Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Solar irradiance  (Read 36516 times)

lanevn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Solar irradiance
« on: March 02, 2013, 02:08:51 PM »
Maybe it will be interesting to someone. Total solar irradiance measures http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 457
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2013, 07:22:57 AM »
Yes, this is very important. This data is actual measurements of solar irradiance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA). Here's their website:

SORCE - Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment

Quote
The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements provided by SORCE specifically address long-term climate change, natural variability and enhanced climate prediction, and atmospheric ozone and UV-B radiation. These measurements are critical to studies of the Sun; its effect on our Earth system; and its influence on humankind.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 12:54:53 PM by Artful Dodger »
Cheers!
Lodger

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 890
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2013, 03:25:16 PM »
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu

Papers like the above show us that what is at the top of the atmosphere is not as important as what reaches the ground /Ocean below! It would be nice if someone could link some ground based TSI data then we can see the difference between what arrives here and what gets through?

NASA, a few years back, told us that we could be having 50% of our warming offset by our particulate pollution. The above tells us it's moderate volcanic activity that robs us of up to 25% of our total warming. If both studies hold some truth then those impacts, linked with PDO-ve and 'low solar', should surely mean we should be cooling right now? It gets wearisome having the Faux sceptics ask 'where has all the promised warming gone' when looking at plots linked to the 98' super Nino year. Can they not see just how impacted temps are currently by natural -ve forcings? What the heck will the rate of warming be once we flip back into PDO+ve and Asia cleans up it's emissions (as we did)? Never mind a return to lower levels of volcanic activity!

I believe us to already be entering a period of abrupt climate warming due to Albedo alterations to the high Arctic ,to read of so many other forcings already dragging down warming rates leaves me even more concerned over our future prospects.

We have 0.7c of warming to play with before we begin to destabilize all of of the northern permafrosts.....somehow I get the impression we have already gobbled up that amount and just don't know it yet?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 457
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2013, 02:22:09 PM »
It would be nice if someone could link some ground based TSI data then we can see the difference between what arrives here and what gets through?

Hi Gray-Wolf,

What you're looking for is 'apparent solar transmission', a dimensionless coefficient which is the proportion of TSI or solar energy that reaches the surface. NOAA has a full suite of instruments deployed at it's Barrow, Alaska observatory.

Barrow Alaska Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics: Meteorology and Radiation Data

« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 07:58:30 PM by Artful Dodger »
Cheers!
Lodger

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 890
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2013, 04:04:57 PM »
Cheers Lodger! You are a true treasure trove of info!
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 457
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2013, 08:20:32 PM »
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as measured at the top-of-atmosphere by SORCE continues it's annual cycle.

Note that peak TSI occurs around January 1st, and min TSI occurs around July 4. So early ice/snow melt in the Arctic is a positive feedback, since TSI is higher earlier in the Spring/Summer.

Here is a TSI plot showing the annual cycle over the last year, plotted at true earth distance:
Cheers!
Lodger

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 457
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2013, 08:37:07 PM »
Here's another useful SORCE plot showing TSI over the whole life of the project which began observations in 2004.

Notice that the spectacular Summer 2007 SIE retreat occurred near the minimum of the solar output cycle. Now with the coming melt season of 2013, the Sun is near the peak of the solar cycle.

The difference is about 0.8 W m-2, or roughly the same as Earth's heat imbalance due to GHGs.  :o
Cheers!
Lodger

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35

gfwellman

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2013, 09:47:09 PM »
Quote
The difference is about 0.8 W m-2, or roughly the same as Earth's heat imbalance due to GHGs.
Lodger, the TSI plot is per cross sectional m2, while GHG radiative forcing is expressed per surface area.  As you know the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to the cross sectional area is four.  So TSI variation isn't trivial, but it's probably about a fourth of the current GHG forcing.

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 457
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2013, 10:37:40 PM »
So TSI variation isn't trivial, but it's probably about a fourth of the current GHG forcing.
Indeed, gfwellman. Thanks!  8)

More here on Earth's equilibrium temperature

Cheers!
Lodger

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2013, 11:11:58 AM »
That link for solar flares may have some interest for you ?
http://www.tesis.lebedev.ru/en/sun_flares.html?m=3&d=25&y=2013

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2013, 07:24:55 PM »
4 X class solar flares this year
!
NASA | First X-Class Solar Flares of 2013
A big coronal hole has developed recently and may affect the earth this time !

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/potw/item/413
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Most of the energy goes to the poles, right ?

ananthapriya

  • New ice
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2013, 06:29:45 AM »
Thanks for update this video...But it is not really all that effortless. The cosmetics of the light changes also, with light towards the UV end of the spectrum going up more.
dan

lanevn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2013, 11:01:43 AM »
Anyone know is TSI variation during solar cycle is sun power variation, or just sun power distribution variation?

