|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 23:24:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 23:06:41 GMT
| What electromagnetic radiation does Total Solar Irradiance data include and how was it measured?
SORCE measures wavelengths from soft X-Rays through some of the far Infrared (since 2003).
The Composite Data Set carries data from 11/78 – 8/05.
SOLAR2000 measured soft X-Rays through the far Infrared. (Space Environment Technologies)
LANDSAT is another range of interest, probably measuring out-welling radiation from the earth (geology and agriculture).
Computer algorithms:
LOWTRAN and MODTRAN are computer codes that correct instrument readings for various physical factors. They are included here to show a range of interest for TSI
|
Source before modification: lasp.colorado.edu/cassini/images/Electromagnetic%20Spectrum_noUVIS.jpgSee also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electromagnetic-Spectrum.png
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 23:04:56 GMT
This inquiry about TSI variability does not exclude other candidate drivers of warming temperatures, such as: · A minor effect of CO2, · Clouds and precipitation, · Heat sinks and sources: Oceans and ice sheets, including decadal oscillations · Volcanism, · Solar variability driven by the position of major planets (Vuckovic), · Solar – Earth energy transfer by magnetic fields or particles including electrons, · Solar Wind shielding from Galactic Cosmic Rays and consequent cloud shading, · The position of the Solar System within the Galaxy (Shaviv, Nir. "Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection.” Physical Review Letters, 2007)
Disclosure: I incline towards “All of the above”, to various degrees of timing and influence on the climate of Earth.
Some Forum commentators here have also identified energy, incident upon the earth, which is not included in “TSI”:
jimg points out in Global Warming & Weather Discussion: Global Cooling, reply # Reply #120 on Dec 27, 2008, 4:44pm, …”And TSI doesn't account for high energy radiation interactions. The UV/XUV flux is down about 50% from solar max, and the X-ray is down by a factor of about 10,000.”
Pidgey observed in Tilmari's Global Cooling 2008 Thread Continued, Reply #153 on Sept 27, 2008, 9:26pm “…Now, we certainly have a lot of trouble determining exactly how this plays out since we don't see a remarkable TSI variance and its variation doesn't match the HadCRUT or GLAAM at all. It does kind of follow sunspots. ”Perhaps, absorption of the radiant energy is what's affected by the magnetic effects.”
Jarl wrote (In Sunspots not causing global warming or cooling, Reply #27 on Sept 18, 2008, 4:48pm “…UV radiation has 10-100 times more energy than visible light. ”X-rays have 1000-100,000 times more energy than visible light. ”If the amount of x-rays and UV have changed, then the total amount of energy hitting the Earth would vary unless the amount of these frequencies are trivial in nature.”
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 23:01:51 GMT
Variation in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is regularly cited as being too low to significantly influence climate change (specifically, global warming). This conclusion had been back-cast using paleo- and dendro-climatology proxies. Based on this claim, most observed warming is attributed to CO2. I would appreciate some expert comment on “Total Solar Irradiance”. · What wavelengths are included? · How are these measured? · For what period of time have they been measured? · What is the power delivered by these wavelengths? · For what period of time have they been estimated through proxies? · What is the uncertainty of the proxy estimates? · What wavelengths are not included in TSI? · What is the power delivered by the excluded wavelengths? · What wavelengths can be estimated using proxies? An approximate table is found at imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/spectrum_chart.htmlThe SORCE web site defines TSI as: “Solar energy per unit time over a unit area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of Earth’s atmosphere.” Space Environment Technologies defines it as “the full-disk (whole Sun) solar irradiance at 1 AU (astronomical unit) integrated across all wavelengths.” (http://www.spacewx.com/solar_spectrum.html)ISO_DIS_21348_E_revB defines solar irradiance as "the Sun’s radiation integrated over the full disk and expressed in SI units of power through a unit of area, W m-2". The full disk includes the corona. "NOTE The commonly used term “full disk” includes all of the Sun’s irradiance coming from the solar photosphere and temperature regimes at higher altitudes, including the chromosphere, transition region, and corona. And: "6.2 Total Solar Irradiance "The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the full-disk (whole Sun) solar irradiance at 1 ua (AU) integrated across all wavelengths and is reported in units of W m-2 (clauses 2.1, 2.2, and 7.2). The solar constant, as described in clause 2.3, is the mean value of the TSI." (ANSI. “Space environment (natural and artificial) — Process for determining solar irradiances.” ISO, December 12, 2005.(Draft) www.spacewx.com/pdf/ISO_DIS_21348_E_revB.pdf) Added 2/23/2009I had assumed that “Total” meant the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and that any radiation not reflected (albedo) or re-radiated increases the energy of the planet. Upon investigation, however, I found few wavelength references, and those I found did not cover the entire electromagnetic spectrum. However, if the variation in total solar electromagnetic energy is greater than that claimed for the current TSI, then the warming attributable to CO2 would be less.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 19:40:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 9:25:43 GMT
I'm not a great believer in conspiracy theories, but I am a great believer in human stupidity. Kiwi, I think you did a real good job explaining multipliers in the banking system; 10% was a bit high for our "banking system", but it is great as an explanation. Of course, multipliers turn into divisors if the reserve assets lose value. The system was rife with mortgage tranches, derivatives and risk swaps. Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd assured us all was well. Real conspiracies do well until shown to be conspiracies; perhaps the F.B.I is on the hunt. I sent the following to our local newspaper and Neil Cavuto in hope someone would follow up:
Let me suggest that the Run On Money Markets of September 11, 2008 is newsworthy: - It triggered the decline of already-weakened financial markets and the widespread government intervention that followed.
