Climate Change

[PersianPaladin]

Paladin,

In keeping your explanation consistent with the Electric Sun theory:

The Sun is only a reflection of the incoming energy that is powering it. When the Sun's magnetic field weakens, it becomes more susceptible to Cosmic Rays. The majority of Cosmic Rays are deflected by the Sun's Magnetic Field and the Earth provides additional deflection.

Okay, but can you provide proof that "cosmic rays" - which are apparently 90% protons, helium nuclei, etc - are an important part of the solar-power emission circuit?

Again, I will not repeat this again: Your graph is garbage and is not a measurement of TSI. It never was and never has been. Keeping in mind the graph you gave, I see traditional measurements that do not include GOES monitoring data or other lights. W/m2 are values that depend on the "detector" and the "material relationship" between that material and the light. The graph you provided is using data gathered from the exact same techniques that can be traced back to the 1600s.

How are satellites sent in 1980 to measure energy from faculae the same as the 1600s? lol

A graph that uses the same measuring techniques based on traditions that go back to the 1600s are useless and are not applicable to Electric Sun interpretations of Heliospheric Energy. The Energy in the Heliosphere is not fueled internally by the Sun. The Sun is powered externally by an Influx of Cosmic Rays.

That's funny, because Don Scott says it is mostly high-energy electrons that are entering the Heliosphere and are implicated in power-input:-

"Seems Voyager 1 has been able to supply us with more accurate data to enable new calculations of the Solar Electron Flux"
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... tron-flux/

Electrons make up about 1% of cosmic rays. What are cosmic rays in their origin? From measurements thus far - it seems that they are the remnants of positive ions from a variety of locations in our galaxy - possibly as a result of higher mass particles colliding with intergalactic electrons in double-layer regions. Who knows. We need to map this stuff.

Your data is faulty and is spectrally deficient. Anyone who claims that "the Sun is not responsible for warming the Earth" is a fraud right off the bat, I don't believe anyone could make such a claim. Although I feel TSI is a useful data point in calculating Solar Activity, it does not tell us total solar activity.

Why is it? I stated that satellite and instrument measurements of solar magnetic output from faculae-luminosity associated with sunspot maxima correllates nicely with all other particle emissions from the sun. That is when the sun is most "active" and its electric field is at its greatest. A fact. Again, I refer back to periods of high solar maxima and strong cometary brightening, explosions, etc.

Don't get the impression that I am "defending" all of the mainstream establishments' dire global warming forecast. I am not. I laid out my criticism of their "positive feedback" model, and I think it is intellectually sound and I have yet to receive any satisfying counter-argument from mainstream scientists I have conversed with.

However, IMHO - people in the Electric Universe community need to be careful when criticizing global warming science, as it is often misunderstood by skeptics generally. Also, we don't want to be sounding like we dismiss EVERYTHING that is out there in the scientific literature.

[orrery]

There is a difference between "TSI" and "SSI". Satellites sent up in the 1980s that were doing TSI were also criticized and today they are doing "SSI" and even those only go up to the UV and were not measuring X-Ray. SSI is far better than "TSI" which in reality is nothing more than 'apparent' brightness.

In any case, I will have to catch up with you on these things later.

"SSI =! TSI"

TSI is garbage and even SSI doesn't factor in Solar X-Ray emissions which is the most important element as the Sun is an X-Ray Variable Star and we're in a cycle of higher X-Ray activity.

Again, as it relates to the Electric Sun model:

lton continues:
"In the first of his papers, Juergens related the Sun's ability to modulate the incoming flux of cosmic rays (which are protons impinging upon the solar system from all directions at relativistic velocities) to the Sun's driving potential, its cathode drop.(1i)[10] He estimated that a value in excess of 10 billion volts would suffice. From the flux of solar wind protons observed at the Earth's orbit, he calculated that a 1015 ampere solar wind current was flowing because of the solar discharge.(1j)[11] The solar luminosity of 3.9 x 1026 watts seemingly requires a discharge current which exceeds that of Juergens' estimate by forty fold, but since both the cathode drop and the discharge current values he chose were minima, the power shortage is not likely serious, as either or both values can be adjusted to erase the deficit without affecting the credibility of his arguments.
"Then, Juergens showed that the solar photosphere can be compared to a "tufted anode glow" in an electric discharge tube].(1k)[12] The tuft forms because the body of the Sun, immersed in the interplanetary plasma, which at its inner boundary is the weakly luminous outer solar region called the corona, cannot maintain an electrical discharge into the surrounding electrified galactic space. Juergens noted that the problem could arise from any one or more of the following conditions: (1)the solar body forms too small a surface to conduct the current required for the discharge, (2) the surrounding plasma is too "cool", (1l)[13] and/or (3) the cathode drop is too large. The "anode tuft" detached from, and now lying above, the "surface" of the solar body increases the effective surface area over which the Sun can collect electrons. Within the "tuft", volatile material - vapourized from the Sun - increases the gas density and contributes large numbers of extra electrons because, now, many of the frequent collisions between the gas atoms result in ionization."