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 457
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2013, 07:33:36 AM »
Anyone know is TSI variation during solar cycle is sun power variation, or just sun power distribution variation?

Hi lanevn,

I do not know if the Sun's energy output varies or just the distribution. Perhaps this has been asked by the SOHO researchers? Might be a place to begin your search.

I do note that the Sun's cycles seem to resonant with Jupiter's orbital period, so their may well be a gravitational component to the physics driving the solar output cycle. Just a thought.  8)
Cheers!
Lodger

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2013, 09:33:13 PM »
Lanevn,

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance - measures the total output from the sun. It is not related to the Earth's relationship with the sun.

lanevn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2013, 10:03:49 AM »
Lanevn,

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance - measures the total output from the sun. It is not related to the Earth's relationship with the sun.

Chris
I asked about something different. Their satellite orbit is in ecliptic anyway. It show that more sun spots near equator - more energy in ecliptic. But maybe there is opposite dependence from polar side of sun. I know, it can't be measured now, but what modern sun models say? Is sun really produced X joules during year 2009 and 1.0004*X during year 2012?

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2013, 08:19:16 AM »
I'm not sure about that, never considered it because it's solar irradiance in the plane of the solar system (equator of the sun) that affects the Earth and other planets.

Andreas T

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2013, 02:06:39 PM »
From the fact that irradiance is measured by satellites in earth orbit as well as the word ir-radiance I understand it to mean radiation arriving at earth (incoming at top of atmosphere) position of earth relative to the sun and the direction into which variation on the suns surface points are therefore already taken into account. Recorded sunspot numbers of course don't carry the same level of information.
http://astro.ic.ac.uk/research/solar-irradiance-variation  is just one source for further reading.

Andreas T

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2013, 03:58:18 PM »
Sorry, note to self: never underestimate the level of a discussion on ASI forum! I jumped in without reading the whole thread, everything I said had been adressed earlier in more detail. :-[

On surface irradiation measurements I found this:http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/home/bsrn/ don't know whether data is easily accessible, it seems the resolution of stations over the whole earth surface isn't enough to calculate a total from measurements, the data acts as verification of models and satellite measurements as I understand it.

Ianevn, I you seem to say that the sun's output in directions which do not point towards earth (e.g. from the sun's poles) should be taken into account, how do you think that would affect the earth's radiation budget?

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2013, 08:15:56 PM »
Ah the BSRN...

Years ago when I was a denialist (I thought I was sceptical but I just wasn't thinking properly) my last line of defence was the sun. I was having doubts about the validity of scepticism over GW, then Wild, Ohmura & Makowski published "Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming."
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/2006GL028031.pdf

This paragraph crushed my doubts and forced me to really start thinking.

Quote
Despite the fact that surface insolation at the turn of the millennium is rather lower than
in the 1960s, land surface temperatures have increased by 0.8C over this period (Figure 1). This suggests that the net effect of surface solar forcing over the past decades cannot
be the principal driver behind the overall temperature increase, since over the past 40 years, cooling from solar dimming still outweighs warming from solar brightening. Rather, the overall temperature increase since the 1960s can be attributed to greenhouse forcing as also evident in the BSRN data outlined above. Thus, speculations that solar brightening rather than the greenhouse effect could have been the main cause of the overall global warming over the
past decades appear unfounded.

Then the sea ice events of 2007 happened....

Which is why, considering the rest of the science as well, I now think anyone still in denial is a stupid w____r [rhymes with 'merchant banker'].

PS - it's a good one to throw at denialist zombies who shuffle about, drooling 'it's the sun'.

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2013, 03:13:34 AM »
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu

Papers like the above show us that what is at the top of the atmosphere is not as important as what reaches the ground /Ocean below! It would be nice if someone could link some ground based TSI data then we can see the difference between what arrives here and what gets through?

NASA, a few years back, told us that we could be having 50% of our warming offset by our particulate pollution. The above tells us it's moderate volcanic activity that robs us of up to 25% of our total warming. If both studies hold some truth then those impacts, linked with PDO-ve and 'low solar', should surely mean we should be cooling right now? It gets wearisome having the Faux sceptics ask 'where has all the promised warming gone' when looking at plots linked to the 98' super Nino year. Can they not see just how impacted temps are currently by natural -ve forcings? What the heck will the rate of warming be once we flip back into PDO+ve and Asia cleans up it's emissions (as we did)? Never mind a return to lower levels of volcanic activity!

I believe us to already be entering a period of abrupt climate warming due to Albedo alterations to the high Arctic ,to read of so many other forcings already dragging down warming rates leaves me even more concerned over our future prospects.

We have 0.7c of warming to play with before we begin to destabilize all of of the northern permafrosts.....somehow I get the impression we have already gobbled up that amount and just don't know it yet?

Here is the way I usually explain it to Denialistas, who quite often claim changes in solar irradiance are significant, which prompted me to examine it.

