DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Doomstead Diner
*****************************************************
#Post#: 312--------------------------------------------------
Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
By: Surly1 Date: November 13, 2013, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
HTML http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/nasa-scientist-sun-is-weakest-in-200-years.html
Posted on November 12, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
Sunspot Activity at Record Low, And Magnetic Orientation Is
Puzzling
[As usual, go to original to follow embedded links.]
Reuters and Space.com noted in September that sunspot activity
was at a 100-year low.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that this sun’s solar
maximum is the weakest in 200 Years:
Based on historical records, astronomers say the sun this fall
ought to be nearing the explosive climax of its approximate
11-year cycle of activity—the so-called solar maximum. But this
peak is “a total punk,” said Jonathan Cirtain, who works at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration as project
scientist for the Japanese satellite Hinode, which maps solar
magnetic fields.
“I would say it is the weakest in 200 years,” said David
Hathaway, head of the solar physics group at NASA’s Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
***
“There is no scientist alive who has seen a solar cycle as weak
as this one,” said Andrés Munoz-Jaramillo, who studies the
solar-magnetic cycle at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
***
At the same time, scientists can’t explain the scarcity of
sunspots. While still turbulent, the sun seems feeble compared
with its peak power in previous decades. “It is not just that
there are fewer sunspots, but they are less active sunspots,”
Dr. Schrijver said.
***
Several solar scientists speculated that the sun may be
returning to a more relaxed state after an era of unusually high
activity that started in the 1940s.
“More than half of solar physicists would say we are returning
to a norm,” said physicist Mark Miesch at the High Altitude
Observatory in Boulder, Colo., who studies the internal dynamics
of stars. “We might be in for a longer state of suppressed
activity.”
In January, Nasa warned that we might be on the verge of another
“Maunder minimum” … where low solar output leads to a mini ice
age.
We could be heading into another Maunder minimum … or a shorter
and less severe cooling trend.
The truth is that no one knows. As Reuters reported earlier
this year:
Giuliana DeToma, a solar scientist at the High Altitude
Observatory in Colorado … admitted “we will do not know how or
why the Maunder Minimum started, so we cannot predict the next
one.”
Many solar experts think the downturn is linked a different
phenomenon, the Gleissberg cycle, which predicts a period of
weaker solar activity every century or so. If that turns out to
be true, the sun could remain unusually quiet through the middle
of the 2020s.
But since the scientists still do not understand why the
Gleissberg cycle takes place, the evidence is inconclusive. The
bottom line is that the sun has gone unusually quiet and no one
really knows why or how it will last.
Indeed, scientists are largely mystified by the sun, and are
just starting to learn about interactions between the sun and
the Earth.
For example, the Wall Street Journal notes:
To complicate the riddle, the sun also is undergoing one of its
oddest magnetic reversals on record.
Normally, the sun’s magnetic north and south poles change
polarity every 11 years or so. During a magnetic-field reversal,
the sun’s polar magnetic fields weaken, drop to zero, and then
emerge again with the opposite polarity. As far as scientists
know, the magnetic shift is notable only because it signals the
peak of the solar maximum, said Douglas Biesecker at NASA’s
Space Environment Center.
But in this cycle, the sun’s magnetic poles are out of sync,
solar scientists said. The sun’s north magnetic pole reversed
polarity more than a year ago, so it has the same polarity as
the south pole.
“The delay between the two reversals is unusually long,” said
solar physicist Karel Schrijver at the Lockheed Martin Advanced
Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif.
Scientists said they are puzzled, but not concerned, by the
unusual delay. They expect the sun’s south pole to change
polarity next month, based on current satellite measurements of
its shifting magnetic fields.
#Post#: 313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
By: AGelbert Date: November 13, 2013, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
Posted on November 12, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
Sunspot Activity at Record Low, And Magnetic Orientation Is
Puzzling[/quote]
Propaganda 101Key words above and hidden persuader:
KEY WORD---->HIDDEN PERSUADER
1. WEAKEST------>COOLEST
2. LOW------------>COOLING
3. PUZZLING------>DOUBT
Surly,
Does the above mean we no longer have to worry about Global
Warming?
Do you not find it suspicious that the WALL STREET JOURNAL is so
concerned with our welfare?
You normally are quite suspicious of news that would OBVIOUSLY
bolster the dirty energy status quo. You don't think this one
does that?