Manmade aerosols are bad because they decrease night time astronomical viewing and have unpredictable consequences for health & breathing. I personally feel that "increased cases in asthma" would be a better argument against pollution than 'global warming'

I don't want to appear as being 'anti-global warming' I am uninterested in that conversation as we have been warming since the Ice Age. "Source Differentiation" should be more important. I'd love to have a computer program with lots of sliding variables that show how all of the variables combine and such... but I think to say "Global Warming not due to Sun" is just an ignorant statement without any supporting evidence. That is a pretty steep claim that the data doesn't bear out.

Increased Sun Spot Activity, increased X-Ray activity - can all be correlated to the increase temperatures.

[PersianPaladin]

Have you read Don Scott's piece that I linked to? It mentions Juergens' model but it does not agree with the idea that cosmic ray ions are the important component of energy input into the circuit.

As for different types of measurements, I think I will have to look into your claims further.I will be interested if you can show me some data over the period of 1900 to the present day - that shows different energy spectrum emissions from the sun, VS the conventional "solar activity" graph that I used.

For now, I found this from NASA:-

Indeed, TIM and its predecessor instruments, whose records of irradiance began in 1978, show that the sun's output varies by about 0.1 percent as the sun cycles through periods of high and low electromagnetic activity every eleven years or so. In practice, this cycling means the sun's brightness, as measured by TIM, goes up a bit when large numbers of sunspots and accompanying bright spots called faculae are present on the sun, yet goes down slightly when sunspots and faculae are sparse, like they have been in the last few years as the sun has gone through an unusually quiet period.

However, there is a critical difference between the SIM and TIM, explains Jerry Harder, the lead SIM instrument scientist and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths -- including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light -- into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum.

Notably, this makes SIM the first space-based instrument capable of continuously monitoring the visible and near-infrared portion, parts of the spectrum that are particularly important for the climate. SIM also offers the most comprehensive view of the individual components that make up the sun's total solar irradiance to date.

Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 -- by ten times as much as the total irradiance did -- while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth's lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

Climate Consequences?

Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. "I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar," said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.

"If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution.

Researchers will surely continue puzzling over the surprising SIM results for some time, but there is already considerable agreement on one point: that the need for continuous SIM and TIM measurements going forward has grown more urgent.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/ ... sorce.html


Let us continue this discussion later. I am ready to be proven wrong, as always.

[GaryN]

However, IMHO - people in the Electric Universe community need to be careful when criticizing global warming science, as it is often misunderstood by skeptics generally. Also, we don't want to be sounding like we dismiss EVERYTHING that is out there in the scientific literature.

I am sceptical when it comes to humans ability to seriously alter the Earths climate by way of CO2 or any other 'pollutants'. I agree we are not looking after the planet as we should, but it is humans who will suffer, not the planet, it has been through far worse and recovered. The evidence for changes from other causes has been accumulating for some time now, and I don't think there is anything we can do about that, other than prepare ourselves by accepting that we may well be subject to some rather uncomfortable, for humans, and perhaps long term variation in energy levels within the Solar system.


PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE

Current PlanetoPhysical alterations of the Earth are becoming irreversible. Strong evidence exists that these transformations are being caused by highly charged material and energetic non-uniformity's in anisotropic interstellar space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our Solar System. This "donation" of energy is producing hybrid processes and excited energy states in all planets, as well as the Sun.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global ... sical.html

[orrery]

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.

CO2 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.