TSI has fluctuations based on solar cycles, both short term sunspot cycles and even longer term cycles.



TSI is not a good measurement for representing the incoming solar radiation on planet Earth. The most obvious reason is half the Earth isn't facing the sun at any given time. The side of the Earth facing the sun requires projecting that solar radiation on a sphere. That changes the incoming solar radiation from approx. 1,366 watts per square meter to around 342 watts per square meter. TSI is about 4 times larger than incoming solar radiation in Earth's upper atmosphere, so fluctuations in incoming solar radiation are about a quarter of fluctuations in TSI.



If you want to examine incoming solar radiation, you use an Earth energy balance chart and not a TSI chart. If you do the math on an Earth energy balance chart, what comes into the Earth equals what leaves. What is absorbed by the Earth's surface or atmosphere also equal what leaves. The charts are based on averages, so the values of other things besides incoming solar radiation are also varying. The Earth doesn't always have the same amount of surface and cloud reflection. Whenever I've done the math, the magnitude of change based on TSI data wasn't significant to the other changes.



I posted the IPCC chart to show that changes in solar irradiance have been evaluated in terms of radiative forcing. The changes of solar irradiance have only slightly warmed the Earth and mankind is responsible for nearly all the warming.

The changes in solar irradiance are a product of the sun's magnetic field changing. Photons are created at the sun's core and spend around a thousand years getting near the surface. Like the Earth, the sun is a dynamo, producing a magnetic field that reverses around every 11 years and that reversal is the sunspot cycles. As far as I know, we don't know what causes longer term solar cycle. TSI measures what the sun emits and not what the sun produces. It doesn't fluctuate much and was once called the solar constant. 


Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2013, 11:17:58 PM »
If you do the energy balance math, what goes out is less. The earth isn't in energy balance, its warming up.

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2013, 03:22:22 AM »
If you do the energy balance math, what goes out is less. The earth isn't in energy balance, its warming up.

The Earth warming or cooling based on surface temperature increases or decreases caused by  increases or decreases of greenhouse gas has nothing to do with the energy balance I pointed out. Increasing greenhouse gases increase back radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface. Back radiation from greenhouse gases is about twice the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface. Notice the chart I used and some of these others in the links below have changes in parentheses for certain values. If you look for the source of those proposed changes, you'll find that many are products of the world's leading Climatologists. Changing a component in the Earth's energy balance requires changing other components to keep things like the surface, atmosphere and energy coming in and out of space in balance. There exists round off errors in math, but the simple concept involves surface, atmosphere or planet Earth will continuously cool or warm, if not in balance.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=&q=earth's+energy+budget&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=1wBKUtKqO4PfyQGOh4G4Bw#hl=en&q=earth%27s+energy+balance&tbm=isch&um=1

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=&q=earth's+energy+budget&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=1wBKUtKqO4PfyQGOh4G4Bw

Returning to the thread subject, if someone can show that changes in solar irradiance are significant, then use math and show it! TSI is about 4 times the amount of incoming solar radiation projected to the Earth's atmosphere. Since we live on this Earth as it exists, how much TSI are we getting at night and how much is projected on a spherical upper atmosphere? If the Earth's incoming solar radiation varies by a certain amount and other things vary more, why are the changes in radiative forcing of incoming solar radiation more important than other radiative forcings?

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2013, 02:11:59 PM »

See "Earth’s energy imbalance and implications", for the math. I think Hansen is a decent authority on this aspect of climate.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf

See also Fig 2.11 of the IPCC AR5 which is essentially the same as the diagram you posted, but where the numbers aren't in balance. The paper that's taken from is paywalled so I haven't read it, but the numbers are consistent with Hansen's paper linked above.

Wild, M., D. Folini, C. Schär, N. Loeb, E. G. Dutton, and G. König-Langlo, 2013: The global energy balance from a surface perspective.. Climate Dynamics, doi:DOI 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8.

The disruptions to the energy balance caused by anthropogenic effects such as greenhouse gasses are of the order of 1 W/m2 and if you are rounding the energy fluxes to the accuracy of  1 W/m2 you shouldn't assume they balance at the surface or the edge of atmosphere. They aren't in balance and the earth is continuously heating up as a result.

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 633
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2013, 07:06:05 PM »
The paper that's taken from is paywalled so I haven't read it

Wild, M., D. Folini, C. Schär, N. Loeb, E. G. Dutton, and G. König-Langlo, 2013: The global energy balance from a surface perspective.. Climate Dynamics, doi:DOI 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8.
The paper is freely available on the webpage of the first author: link.  The diagram of the Earth's energy budget is on page 2.

Here is what the paper says about the energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere (links added):

Quote
The 240 Wm–2 of solar radiation absorbed by the globe are nearly balanced by thermal emission to space (also known as outgoing longwave radiation) of about 239 Wm–2. This value is based on CERES EBAF, taking into account an energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere of approx. 0.6 Wm–2 (Hansen et al. 2011; Loeb et al. 2012). This imbalance, which reflects the global heat storage, is constrained by observations of changes in ocean heat content. ...