Do you, or do you not, agree that the above news LACKS one
important feature of serious scientific inquiry (i.e. The
statement that RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE TO DETERMINE THE
EFFECTS OF THIS PHENOMENON ON EARTH'S CLIMATE)?
Isn't it just AMAZING how we can be showered with erudite and
"scientific caution to not jump to conclusions because more
research is needed" when severe weather frequency and strength
(as claimed WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA by over half of climate
scientists) is caused by Global Warming from burning fossil
fuels but when a phenomenon that they "ADMITTEDLY HAVE NO CAUSE
AND EFFECT SCIENCE OR TRACK RECORD TO JUDGE ITS EFFECT ON GLOBAL
WEATHER" occurs (i.e. the "WEAKEST SUN" in "200 years" - nice
round number, EH, Surly? Would you like to CHECK meteorological
and solar output science QUALITY and PRECISION in 1813?).
Do you STILL not smell a Big Oil Koch propaganda rat here? Okay,
I'll spell it out for you.
They DELIBERATELY used the word "WEAKEST", not "COOLEST" to
describe the trend in solar output. They did, that, friend,
BECAUSE solar radiation is in many frequencies, WITHOUT a
proportionally equal heating effect per frequency. Yes, it's a
bit confusing to the layman. But not to the scientist. That's
why these clever PROPAGANDA PIECES are careful with their
phraseology (they want to make it hard for real scientists to
accuse them of mendacity and pseudo science agenda BS in the
service of big oil).
Why is the types of radiation IMPORTANT to this debate? Because
the earth's atmosphere is HEATING from the ABSOLUTELY WEAKEST
PART OF THE SOLAR RADiATION SPECTRUM!!!
A WEAKER Sun will produce LESS of it's main JUICE in radiation
(Gamma rays and maybe part of the high powered UV, NOT the
weaker UV that is making it to our atmosphere, converting to IR
and being trapped by CO2).
So what is the point? The point is to leave it HANGING in the
AIR that the "SUN is WEAKER" so the layperson will put 2 and 2
together and get THREE as far as Global WARMING is concerned. If
the article was REALLY science based, it would have said:
ONE. More research is needed to determine if this has an effect
on earth's climate.
TWO. There is presently no scientific evidence that a reduction
in the gamma, X-ray and upper UV solar radiation spectrum will
reverse the current scientific consensus that CO2 is causing
global warming because it is the weakest UV A and B converting
to IR that has been proven to heat our atmosphere.
THREE. The solar irradiance weakening appears to be limited to
the high energy spectrum. Research is needed to determine if the
lower energy spectrum is also weakening in order to assume we
are no longer at risk of global warming induced severe weather
and biosphere damage from the burning of fossil fuels.
Surly, ONE. TWO, THREE, look at MR Propaganda LEE doing his
dance for fossil fuel profits and Global Warming denial by
OMITTING ONE, TWO and THREE. The pupose is, as the Marshall
Institute, infamous for the Tobacco strategy and ozone problem
denial before they went to GW denial, is NOT to attack the
science DIRECTLY.
The Purpose is to SEED DOUBT [quote]The truth is that no one
knows. ;)[/quote]in order to DELAY the transition away from
fossil fuels and the ASSIGNMENT of RESPONSIBILITY for the damage
to the Fossil Fuel Industry predatory, profit worshipping
liars... Hey, the SUN is WEAKENING! Hot Dog! Let's go fill er'
up with premium and PARTY! We are SAVED! No more Global Warming
to worry about or those silly ALARMISTS wanting to take my SUV
away!
If you believe the story you posted above is serious science,
you are being taken for a fool. Don't say I didn't warn you.
[quote]
Surly1:
Jesus, AG, take a chill pill.
The article addresses sunspot activity and a kind of magnetic
orientation uncertainty, and cites a NASA scientist. Nothing in
there from the hireling Lee, nor from the Marshall Institute,
CO2Science, or any other denialist organization. I don't have
your knowledge of the science involved; but what I took from
this article was that, if the sun were in a normal cycle, global
warming would be worse than it already is, and we'd already be
enjoying methane hydrates popping up from the seabed.
I didn't stop to parse the fine shadings of meaning between
"weaker" and "cooler," and I am well aware that the Kochs, like
rust, never sleep, but I did not get "happy motoring" out of
that article.
Having done battle here with the likes of MKing and other
cornucopian shills, I assumed you would understand that then
article seemed to represent an odd bit of scientific business
rather than a denialist salvo. Evidence, if you will. And we
always go where the evidence leads, yes?
