Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[BethesdaWX]

50 crackpot links do not make up for claiming there was less volcanic activity and more solar output 100 million years ago, in absolute defiance of everything that is understood about how the sun and the earth work. That isn't even a controversy at all, because both skeptics and proponents of AGW (but not paranoid denalists like you) who work in science understand that what you said there was absolute crap.

You have to be smart, & you have to read & understand them...which you dont either. Explain the relative forcing being used in the 3rd link? You dont read anything, your response comes 1 minute later.

[beneficii]

You have to be smart, & you have to read & understand them...which you dont either. Explain the relative forcing being used in the 3rd link? You dont read anything, your response comes 1 minute later.

LOL. Over in AP, this is known as the ed shuffle.

[BethesdaWX]

LOL. Over in AP, this is known as the ed shuffle.

None of your responses have any science in them, its the same deranged BS attempting to light a fire.

[beneficii]

None of your responses have any science in them, its the same deranged BS attempting to light a fire.

Ah, it's the ed shuffle. You may think that being like the Energizer bunny helps your case (did you grow up with the Energizer bunny?), but it does not.

[BethesdaWX]

Ah, it's the ed shuffle. You may think that being like the Energizer bunny helps your case (did you grow up with the Energizer bunny?), but it does not.

You think being jackass helps yours? I'm done with climate Change debate for awhile.

Have a good evening, talk later bro.

[aslkahuna]

Okay troops, all of you have a reading assignment: August 2010 issue of Sky and Telescope article "Glimpses of an Evolving Planet". Article describes current thinking on the evolution of the Earth and its atmosphere as the Sun evolved. I would also suggest some reading on the Climate implications of Global Tectonics if you are going to try to characterize what happened hundreds of million years ago. Read upon on the Milankovitch cycles and note that they involve changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt/orientation and have nothing to do with Solar activity. Read a book on Solar Astrophysics (the College text by Foukal is a good one) and note that although the Sun is brightening as its rotation slows, its ACTIVITY in terms of sunspot cycles is decreasing and that the young Sun (and young Solar type stars) was more active in the past since activity cycles and frequency are tied to rate of rotation.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

Okay troops, all of you have a reading assignment: August 2010 issue of Sky and Telescope article "Glimpses of an Evolving Planet". Article describes current thinking on the evolution of the Earth and its atmosphere as the Sun evolved. I would also suggest some reading on the Climate implications of Global Tectonics if you are going to try to characterize what happened hundreds of million years ago. Read upon on the Milankovitch cycles and note that they involve changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt/orientation and have nothing to do with Solar activity. Read a book on Solar Astrophysics (the College text by Foukal is a good one) and note that although the Sun is brightening as its rotation slows, its ACTIVITY in terms of sunspot cycles is decreasing and that the young Sun (and young Solar type stars) was more active in the past since activity cycles and frequency are tied to rate of rotation.

Steve

Thankyou

[beneficii]

Have a good evening, talk later bro.

Why do you keep addressing me as bro? Please stop.

[salbers]

You didn't ask, I assume? Co2 is definitely not 9% once water Vapor is implemented, the exact # is still some what unknown. Bottom line, the AGW theory is a Hypothesis, as is the skeptical side.

talk later bro

IIRC I did broach this subject. Fred Singer didn't really challenge the bottom line about the 1.2C radiative forcing, instead he focused on the doubling of this amount by the water vapor feedback. So he tacitly agreed from my recollection about the main radiative forcing. I should look back at some of our email exchanges if I can find them.

I don't think we talked or emailed directly about this 9% figure, since more to the point is what is the climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling. It's that 0.1% figure that I find to be obfuscating in your link of his.

[WeatherRusty]

Okay troops, all of you have a reading assignment: August 2010 issue of Sky and Telescope article "Glimpses of an Evolving Planet". Article describes current thinking on the evolution of the Earth and its atmosphere as the Sun evolved. I would also suggest some reading on the Climate implications of Global Tectonics if you are going to try to characterize what happened hundreds of million years ago. Read upon on the Milankovitch cycles and note that they involve changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt/orientation and have nothing to do with Solar activity. Read a book on Solar Astrophysics (the College text by Foukal is a good one) and note that although the Sun is brightening as its rotation slows, its ACTIVITY in terms of sunspot cycles is decreasing and that the young Sun (and young Solar type stars) was more active in the past since activity cycles and frequency are tied to rate of rotation.

Steve

If the Sun was putting out 30% less energy at Earth's average orbital distance then as opposed to today it was producing 956W/m^2 versus 1366W. That's a 410W difference. The solar diameter would have been smaller back then as well thus presenting a smaller surface area to Earth and a corresponding reduction in radiative energy received at Earth's distance.

I really doubt solar faculae could raise total averaged solar output anywhere near 410W never mind the smaller Sun. Yet Earth's temperature has remained within the bounds necessary to support liquid water, pre-biotic, early and present day organisms. We know that the present day atmosphere accounts for the viability of widespread life today and there is no reason to suppose the cituation was ever much different. Only the relative importance of the factors would have changed.

