|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Jun 23, 2019 16:14:16 GMT
A long time has gone since I posted here. Most solar physicists, including Leif Svaalgard, have predicted SC25 to be similar to SC24, or even slightly stronger. Few have gone against this prediction but they exist, like Valentina Zharkova and John Casey. Now NASA have released a new prediction indicating SC25 to be significantly weaker. Perhaps John Casey will beat all the others once again, like he did with SC24. I think his prediction was the closest one. www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-explorationNASA´s solar prediction is about 3 min 50 secs into the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZloiPpGQjAInteresting - they probably got away with publishing that as it was not in one of the NASA Solar pages. A quote like "The Sun's activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025."Would have Gavin Schmidt pulling your research funding in GISS. Astromet will agree with the forecast though as will Prof Abdussamatov There should be an updated graph of this by now. I bet there isn't because this didnt happen. Sun spot numbers went down but the solar radiance did not drop to 1363 I think.
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Jun 23, 2019 16:21:22 GMT
When there is a total eclipse there is an immediate temperature drop of up to 28F see www.space.com/37201-solar-eclipse-temperature-drop.htmlSo if the energy input the solar irradiance drops one would expect an immediate worldwide temperature drop. Surely this is self evident? Surely it is evident. But we are talking a drop of 0.1-0.5% This in itself would not cause a drop of more than a degree. What I think could cause it are effects like the noctilucent clouds that cover a quarter of the globe and constantly filter out 1-5% of the sunlight or increased volcanic activity due to the solar minimum or weakened jet streams due to the solar minimum or something else that I nor anybody else have contemplated so far. None of which I have proof of by the way.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 23, 2019 17:13:22 GMT
When there is a total eclipse there is an immediate temperature drop of up to 28F see www.space.com/37201-solar-eclipse-temperature-drop.htmlSo if the energy input the solar irradiance drops one would expect an immediate worldwide temperature drop. Surely this is self evident? Surely it is evident. But we are talking a drop of 0.1-0.5% This in itself would not cause a drop of more than a degree. What I think could cause it are effects like the noctilucent clouds that cover a quarter of the globe and constantly filter out 1-5% of the sunlight or increased volcanic activity due to the solar minimum or weakened jet streams due to the solar minimum or something else that I nor anybody else have contemplated so far. None of which I have proof of by the way. but half a percent of 1366 is nearly 7 watts per square meter which should be noticeable. Of course what is not shown is what part of the spectrum is reducing. A reduction in the infrared would have a lot less effect than a reduction in the higher frequency energy that can actually heat the oceans. Late edit - SORCE TSI Kopp et al, 2019
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Jun 23, 2019 22:39:04 GMT
Surely it is evident. But we are talking a drop of 0.1-0.5% This in itself would not cause a drop of more than a degree. What I think could cause it are effects like the noctilucent clouds that cover a quarter of the globe and constantly filter out 1-5% of the sunlight or increased volcanic activity due to the solar minimum or weakened jet streams due to the solar minimum or something else that I nor anybody else have contemplated so far. None of which I have proof of by the way. but half a percent of 1366 is nearly 7 watts per square meter which should be noticeable. Of course what is not shown is what part of the spectrum is reducing. A reduction in the infrared would have a lot less effect than a reduction in the higher frequency energy that can actually heat the oceans. Late edit - SORCE TSI Kopp et al, 2019 Yes well if it would be a perfect blackbody, you could model it. Half a percentage radiance drop could be explained by a cooling from 5807K to 5800K. Peak radiant emittance would shift about 1% to longer wavelength, so you'd have most of your 7W in losses in short wavelength. (perhaps even more than 7W, whilst long wavelength rises, but not clear on this) However from your graph we do not drop 7W, we dont even drop 2W from maximum to minimum, not cycle to cycle. I'm more interested in noctilucent clouds and their albedo effect. It's crazy, here we have a cloud formation that's larger than a continent that hangs over the poles when those poles are bading in sunlight, clearly related to solar phenomena, most likely overlooked by climate modelers and no one is talking about that.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 24, 2019 2:09:13 GMT
When there is a total eclipse there is an immediate temperature drop of up to 28F see www.space.com/37201-solar-eclipse-temperature-drop.htmlSo if the energy input the solar irradiance drops one would expect an immediate worldwide temperature drop. Surely this is self evident? Surely it is evident. But we are talking a drop of 0.1-0.5% This in itself would not cause a drop of more than a degree. What I think could cause it are effects like the noctilucent clouds that cover a quarter of the globe and constantly filter out 1-5% of the sunlight or increased volcanic activity due to the solar minimum or weakened jet streams due to the solar minimum or something else that I nor anybody else have contemplated so far. None of which I have proof of by the way.There is a lot of that going around, FJ1408.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 24, 2019 7:48:24 GMT
This Noctilucent cloud story is both new and interesting.