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2013, 06:58:01 AM »

See "Earth’s energy imbalance and implications", for the math. I think Hansen is a decent authority on this aspect of climate.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf

See also Fig 2.11 of the IPCC AR5 which is essentially the same as the diagram you posted, but where the numbers aren't in balance. The paper that's taken from is paywalled so I haven't read it, but the numbers are consistent with Hansen's paper linked above.

Wild, M., D. Folini, C. Schär, N. Loeb, E. G. Dutton, and G. König-Langlo, 2013: The global energy balance from a surface perspective.. Climate Dynamics, doi:DOI 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8.

The disruptions to the energy balance caused by anthropogenic effects such as greenhouse gasses are of the order of 1 W/m2 and if you are rounding the energy fluxes to the accuracy of  1 W/m2 you shouldn't assume they balance at the surface or the edge of atmosphere. They aren't in balance and the earth is continuously heating up as a result.

Here is the source of the energy balance or energy budget chart I used:

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-solar-activity.html

Notice it is titled "Measuring Solar Activity" and it comes from Global Greenhouse Warming's website!

Here is the first sentence in your Hansen et al link:

Quote
Abstract. Improving observations of ocean heat content
show that Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun
than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent
solar minimum.

Source: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf

Those climate scientists aren't suggesting the rules for energy budget or balance charts have changed. They are saying the Earth's surface is absorbing approximately 0.58 watts per square meter more radiation, because of the increases in greenhouse gases. They are saying the increase comes from back radiation and not incoming solar radiation. Scientists do not claim the equilibrium represented in an energy balance chart has changed to explain warming. Some scientists have simply added another feature, call it global warming calculated in watts per square meter or whatever, then they adjust the numbers to accommodate adding the feature. Energy budget charts became to be called energy balance charts, so to make a statement about global warming, they want to call them energy imbalance charts now.



Here again is the energy budget chart I posted to make the point that changes in solar irradiance aren't that significant and this is what I said:

Quote
If you want to examine incoming solar radiation, you use an Earth energy balance chart and not a TSI chart. If you do the math on an Earth energy balance chart, what comes into the Earth equals what leaves. What is absorbed by the Earth's surface or atmosphere also equal what leaves. The charts are based on averages, so the values of other things besides incoming solar radiation are also varying. The Earth doesn't always have the same amount of surface and cloud reflection. Whenever I've done the math, the magnitude of change based on TSI data wasn't significant to the other changes.

The statement in bold is still true. If I wanted to use the estimates of that chart to make an energy imbalance chart, it's easy to do. I just add a feature called global warming 1 watt per square meter at the bottom and change the numbers. Incoming solar radiation can be accurately measured, but outgoing longwave radiation can't. It's calculated by taking the incoming solar radiation and subtracting reflected solar radiation.

The chart was posted to prove using TSI variability will give an estimate 4 times what is real and the changes in solar radiation aren't significant compared to other changes. 

Subjects about energy budget/energy balance/energy imbalance and many related subjects are very important to science, worthy of their own thread, if one doesn't already exist, but I don't want to hijack someone's thread and discuss a bunch of details that have nothing to do with the thread that was started. 

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2013, 07:19:43 AM »
Thanks for the links Steven. That Wild paper was an eyeopener for me. I hadn't realised just how bad the models are at representing the internal heat transfers within the climate system.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2014, 11:56:11 AM »

pikaia

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2014, 12:06:58 PM »
From the link above: "We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions."

This seems to be very conservative. Based on the data in the following link, the sunspot cycle will probably disappear within ten years!

http://www.universetoday.com/86643/regular-solar-cycle-could-be-going-on-hiatus/


Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4742
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 507
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2014, 04:36:48 PM »
Is our Sun falling silent?

Maybe not? http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/giant-january-sunspots/



Image from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory on January 7th
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2014, 06:39:26 PM »
I am fully in the camp of AGW. Could this, if it is true, buy us some time to get our house in order? And if it does give us a respite, will our only reaction be BAU??

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2014, 05:01:05 PM »
SH

I think it does not have potential to help but it will make things worse.

While the article says the current drop of in solar activity is the fastest in 10,000  years the scientists quoted say that this will have no permanent effect on AGW.  Just that it 'may' delay reaching a specific temperature by five years or so.

Quote
...An analysis of ice-cores, which hold a long-term record of solar activity, suggests the decline in activity is the fastest that has been seen in 10,000 years.

"It's an unusually rapid decline," explains Prof Lockwood.

"We estimate that within about 40 years or so there is a 10% to 20% - nearer 20% - probability that we'll be back in Maunder Minimum conditions." ...