[Lloyd]

I like http://CO2Science.org as a source of info on (the greatly hyped) global warming.
- This article "Solar Influence on Climate (Irradiance Measurements) -- Summary" at http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/sum ... diance.php says this:
the three researchers report that direct observations of total solar irradiance above the earth's atmosphere have only been made over the past quarter-century, while observations of sunspots have been made and recorded for approximately four centuries. In between the time scales of these two types of measurements fall neutron count rates and aurora counts. Therefore, 10Be and other cosmogenic radionuclides (such as 14C) -- stored in ice, sediment cores and tree rings -- currently provide our only means of inferring solar irradiance variability on a millennial time scale; and as reported by Beer et al., who have studied the subject in depth, these cosmogenic nuclides "clearly reveal that the sun varies significantly on millennial time scales and most likely plays an important role in climate change," especially within this particular time domain. In reference to their 10Be-based derivation of a 9,000-year record of solar modulation, for example, Beer et al. note that its "comparison with paleoclimatic data provides strong evidence [our italics] for a causal relationship between solar variability and climate change.
- And it reviews a whole lot of other articles too, with similar conclusions: climate depends of solar radiation, not on CO2 levels.

[Mr_Majestic]

Thought I'd throw something into the mix rather than create a new thread seeing as global warming is the topic here. Turns out climatologists have been missing an important piece of the puzzle in regards to factoring in what happens weather-wise at both poles.

...Difficult-to-forecast polar mesoscale storms occur frequently over the polar seas; however, they are missing in most climate models.

Research published Dec. 16 in Nature Geoscience shows that their inclusion could paint a different picture of climate change in years to come.

Polar mesoscale storms are capable of producing hurricane-strength winds which cool the ocean and lead to changes in its circulation.

Prof Ian Renfrew, from UEA's School of Environmental Sciences, said: "These polar lows are typically under 500 km in diameter and over within 24-36 hours. They're difficult to predict, but we have shown they play an important role in driving large-scale ocean circulation...

[PersianPaladin]

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.

CO2 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:-

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.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18&p=20

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:-

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.

http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

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:-

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.

[PersianPaladin]

Thought I'd throw something into the mix rather than create a new thread seeing as global warming is the topic here. Turns out climatologists have been missing an important piece of the puzzle in regards to factoring in what happens weather-wise at both poles.

...Difficult-to-forecast polar mesoscale storms occur frequently over the polar seas; however, they are missing in most climate models.

Research published Dec. 16 in Nature Geoscience shows that their inclusion could paint a different picture of climate change in years to come.

Polar mesoscale storms are capable of producing hurricane-strength winds which cool the ocean and lead to changes in its circulation.

Prof Ian Renfrew, from UEA's School of Environmental Sciences, said: "These polar lows are typically under 500 km in diameter and over within 24-36 hours. They're difficult to predict, but we have shown they play an important role in driving large-scale ocean circulation...

Hi Mr Majestic.

While I appreciate the information in your post, and the interesting implications - I would like to ensure that this thread strictly focuses on the topic of the sun's influence on global temperature only.

Orrery and I are having an important argument about the nature of the sun and its influence on the temperature of our planet. What I would like to see, is a cogent Electric Universe theory of how our sun influences the long-term temperature flux of our climate. We need to formulate this preferably here, outside the rather varied and rather noisy variation in the other climate thread. Hopefully, as EU researchers - we can provide a lean, cogent and powerful theory of an electric sun that may influence long-term global temperature without having to resort to the usual rhetoric bandied around by mainstream "skeptics".

[orrery]

Paladin,

We definitely have our work cut out for us if we want to create an Electric Universe model of weather forecasting and modeling but at least we can start to get a picture of the variables involved. I'd ask that you bear with me as my 8-5 40 hr work week has begun. I can't go in much depth during my lunch break but I wanted to address this part:

Moving on, let us briefly look into your claims about X-rays not being accounted for during Solar Maxima

X-Rays are unique because they are observed not to penetrate the upper atmosphere and reach the troposphere. Solar X-Ray measurements were only recently available and were not included in TSI measurements because they never reached detectors on the ground. TSI measurements go back to the 1600s and really only began in the mid 1800s and TSI measurements taken today are an earth-based measurement which don't include X-Ray. I don't think this should be phrased as "my claim" its just the nature of TSI.

SSI is "TSI Updated" primarily measured by the satellite observatory known as "SORCE" and this includes the solar spectrum up to "XUV" which are considered "Soft X-Rays" or "Extreme Ultraviolet"

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm

I have uncovered a criticism of SORCE data here:

http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/11/ ... rradiance/

That TSI doesn't measure "X-Rays" isn't my claim, it's the nature of taking these from the ground where X-Rays aren't penetrating. X-Rays are ionizing the atmosphere and creating ionization in those upper layers, our SSI can measure the XUV ionization of the ionosphere. That ionization has a huge effect on the weather. Greater X-Ray and Cosmic Ray activity would inevitably cause greater ionization.

