Solar X-Ray Flux varies with the Sunspot Solar Cycle, any prolonged period of Sunspot Solar Maximum will also be accompanied by a prolonged period of X-Ray output.
TSI and SSI do not include X-Rays because they operate under the assumption that X-Rays do not penetrate the upper atmosphere. However, this has long been recognized as a mistake. "Solar Attenuation of Aerosols" occurs in the Upper Atmosphere through X-Ray interactions and these interactions have effects down the atmospheric layers.
Prolonged Periods of Sunspot Activity indicate prolonged periods of X-Ray Activity.
This shows the X-Ray Variability of the Sun in relation with the Sunspot Cycle:
We have been in a period called the "Modern Maximum" for a 100 years. We have also had an increase in Cosmic Ray activity indicating this "Modulation" that Juergens wrote about is occurring.
Sustained higher levels will steadily increase the bottom line if the "Energy Gained" is sustainably greater than "Energy Loss"
Rate of Gain vs. Rate of Loss
If the Earth is experience a gradual gain from Solar Maximums during a period of 100 years that is outpacing its ability to radiate those gains during periods of Solar Minimum then your energy levels will trend upwards even during periods of lower activity.
Considering that the "Modern Maximum" has lasted for about a 100 years, it only makes sense to me that the Earth will get warmer as High Energy X-Rays have sustained a long duration attenuation of the upper atmosphere.
is a very heavy gas and will persist in the lowest levels of the atmosphere. As it rises into higher levels, the high energy photons will split the C & O2
bonds. These processes should obey simple gas laws with the heavier elements being closer to the surface. It will also get scooped up by water molecules and form acid rain.
How do you account for the 11 year solar-cycle correlated with the temperature then? Bare in mind, that this TSI is correllated with sunspots and solar maxima - so it's just a basic plot of sunspot activity with temperature over time. We can see a correlation here - but it is quite loose. The best fit is probably around 1880 to 1910. Then the temperature doesn't really quite fit the sunspot-activity plot. Again, this could be for a numerous number of factors as we've discussed.
Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).
Now, here is what the website "Skeptical Science" says about the sun and climate:-
Skeptical Science wrote:Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.
Basically, the mainstream's main point against climate skeptics is the behaviour of the sun in the last 30 years. They say that the sun cannot account for temperature trends in this recent period. Your job, Orrery - is to refute that
Now, as I've said - there is only a loose relationship between TSI/sunspots and temperature demonstrated in the graph I showed above.
However, I've found another chart that compares sunspots with Sea Surface Temperature:-
http://www.terracycles.com/joomla/gloss ... yflux.html
Seems to be a tighter fit. Maybe worth looking more into different data collection methods?
Moving on, let us briefly look into your claims about X-rays not being accounted for during Solar Maxima. You are stating that solar activity can drop - but temperature can still continue rising as a result of some form of systemic climate-lag? Can you provide me a paper that explains how x-ray propagation down to stratospheric and tropospheric levels can result in significant thermal excitation of atoms (i.e. temperature increase)? And do you think there is excess thermal energy being stored in our deep oceans and in other sinks? This piece by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth suggests (in response to a contradictory paper) that there is an unaccounted-for "missing heat":-
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/ ... et-al.html
Now, I'd like to know your thoughts on the NASA article I posted above that talked about discrepancies between the TIM and SIM solar instruments. SIM measures a broader range of solar energetic output or wave-lengths. As the article states - in a brief period (a few years) solar infrared energy and certain light wavelengths INCREASED even as TIM (or TSI) reported a REDUCTION in overall solar activity and a large reduction in ultraviolet irradiance. Now, I would like to get hold of the SIM data on various wavelength outputs and be able to do a comparison with TSI since 2003. Perhaps in my spare time I will contact NASA for this data. We need to understand that if the sun is Electric (which I strongly believe it is) - that it's infrared and X-ray output can still increase during "solar minima". This raises questions as to exactly what is going on during "solar maxima". EU theorist Donald E. Scott argues that it is likely a result of a variable flux in overall electron density impinging on the sun:-
Donald E. Scott wrote:In the plasma of the photosphere, both the dimensions of, and the voltages within the granules, depend on the current density at that location (near the Sun's anode surface). The existence of the double layer of electric charge associated with each granule (separating it from the corona plasma above it) requires a certain numerical relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This required ratio of electron to ion motion was discovered, quantified, and reported by Irving Langmuir over fifty years ago. Spicules, tall jets of electrons that emanate from the boundaries between granules, supply many of those needed electrons. In this Electric Sun model, as with any plasma discharge, the granular cells disappear wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's anode surface is not sufficiently strong to require the augmentation of anode size they provide. At any such location, the photospheric cells collapse and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun. Since there is no arc mode plasma discharge occurring in these locations, they appear darker than the surrounding area and are termed 'sunspot umbrae'. Of course, if a tremendous amount of energy were actually being produced in the Sun's interior, these umbrae should be brighter and hotter than the surrounding photosphere. The fact that sunspot umbrae are dark and relatively cool (3000-4000 K or 2727-4227 °C) strongly supports the contention that very little, if anything, in the way of heat production is going on in the Sun's interior.