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't
have both." - Louis Brandeis
[/quote]
[quote]
Golden Oxen:
Same here Agelbert, I said to myself, " My Goodness what would
our weather be like without this having happened. You have to
understand that some of us here have little knowledge in these
matters and are more or less dependent on what we read. On the
face of it, it appeared an interesting article to a layman such
as myself. No doubt would have posted it myself if I came across
it.
Your rebuttal of the article and it's intent was enlightening
and has lessened the articles stature and importance to my mind
at least. Thanks for pointing out facts that certainly seem to
have been omitted. [/quote]
agelbert
GO and Surly,
I apologize if I seemed somewhat vitriolic. Decreasing sunspot
activity has been a big part of the GW denial machine for almost
a decade. I think there is a LOT of money out there to whisper
(indirectly, of course) into people's ears that fossil fuels and
nuclear power are being victimized by alarmist sky is falling
chicken little tree huggers.
The Wall Street Journal and Zero Hedge get quite a bit of
readership and, as muck racking as they seem, can be
insufferably pro-status quo dirty energy.
Surly, if you posted that article on FB, why not post my
hollered critique? It may get you more readers and give my forum
some views too. :icon_mrgreen: A vigorous debate can attract
readers. Reduce it to the ONE, TWO, THREE points I brought up
and pull anything else out of it you want. If I am right, you
will get an INSTANT herd of GW deniers out to defend their
innocent sounding article. If I'm wrong, my answer will be
ignored (propagandists scour the web 24/7 looking for anything
that can undermine their bought and paid for messages). Of
course, since they generally ignore low traffic areas, the
result may be inconclusive.
Also, please watch Washingtonblog for a piece in the next week
or so defending or denying Global Warming science or fossil
fuels' liability for environmental and property damage claims.
The innocent sounding piece may be a credibility building
gesture. ;)
GO,
I'm glad you agree how adding ONE, TWO and THREE to the article
changes the picture. :emthup:
Nowadays, whether people are conscious of it or not, we ALL are
looking for evidence for or against an acceleration of the
environmental storm inertia. Massive Fortunes are riding on it.
Ironically, our survival, which is much more important, is NOT
what the main debate is about. :P :o
It's about WHO PAYS FOR THIS SHIT. Fossil fuel foolers DON'T
WANT TO PAY. So I weigh absolutely anything I read out there
based on that 60 million dollars (from the Koch crooks alone in
the last decade!) paying people to lie through their teeth. I am
a tiny voice but I'm not going to make it easy for those
conscience free criminals.
By the way, my invitation for you to sign up on my forum is a
permanent one even if we may get into a good old fashioned
shouting match from time to time. ;)
#Post#: 343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
By: AGelbert Date: November 15, 2013, 2:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly said,
[quote]Your rebuttal also illustrates a point we should not lose
sight of, is that deniers' mission is simply to create doubt.
WHich can be done with shadings of language, emphasis, story
placement (or omission.)
And I am sure Dr. Lee's work will earn him a special chair in
hell.[/quote]
Yep. Here's a little background on the sunspot fun and games
going all the way back to 2008. Notice how the article, even
back then, was NOT presented as Global Warming denial. It was
the old "doubt MO.
[quote]Fri, 2008-04-04 08:43Page van der Linden
Global Warming Deniers Favorite "Sunspot" Theory Refuted...
Again
If one were to reach into the grab bag of global warming
skeptics' favorite theories, one might pull out any number of
speculation-laden papers and editorials regarding the supposed
effect of solar activity on the Earth's climate.
For example, here's an excerpt from an October 2007 presentation
given by a member of the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute:
[color=brown]How long will the global warming alarmists be able
to sustain the public hysteria without strongly rising
temperatures? This will be a key factor in the short-term future
of climate warming legislation.
Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute says
cosmic rays are the link between the sun’s variability and
Earth’s temperatures. More or fewer cosmic rays, depending on
the strength of the “solar wind,” seed more or fewer of the low,
wet clouds that cool the Earth. Further experiments to document
this impact are planned in Europe.
The research to which the presentation refers is described in
this paper by Svensmark, which, oddly, does not mention climate
change, although the (non-peer-reviewed) press release for his
research does: ;)
The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the
theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil
Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate
through their effect on cloud formation.
'Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from
cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,’ comments Eigil
Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National
Space Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way in which
cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The [current research]
now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray
connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate
research.
