporation. Initially warms, but then the reaction to that increase in energy results in a cooling because of the energy removed via latent heat.
|
|