[BethesdaWX]

If the Sun was putting out 30% less energy at Earth's average orbital distance then as opposed to today it was producing 956W/m^2 versus 1366W. That's a 410W difference. The solar diameter would have been smaller back then as well thus presenting a smaller surface area to Earth and a corresponding reduction in radiative energy received at Earth's distance.

I really doubt solar faculae could raise total averaged solar output anywhere near 410W never mind the smaller Sun. Yet Earth's temperature has remained within the bounds necessary to support liquid water, pre-biotic, early and present day organisms. We know that the present day atmosphere accounts for the viability of widespread life today and there is no reason to suppose the cituation was ever much different. Only the relative importance of the factors would have changed.

Dude, the sun puts out different types of energy. The sun is 30% brighter now, yet the solar "activity", (Rays, sunspots, etc) have been decreasing....so have earths temperatures (overall). The "brightness" is only 1 factor. Again, we cannot compare anything accurately with the change in tectonic plates.

Also...again with the computer model formulas... In error BTW to assume the brightness of the sun is more important than its activity/emissions/activity.

[WeatherRusty]

Someones a paranoid dipsh*t....

The water vapor response is just as logarithmic as that for CO2. Someone's a punk.

[salbers]

You don't seem to acknowledge another possibility: that "radiation/energy imbalance" may not manifest itself in surface warming as modeled. And that is important, because it is the surface warming that really matters and causes the climate changes people are worried about.

Again the natural greenhouse forcing does naturally manifest itself in a surface warming. If there are lags due to GHG changes because of the oceans or if other cycles mask it that's fine. The long term significant effect is still there.

[BethesdaWX]

The water vapor response is just as logarithmic as that for CO2. Someone's a punk.

huh?

Relative to CO2? I'm speaking of dominance in the GHE, not the exact shape of the logorithm

[salbers]

If the Sun was putting out 30% less energy at Earth's average orbital distance then as opposed to today it was producing 956W/m^2 versus 1366W. That's a 410W difference. The solar diameter would have been smaller back then as well thus presenting a smaller surface area to Earth and a corresponding reduction in radiative energy received at Earth's distance.

I really doubt solar faculae could raise total averaged solar output anywhere near 410W never mind the smaller Sun. Yet Earth's temperature has remained within the bounds necessary to support liquid water, pre-biotic, early and present day organisms. We know that the present day atmosphere accounts for the viability of widespread life today and there is no reason to suppose the cituation was ever much different. Only the relative importance of the factors would have changed.

I agree that solar faculae wouldn't do much to make the average sun brighter, since we're already noting the 30% overall energy reduction. On another note the solar diamter change would already have been accounted for in the 30%, so may not be an important additional factor.

Probably more GHGs in the past (as I think noted in Askaluna's S&T article and another Scientific American article a couple of years ago) helped balance things out.

[WeatherRusty]

Dude, the sun puts out different types of energy. The sun is 30% brighter now, yet the solar "activity", (Rays, sunspots, etc) have been decreasing....so have earths temperatures (overall). The "brightness" is only 1 factor. Again, we cannot compare anything accurately with the change in tectonic plates.

Also...again with the computer model formulas... In error BTW to assume the brightness of the sun is more important than its activity/emissions/activity.

The Sun puts two sources of energy. electromagnetic and energetic particles. And I am not a dude at 60 years old.

[BethesdaWX]

Again the natural greenhouse forcing does naturally manifest itself in a surface warming. If there are lags due to GHG changes because of the oceans or if other cycles mask it that's fine. The long term significant effect is still there.

You mean the "missing heat"?

[salbers]

Dude, the sun puts out different types of energy. The sun is 30% brighter now, yet the solar "activity", (Rays, sunspots, etc) have been decreasing....so have earths temperatures (overall). The "brightness" is only 1 factor. Again, we cannot compare anything accurately with the change in tectonic plates.

Also...again with the computer model formulas... In error BTW to assume the brightness of the sun is more important than its activity/emissions/activity.

Why would the other activity make more difference than the brightness? And again it was warmer 40 million years ago when the plates were relatively close to today. There was more CO2 then however.

[salbers]

You mean the "missing heat"?

Not really missing, the land has already warmed 2.5F since the industrial revolution. The oceans take some of the heat so will take longer to warm at the surface.They are warming deep down as evidenced by sea level rise.

[BethesdaWX]

The Sun puts two sources of energy. electromagnetic and energetic particles. And I am not a dude at 60 years old.

Then what are you? "Dude" doesn't apply to age, even at 60 years young

You know how Sunspots, GCR & IR/UV, etc, are not related to the suns "brightness"....right?

[BethesdaWX]

Not really missing, the land has already warmed 2.5F since the industrial revolution. The oceans take some of the heat so will take longer to warm at the surface.They are warming deep down as evidenced by sea level rise.

Our warming began after the LIA, not the Industrial revolution. Not to mention the heat down below 500M through 2500M has no way of surfacing. The Oceans can hold that heat for over 5000 years, maybe much longer. In that timeframe, it will probably disposed of.

[WeatherRusty]

Then what are you? "Dude" doesn't apply to age, even at 60 years young

You know how Sunspots, GCR & IR/UV, etc, are not related to the suns "brightness"....right?

