General AGW debate thread

[BethesdaWX]

I post TSI because it is relevant. You can't show any reason why it's not. The only reason you don't like it is because it goes against your ideas. That's why you dismiss it.

So, you try to grasp at some really strange straws, and of course we're back to the correlation argument without a real mechanism to link the two together.

I'll ask again - what would show you to be wrong? How could you be convinced man has a significant impact on climate? If you can't answer those, then to heck with discussing anything with you simply because you're not interested in honest discussion.

TSI includes unesessary energies that do not correlate.

Its Irrelevant to the trending in Global temperatures. Ahem...a 10-15% decrease in the Earths Magnetic Field will yeild less protection.

I've given you the reason many times. I told you, the TSI (total solar irradiance) cannot be compared to Global temperature trends directly because it includes energies from the sun that do not Correlate to Global temperature, and have been leveling off, when the Solar constant, Geomagnetic Solar Flux, 10/BE changes, and CME output are All that really matter.

The proof of this? Almost all of the energy transmitted from the Sun/Atmosphere is done electrically. Its basic fact.

[BethesdaWX]

But no causative mechanisms for the sun would contain such a lag. If more energy is being directed at earth from the sun, then the earth's surface temperature would rise quite rapidly. And indeed, that is the exact phenomenon that is observed during the 11-year solar cycle.

I don't think its really that there is more energy being directed at us, but that there is less Protection. The earths magnetic Field had Decreased 10-15% since 1850...thats crazy. And of course the earths magnetic field is poorly understood, and a 15% decrease is not applied to Models...obviously.

Also, TSI is misleading, because the strongest correlations to solar are found in the 1) Geomagnetic Solar Flux, 2) SOlar Constant, 3) CME output, and 4) 10/BE changes resulting indirectly from GCR changes. (not the GCR's themselves, that is unproven science)

[tacoman25]

But there has been a distinct and noticable slowing of the warming since the early 2000s, and it is not due just to ENSO. Temp trends are running on the low end of model predictions.

Skiier will tell you the same thing.

In addition, when the Pinatubo cooling of the 1990s is accountted for, temperatures only warmed about .1C from the 1990s to the 2000s, about half of model expectations.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda.. as I understand it TSI is TOTAL energy directed at the earth's atmosphere from the sun. Any changes in geomagnetic aa would be included in TSI if I understand it correctly.

I'm pretty convinced that TSI and cosmic rays have only a small effect and cannot explain our rapid warming. I'm not too familiar with geomagnetic aa. But few if any of your studies appear to be peer reviewed and they are definitely not accepted by most scientists. If these correlations and causative mechanisms are so obvious.. why does nobody else believe in them?

Yes exactly, Geomagnetic Flux would be included...but other Unecessary energies would be included as well, since almost all the transfered energy is done so electrically, there are issues. Geomagnetic flux continued to increase into the 1990's, before leveling off. CME output and the solar constant did so as well. Sunspots are minor in correlation compared to the formentioned factors.

TSI leveling of in the 1970's is thus somewhat misleading.

I also linked many peer reviewed studies on the other page, but the bickering had them run back in the thread. I have several more I can post as well If you'd like.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes exactly, Geomagnetic Flux would be included...but other Unecessary energies would be included as well, since almost all the transfered energy is done so electrically, there are issues. Geomagnetic flux continued to increase into the 1990's, before leveling off. CME output and the solar constant did so as well. Sunspots are minor in correlation compared to the formentioned factors.

TSI leveling of in the 1970's is thus somewhat misleading.

I also linked many peer reviewed studies on the other page, but the bickering had them run back in the thread. I have several more I can post as well If you'd like.

Just what are you referring to when you say "almost all the transfered energy is done so electrically"?

In physics there are two main types of particles. Fermions of matter and force carrying particles called Bosons. Photons are bosons. Protons, neutrons and electrons are fermions. Any of these particles can be described as waves also.

Cosmic rays are fermions. The Solar wind is composed of fermions. Electromagnetism is propagated by bosons called photons..

