Global Dimming and the Ongoing Solar Minimum (SC24 & SC25)

[missouriboy]

When defining and explaining Global Dimming, there is a tendency to blame large portions of it to an anthropogenic source.  Note Wikipedia.

Global dimming is the reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that has been observed since systematic measurements began in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4–20% reduction. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]

Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates or aerosols, such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming has been attributed as the leading factor in the 1984 Ethiopian famine by reducing heating at the tropics which drives the annual monsoon, or wet season.[2]

Increases in volcanic activity and cosmic rays are being more commonly associated in the literature with declines in solar activity.  Both sources may affect cloud cover on the planet.  The double whammy of reduced solar radiation (especially across shorter - more energetic wavelengths) with induced increases in volcanic activity (with stratospheric injection of particulates, and more importantly aerosols) and increases in cosmic rays (due to declines in the solar magnetic field) with proposed associated increases in global cloud cover, are significantly affecting the types and amounts of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, specifically affecting oceanic solar heating and resultant atmospheric heating, which is driven by the oceans ... specifically by the tropical oceans.

The satellite archives contain at least 40-50 years of increasingly detailed planetary and solar data.  Can we doubt the importance of "natural" solar-earth-system interactions to climate change?  There needs to be an increased research effort aimed at challenging the anthropogenic paradigm.  Current climate trends may make this ever more obvious in the next few years.  But can it block or modify the plethora of truely stupid ideas being floated by the radical warmists?   STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOL INJECTION immediately comes to mind.  www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2021/02/stratospheric_aerosol_injection/

[missouriboy]

Ultra-Violet Radiation - Changes across and within solar cycles & effects planetary heating and cooling.

I am going to stack links to this topic as I find them.  So check back.
Many at Wattsup with a search on UV

April 28, 2021  This video is 10 years old.  wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/
April 28, 2021  Newer.  wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/22/new-paper-finds-solar-uv-b-output-is-correlated-to-global-mean-temperature/
                      Again 2013 good chart,  wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/solar-spectral-irradiance-uv-and-declining-solar-activity/
                      Viral pndemic explained?  wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/03/the-role-of-the-sun-in-the-spread-of-viral-respiratory-diseases/
There are others.

[nonentropic]

Frequency content defines what gets through and then absorbed.

UV hitting the ocean is the key because it is 70% of the area of the world and we don't live there so we know very little.

Ask the Whales they will know how deep you can see down to through a solar cycle.

[acidohm]

Great thread!!! 👍🏻

[missouriboy]

Apr 28, 2021 21:52:22 GMT acidohm said:

Great thread!!! 👍🏻

I'm looking forward to your contributions.  

[nonentropic]

not sure if this is relevant but the counter to the solar cycle argument was that solar output is only trivially different through the cycle and the counter-argument is that this is largely the case but the frequency mix is very different thus the energy absorption through the various altitudes is very different.
Is that it or are we chasing something else here??

[missouriboy]

Apr 28, 2021 23:16:14 GMT nonentropic said:

not sure if this is relevant but the counter to the solar cycle argument was that solar output is only trivially different through the cycle and the counter-argument is that this is largely the case but the frequency mix is very different thus the energy absorption through the various altitudes is very different.
Is that it or are we chasing something else here??

That is the general drift,  Very short wavelength frequencies (such as UV) are most effective in heating the oceans.  Deplete the UV, as apparently occurs in different phases of the solar cycle, and between stronger and weaker solar cycles, and get less heating.  Since the oceans are the primary heat source for the troposphere, cooler oceans result in a cooler troposphere.  That is the argument.  We are just beginning to explore the effects of the full range of solar electro-magnetic radiation on our planet and its climate(s).  Suspicious observers provides the best overview that I have seen ... as per the following, previously posted video.  It is long, but it is good.  I review it every now and again to jog my aging memory.  

[missouriboy]

Apr 28, 2021 19:23:42 GMT nonentropic said:

Frequency content defines what gets through and then absorbed.

UV hitting the ocean is the key because it is 70% of the area of the world and we don't live there so we know very little.

Ask the Whales they will know how deep you can see down to through a solar cycle.

Biden could give them a billion in krill annually to feed us the data.  

[sigurdur]

Take a look at Solar cycles variation in UV and stratosphere temperatures.

[missouriboy]

Apr 29, 2021 4:01:06 GMT sigurdur said:

Take a look at Solar cycles variation in UV and stratosphere temperatures.

This is a link to stratospheric temperature data at various altitudes and latitudes.  

www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/

Looks like enough here to occupy a career and to swamp my poor little computer.  Any links Sig on where (latitude and elevation) UV should have the greatest stratospheric effect?
Still trying to find UV timeseries that are not grid surfaces.

[sigurdur]

Polar area. Because the troposphere shrinks so low during each poles winter.

[nautonnier]

Apr 29, 2021 4:01:06 GMT sigurdur said:

Take a look at Solar cycles variation in UV and stratosphere temperatures.

Would the ocean temperatures down below 60ft be a more reasonable metric?

[missouriboy]

A Rough Description of how UV radiation may affect Oceanic Heating under changing Solar Conditions

Research suggests that UV radiation increases with the strength of solar cycles. This occurs across the temporal range of all 11-year Schwabe cycles (more UV at solar maximum than at solar minimum). UV radiation also changes between Schwabe cycles of different magnitudes. Energetic / strong solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 generated more UV radiation than weaker solar cycles 20 and 24.

Need timeseries showing UV-a, UV-b and UV-c measurements at the top of the atmosphere. (SORCE data)

Longer wavelength UV-a radiation is only partially absorbed by the ozone layer (~5%), whereas shorter wavelength UV-b and UV-c are mostly (95% and 100%) absorbed by the ozone layer. Higher UV radiation levels destroy stratospheric ozone in greater quantities than lower UV levels. I remember but cannot currently find the studies that found that higher solar UV levels were largely responsible for the large increase in the “ozone hole”, which was found to largely repair itself as solar UV levels declined. This hole was concentrated toward the poles. Currently unknown what depletion occurred at mid-latitudes and in the equatorial zones. If the net ozone reduction during strong solar cycles resulted in a net increase in UV reaching and penetrating the tropical and mid-latitude oceans, then oceanic heating could be expected to have been marginally higher(?) than otherwise expected during a strong solar cycle.

Thicker clouds have been found to transmit less UV radiation. If cloud cover increases during weak solar cycles (as per Swensmark or others), then even less oceanic heating would be expected than might otherwise be expected from a weak cycle. Greater cloud cover also serves to reflect a greater portion of visible radiation that would otherwise penetrate and heat upper oceanic layers.

[nautonnier]

[missouriboy]

The Mythologists have been awarded scientific credence in areas of study for which they are not trained.  They engage in conjured divination and call it science.  Unlike God(s), conjured physical processes and effects can be falsified ... and are being falsified.  But are the Mythologists still winning?

Mythology

Mythology refers variously to the collected myths of a group of people or to the study of such myths. A folklore genre, myth is a feature of every culture. Many sources for myths have been proposed, ranging from personification of nature or personification of natural phenomena, to truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events to explanations of existing rituals.Wikipedia

Divination

Divination, or "to be inspired by a god," is the attempt to gain insight into a question or situation by way of an occultic, standardized process or ritual.