(Click at link for the Real Climate discussion of Svensmark's et
al.'s claims.)
Unfortunately for the [color=brown]"sunspots and cosmic rays,
not humans, cause global warming"
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
crowd, British scientists have just blown their claims out of
the water. The BBC News website has the story:
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing
that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the
Sun's activity.
The research contradicts a favored theory of climate "sceptics",
that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine
cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar
activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no
significant link between them in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal,
Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they
used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found
virtually none.
The article points out the obvious:
This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least
puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik
Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very
heavy pressure. Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the
controversial documentary The Great Global Warming
Swindle.[/color]
The Great Global Warming Swindle was essentially a global
warming skeptic-laden response to Al Gore's fact-based
documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. It came out in May 2007. Its
focus on Svensmark's theory is perplexing, given that three
years earlier, scientists reported:
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's
output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has
declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the
Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the
researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the
past, but not the present.
'This should settle the debate,' said Mike Lockwood, from the
UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new
analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation
Center in Switzerland.
In other words, there is repeated evidence from multiple
researchers that global warming is caused by human activity. Not
by sunspots.
Not by cosmic rays.
What will it take to convince the skeptics?
[/color][/quote]
Agelbert can answer that one! When the money to buy Pseudo
Scientific BS dries up!
HTML http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-favorite-sunspot-theory-refuted-again
#Post#: 361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
By: AGelbert Date: November 16, 2013, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Reposted from the Doomstead Diner where I am having a
"debate" with Global Warming denier.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
[/move]
I think these scientists from a document written in 1984 don't
have an agenda. How about you, Snowleapard? Can you trust what
these fellows say?
Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water and Oral Rehydration
Solutions
Guidelines for Household Application in Developing Countries
Aftim Acra - Zeina Raffoul - Yester Karahagopian
Department of Environmental Health
Faculty of Health Science - American University of Beirut
Beirut, 1984
1.Foreword
2.Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) ◾The Revolution for
Children
◾The Four Simple Technologies
◾Global Diarrhoeal Diseases Control Programs
◾Causes, Transmission, and Control of Childhood Diarrhoea
3.Oral Rehydration Solutions (ORS) ◾The Practical Issues
◾Domestic Formulations
◾Disinfection by Boiling
4.Solar Energy ◾Fundamental Considerations
◾From Sun to
Earth
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
◾World Distribution
◾A Competitor
◾Some Practical Hints
5.Solar Disinfection Studies ◾Drinking Water
◾Oral Rehydration Solutions
6.Appendix
Originally published by UNICEF
Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa
P.O.Box 811721 - Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1984
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Created by the Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with
Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.
970730/wa-bl/980215/bl - Email: almashriq@hiof.no
Solar Energy
From Sun to Earth
Outer Space
The enormous amount of energy continuously emitted by the sun is
dispersed into outer space in all directions. Only a small
fraction of this energy is intercepted by the earth and other
solar planets.
The solar energy reaching the periphery of the earth's
atmosphere is considered to be constant for all practical
purposes, and is known as the solar constant. Because of the
difficulty in achieving accurate measurements, the exact value
of the solar constant is not known with certainty but is
believed to be between 1,353 and 1,395 W/m2 (approximately 1.4
kW/m2, or 2.0 cal/cm2/min). The solar constant value is
estimated on the basis of the solar radiation received on a unit
area exposed perpendicularly to the rays of the sun at an
average distance between the sun and the earth.
In passing through outer space, which is characterized by
vacuum, the different types of solar energy remain intact and
are not modified until the radiation reaches the top of the
earth's atmosphere. In outer space, therefore, one would expect
to encounter the types of radiation listed in Table 1, which
are: gamma ray, X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared radiations.
Atmospheric Effects
Not all of the solar radiation received at the periphery of the
atmosphere reaches the surfaces of the earth. This is because
the earth's atmosphere plays an important role in selectively
controlling the passage towards the earth's surface of the
various components of solar radiation.
A considerable portion of solar radiation is reflected back into
outer space upon striking the uppermost layers of the
atmosphere, and also from the tops of clouds. In the course of
penetration through the atmosphere, some of the incoming
radiation is either absorbed or scattered in all directions by
atmospheric gases, vapours, and dust particles. In fact, there
are two processes known to be involved in atmospheric
scattering of solar radiation. These are termed selective
scattering and non-selective scattering. These two processes are
determined by the different sizes of particles in the
atmosphere.