Now explain how all energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is "electric". I don't understand what you mean by that.

[skierinvermont]

Yes exactly, Geomagnetic Flux would be included...but other Unecessary energies would be included as well, since almost all the transfered energy is done so electrically, there are issues. Geomagnetic flux continued to increase into the 1990's, before leveling off. CME output and the solar constant did so as well. Sunspots are minor in correlation compared to the formentioned factors.

TSI leveling of in the 1970's is thus somewhat misleading.

I also linked many peer reviewed studies on the other page, but the bickering had them run back in the thread. I have several more I can post as well If you'd like.

All sunlight is electromagnetic radiation (as Rusty explains photons).. so I am having a hard time understanding how geomagnetic flux is any different than regular sunlight.

Also your graphs don't seem to correlate as well as you think they do.. for example geomagnetic aa index was really high in the 60s, but the earth was quite cool. As my second graph shows.. the geomagnetic flux is at an all-time low.. so if your theory were correct we would shortly be returning to LIA temperatures. All the graphs you posted terminate in 2000 or 2005.. because that conceals the break in the correlation if you extend to present. For example, if you extend this first graph here to present... the grey and blue line would drop almost to zero... but the red line would keep going up. The correlation would be broken.

[BethesdaWX]

Just what are you referring to when you say "almost all the transfered energy is done so electrically"?

In physics there are two main types of particles. Fermions of matter and force carrying particles called Bosons. Photons are bosons, protons, neutrons and electrons are fermions. Any of these particles can be described as waves also.

Cosmic rays are fermions. Electromagnetism is propagated by photons.

Now explain how all energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is "electric". I don't understand what you mean by that.

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/education/k-12/curricula/use/documents/USE_4_ElectromagneticSpectrum.pdf

[WeatherRusty]

http://www.fsec.ucf....ticSpectrum.pdf

I understand that page very well thank you. Now if only you did!

Bethesda, I don't mean to be hard on you, but it is very apparent you are posting stuff that you don't understand very well. To the educated eye, you are doing yourself a disservice if you know what I mean.

[BethesdaWX]

A few things.....I apologize I was not being specific enough. (and yes, the -PDO phase in the 1960's broke the correlation, and the +PDO phase from 1976-2006 broke the correlation)

Anyhow.....I didn't mean it as in where to group the energies in "classification", I meant it, as in, what type of energy has the most effective and dominant constant, and how are these weighted in the TSI. The sun emits a various amount of energies unrelated to GT correlations,and emits several different rays/waves as well rating on different places on the specturm (Radio waves, UV rays, Xrays, Gamma Rays, etc).

Example: Sunspots are of minor impact to the earth compared to Geomagnetic Flux and CME expulsions, yet they carry an equal weight in the TSI. The TSI includes aspects of the sun that do not correlate to global temperatures.

This is an easy to understand reading on the multispectral sun.

http://www.windows2u...n_overview.html

This is a Fantastic, but complicated read on the issue of the doubing of Suns Coronal Magnetic Field over the past century, and how it ties in,

http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

This site discusses The earths Magnetic Field changes and how this ties into The Climate....although its a young issue.

http://www.megakastr..._modulation.htm

The issue is less related to the classification of energy and more the impact of differing specifics.

[skierinvermont]

Example: Sunspots are of minor impact to the earth compared to Geomagnetic Flux and CME expulsions, yet they carry an equal weight in the TSI. The TSI includes aspects of the sun that do not correlate to global temperatures.

'Sunspots' aren't 'included' in TSI all. It's very apparent you really don't know what you're talking about. Which is OK... I don't know much about the different classes of solar radiation either. I really couldn't tell you exactly what geomagnetic aa measures and how that is different from other types of energy directed at earth.

Maybe steve could tell us.. he seems to know a lot about the sun. Or Rusty perhaps?