..."I've done a number of studies that show at the very most it might buy you about five years before you reach a certain global average temperature level. But that's not to say, on a more regional basis there aren't changes to the patterns of our weather that we'll have to get used to."....

But the big take away for me is the 20% chance of being in a minimum in 40 years.

IF this happens (1 chance in 5) it 'might' delay the rise in temps by 5 years 40 years from now.  This minimum if it happens will actually make things worse not better.

The article says that it could cause increasingly difficult winters in North America and Europe as happened during the Maunder Minimum.  Imagine the difficulty of convincing the public in the OECD countries to initiate massive civilizational change in the face of years of continuing severe winters.  It would never fly here in the US is my guess.  The denial industry would have excellent ammunition to fight you with and the "common sense", which is normally wrong, would tell the public it is more like it used to be with bad winters and hot summers.  I note the recent bad winter storms in the US which garnered so much attention would have been considered typical winter weather in 1965.

Another factor which occurs to me is that adapting to bad winters costs a lot of money.  That would bleed resources from other potential efforts which are going to become increasingly critical as time goes on (if there is even any point in trying to make a difference at this late date). 

A third, and by far the most important issue, is that if we do get increasingly difficult winters in North America and Europe this will dramatically impact agriculture.   In a very bad way.  During the period of the Maunder Minimum there were huge problems growing crops in the high latitudes.  This resulted in the complete loss of settlers in Greenland, the loss of 50% of the population of Iceland, severe food production problems for Native Americans, famines all over Europe with population losses in Northern Europe of 20-30%.  When we consider that the effects of this solar minimum do not extend to the whole planet but are concentrated in areas where we are going to need to increase yields, but would not be able to do so, and that the low latitude areas are still going to be heating and yields there will be dropping at the same time.  This is a recipe for disaster and agricultural collapse.  And I note it times out to be right in line with my estimate of 2050 for the collapse of industrial agriculture  ;D  Go figure.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2014, 05:54:01 PM »
Here are some figures of TSI from a spreadsheet I have, dataset team leader, 1700 to 1720 average TSI (Watts/m), 1950 to 1970 TSI, and change in TSI, with calculated Radiative Forcing (RF).

Hoyt 1363.75 -> 1365.6 change 1.85 -> RF change 0.33
Leif 1365.5 -> 1365.9 change 0.4 -> RF change 0.07
Wang 1365.0 -> 1365.9 change 0.9 -> RF change 0.16
Lean 1363.6 -> 1364.8 change 1.2 -> RF change 0.21
Krivova 1364.9 -> 1365.5 change 0.6 -> RF change 0.11

IPCC AR5 SPM (2013) gives total anthropogenic forcing as 1.13 to 3.33W/m^2. Which conveniently is now stated as relative to 1750. In other words anthropogenic forcing dwarfs the increase in solar forcing since the Maunder Minimum, and if we go back to Maunder Minimum conditions in 40 years (when anthro forcing will have climbed still further) the effect will be small to undetectable.

To convert to RF from TSI see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Solar_forcing
Under Example Calculations.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2014, 09:22:50 PM »
Chris, what do you think about the link that Lockwood posits between sun spot activity and blocking events? There will probably be increased use of this argument (justified perhaps, I don't know) by fake skeptics if there's an increase in blocking events.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2014, 04:48:32 AM »
Chris

Quote
IPCC AR5 SPM (2013) gives total anthropogenic forcing as 1.13 to 3.33W/m^2. Which conveniently is now stated as relative to 1750. In other words anthropogenic forcing dwarfs the increase in solar forcing since the Maunder Minimum, and if we go back to Maunder Minimum conditions in 40 years (when anthro forcing will have climbed still further) the effect will be small to undetectable.

I take your point but, on reflection, I don't think it is that simple.  By mid-century it won't take anything like Maunder Minimum conditions to cause real problems.  If you go to the Topic ISI-MIP Agriculture and Water and review what we are talking about there or review the below two links you might change your mind.

Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print December 16, 2013,   doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110

Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print December 16, 2013,  doi:10.1073/pnas.1222474110

Within these two papers, which are based upon a systemic look at the Global Climate Change Models and the Global Crop Models, you will find a discussion about future crop yields at various latitudes as the century progresses.  Even in the case of nothing but a steady rise in temperatures we are looking at likely significant production shortfalls circa mid-century.  Any decrease in the high latitudes in the progression of AGW warming caused by a new minimum, even if it was just a fraction of what occurred during the Maunder Minimum, would still bring back years of colder weather (in a relative sense) as the paper indicated.  Delaying the warming by about 5 years was the number.  By mid-century even a difference that small would very likely be a hit on yields sufficient to cause real problems.  There will simply be no slack in the production system by then.   Being able to feed the global population by then will require that improving growing conditions in the high latitudes be offsetting the declines in the low latitudes.  As you will see from the graphs this is a slowly loosing proposition and as one passes about 2050 we will inevitably fall behind.  Any cooling effect that only hits the high latitudes and not the low latitudes as well (needed to bring yields back up to offset the drop in yields in the north) results in production shortfalls even sooner and some form of disaster.