Selective scattering is so named because radiations with shorter
wavelengths are selectively scattered much more extensively than
those with longer wavelengths. It is caused by atmospheric
gases or particles that are smaller in dimension than the
wavelength of a particular radiation. Such scattering could be
caused by gas molecules, smoke, fumes, and haze. Under clear
atmospheric conditions, therefore, selective scattering would be
much less severe than when the atmosphere is extensively
polluted from anthropogenic sources.
Selective atmospheric scattering is, broadly speaking, inversely
proportional to the wavelength of radiation and, therefore,
decreases in the following order of magnitude: far UV > near UV
> violet > blue > green > yellow > orange > red > infrared.
Accordingly, the most severely scattered radiation is that which
falls in the ultraviolet, violet, and blue bands of the
spectrum. The scattering effect on radiation in these three
bands is roughly ten times as great as on the red rays of
sunlight. 8)
It is interesting to note that the selective scattering of
violet and blue light by the atmosphere causes the blue colour
of the sky. When the sun is directly overhead at around noon
time, little selective scattering occurs and the sun appears
white. This is because sunlight at this time passes through the
minimum thickness of atmosphere. At sunrise and sunset, however,
sunlight passes obliquely through a much thicker layer of
atmosphere. This results in maximum atmospheric scattering of
violet and blue light, with only a little effect on the red rays
of sunlight. Hence, the sun appears to be red in colour at
sunrise and sunset.
Non-selective scattering occurring in the lower atmosphere is
caused by dust, fog, and clouds with particle sizes more than
ten times the wavelength of the components of solar radiation.
Since the amount of scattering is equal for all wavelengths,
clouds and fog appear white although their water particles are
colourless.
Atmospheric gases also absorb solar energy at certain wavelength
intervals called absorption bands, in contrast to the wavelength
regions characterized by high transmittance of solar radiation
called atmospheric transmission bands, or atmospheric windows.
The degree of absorption of solar radiation passing through the
outer atmosphere depends upon the component rays of sunlight and
their wavelengths. The gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet
radiation less than 200 nm in wavelength are absorbed by oxygen
and nitrogen. Most of the radiation with a range of wavelengths
from 200 to 300 nm is absorbed by the ozone (O3) layer in the
upper atmosphere. These absorption phenomena are essential for
living things because prolonged exposure to radiation of
wavelengths shorter than 300 nm destroys living tissue.
Solar radiation in the red and infrared regions of the spectrum
at wavelengths greater than 700 nm is absorbed to some extent by
carbon dioxide, ozone, and water present in the atmosphere in
the form of vapour and condensed droplets (Table 1). In fact,
the water droplets present in clouds not only absorb rays of
long wavelengths, but also scatter some of the solar radiation
of short wavelengths.
Ground Level
As a result of the atmospheric phenomena involving reflection,
scattering, and absorption of radiation, the quantity of solar
energy that ultimately reaches the earth's surface is much
reduced in intensity as it traverses the atmosphere. The amount
of reduction varies with the radiation wavelength, and depends
on the length of the atmospheric path through which the solar
radiation traverses. The intensity of the direct beams of
sunlight thus depends on the altitude of the sun, and also
varies with such factors as latitude, season, cloud coverage,
and atmospheric pollutants.
The total solar radiation received at ground level includes both
direct radiation and indirect (or diffuse) radiation. Diffuse
radiation is the component of total radiation caused by
atmospheric scattering and reflection of the incident radiation
on the ground. Reflection from the ground is primarily visible
light with a maximum radiation peak at a wavelength of 555 nm
(green light). The relatively small amount of energy radiated
from the earth at an average ambient temperature of 17°C at its
surface consists of infrared radiation with a peak
concentration at 970 nm. This invisible radiation is dominant
at night.
During daylight hours, the amount of diffuse radiation may be as
much as 10% of the total solar radiation at noon time even when
the sky is clear. This value may rise to about 20% in the early
morning and late afternoon.
In conclusion, therefore, it is evident that in cloudy weather
the total radiation received at ground level is greatly reduced,
the amount of reduction being dependent on cloud coverage and
cloud thickness. Under extreme cloud conditions a significant
proportion of the incident radiation would be in the form of
scattered or diffuse light. In addition, lesser solar radiation
is expected during the early and late hours of the day. These
facts are of practical value for the proper utilization of solar
radiation for such purposes as destruction of microorganisms.