Bethesda,

Sunspots, faculae and IR/UV all reveal themselves by way of electromagnetic radiation. As such they all contribute to the "brightness" of the Sun, just not all in the visible spectrum. The energy contained within electromagnetic radiation is inversely proportional to the increasing wavelength of the light (IR, V, UV..

I hope you learn a few things from our conversations.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda,

Sunspots, faculae and IR/UV all reveal themselves by way of electromagnetic radiation. As such they all contribute to the "brightness" of the Sun, just not all in the visible spectrum. The energy contained within electromagnetic radiation is inversely proportional to the increasing wavelength of the light (IR, V, UV..

I hope you learn a few things from our conversations.

Ah, yes, but you understand now, that these "energies" of solar activity been decreasing with the suns age, right? It doesn't matter if they contribute to the brightness... the suns increase in brightness has nothing to do with these energies.

[salbers]

Our warming began after the LIA, not the Industrial revolution. Not to mention the heat down below 500M through 2500M has no way of surfacing. The Oceans can hold that heat for over 5000 years, maybe much longer. In that timeframe, it will probably disposed of.

Some warming did begin after the LIA, and accelerated with the industrial revolution.

Sorry but I fail to see how it will be "disposed of" without having a prolonged period of keeping the atmosphere warm. Over time the heat mixes between the surface and deep oceans.

The CO2 will stay in the oceans even longer probably, so this perpetuates things even more than the heat mixing time itself.

[salbers]

Ah, yes, but you understand now, that these "energies" of solar activity been decreasing with the suns age, right? It doesn't matter if they contribute to the brightness... the suns increase in brightness has nothing to do with these energies.

RIght, and these energies in and of themselves are of less impact to the Earth's temperature compared with the overall brightness.

[BethesdaWX]

Some warming did begin after the LIA, and accelerated with the industrial revolution.

Sorry but I fail to see how it will be "disposed of" without having a prolonged period of keeping the atmosphere warm. Over time the heat mixes between the surface and deep oceans.

The warming did not "accelerate" after the industrial revolution, in fact, it decelerated. Do you realize that heat stored 500m - 2500M down has no way of interacting with the surface? If the "missing heat" doesn't exist, than our formulas are wrong already, without the real test even beginning.

[salbers]

You might review some threads to the contrary (maybe some were on Eastern Wx) that borehole data shows this acceleration in the past few hundred years. Sea level rise is also accelerating on a centennial time scale. And yes even the surface temperature history accelerates up during the 20th century. It's hard to counter all these indicators.

I think the ocean can exchange heat over depths on centennial to millenial time scales. Even you've indicated this in your 5000 year number I believe.The disposal mechanism is interaction with the surface. This won't even happen though until the CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system goes down in maybe tens of thousands of years from geological sequestration. So, over long time scales, (as well as short) we have to consider the coupled ocean/atmosphere as a system.

[BethesdaWX]

RIght, and these energies in and of themselves are of less impact to the Earth's temperature compared with the overall brightness.

The sun can be emitting the same emount of overall "energy" to the planet while being dimmer/brighter, etc.

IR, GCR, Solar Cycles, UV, etc.....they're not the "heat" of the sun (or the brightness aquired from the burnign hydrogen)..... but their decreasing are of the clear majority "impact" wise, as in, the energy that actually heat the atmosphere (As Rusty point out, Electro) energy that does the warming, coinsides with these energies....which is revealed in the overall decline in Earths temperatures during the same timeframe.

"Brightness" is not in the same category, as the sun gets its "brightness" from the hydrogen fuel it burns to stay alight.

[BethesdaWX]

You might review some threads to the contrary (maybe some were on Eastern Wx) that borehole data shows this acceleration in the past few hundred years. Sea level rise is also accelerating on a centennial time scale. And yes even the surface temperature history accelerates up during the 20th century. It's hard to counter all these indicators.

I think the ocean can exchange heat over depths on centennial to millenial time scales. Even you've indicated this in your 5000 year number I believe.The disposal mechanism is interaction with the surface. This won't even happen though until the CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system goes down in maybe tens of thousands of years from geological sequestration. So, over long time scales, (as well as short) we have to consider the coupled ocean/atmosphere as a system.

Yes, it accelerated when the Maunder Minimum came to and end...... As for oceans storing the missing heat, it can remain for 5000 years or more, but there is no evidence in surface mixing... through thousands of years, its just as likely to fizzle. Again, hypothesis from both sides, we don'tuse hypothesis as evidence.

[salbers]

The acceleration though occurred even more as the industrial revolution reved up.

This idea of "fizzling" is totally non-scientific. Where does the heat go if not to the atmosphere? And regardless of the heat exchange there is CO2 exchange and equlibrium that will keep the GHG warming going for many thousands of years, unless again we find a specific mechanism to dispose of the CO2. There's not even a hypothesis that you're presenting for that, much less observational evidence.

The oceans are increasing in CO2 observationally - one example of evidence. CO2 and heat fluxes are being measured observationally - more evidence. Sea level is rising - more evidence of heat exchange between the atmosphere and oceans. This is more an observation of reality - rather than a hypothesis.