Clearly a very high cloud in the polar regions is as likely to warm as it is to cool the world. but that is science isn't it.
Are they in fact more prevalent than before even.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 24, 2019 9:51:54 GMT
This Noctilucent cloud story is both new and interesting. Clearly a very high cloud in the polar regions is as likely to warm as it is to cool the world. but that is science isn't it. Are they in fact more prevalent than before even. Need more information, Non. What is your thinking? Summer clouds warmer? Winter clouds cooler? Vice versa?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 24, 2019 19:36:44 GMT
When there is a total eclipse there is an immediate temperature drop of up to 28F see www.space.com/37201-solar-eclipse-temperature-drop.htmlSo if the energy input the solar irradiance drops one would expect an immediate worldwide temperature drop. Surely this is self evident? Surely it is evident. But we are talking a drop of 0.1-0.5% This in itself would not cause a drop of more than a degree. What I think could cause it are effects like the noctilucent clouds that cover a quarter of the globe and constantly filter out 1-5% of the sunlight or increased volcanic activity due to the solar minimum or weakened jet streams due to the solar minimum or something else that I nor anybody else have contemplated so far. None of which I have proof of by the way. I think you have a good point FJ.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 24, 2019 21:01:30 GMT
0.1-0.5% is actually a lot it depends also on where it is removed. 0.5% is 6.5 Watts is that correct of down ward radiation??
the very high cloud is above the water/CO2 absorption zone so may not even participate in the back radiation as it high and cold there.
How unique are these clouds really?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 27, 2019 20:26:03 GMT
0.1-0.5% is actually a lot it depends also on where it is removed. 0.5% is 6.5 Watts is that correct of down ward radiation?? the very high cloud is above the water/CO2 absorption zone so may not even participate in the back radiation as it high and cold there. How unique are these clouds really? Extremely. Very rare, most common during minima. Much more common in this, and previous one.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 13, 2019 1:56:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 13, 2019 13:12:54 GMT
Just a thought, and going off on a bit of a tangent.... There's evidence in ancient monuments that those who built these understood the precession of the globe and the figures required to calculate this. Makes we wonder if we're missing information relating to sun activity. It would be logical that a people who could potentially calculate a 24,000 year cycle might deem a 350 year or so one which affected their harvests etc 🤔 Ancient archaeology is a science where there is a consensus on established fact and contrary evidence is sneered upon 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 13, 2019 13:19:21 GMT
Just a thought, and going off on a bit of a tangent.... There's evidence in ancient monuments that those who built these understood the precession of the globe and the figures required to calculate this. Makes we wonder if we're missing information relating to sun activity. It would be logical that a people who could potentially calculate a 24,000 year cycle might deem a 350 year or so one which affected their harvests etc 🤔 Ancient archaeology is a science where there is a consensus on established fact and contrary evidence is sneered upon 🤷♂️ Do you live near Piltdown?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 13, 2019 14:47:54 GMT
Just a thought, and going off on a bit of a tangent.... There's evidence in ancient monuments that those who built these understood the precession of the globe and the figures required to calculate this. Makes we wonder if we're missing information relating to sun activity. It would be logical that a people who could potentially calculate a 24,000 year cycle might deem a 350 year or so one which affected their harvests etc 🤔 Ancient archaeology is a science where there is a consensus on established fact and contrary evidence is sneered upon 🤷♂️ Do you live near Piltdown? Acid's a lot closer to Piltdown than you are Ratty
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 13, 2019 14:55:47 GMT
Just a thought, and going off on a bit of a tangent.... There's evidence in ancient monuments that those who built these understood the precession of the globe and the figures required to calculate this. Makes we wonder if we're missing information relating to sun activity. It would be logical that a people who could potentially calculate a 24,000 year cycle might deem a 350 year or so one which affected their harvests etc 🤔 Ancient archaeology is a science where there is a consensus on established fact and contrary evidence is sneered upon 🤷♂️ The book Forbidden Archeology (as I said sometime ago, may have been on the 'old board') attacks currently accepted archaeology in the same way that currently accepted climate 'science' is attacked. There are the same confirmation biases and clique-doms, and disallowing dissenting publications by the archaeological thought police. The claim is made that advanced tools were found below some very old geological layers and that humans have been around considerably longer than the accepted/enforced 'out of Africa' narrative would have people believe. Link to Amazon Books
|
|