|
Post by duwayne on Aug 29, 2016 19:04:49 GMT
The solar drop over 24 has not been that big and the cycle is over, so if 25 stays close to 24 it will turn into a meh event. I don't see the cold. While I have not attempted to set up the problem and do the math, I see this as an input/output balance problem. For 70 years the oceans have been absorbing more energy than they have been releasing as a result of energetic solar cycles. IF a less-energetic solar cycle results in a situation where energy reaching and being absorbed by the surface is less than the amount of energy being released to the atmosphere, then the battery is being drained day after day, year after year. If the following solar cycle is the same, then the drain on the battery continues. And temperature continues downward. In this way the drain on the energy balance in the system continues until input again exceeds output. We just don't know where that balance is. Our ignorance has preceded us. If we're not not careful, we will have to hire a climate priest to solve our problem. Perhaps I am missing something. Here’s my simplistic understanding of Solar activity and its effect on Global Temperatures. Photons are particles of energy which travel at about 186,000 miles per hour. The sun generates astronomical amounts of these massless particles via nuclear reaction. (E = MC Squared). A huge number of these particles hit the earth every day after 8 minutes travel from the sun. When the photons from the sun hit the earth their energy warms the earth a little. But the earth also emits photons and since there is very little nuclear generation here, these photons come from stored energy. As the earth’s temperature rises it emits more photons until an equilibrium is reached at which time the total photon energy leaving the earth equals the total amount hitting the earth. The key point is that the earth is not keeping all the extra photon energy from the more active sun. It uses a little energy to increase its temperature a smidgeon. Then it emits essentially pretty much all the photon energy as it gets. The extra photon power from an active sun at Solar Cycle Maximum versus Solar Cycle Minimum requires only about a 0.1C increase in the earth’s average global temperature to offset the increased photon incoming. Once that temperature increase takes place very little net energy is absorbed from the more active sun. Note that this doesn’t preclude widely differing temperatures over the earth’s surface. And it doesn’t preclude the earth from continuing to use a little of the energy it receives from the sun to replace heat lost from the surface to the subsurface. But there’s not much driving force here since the temperature change from the active or inactive sun is considerably less than 0.1C almost all the time.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 29, 2016 19:09:00 GMT
Of course the Solar Cycles and Milankovitch cycles need not be the _only_ things that limit solar irradiation and change IGC numbers. There is also the theory of galactic dust passing through the galactic plane.... "Abstract
A new δ18O Phanerozoic database, based on 24,000 low-Mg calcitic fossil shells, yields a prominent 32 Ma oscillation with a secondary 175 Ma frequency modulation. The periodicities and phases of these oscillations are consistent with parameters postulated for the vertical motion of the solar system across the galactic plane, modulated by the radial epicyclic motion. We propose therefore that the galactic motion left an imprint on the terrestrial climate record. Based on its vertical motion, the effective average galactic density encountered by the solar system is . This suggests the presence of a disk dark matter component."www.nature.com/articles/srep06150
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Aug 30, 2016 1:25:24 GMT
I though that this had already been suggested by Shaviv, as an amplification of Svensmark's ideas about cosmic radiation.
His idea was that as the sun crosses spiral arms, or "porpoises" through the galactic plane, more cosmic radiation would be encountered.