Just as a reference here is a paper that discusses the ionization resulting from Cosmic Rays

http://star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

I will look more deeply into the other questions you raised on my next break, but it would be a mistake, I think, to not consider sources for increased ionization to have no effect would be ridiculous.

That TSI is decreasing since the period of 1979 while X-Rays and Cosmic Rays are increasing is quite interesting. I also find it interesting that this event seems to correspond with the paper in the Astrophysical Journal discussing the Solar System entering that large interstellar plasma cloud. I am not sure if the Sun is being "less active" or if it has actually become so active that its gone off the TSI charts into the Hard X-Ray.

New measurements of the Sun also show a regular release of Gamma Rays:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/ ... ght-record

Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Cosmic Rays, Solar CMEs, Solar Attenuation of Aerosols, Weakening Geomagnetic Field, Cosmic Space Dust, these seem like just a few variables.

Well, break is over.

[Aardwolf]

As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.

The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?

[Aardwolf]

]If you are correct and we have reached a peak in global warming, do you now expect global cooling and if so, do you believe humanity should allow the cooling to continue?

I don't know what will happen in the future, because I do not claim to understand the climate that much.

Just make a guess. You said you believed global warming has peaked. What do you think will happen next?

As far as previous ice-ages are concerned, humanity has survived them - and will survive the next one.

If we can survive an ice age then minor warming isn't going to pose us any problems. However, as we are not the only residents of Earth and we are able to mitigate global cooling, should we do so on behalf of all the species that will be wiped out? Are you happy for humanity to stand by and do nothing?

We may not survive our own self-destructive tendencies, however.

What suicidal tendencies? Also, what is your opinion on our genocidal tendencies? ie farmers diverting food crops to fuel considering thousands die on a daily basis through malnutrition. This is happening now, not in some potential future threat on the basis of suspect models driven by incomplete formulas and fudges while trying to predict multiple chaotic systems.

Here's a link to another graph you might like.



Its derived form the World Health Organisations study on Global Health Risks. Notice where climate change is. You still think is wise to spend billions studying and trying to mitigate a non-problem when that money could be used to imporve the lives of thousands, maybe millions, of people.

[PersianPaladin]

I will respond to your post soon, Orrery. However - just as an important caveat, it is important to state here and now that weather and climate are not the same thing. I have an understanding of meteorology at an academic level, and clearly it is a result of chaotic and highly dynamic systems as a result of un-even heating, lag-times, sinks and stores, etc, etc.

Like I said, I want to stick simply to the mechanism of HOW the sun heats the stratosphere and troposphere to create average global climate temperatures. I want to look at the mechanism of how ionization can result in temperature increase, as often it is simply linked to condensation nuclei. Bare in mind that atom excitation or radiation at upper-levels that produce thermal radiation - tend to radiate it back upwards to space, before they can even begin to impact the earth's surface and tropospheric temperature. There is tentative evidence that variation in ionization and electric fields in the upper atmosphere (thermosphere, etc) can impact wind-currents at a lower level and influence the jet-stream and heat distribution. But that's not what I'm interested in here. I'm just interested in heating as a general mechanism for the whole planet via the sun. Greenhouse gases (such as water) essentially trap x % outgoing radiation and retain it - and we can describe the general mechanistic principles of how they do this. An understanding of that general mechanism is not the same as describing "weather". I am not interested in what happens dynamically (with regard to heat transport, mesoscale dynamics, etc) after that has happened. Those are secondary consequences - i.e. "weather".

[PersianPaladin]

As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.

The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?

The temp data is the degree of + or - deviation from the average sea-land temperature between 1951-1980.
Source: NASA GISS.

Regarding the TSI data that you're seeing of 1366, I am assuming it is the average for the 1951-1980 period but not fully confirmed this. You can read about the origin of that data here:-
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant

And here:-
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-clim ... i_1611.txt

You can probably work out the average TSI for 1951-1980 there.

[Aardwolf]

As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.

The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?

The temp data is the degree of + or - deviation from the average sea-land temperature between 1951-1980.
Source: NASA GISS.

Regarding the TSI data that you're seeing of 1366, I am assuming it is the average for the 1951-1980 period but not fully confirmed this. You can read about the origin of that data here:-
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant

And here:-
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-clim ... i_1611.txt

You can probably work out the average TSI for 1951-1980 there.

Where's the evidence that 1366 TSI is equivalent to 14C? That's the arbitrary element I'm interested in. What empirical evidence is driving the placing of the scales on each y-axis? If you dont have the answer just say so and then we can agree it's arbitrary and of limited scientific value. It's certainly not good enough to prove a specific timing of causation.