HTML http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/600/610/614/solar-water/unesco/21-23.html
HTML http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/600/610/614/solar-water/unesco/21-23.html
Agelbert NOTE: The conclusion " it is evident that in cloudy
weather the total radiation received at ground level is greatly
reduced..." DOES NOT mean, as the Global Warming deniers have
tried to make us believe, that the ATMOSPHERE heats up less. It
means that to disinfect water (kill the microrganisms) the
radiation arriving on the SURFACE needs to have less cloud
cover.
But as you read further up, inside the atmosphere (at cloud
level well below the ozone layer) the absorption frequencies of
gases can scatter the radiation throughout the atmosphere. The
reflected light (visible spectrum) from clouds and surface DOES
exit the planet. HOWEVER, the Earth CONSTATLY radiates in the IR
band which CO2, water and methane trap quite handily because of
their ABSORPTION FREQUENCIES. So all that increased albedo
business that Global Warming deniers want to push on us, while
it will increase VISIBLE light reflection, won't do BEANS to
stop the ONLY HEAT that is radiated by this planet (IR).
BOTTOM LINE: Absorption frequencies are the KEY to understanding
how the atmosphere heats or cools. The particulate scattering
plays a role but the absorption frequencies are the 800 pound
gorilla.
[img width=640
height=400]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg[/img]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
Now lets get back to sun spots for a bit of humor. Question:
What percentage of the suns TOTAL OUTPUT IN ENERGY reaches top
levels of the atmosphere BEFORE it is further selectively
reduced by the atmosphere? [/I]
I'll save you the math: [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>[quote][i]The Earth intercepts only about one-half of
one-billionth of the Sun's total energy output. :o[/quote]
HTML http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/documents/lab01.pdf
HTML http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/documents/lab01.pdf
Do you now understand why all that BS about sunspot lessened
activity and a "weakening" sun doesn't mean JACK SHIT to us on
this planet. The "weakening" of the sun has to be hundreds of
thousands of time greater than the piddling amount observed to
amount to a hill of temperature BEANs on Earth.
That's why I have told Snowleapard that what he is pushing is
baseless, but CLEVER, pro-fossil fuel, context free, IRRELEVANT
propaganda. [img width=80
height=80]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Snowleapard. I CHALLENGE YOU to doubt the three sources I just
gave as to accuracy and TRUTH. If you do, you are bought or
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gif.
[url=
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php]Renewable<br
/>Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
#Post#: 382--------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Denial's WEAKEST Argument: Sun Is Weakest In 200
years
By: AGelbert Date: November 18, 2013, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Gobal Warming DENIAL Propaganda Message MO - Frame
propaganda as an "alternative view" (FAIR AND BALANCED![img
width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img])<br
/>[img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> THEN,
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>PAD the "news" with hidden persuaders like snow flake pictures
and high sounding, "scientific" pseudo credentials that look
like the real thing! Madison Avenue Showing Off It's Slickest,
Conscience Free Con Expertize! Big Oil Wants Its MONEY'S WORTH!
They HAVE TO DELIVER A THREE DECADE DELAY! No LIE is TOO HARD TO
DiSGUISE AS TRUTH by these FUCKING HIGHLY
Intelli-STUPID
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
REPTILES! [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/> [/move]
[img width=640
height=540]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181113155628.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=840]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181113151940.png[/img]
So tell us, Snowleopard, do you think Washington's Blog
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
and globalresearch.ca/globalresearch.org [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]
are RELIABLE and TRUTHFUL WEBSITES? [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
[move][I]WHY? [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img]
[/I][/move]
[left][move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have ALWAYS BEEN
liars
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>and conscience free crooks
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif,
they
are trying to AVOID [/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE
FINE! Don't let them get away with it! PASS IT ON! The
planet you save may be your own!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 417--------------------------------------------------
Realtively weaker Sun is NOT reducing Global Warming.
By: AGelbert Date: November 21, 2013, 8:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Simple physics and climate
Filed under: Climate modelling
Climate Science
Greenhouse gases
Sun-earth connections
— rasmus @ 12 November 2013
No doubt, our climate system is complex and messy. Still, we can
sometimes make some inferences about it based on well-known
physical principles. Indeed, the beauty of physics is that a
complex systems can be reduced into simple terms that can be
quantified, and the essential aspects understood.