[BethesdaWX]

You know what, I haven't slept in 3 days, and am having a hard time thinking straight right now. I have no idea why I put sunspots in "TSI", uggh

Heading to get some sleep, will return tomorrow with a clear head.

cheers y'all

[Mencken_Fan]

You know what, I haven't slept in 3 days, and am having a hard time thinking straight right now. I have no idea why I put sunspots in "TSI", uggh

Heading to get some sleep, will return tomorrow with a clear head.

cheers y'all

I hope you're not suffering from depression. If it's from too much partying; well, that's okay at your age but you really don't want to develop that as a habit (nature demands too many paybacks for it.)

Take good care of yourself...and cheers back to ya.

G'nite.

[WeatherRusty]

'Sunspots' aren't 'included' in TSI all. It's very apparent you really don't know what you're talking about. Which is OK... I don't know much about the different classes of solar radiation either. I really couldn't tell you exactly what geomagnetic aa measures and how that is different from other types of energy directed at earth.

Maybe steve could tell us.. he seems to know a lot about the sun. Or Rusty perhaps?

This is what I pulled from the third of Bethesda's links above:

“Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically, and nearly the entire voltage associated with this process appears in the polar cap region, which extends typically less than 20° in latitude from the magnetic pole. The total voltage across the polar cap can be as large as 100,000 volts, rivaling that of thunderstorm electrification of the planet in magnitude. This polar cap electric field is the major source of largescale horizontal voltage differences in the atmosphere. Moreover, the dynamic polar region accounts for a large fraction of the variability inherent in our upper atmosphere, variability due to chaotic changes in the solar wind magnetic field that produces large-scale restructuring of the cavity enclosing the Earth’s magnetic field. This restructuring visibly manifests itself most clearly in the production of ionized plasmas and the associated distribution of aurora high over the north and south polar regions. In turn, the Earth’s lower atmosphere (that part responsible for weather phenomena) undergoes variations in composition and dynamics influenced by these coupling effects through a complex and as yet not fully understood feedback system. [http://www.arcus.org...rd/Svalbard.pdf]

Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically......

Is different than claiming "Almost all of the energy transmitted from the Sun/Atmosphere is done electrically"......as Bethesda phrased it. Thus the confusion.

By far most of the energy transfer is by way of the full spectrum of electromagnetism or light. This is what TSI represents.

SEE

[skierinvermont]

Great, thank you. Now we know why Bethesda kept saying that.

So if I've got this, TSI measures electromagnetism (photons) while geomagnetic aa or ap measures changes in the solar wind (and other things which perturb the solar wind) which is composed of electrons and protons

[valkhorn]

This is what I pulled from the third of Bethesda's links above:

“Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically, and nearly the entire voltage associated with this process appears in the polar cap region, which extends typically less than 20° in latitude from the magnetic pole. The total voltage across the polar cap can be as large as 100,000 volts, rivaling that of thunderstorm electrification of the planet in magnitude. This polar cap electric field is the major source of largescale horizontal voltage differences in the atmosphere. Moreover, the dynamic polar region accounts for a large fraction of the variability inherent in our upper atmosphere, variability due to chaotic changes in the solar wind magnetic field that produces large-scale restructuring of the cavity enclosing the Earth’s magnetic field. This restructuring visibly manifests itself most clearly in the production of ionized plasmas and the associated distribution of aurora high over the north and south polar regions. In turn, the Earth’s lower atmosphere (that part responsible for weather phenomena) undergoes variations in composition and dynamics influenced by these coupling effects through a complex and as yet not fully understood feedback system. [http://www.arcus.org...rd/Svalbard.pdf]

Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically......

Is different than claiming "Almost all of the energy transmitted from the Sun/Atmosphere is done electrically"......as Bethesda phrased it. Thus the confusion.

By far most of the energy transfer is by way of the full spectrum of electromagnetism or light. This is what TSI represents.

SEE

Thank you. I didn't have the patience to point this out directly last night. I was kind of hoping Bethesda would notice it, but he didn't.