- It was a massive drain (500+ billion). Withdrawals would require big money on deposit. Alternatively, hacking into other accounts is possible.
- Two large financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, had already been breached.
- It was sudden: a couple of hours, faster than watchdog agencies could react.
- It hit multiple funds at multiple firms at the same time, suggesting coordination.
- It was done through computerized transactions; infrastructure was needed to pull it off.
- There has been no mention of the destination of the transfers.
- The silence of news media has been deafening.
I think someone on this forum deserves credit for identifying the source of the story [Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA)], which was found at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 21, 2009 8:52:28 GMT
What I _have_ heard is more taxation - forcing coal fired power stations into bankruptcy - refusals to use oil reserves... because the empty headed politicians have been convinced by the UN reports that are total fallacy .
The name of this fallacy is "Affirming the Consequent". onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htmWhat worries me is that not only do they know it is a fallacy, but they know exactly what they want to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 19, 2009 8:53:29 GMT
I just found this thanks to a separate reference by twawki to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics site. Soon, Willie. “Solar Arctic Connection on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales.” Scientific. Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics, December 2005. www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/StockholmKTHSep11-12-06-d/Sep12-06-StockholmKTHSolarArcticTalk-30min-final.pdf. Abstract: In Soon (2005), the variable total solar irradiance series of Hoyt and Schatten (1993) has been shown to be able to explain, rather surprisingly, well over 75% of the variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic-wide surface air temperature of Polyakov et al. (2003) over the past 130 years or so. Detailed examination and reconstruction of the seasonal pattern of Arctic temperature records, based on inverse wavelet transform, support a solar-Arctic physical connection.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 18, 2009 23:55:20 GMT
In this presentation, I see the word "adiabatic" (no addition or loss of heat energy) and a cooling of the atmosphere below. Is it correct to understand this as a movement of heat energy to the stratosphere without overall heating or cooling?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 6, 2009 8:54:31 GMT
"Karl Popper and Global Warming"? Do you refer to the philosopher Karl Popper that George Soros studied under?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 4, 2009 8:31:04 GMT
Climatologists do not have any sense of responsibility - they see climatology as an academic game even although some of their output is being used by politicians right now in ways that will lead to life or death political decisions. Perhaps it is because they have no skin in the game. Big bureaucracy is insulated by "civil service" and funded by their prospective victims (citizens; we-the-people). They are free to denigrate "big oil", while "big government" pays them multiples of "big oil" profits. Perhaps we should change their game. How about this modest proposal: If the agw "scientists" are proven wrong by a Dalton Minimum: 1) they are fired and may not be re-hired, 2) they lose their pensions, 3) they may be charged for breach of government regulations on political activity and / or concealing data and processing logic from inspection and starving millions of people, (and, if found guilty, jailed with rations not exceeding 1000 calories per day of meatless diet), 4) they may be sued for fraud in civil courts up to 5 x their total assets, 5) they may be hired by the Socialist International (apply through Carol Browner), Except for #5, this proposal is no more harsh than the wreckage they are inflicting upon citizens of this and other countries. In addition, if proven wrong, the UN / IPCC cabal loses all funding. P.S.: their recreation is restricted to billiards, "on a cloth untrue, with a twisted cue and eliptical billiard balls". ;D
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 29, 2009 19:59:00 GMT
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. I.e., since LIA around 1600. Assertion sans evidence. BTW, many are growing again. See: Medieval Warm Period Project co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.phpTo use the "Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot", be sure to allow enable both " javascript" and " java" in your options. (Firefox: Options | Content)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 29, 2009 19:31:09 GMT