A recent paper by Sloan and Wolfendale (2013) provides an
example where they derive a simple conceptual model of how the
greenhouse effect works from first principles. They show the
story behind the expression saying that a doubling in CO2 should
increase the forcing by a factor of 1+log|2|/log|CO2|. I have a
fondness for such simple conceptual models (e.g. I’ve made my
own attempt posted at arXiv) because they provide a general
picture of the essence – of course their precision is limited by
their simplicity.
However, the main issue discussed in the paper by Sloan and
Wolfendale was not the greenhouse effect, but rather the
question about galactic cosmic rays and climate. The discussion
of the greenhouse effect was provided as a reference to the
cosmic rays.
Even though we have discussed this question several times here
at RC, Sloan and Wolfendale introduce some new information in
connection with radiation, ionization, and cloud formation. Even
after having dug into all these other aspects, they do not find
much evidence for the cosmic rays playing an important role.
Their conclusions fit nicely with my own findings that also
recently were published in the journal Environmental Research
Letters.
The cosmic ray hypothesis is weakened further by observational
evidence from satellites, as shown in another recent paper by
Krissansen-Totton and Davies (2013) in Geophysical Research
Letters, which also concludes that the there is no statistically
significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo
or globally averaged cloud height. Neither did they find any
evidence for any regional or lagged correlations.
It’s nice to see that the Guardian has picked up these findings.
Agelbert NOTE: IT will ALSO be nice as well as EDUCATIONAL and
significant [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>to observe who DIDN'T pick up on these findings (e.g.
Globalresearch.org - Et tu Brute? [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> ).
Earlier in October, Almeida et al., 2013 had a paper published
in Nature on results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. They
found that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on
the formation of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters (the
embryonic stage before aerosols may act as cloud condensation
nuclei). The authors also reported that the experimental results
were reproduced by a dynamical model, based on quantum chemical
calculations.
Some may ask why we keep revisiting the question about cosmic
rays and climate, after presenting all the evidence to the
contrary. ???
One reason is that science is never settled, and there are still
some lingering academic communities nourishing the idea that
changes in the sun or cosmic rays play a role. ;) For this
reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST-action
TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar
variability on the Earth’s climate), whose objective is to
provide a better understanding of the “hotly debated role of the
Sun in climate change” (not really in the scientific fora,
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
but more in the
general public discourse
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif).<br
/>
ps [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Oldenborgh et al. (2013) also questioned the hypothesised link
between extremely cold winter conditions in Europe and weak
solar activity, but their analysis did not reproduce such
claims.
References
1. T. Sloan, and A.W. Wolfendale, "Cosmic rays, solar activity
and the climate", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, pp.
045022, 2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022
2. J. Krissansen-Totton, and R. Davies, "Investigation of cosmic
ray-cloud connections using MISR", Geophysical Research Letters,
vol. 40, pp. 5240-5245, 2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50996
3. J. Almeida, S. Schobesberger, A. Kürten, I.K. Ortega, O.
Kupiainen-Määttä, A.P. Praplan, A. Adamov, A. Amorim, F.
Bianchi, M. Breitenlechner, A. David, J. Dommen, N.M. Donahue,
A. Downard, E. Dunne, J. Duplissy, S. Ehrhart, R.C. Flagan, A.
Franchin, R. Guida, J. Hakala, A. Hansel, M. Heinritzi, H.
Henschel, T. Jokinen, H. Junninen, M. Kajos, J. Kangasluoma, H.
Keskinen, A. Kupc, T. Kurtén, A.N. Kvashin, A. Laaksonen, K.
Lehtipalo, M. Leiminger, J. Leppä, V. Loukonen, V. Makhmutov, S.
Mathot, M.J. McGrath, T. Nieminen, T. Olenius, A. Onnela, T.
Petäjä, F. Riccobono, I. Riipinen, M. Rissanen, L. Rondo, T.
Ruuskanen, F.D. Santos, N. Sarnela, S. Schallhart, R.
Schnitzhofer, J.H. Seinfeld, M. Simon, M. Sipilä, Y. Stozhkov,
F. Stratmann, A. Tomé, J. Tröstl, G. Tsagkogeorgas, P.
Vaattovaara, Y. Viisanen, A. Virtanen, A. Vrtala, P.E. Wagner,
E. Weingartner, H. Wex, C. Williamson, D. Wimmer, P. Ye, T.
Yli-Juuti, K.S. Carslaw, M. Kulmala, J. Curtius, U.