Now, in that NASA article it quotes some climatologists as saying that the SIM measurements MIGHT suggest that the sun imparts more infrared energy onto the Earth during "solar minima" than otherwise believed. One of them goes on to assume that the sun may not have as much influence on the climate as believed - although I find that to be an unfounded and speculative assumption, given how recent these instruments are and the remaining uncertainty in ascertaining the influence of different particle\wave spectra on our atmosphere.
Now - we need to consider the overall electric field of the sun. I told you that comets have exploded or disintegrated or brightened suddenly at large distances, and the mainstream has not been able to explain why. These events co-incided with "solar maxima" - i.e. high solar activity associated with powerful particle ejections associated with sunspots. EU theories state that high voltage gradients between sunspots and the plasma granules can sometimes reach critical current-thresholds that result in the destruction of double-layers - and these explosive releases create filamentary jets of particles that become part of the "solar wind".
The problem I need to resolve - is in deciphering the connection between the strength of the sun's electric field as part of being in "solar maxima" (as observed on certain comet behaviour - such as explosions, sudden brightenings at large distances) and how this connects with X-rays, infrared, and other spectra. Is the sun's electric field strongest only during solar maxima (as that is the impression we are getting so far)? How can the sun produce MORE infrared energy during solar minima and with a lower electric field? Or perhaps - the electric field is not really important, and we need to be concentrating on stronger magnetic fields during times of solar maxima as being the product of most energetic spectra impacting the Earth and its climate?
Also, I'd like to know how an apparent increase in cosmic rays can contribute to a continuing increase in temperature in the past 30 years (where the sun's sun-spot activity has been high, but not as high as previous years)? I thought cosmic rays were primarily involved in cloud generation - which would suggest a cooling effect? Maybe the fact that the upward the temperature trend in the last 30 years has started to flatten out in recent years (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ffice.html
) - could be down to cosmic ray cloud-feedback? Or perhaps it's some other natural sink?
Regarding cosmic rays, Donald Scott has this to say:-
Donald E. Scott wrote:The particles in our solar wind eventually join with the spent solar winds of all the other stars in our galaxy to make up the total cosmic ray flux in our arm of our galaxy. Juergens points out that the Sun is a rather mediocre star as far as radiating energy goes. If it is electrically powered, perhaps its mediocrity is attributable to a relatively unimpressive driving potential. This would mean that hotter, more luminous stars should have driving potentials greater than that of the Sun and should consequently expel cosmic rays of greater energies than solar cosmic rays. A star with a driving potential of 20 billion volts would expel protons energetic enough to reach the Sun's surface, arriving with 10 billion electron volts of energy to spare. Such cosmic ions, when they collide with Earth's upper atmosphere release the muon-neutrinos that have been in the news recently.
Thus during solar minima - are we to assume that cosmic rays can really have a significant influence on the sun? Maybe I'm missing something here. Perhaps it can be argued that the sun produces more infrared energy during solar minima - due to a larger amount of solar granules? Perhaps solar maxima can sometimes produce sufficiently strong faculae energetic-emissions to more than compensate for a stronger infrared output during minima?
Lots of unresolved issues in my view, but, to be frank - I think you may be onto something, Orrery.