This would lead to cooler eras as cloud cover on earth, [hence albedo], increased.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 30, 2016 2:16:02 GMT
I though that this had already been suggested by Shaviv, as an amplification of Svensmark's ideas about cosmic radiation. His idea was that as the sun crosses spiral arms, or "porpoises" through the galactic plane, more cosmic radiation would be encountered. This would lead to cooler eras as cloud cover on earth, [hence albedo], increased. It had been.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 30, 2016 2:49:33 GMT
While I have not attempted to set up the problem and do the math, I see this as an input/output balance problem. For 70 years the oceans have been absorbing more energy than they have been releasing as a result of energetic solar cycles. IF a less-energetic solar cycle results in a situation where energy reaching and being absorbed by the surface is less than the amount of energy being released to the atmosphere, then the battery is being drained day after day, year after year. If the following solar cycle is the same, then the drain on the battery continues. And temperature continues downward. In this way the drain on the energy balance in the system continues until input again exceeds output. We just don't know where that balance is. Our ignorance has preceded us. If we're not not careful, we will have to hire a climate priest to solve our problem. Perhaps I am missing something. Here’s my simplistic understanding of Solar activity and its effect on Global Temperatures. Photons are particles of energy which travel at about 186,000 miles per hour. The sun generates astronomical amounts of these massless particles via nuclear reaction. (E = MC Squared). A huge number of these particles hit the earth every day after 8 minutes travel from the sun. When the photons from the sun hit the earth their energy warms the earth a little. But the earth also emits photons and since there is very little nuclear generation here, these photons come from stored energy. As the earth’s temperature rises it emits more photons until an equilibrium is reached at which time the total photon energy leaving the earth equals the total amount hitting the earth. The key point is that the earth is not keeping all the extra photon energy from the more active sun. It uses a little energy to increase its temperature a smidgeon. Then it emits essentially pretty much all the photon energy as it gets. The extra photon power from an active sun at Solar Cycle Maximum versus Solar Cycle Minimum requires only about a 0.1C increase in the earth’s average global temperature to offset the increased photon incoming. Once that temperature increase takes place very little net energy is absorbed from the more active sun. Note that this doesn’t preclude widely differing temperatures over the earth’s surface. And it doesn’t preclude the earth from continuing to use a little of the energy it receives from the sun to replace heat lost from the surface to the subsurface. But there’s not much driving force here since the temperature change from the active or inactive sun is considerably less than 0.1C almost all the time. While this may well be true of the atmosphere, the fact that the mean temperature of the upper layers of the oceans have increased by about 0.7 C over the last 165 years suggests that there is a larger residence time associated with solar energy that is absorbed by the oceans. I am making the assumption that this is largely solar, although geothermal has never been totally ruled out. Thes is the battery that I refer to. They are the primary reason that climate change occurs rather slowly in most (not all) locations. As energy is released by the oceans it can continue on its journey back to space. There are other forces at work, which we don't really understand that can result in large, relatively quick ocean heat content changes. Some of these can be seen in the CET record where mean winter temperatures can decline quickly (2-4 years) by 2-3 C and persist for a decade. Not all of them can be traced to volcanic events. Ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns would seem to play a combined role. We have a relatively long and partially documented history with rising ocean temperatures ... but not with cooling ocean temperatures. We will see what the next decade brings. Bring a blanket.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Aug 30, 2016 4:18:04 GMT
If Katla goes KABOOM, it will be rather sad.
It would upset the grand solar physics experiment in which we are all participating, results expected over the next 5 years.
This would have been a nice test [or otherwise]of CAGW.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 30, 2016 5:16:00 GMT
Or provide more evidence the bigs ones pop their hats on solar minimums!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 30, 2016 9:12:26 GMT
Or provide more evidence the bigs ones pop their hats on solar minimums! Pardon?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 30, 2016 9:31:12 GMT
There's a theory the big eruptions happen when solar activity is low....cuz you know, obviously....
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 30, 2016 10:19:32 GMT
There's a theory the big eruptions happen when solar activity is low....cuz you know, obviously.... Well, no actually. I'm new to this stuff. BUT, I'm having lunch with two Pommie couples this weekend and I will be able to converse with the "pop their hats" simile. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 30, 2016 11:31:00 GMT
There's a theory the big eruptions happen when solar activity is low....cuz you know, obviously.... Well, no actually. I'm new to this stuff. BUT, I'm having lunch with two Pommie couples this weekend and I will be able to converse with the "pop their hats" simile. Thanks. Its a hit phrase in the pommie volcano community 😆
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 30, 2016 12:04:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 30, 2016 12:09:05 GMT
Yeah I know, but Emmerich doesn't get his movie ideas from his imagination ya know, so it is a thing...for some anyway....
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 30, 2016 13:02:51 GMT
Well, no actually. I'm new to this stuff. BUT, I'm having lunch with two Pommie couples this weekend and I will be able to converse with the "pop their hats" simile. Thanks. Its a hit phrase in the pommie volcano community 😆 Some of us have to look these things up! Aaaaahhhhhhhhhh ... www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pommieUrban Dictionary A derogatory word used to refer to a Brit, derived from the acronym POME (Prisoner of Mother England). OK ... well, apparently we lost our POME status some time back.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 30, 2016 13:15:01 GMT
It was an easy fight Missouri
|
|