That's why I was flummoxed as to why he was so against TSI

Also, this should have been fairly obvious that TSI would be a better measure since it is the TOTAL solar irradiance - so it can include effects of solar radiation (heat) on the surface. As my other sources showed, solar wind and geomagnetic flux has very little to do with climate change, if at all, whereas changes in solar radiation (heat input) has a greater influence.

A good analogy would be like putting water in an insulated container in an oven that happens to fluctuate. Over time, the water will equalize to a certain temperature, and the temp. of the water will not decline as rapidly as declinations in heat of the oven. In other words, if the heating element cools off slightly, the water will not cool off as rapidly. The earth's atmosphere is very similar, which is why solar irradiance changes can have a delayed effect (environmental lag in the seasons), but changes in atmospheric content can be almost immediate. It would be like removing the water from the insulated container into one made of iron.

Where geomagnetic flux would come in in my analogy would be like claiming turning on the radio in the kitchen would cause a drastic interference in the element, thereby causing it to change the properties by which it heats - when in reality it probably wouldn't be as much of an effect as if there were a power surge or power outage.

[skierinvermont]

As my other sources showed, solar wind and geomagnetic flux has very little to do with climate change, if at all, whereas changes in solar radiation (heat input) has a greater influence.

Actually I don't think they did. As far as I could see your sources just talked about TSI, GCR, and UV. Not geomagnetic flux.

However, I've never seen anything that explained how geomagnetic flux could or does affect the climate in a significant manner.

[valkhorn]

Actually I don't think they did. As far as I could see your sources just talked about TSI, GCR, and UV. Not geomagnetic flux.

However, I've never seen anything that explained how geomagnetic flux could or does affect the climate in a significant manner.

You're right, in my mind since they didn't mention geomagnetic flux, I assumed they were supporting the case that there wasn't a mechanism.

I couldn't find any paper showing a mechanism between geomagnetic flux and climate, so that was the best I could do I'm afraid.

I'm no expert in climate science, I make mistakes, and so that's why I'm quick to side with the consensus.

[VAwxman]

You're right, in my mind since they didn't mention geomagnetic flux, I assumed they were supporting the case that there wasn't a mechanism.

I couldn't find any paper showing a mechanism between geomagnetic flux and climate, so that was the best I could do I'm afraid.

I'm no expert in climate science, I make mistakes, and so that's why I'm quick to side with the consensus.

Since I deal with longer range forecasting in my job on a daily basis, I have done a ton of searching about how things like solar flares, solar wind, and geomagnetic indices impact atmospheric patterns. There are lots of papers that show very interesting correlations, but so far every single one I have found has stopped short of being able to explain physically how those factors manipulate the atmosphere. As a result, I have not been able to incorporate it into forecasting, for the exact reason that the physical mechanism, if it exists, remains elusive as of right now.

Obviously I know there are differences in shorter time scales and long term climate. I'm more just backing up the assertion that how these solar indices physically alter the atmosphere is something that we just do not have a handle on. Granted, I have not gone through all of Bethesda's links, but I saw some just glancing through that I have seen before.

[skierinvermont]

The thing is unless you alter

1) the overall amount or type of energy entering the atmosphere

or

2) the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere

the surface temperature isn't going to change much in the long run. I don't see how geomagnetic flux alters either in a significant manner. With TSI there is a very clear causative mechanism and correlation.

[BethesdaWX]

Since I deal with longer range forecasting in my job on a daily basis, I have done a ton of searching about how things like solar flares, solar wind, and geomagnetic indices impact atmospheric patterns. There are lots of papers that show very interesting correlations, but so far every single one I have found has stopped short of being able to explain physically how those factors manipulate the atmosphere. As a result, I have not been able to incorporate it into forecasting, for the exact reason that the physical mechanism, if it exists, remains elusive as of right now.

Obviously I know there are differences in shorter time scales and long term climate. I'm more just backing up the assertion that how these solar indices physically alter the atmosphere is something that we just do not have a handle on. Granted, I have not gone through all of Bethesda's links, but I saw some just glancing through that I have seen before.

