|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 0:08:20 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: Are you satisfied with the current satellites as far as providing basic facts? Or would you like another one launched that can do more? The main issue is not to do more but to continue to do what we are doing. Many satellites are nearing [or already past] their useful life. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 12, 2013 1:19:12 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard:
I sent you a message after a phone conversation had today.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 3:43:37 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: I sent you a message after a phone conversation had today. Thank you what message? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 12, 2013 13:47:18 GMT
I sent it via the message function on this board:
Dr. Svalgaard:
The idea that we lose any data or ability to amass data during the next few cycles is troubling. I talked to my Senator, Senator Hoeven today in regards to this.
He is on appropriations and would like to start a movement to make sure that studying the sun does not have interruptions during the next several decades.
Is there anything specific I could do to help?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 15:31:32 GMT
I sent it via the message function on this board: Dr. Svalgaard: The idea that we lose any data or ability to amass data during the next few cycles is troubling. I talked to my Senator, Senator Hoeven today in regards to this. He is on appropriations and would like to start a movement to make sure that studying the sun does not have interruptions during the next several decades. Is there anything specific I could do to help? Vote for him again. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Aug 4, 2013 21:42:00 GMT
Dr Svalgaard-
The planet seems to be moving in a cooling direction, at just the time the folks who think solar influence would cause such cooling. Will anything convince you the sun has something to do with climate?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 5, 2013 17:46:19 GMT
"The planet seems to be moving in a cooling direction, at just the time the folks who think solar influence would cause such cooling. Will anything convince you the sun has something to do with climate?"
The Sun has something to do with climate. We expect a 0.1 C solar cycle variation, which so far is just barely observed in the noise. Other than that there is very little evidence. For example: the Sun now is at the level of activity it had a century ago, yet our climate is very different. Even if another Maunder Minimum were to materialize in the coming decades the climate would only respond by the same 0.1 C [corresponding to loss of the solar cycle signal]. So, the Sun is a climate driver, but not a major one, so not one we should worry about.
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45 
|
Post by timb on Aug 5, 2013 21:55:37 GMT
"The planet seems to be moving in a cooling direction, at just the time the folks who think solar influence would cause such cooling. Will anything convince you the sun has something to do with climate?" The Sun has something to do with climate. We expect a 0.1 C solar cycle variation, which so far is just barely observed in the noise. Other than that there is very little evidence. For example: the Sun now is at the level of activity it had a century ago, yet our climate is very different. Even if another Maunder Minimum were to materialize in the coming decades the climate would only respond by the same 0.1 C [corresponding to loss of the solar cycle signal]. So, the Sun is a climate driver, but not a major one, so not one we should worry about. It seems that total irradiance changes is very small in terms of W/m^2. But spectral changes in UV over the course of a cycle are on the order of 3%. Does this spectral change in UV have any correspondence to weak/strong sunspot cycle? For example will Solarcycle 24 exhibit the same UV variance as SC23 and is simply a different mechanism than sunspots? I've seen the statements that UV radiation varies over a cycle but not that the there is significant correlation of the variation to sunspots. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 6, 2013 5:29:25 GMT
Since the UV is such a small fraction of TSI, it doesn't matter much that its variation is 3% of a tiny bit. We know of no process that would make UV vary differently in different cycles. The variation of UV comes about by the variation of solar activity in general. There is no 'special' and separate UV-cycle, as far as we know.
|
|
|
|
Post by arthur123 on Aug 7, 2013 16:05:49 GMT
So Dr. Lsvalgaard you said the Sun's influence is small accounting for a 0.1C variation. The same can be said of CO2. It represents less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent (0.035% by volume or slightly less than 400 ppm) of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. So how can such a minor gas increase surface temperatures by 4 to 8 degrees C over the next century as predicted by these global circulation models? It would seem completely counterintuitive.
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on Aug 7, 2013 19:15:32 GMT
So Dr. Lsvalgaard you said the Sun's influence is small accounting for a 0.1C variation. The same can be said of CO2. It represents less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent (0.035% by volume or slightly less than 400 ppm) of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. So how can such a minor gas increase surface temperatures by 4 to 8 degrees C over the next century as predicted by these global circulation models? It would seem completely counterintuitive. As a tongue in cheek question, at noon, go from sea level to 10,000 feet and measure the difference in temperature. How much closer to the sun are you in PPM? How can such a small change in distance affect the temperature (and the solar TSI at the higher altitude is more)? You are conflating two different mechanisms in the same question just as the adiabatic lapse rate is not dependant on TSI or relative distance from the sun, neither is the mechanism or sensitivity of climate to CO2 related to TSI variance. I asked the UV question as it wasn't clear to me if the 11 year cycle of 3% UV variation was constant or if it also varied with sunspot activity. The overall UV component of TSI is rather small though it has implications with ozone formation. It's certainly not an issue of direct radiative forcings affecting temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by arthur123 on Aug 20, 2013 15:24:43 GMT
I wasn't asking you "timb". I was asking this question to Dr. Lsvalgaard.
But since you decided to give a response, why would say your analogy is not relevant. Why? Because at 10,000 feet we are still in the troposphere and the general rapse rate is about 3 degrees F drop in temperature per 1,000 of elevation. So at 10,000 feet the air temperature will be about 30 degrees colder than the same location at sea level. Yes that person would be closer to the Sun by 10,000 feet, but the temperature would still be lower than that measured at sea level. However, if you continue up in elevation and you enter the stratosphere where the temperatures will start to increase with further elevation.
My question to the doctor pertains to small changes in a property that result in big (as is claimed by CO2 sensitivity advocates) versus the small impact of small changes in TSI that are claimed to result in only small changes in the order of 0.1 degree C by the doctor.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Aug 26, 2013 11:26:59 GMT
Dr Svalgaard-
Is there any replacement available for the TSI in your daily graph? Seems to be caused by a battery failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 26, 2013 13:17:21 GMT
the status and plans are here: lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/08/19/sorce-spacecraft-status/"With the loss of another battery cell, SORCE is now operating in a new configuration. While we are working ultimately towards recovering back to normal operations with daily solar irradiance measurements, our current focus is preparing the spacecraft to support a campaign mode to assure overlapping measurements between SORCE and TCTE in December 2013. There will be a data gap for SORCE for several weeks, but we plan to continue the SORCE solar irradiance measurements as soon as it is feasible." |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 27, 2013 1:46:01 GMT
the status and plans are here: lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/08/19/sorce-spacecraft-status/"With the loss of another battery cell, SORCE is now operating in a new configuration. While we are working ultimately towards recovering back to normal operations with daily solar irradiance measurements, our current focus is preparing the spacecraft to support a campaign mode to assure overlapping measurements between SORCE and TCTE in December 2013. There will be a data gap for SORCE for several weeks, but we plan to continue the SORCE solar irradiance measurements as soon as it is feasible." It is the pits that it is having problems now. |
|