Comments?  Does this make sense to you?     
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2014, 06:51:46 PM »
Neven, Jim,

Since the issues are all interlinked.

I deliberately just limited myself to radiative forcing because of additional effects like the Lockwood idea about blocking [1]. IIRC in maritime records a tendency to easterly winds in Europe has been found during the MM / LIA, suggesting the the cold weather may not have been directly due to reduced solar irradiance. However we're already seeing the start of what may turn out to be a succession of cold winters due to blocking and easterly winds (ie. 2006, 2010, 2012) that is due to loss of Arctic sea ice (on a Channel 4 documentary Lockwood said that despite his research these weren't due to his solar hypothesis as solar atcivity isn't low enough yet). By mid century the sea ice will probably be fully seasonal, what effects this will cause are not known from my reading. But I think it's reasonable to conclude that if solar activity slumps to another grand minimum, the effects will not be the same as the Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age. AGW is a confusing factor that makes the two situations incomparable.

It's been a while since I looked at food production, the only indication of AGW related drops in production I sen was in a blog post (I thought it was at Staniford's Early Warning) but can't find it now. All it showed was a decrease in the residuals from the trend in maize or wheat production, the trend itself was still solidly upwards. And I remember when reading the article that it didn't tease out the possible economic impacts of the 2007 crash on farming.

Here's a page from Kansas State University:
http://ksugrains.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/world-grain-oilseed-supply-demand-trends-from-the-ksu-agecon-mast-program/
It has a graphic of production showing what I understand - increasing output.

Now I know the question was about future production, perhaps those models are correct. But it's going to be a far harder thing to model than sea ice, and there's great uncertainty about that. And from my understanding uncertainty in that issue has a knock on effect on all prognostications regarding climate change. So I'm sorry Jim, but I'm a bit sceptical. That said I haven't looked into the matter seriously and don't have any plans to because 1) I'm from the 'you've made your bed - lie in it and don't complain' school of thought, if humanity persists with 'Plan A' then what happens happens 2) it doesn't excite and intrigue me like sea ice does.

1) Lockwood & Solanki 2010, Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf
2) 'Plan A' - burn all the fossil fuels we can; the current plan.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2014, 09:22:59 PM »
Chris

Ok.  But I do follow this subject a lot and your skepticism is not backed up by science.  There is a lot of scientific research on this out there and it looks very bad.  We know a lot more about growing food than we do about modeling the climate or arctic sea ice.  So I think the comparison is not valid.  As the climate changes we can get a pretty good idea what will happen to various crops and food production is probably the most critical factor related to AGW as it is likely to the first tipping point which really compromises our ability to function.  But YMMV and I understand your interest in the ice.  But to me the ice is just an interesting topic and one of the canaries.  Feeding people is the number one thing that makes it possible to think about the ice. So I put the emphasis and focus there.

The links I provided are to research papers on the very subject of crop yields in the future which take into account AGW and water issues.  They are from a research program being managed by the Potsdam Institute and were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.  So real research and not blog posts.   

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2014, 10:34:10 PM »
Jim,

I don't doubt that the modelling of food production may be well established but, solely from the point of view of my obsession:

How fast will the Arctic transition to a seasonally sea ice free state? What impact will that have on methane emissions? What impact will it have on the Greenland ice sheet? Will massive outflow of melt from Greenland cool the surrounding seas - what impact will that have? When the Arctic is seasonally ice free what impact will that have on NH circulation. How rapidly will the period of open water during the year increase? Will there be a cloud raditive feedback further delaying melt during the winter and leading to a birfurcatory transition to a perennially ice free state, if so, by 2050 what will the outputs of those models look like?

I know I'm obsessed with the ice, but that's because it's important. It's not just a canary, it's the lynchpin, it governs what happens next. And I'm very sceptical of projections for that reason.

If you want to see what my uscientific hunch about the future is search this page for the string "I've balked about posting the" But at present there really isn't a decrease in production and the papers you link to are all about the future.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 07:49:56 AM by ChrisReynolds »

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2014, 03:21:05 AM »
Chris

I understand what you are doing and I enjoy reading your posts.  But I must say I am surprised by your apparent dismissiveness on the food production issue.  Of course we are talking about modeling and projections for the future.  Exactly like what we are doing with AGW and many are doing with arctic sea ice.  Both have extensive science behind them.  You seem to be making some large assumptions about the food production issue of a type you would never put up with from someone who had no expertise in arctic sea ice.  Thus the need for systemic analysis.

Btw your link does not work. 

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2014, 04:26:33 AM »
Both have extensive science behind them.  You seem to be making some large assumptions about the food production issue of a type you would never put up with from someone who had no expertise in arctic sea ice.  Thus the need for systemic analysis.