Do you do private forecasting?

Agreed, this is percisely the problem we as humans run into. We're just not capable of explaining much of how our climate system works, in detail, and its not just the Sun. Our own planet's weakening Magnetic Field, GCR's, and many complex feedbacks and inter-correlations, and their effects on the climate, are also poorly understood. And if we cannot figure out how the correlation is achieved, well, its considered voodoo science to predict based off of it.

It is pretty much impossible at this point to gauge exactly how much the Sun truly influences our atmosphere/climate, when we're likely missing several important aspects.

I'd be thrilled to see research in the Field of Solar increase dramatically...It could benefit us in a big way.

[BethesdaWX]

The thing is unless you alter

1) the overall amount of energy entering the atmosphere

or

2) the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere

the surface temperature isn't going to change much in the long run. I don't see how geomagnetic flux alters either.

Or...

3) The 10-15% decrease in our Own magnetic field since 1850, and accelerating... is pretty incredible when you think about it. The Magnetic Field is what protects us from the sun.

...However, the problem with all of these drivers, Geomagnetic Flux, MagF, GCR's, etc, we don't have the knowledge to understand them, so we cannot prove that they have Any effect on the climate, all we can say is that many of these indices Correlate to Global Temperatures in the Past and present, which sucks

So yes, one of my future goals in life are to research the Sun.

[skierinvermont]

Or...

3) The 10-15% decrease in our Own magnetic field since 1850, and accelerating... is pretty incredible when you think about it. The Magnetic Field is what protects us from the sun.

...However, the problem with all of these drivers, Geomagnetic Flux, MagF, GCR's, etc, we don't have the knowledge to understand them, so we cannot prove that they have Any effect on the climate, all we can say is that many of these indices Correlate to Global Temperatures in the Past and present.

So yes, my future goals in life are to research the Sun.

your (3) falls under my (#1). It would lead to an increase in solar energy reaching the atmosphere. (1) and (2) are the only ways to significantly alter the earth's surface temperature.

The increase in solar energy reaching the earth has been tiny so far, and can't explain the warming.

[BethesdaWX]

I hope you're not suffering from depression. If it's from too much partying; well, that's okay at your age but you really don't want to develop that as a habit (nature demands too many paybacks for it.)

Take good care of yourself...and cheers back to ya.

G'nite.

Haha, nah I lost my Girlfriend of 3 1/2 yrs 2 weeks ago, and my heart is achin pretty Bad right now, so yes, very depressed. And yeah, drinking dont help niether.

[BethesdaWX]

your (3) falls under my (#1). It would lead to an increase in solar energy reaching the atmosphere. (1) and (2) are the only ways to significantly alter the earth's surface temperature.

The increase in solar energy reaching the earth has been tiny so far, and can't explain the warming.

A weakening Magnetic Field would have more of an effect on UV, which is impoartant, as is stated in the Peer reviewed paper below.

Its not that simple either, a weaker magnetic field changes the entire complexity of how our atmosphere responds to solar activity.

This is a very interesting Peer reviewed paper on 2 aspects of the Sun.

http://www.mps.mpg.d...s/uvmm-2col.pdf

A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum (second graph below). This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating. Solar UV irradiance also "exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth's upper atmosphere" such as ozone levels.

[WeatherRusty]

A weakening Magnetic Field would have more of an effect on UV, which is impoartant, as is stated in the Peer reviewed paper below.

Its not that simple either, a weaker magnetic field changes the entire complexity of how our atmosphere responds to solar activity.

This is a very interesting Peer reviewed paper on 2 aspects of the Sun.

http://www.mps.mpg.d...s/uvmm-2col.pdf

A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum (second graph below). This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating. Solar UV irradiance also "exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth's upper atmosphere" such as ozone levels.

Photons of light, be they UV, Visible or infrared are not affected by Earth's magnetic field. Only electrically charged particles, i.e. + protons and - electrons "feel" the presence of Earth's magnetic field.