Baltensperger, D.R. Worsnop, H. Vehkamäki, and J. Kirkby,
"Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid–amine particle
nucleation in the atmosphere", Nature, vol. 502, pp. 359-363,
2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12663
4. G.J. van Oldenborgh, A.T.J. de Laat, J. Luterbacher, W.J.
Ingram, and T.J. Osborn, "Claim of solar influence is on thin
ice: are 11-year cycle solar minima associated with severe
winters in Europe?", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, pp.
024014, 2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024014
HTML http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/simple-physics-and-climate/
#Post#: 658--------------------------------------------------
Thought Experiment: Sea Level When the Earth Stops Rotating
By: AGelbert Date: January 5, 2014, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[size=12pt]New subject for Doomers to ponder: Earth's sea level
AND terrain level is changing as the Earth's rotation
slows.[/size]
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/graphics/nospin_4-lg.jpg[/img]
[quote]When global rotation stops, the massive oceanic water
migration would cease and sea level would be at different
locations, completely changing world geography.[/quote]
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/graphics/nospin_5-lg.jpg[/img]
[quote]The extent of a hypothetical northern circumpolar ocean
over the territory of North America is shown. The orange color
indicates areas with elevation higher than 3,000 meters above
the level of the northern ocean. Red dots represent some of the
biggest cities of the continent.[/quote]
The actual slowdown of the earth's rotation has been observed,
measured, calculated, and theoretically explained. As newer
methodologies are developed and more precise instruments are
constructed, the exact rate of the slowdown may vary between
some sources. Reflecting this very gradual slowing, atomic
clocks must be adjusted to solar time by adding a leap second
every so often. The first leap second was added in 1956.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/graphics/nospin_8-lg.jpg[/img]
All Antarctica would be under water at this point. The north
polar waters and the water over the vast, recently submerged
territories in Siberia and Canada would be getting deeper. At
the same time, equatorial waters would be getting more shallow.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/graphics/nospin_9-lg.jpg[/img]
Large land areas near the equator continue growing and join with
each other. By now, nearly all of Canada, Europe, and Russia are
covered by a northern circumpolar ocean.
Most scientists agree that the solar day (related to the speed
of rotation) is continuously getting longer. This minimal
increase of the day length is due mainly to the oceanic tidal
friction. When the estimated rate of the slowdown was projected
back to past geologic eons, it showed that the length of a day
was several hours shorter than today.
Consequently, during the Devonian period (400 million years
ago), the earth rotated about 40 more times during one
revolution around the sun than it does now. Because the
continents have drifted significantly since that time, it is
difficult to make estimates of the land versus ocean outlines
for that era. However, we can be certain that—with a faster
spinning speed in the past—the equatorial bulge of oceanic water
was much larger then than it is today. Similarly, the
ellipsoidal flattening of the earth was also more significant.
This animation (at link below) depicts the intermittent stages
during this migration of the earth's oceans and changes in land
extents, topographic elevation, and bathymetric depth caused by
the decreasing speed of the earth's rotation. It shows the
effects of the gradual reduction of centrifugal force from its
current level to none, leaving gravity as the only force
controlling the ocean's extent.
The influence of the rate of the earth's rotation has a dominant
effect on the geometry of the globe, in terms of the globe's
overall shape as well as the outline of the global ocean. The
earth's physical relief is only a secondary factor controlling
the delineation of oceans.
The slowdown of earth's rotation will continue for 4 billion
years—as long as we can imagine. The slowdown
infinitesimally—but steadily—changes the globe's geometry and
makes it dynamic.
The net result of these dynamic adjustments is that the earth is
slowly becoming more and more like a sphere. However, it will
take billions of years before the earth stops spinning, and the
gravitational equipotential creates a mean sea level that is a
perfect sphere.
About the Author
Witold Fraczek is a longtime employee of Esri who currently
works in the Application Prototype Lab. He received his
doctorate in the application of GIS in forestry from
Agricultural University and master's degrees in hydrology from
the University of Warsaw, Poland, and remote sensing from the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
[b]Full article with more graphics and scientific details at
link below.
HTML http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin.html
HTML http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin.html
[i][color=purple]Don't worry about those of us now living in the
future Davy Jones' locker. We'll be long gone when, or if, this
scenario takes place. ;D
#Post#: 3595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
By: AGelbert Date: August 11, 2015, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sunspot science throws wrench in favorite climate denialism
claim ;D
By Suzanne Jacobs on 10 Aug 2015
HTML http://grist.org/news/sunspot-science-throws-wrench-in-favorite-climate-denialism-claim/
*****************************************************