In any case there are studies showing yields have already been negatively affected by climate change - just that the size of the negative effects hasn't overwhelmed the increase in yields yet (ie yields have increased more slowly than they would have without climate change, they have not yet absolutely gone into decline). I think that's all been discussed heavily in other topics though?

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2014, 05:00:08 AM »
Jim,

I actually think that Chris is right about the number of uncertainties wrt food production.

But, unfortunately, as far as I can see, almost all those uncertainties are on the down side--models are likely under-estimating the negative, disruptive effect of an (essentially) ice free Arctic on Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, and they are probably still projecting such an event further in the future than it is likely to actually happen. They are likely also underestimating the rate of permafrost feedback and many other such...

But it is also hard to tell ahead of time what technologies may help (or hinder) future ag--few could have anticipated the full extent of the impact of the Green Revolution before it happened (for better and especially worse). I would guess, though, that your and their predictions that things get really bad about 2050 probably set the optimistic limit both for timing and severity.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2014, 08:00:26 AM »
Both have extensive science behind them.  You seem to be making some large assumptions about the food production issue of a type you would never put up with from someone who had no expertise in arctic sea ice.  Thus the need for systemic analysis.

In any case there are studies showing yields have already been negatively affected by climate change - just that the size of the negative effects hasn't overwhelmed the increase in yields yet (ie yields have increased more slowly than they would have without climate change, they have not yet absolutely gone into decline). I think that's all been discussed heavily in other topics though?

It may well have been, I don't have the time to study this area. So my default position remains one of scepticism - and as the door of uncertainty must swing both ways I don't know if the situation by mid century will be worse or better than those models project.

Jim,

I'm not dismissing it, I don't know, see above. The link has been fixed.

Wili,

You may be right that the uncertainty will be biassed to the high side. But take an example - we don't know what effect total loss of sea ice for longer periods in summer will have on the US mid west drying. Take the current response to the loss of sea ice in terms of sea level pressure:



There's a low pressure tendency across Canada to the eastern US - how will this change in years to come? I don't know. In the UK and Western Europe this has lead to wet summers, not outside the range of variability for the region (although the succession of summers is very unusual). Now transfer that picture to the US mid west - what if that region started having wet summers that weren't unusually wet for the region in summer taken one by one, even if the succession was unusual. What impact would that have on agriculture? In the UK the impact has been negative, in the US the same shift in local statistics would likely be positive. Note I'm not talking about the UK amount of rain, I'm talking in terms of regional statistics.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 08:05:30 AM by ChrisReynolds »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2014, 05:16:48 PM »
Yes, of course, the possibility of some benign or helpful changes in some places cannot be completely ruled out at this point. But really it is the west or plains states that would benefit from more rain more than the midwest would, imho. But previous periods of relative warming brought very dry conditions to the west and plains--huge sand dunes drifting up and down the vast regions between the Rockies and the Mississippi.

And of course all of these eventualities can be exacerbated or ameliorated by human actions--both by how much we continue to contribute to the main problem, AGW, and by how we proceed with attempts at adaptation.

And in most cases if predominant rain patterns shift, it will mean that rain will fall on places that simply can't be as productive as current bread baskets, or it where the new rain fall patterns fall may be areas that will need major infrastructure investments to take advantage of the new patterns.

Most likely, though, there will be no one 'new pattern.' The new pattern will be a constantly shifting climate chaos and any resources spent on infrastructure to try to take advantage of what seem to be the promising new areas for ag productions will soon become useless in that location as further shifts move the rains elsewhere.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2014, 05:52:35 PM »
A third, and by far the most important issue, is that if we do get increasingly difficult winters in North America and Europe this will dramatically impact agriculture.   In a very bad way.

Why does this follow though? Why is a cold winter necessarily bad for agriculture? I can think of several reasons it might actually be helpful:
  • helps manage pests (by killing them over the winter)
  • helps break up the soil (frost heave), fighting compaction
  • helps ensure certain plants respond properly when spring comes

During the period of the Maunder Minimum there were huge problems growing crops in the high latitudes.  This resulted in the complete loss of settlers in Greenland, the loss of 50% of the population of Iceland, severe food production problems for Native Americans, famines all over Europe with population losses in Northern Europe of 20-30%.

I think it's questionable to extrapolate from the historic event though as the background is totally different thanks to subsequent climate change. My instinct is to agree with the view that a Maunder minimum would have very little obvious signature at this point due to the large underlying changes we have wrought and are continuing to see unfold (even the BBC story quote alludes to that as per the bit you quoted).

When we consider that the effects of this solar minimum do not extend to the whole planet but are concentrated in areas where we are going to need to increase yields, but would not be able to do so, and that the low latitude areas are still going to be heating and yields there will be dropping at the same time.  This is a recipe for disaster and agricultural collapse.