The changes in relative proportion between UV, visible and IR output by the Sun no doubt play a part in atmospheric dynamics. To what degree this influences weather patterns or shorter term climate change is an area of active research.

Remember, the greenhouse effect does not warm the surface directly like the Sun does. It can't because on average the atmosphere is much colder than the surface. The greenhouse effect produces a warmer surface by slowing the loss of thermal energy to space. A surface which looses energy more slowly becomes a warmer surface. If the Sun were to blank out, the greenhouse effect would not warm the Earth, but the Earth would cool off more slowly due to that greenhouse effect.

[BethesdaWX]

Photons of light, be they UV, Visible or infrared are not affected by Earth's magnetic field. Only charged particles, i.e. protons and electrons "feel" the presence of Earth's magnetic field.

The changes in relative proportion between UV, visible and IR output by the Sun no doubt play a part in atmospheric dynamics. To what degree this influences weather patterns or shorter term climate change is an area of active research.

Remember, the greenhouse effect does not warm the surface directly like the Sun does. It can't because on average the atmosphere is much colder than the surface. The greenhouse effect produces a warmer surface by slowing the loss of thermal energy to space. I surface which looses energy more slowly becomes a warmer surface. If the Sun were to blank out the greenhouse effect would not warm the Earth, but the Earth would cool off more slowly due to that greenhouse effect.

Light? I was being too vague, thats not what I meant.

The increase in solar/UV since the Maunder Minimum have had an impact on the upper atmosphere, those Electrons that do feel the effects of the decreased MagF will effect the Upper atmopshere and the Ozone layer as they Bombard, This is expained in the peer reviewed article I linked.

I wasn't really arguing the greenhouse effect, thats a seperate issue.

[skierinvermont]

Light? I was being too vague, thats not what I meant.

The increase in solar/UV since the Maunder Minimum have had an impact on the upper atmosphere, those Electrons that do feel the effects of the decreased MagF will effect the Upper atmopshere and the Ozone layer as they Bombard, This is expained in the peer reviewed article I linked.

I wasn't really arguing the greenhouse effect, thats a seperate issue.

The point is you were completely wrong about most of the energy being transferred to earth "electrically." The amount of energy transferred to earth electrically by the solar wind is tiny. Which is why 1) the correlation doesn't work out that well at all and 2) there is no causative mechanism for how these tiny changes could cause such changes in temperature.

Unlike CO2. For CO2 we have a very clear causative mechanism. The earth's atmosphere is becmoing more and more opaque to IR emissions specifically at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2. Clear causative evidence that CO2 is increasing the greenhouse effect and warming the earth.

[BethesdaWX]

Please disregard this statement.

A weakening Magnetic Field would have more of an effect on UV, which is impoartant, as is stated in the Peer reviewed paper below.

Was supposed to read like this

A weakening Magnetic Field would have more of an effect With Higher UV, as stated in the peer reviewed paper below.

[BethesdaWX]

The point is you were completely wrong about most of the energy being transferred to earth "electrically." The amount of energy transferred to earth electrically by the solar wind is tiny.

You mean electrically and electromagnetically?

[WeatherRusty]

Light? I was being too vague, thats not what I meant.

The increase in solar/UV since the Maunder Minimum have had an impact on the upper atmosphere, those Electrons that do feel the effects of the decreased MagF will effect the Upper atmopshere and the Ozone layer as they Bombard, This is expained in the peer reviewed article I linked.

I wasn't really arguing the greenhouse effect, thats a seperate issue.

I think you may have change the post I was responding to. There was a comparison between the warming effects of UV versus IR due to the respective depth of ocean penetration.

As conceded above, this factor you are discussing may have an impact on things. The Sun has added to our global warming over the past 150 years. You are applying some good science here, you are learning as you go. I'm a few steps ahead of you and notice some mistakes in your presentation. That's OK. UV is not influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. Photons are electrically neutral.