Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

IPCC leaked report, enhanced solar forcing


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:18 AM

You postulate that UV has its own cyclic upward trend without any evidence and no conceivable mechanism - because its convenient to do so.  
So you make convenient guesses without evidence - nice.


Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#47    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

The relationship between the solar cycle and its UV content has been studied in some detail and the conclusion was;

Quote

Solar cycle variability may therefore play a
significant role in regional surface temperatures,
even though its influence on the global mean
surface temperature is small (0.07 K for Decem-
ber–February).


http://individual.ut...ekwan/ozone.pdf

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#48    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 14 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

The relationship between the solar cycle and its UV content has been studied in some detail and the conclusion was;



http://individual.ut...ekwan/ozone.pdf

Br Cornelius
that study was from 1999.
the new satellites launched in 2003 show UV is many times more variable and greater than previously thought

deja vu.


#49    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:47 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 14 January 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

You postulate that UV has its own cyclic upward trend without any evidence and no conceivable mechanism - because its convenient to do so.  
So you make convenient guesses without evidence - nice.


Br Cornelius
I've given you evidence before, but here is more
"Solar irradiance is the main external driver of the Earth's climate. Whereas the total solar irradiance is the main source of energy input into the climate system, solar UV irradiance exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth's upper atmosphere. The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%. An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%)."
http://onlinelibrary...015431/abstract

so clearly the low wavelength UV varies more than longer wavelengths, as confirmed by satellite readings previously given to you. UV and infra red behave differently, uv is more energetic and is abosorbed deep in the ocean unlike infra red.

why should i need a rhetorical mechanism for why the sun's uv is more variable than previosuly thought if the data shows it to be the case. I've given you a mechanism of how uv is thought to affect atmopsheric temperatures..

also, see that 1.25 w/m2 above, that would account for the majority of the global warming seen since the little ice wouldn't it? looking at the ipcc, to account for forcing they say solar has contributed 0.12 w/m2 and co2 1.5 w/m2 giving a total of the two of 1.62 w/m2, so if solar contributes 1.25 w/m2 then balancing it out by setting co2 to 0.37 w/m2 gives an overestimate of co2 forcing by 340%

Edited by Little Fish, 15 January 2013 - 12:50 PM.


#50    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:23 PM

S K Solanki , one of the lead authors, concludes that the effect he observed are not sufficient to explain current warming.

Quote

Although the
rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades3


http://cc.oulu.fi/~u...nature02995.pdf

A direct quote from his webpage;

Quote

A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases. The same newspaper already misquoted other scientists on this topic. See, for example, the home page of Nigel Weiss of Cambridge Universityhttp://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/

In this case I prefer to take the opinion from the horses mouth rather than a skewed misrepresentation of what a real scientist believes to be true.

Quote

so clearly the low wavelength UV varies more than longer wavelengths, as confirmed by satellite readings previously given to you. UV and infra red behave differently, uv is more energetic and is abosorbed deep in the ocean unlike infra red.

Most UV is absorbed in the upper atmosphere - almost none reaches the surface of the planet - otherwise we would all die from sunburn.

Quote

also, see that 1.25 w/m2 above, that would account for the majority of the global warming seen since the little ice wouldn't it? looking at the ipcc, to account for forcing they say solar has contributed 0.12 w/m2 and co2 1.5 w/m2 giving a total of the two of 1.62 w/m2, so if solar contributes 1.25 w/m2 then balancing it out by setting co2 to 0.37 w/m2 gives an overestimate of co2 forcing by 340%


This is confusing different types of forcing, again, which we discussed previously.

http://en.wikipedia....g#Solar_forcing

What you are proposing is that the sun has suddenly diverged from well understood patterns of behaviour and mysteriously produced significantly more UV radiation on a rising trend when no mechanism for such appears in the historic record or in any physical model of the suns behaviour.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 15 January 2013 - 07:11 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#51    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,797 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

The total solar flux which reaches the surface of the earth averaged over the seasons and the dinurial cycle is approx 680 W/m2. Over the period from the Maunder minimum the total solar variability (over all wavelengths) has been 1.5W/m2 which represents about 0.18% variation over a period of over 150years. This forcing is over that full time period. Put into simple terms, at the end of the Maunder minima (150 years ago) the solar output was 680W/m2, and now it is 681.25W/m2.
Remember that what is really important here is that all of the energy should normally escape back to space leaving a zero net radiative forcing. The actual magnitude of the suns energy input is not overly significant.
The Greenhouse gas forcing is a measure of the imbalance we have introduced into that natural equalibrium, such that on a constant basis the sun is accumulating 0.32W/m2 of extra energy into the system. This forcing is constant and happening on a second by second basis. Greenhouse gas forcing is a measure of the instantanious radiative budget imbalance.

This is the context of why the solar contribution to the warming of the planet is relatively insignificant.

http://www.mps.mpg.d...e/sunearth.html

This is what I am talking about when I say that skeptics are unable to account for the imbalance in the top of the atmosphere radiative budget.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 15 January 2013 - 07:57 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users