But you're implicitly assuming upon our capability to improve yields in high latitudes in the first place. I don't understand why that is a given? The observed changes to the behaviour of the jet stream alone are sufficient to call into question the scope for yield increases in high latitudes due to the decreased predictability of the seasonal weather for growing in any given year? Plus in other topics a whole list of reasons was identified that argued against the ease of compensating for yield losses using the high latitudes (infrastructure, soil type, day length, etc). I don't see that a Maunder minimum will do much more than it may already be to stop the Arctic being seasonally ice free for part of the year soon and the consequent exacerbation of effects on the jet stream through increased heat exchange in autumn/fall and winter.

Furthermore I think you can expect to see the tropics warm almost regardless - if AMOC is slowing down (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/20/gulf-stream-hot-summer-uk-climate-change). The bottom line I think at this point is simple - extra heat is going to be going into the system - and there isn't anywhere good (or even not bad) to put it. Whether low or high latitudes warm relatively faster, I don't see anything positive comes as a result. In a world with diminishing resources we are approaching our limits to adaptation, and I think sooner than most people want to think.

And I note it times out to be right in line with my estimate of 2050 for the collapse of industrial agriculture  ;D  Go figure.

Looking too hard for consensus?  :P

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2014, 08:26:32 PM »
ccg

Quote
Why does this follow though? Why is a cold winter necessarily bad for agriculture? I can think of several reasons it might actually be helpful:
•helps manage pests (by killing them over the winter)
•helps break up the soil (frost heave), fighting compaction
•helps ensure certain plants respond properly when spring comes

Because 40 years from now the climate projections when coupled with information on crop yields and water resources indicate that in the low latitudes yields are going to be falling fast and will be well below todays levels.  This means that the high latitudes MUST be able to pick up the slack.  Projections are that yields in the high latitudes by that time will also be falling, though not to a great extent yet.  But to pick up that slack the warming weather projected MUST actually occur and it needs to be stable.  Or you don't get the yields.  Thus if winter ends up colder then the soil temperature in the spring are low and this retards planting the warmer weather crops we are bringing north.  Lower yields.  If spring weather has unpredictable frosts or frost which match conditions from 30 years earlier.  Lower yields.  To grow enough food by 2050 we have to be pushing warm  weather crops into Canada and northern Russia.  Having an effect from the solar minimum impact the warming that is occurring in that way will take a meaningful percentage out of yields at a time when not having that happen is critical.

Quote
I think it's questionable to extrapolate from the historic event though as the background is totally different thanks to subsequent climate change. My instinct is to agree with the view that a Maunder minimum would have very little obvious signature at this point due to the large underlying changes we have wrought and are continuing to see unfold (even the BBC story quote alludes to that as per the bit you quoted).


My reply here is that we are not talking about an effect of comparable magnitude, but that even an effect which resulted in weather conditions similar to what we have today would result in lower yields.  So a small effect if it happened (and the article indicated a measurable effect) would have a big impact.

Quote
But you're implicitly assuming upon our capability to improve yields in high latitudes in the first place.

Quite true.  The studies being performed that I've linked to project yields rising for a time in the high latitudes before the warming climate then turns them down.  This turning point is right at mid-century.  Thus even a small impact from the minimum could be decisive.

I have no optimism on the end results either.  My original comment on this sub-subject was in response to SH's wondering if this minimum might buy us some small amount of time.  My thoughts on that question led us here.

Quote
Looking too hard for consensus?

LOL.  Not really.  But it is kind of fun to point out crap which supports one's opinion.  But being the optimist that I seem to be painted as here I must say it is very difficult for me to find a path beyond about that date.  Course many of you think it won't take anywhere near that long.  Maybe I like my date because I won't be around to see it, but if you are right I will be?

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2014, 08:39:54 PM »
Chris

I found and read your link.

We are nor far apart at all on what is likely to happen.  All the niceties of civilization will be swept away when crunch time comes.  Even the most caring will come to understand the futility of trying to accommodate everyone.  Triage is a given eventually.  Force will be used.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2014, 06:50:09 PM »
Jim,

What I wrote there is based on my hunch, but my hunch isn't something I'd try to argue strongly with anyone. What I wrote there is really an outline of preparing for the worst, because that is what may come, and such preparation needs to start decades before the feared outcome manifests.

AndrewP

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #48 on: January 22, 2014, 07:54:01 PM »
From what I've read:

-QBO + low solar activity = blocking
-QBO + high solar activity = less blocking
+QBO + high solar activity = blocking
+QBO + low solar activity = less blocking

Prolonged low solar activity might lead to more blocking from what I've read (based off the blocking that caused cold temperatures in Europe during the Maunder).

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Solar irradiance
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2014, 07:34:52 PM »
Big Solar Storm Heading Toward Earth This Weekend
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/solar-storms-impact-earth-video_n_5809940.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

If you want to see one solar eruption after the interview... I am pretty sure the music (sound) wasn't there but still very cool.