... One of the features of abrupt climate change is a the concept of a tipping point. The climate may be in a state of very gradual change, such as a temperature increase measured in a tenth of a degree per decade. Then a large area of ice (the Arctic basin anyone?) melts, and wham, the temperature jumps by a couple of degrees per decade. This happened frequently at the end of the last ice age between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago. Thats (sic) one reason to employ the precautionary principle. By the time we realize we've reached a tipping point, we wont be able to go back. I thought the Arctic Basin was sea ice. Perhaps you were thinking of the Laurentine ice sheet (9000 YBP). Any suggestions about what caused that to melt? (CO 2 anyone, anyone?) As to "Precautionary Principle", Sunstein did not think so. Neither does Dr. J. Scott Armstrong. See Item 8. Watts, Anthony, Jennifer Marohasy, and Dr. J. Scott Armstrong. “Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”.” Watts Up With That? wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/. Also read Item 6 in the that article discussing "Naive" forecasts. 6. "To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model. ... we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C." From the original document: " The errors from the projections were more than seven times greater than the errors from the benchmark (naive) method. Relative errors were larger for longer forecast horizons. Our validation exercise illustrates the importance for policymakers of determining predictability before making expensive decisions." Green, Kesten C., J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon. “ Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making,” January 27, 2009. kestencgreen.com/naiveclimate.pdf. But I am beginning to think that the "Precautionary Principle" is being applied by advocates of AGW: Grab control before the truth is indisputable. In reply #17, you state "This (IR absorption spectrum) was shown to be false in the 1950s, as I stated above." Please cite a source.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 29, 2009 7:27:36 GMT
ebrainsh wrote:
Perhaps weaker solar magnetic field -> Galactic Cosmic Rays penetrate lower atmosphere -> more Low Clouds -> Cooling -> Warm & Cold Air masses collide -> Rain? In case I got this chain of effects wrong, please see: Svensmark, Henrik. “ Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges.” Astronomy & Geophysics 48, no. 1 (2007): 1.18-1.24. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x. (In case I read or interpreted Svensmark incorrectly, please post a correction.)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 28, 2009 8:30:16 GMT
Antarctic Warming: a few links to the debate.
Marohasy, Jennifer. “Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic.” jennifermarohasy.com. jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/modellers-remove-evidence-of-cooling-and-editor-removes-comment-by-climate-sceptic/. McIntyre, Steve. “Antarctic RegEM.” Blog. Climate Audit, January 21, 2009. www.climateaudit.org/?p=4914. ---. “Steig's Silence.” Climate Audit , January 24, 2009. www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945. Morano, Marc. “Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study .” Government. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page, January 21, 2009. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6&IsPrint=True. Pielke Sr., Roger. “Follow Up On Today’s AP Article By Seth Bornenstein Entitled “Study: Antarctica Joins Rest Of Globe In Warming”.” Blog. Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News, January 21, 2009. climatesci.org/2009/01/21/follow-up-on-todays-ap-article-by-seth-bornenstein-entitled-study-antarctica-joins-rest-of-globe-in-warming/. “Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming.” Scientific. NASA GISS: Research News: , January 21, 2009. www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/. Steig, Eric J., and Michael E. Mann. “State of Antarctica: red or blue?.” RealClimate. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/. Steig, Eric J., David P. Schneider, Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Josefino C. Comiso, and Drew T. Shindell. “ Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year (Abstract).” Nature 457, no. 7228 (January 22, 2008): 459-462. doi:10.1038/nature07669. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07669. ---. “ Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year (Complete).” Nature 457 (January 22, 2009): 459 - 462. doi:10.1038. thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/steigetalnature09.pdf. Watts, Anthony. “ Antarctica Warming? An Evolution of Viewpoint.” Blog Summaries. ICECAP, January 22, 2009. icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/antarctica_warming_an_evolution_of_viewpoint1/.
This was cross-posted from "Global Warming and Weather Discussion ,\"Science Daily Needs Global Cooling Research Data", reply # 22 solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=398&page=2#10103
|
|