Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[jc456]

Hey guys, great circle jerk based on ignorant twaddle. You reinforce each other's insanity in the most hilarious ways. Too bad you're all such clueless retards.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"You Deniers crack me up. The Settled Science Consensus Boys already eliminated the Sun as a contributor to ManMade Climate Global CoolerWarmering Disruption Change.

Check my tree Rings

The Sun affects climate on Earth? I lol'd -- out loud"

 

[mamooth]

Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.

Like almost all deniers, you suck balls at common sense. A long post saying "look what happens if the spectrum change?" is 'effin stupid, being that THE SPECTRUM HASN'T CHANGED. Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

Of course, maybe you're being dishonest instead of amazingly stupid. Is that the case? Being charitable, I always start out assuming deniers are simply raging dumbshits, walking examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, people too retarded to ever understand how retarded they are. I'm almost always correct on that count. However, I don't discount the possibility that they might instead be deliberately lying for the glory of their religious-political cult.

 

[Crick]

A Google search on solar spectral shifts, selecting Google's standard "Scholarly articles" return, will produce reams of work studying such shifts and their effects regarding PV cells. It appears that the primary cause of such shifts are simple Doppler effects and Stokes V profile asymmetries in the solar atmosphere as a result of magnetic flux concentrations. Thus the idea that such changes are responsible for Earth's global warming will have difficulty correlating with the time spans involved. The driving effects have periods on the order of days and in the long run are essentially random while the observed warming effects have been going on steadily in one direction for 150 years.

I find it interesting that many of you have repeatedly argued that the absorption of solar energy by CO2 and other GHGs is far less than mainstream science believes - until such absorption - or even more - is required to make use of spectral shifts as a new forcing factor.

 

[flacaltenn]

Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.

Like almost all deniers, you suck balls at common sense. A long post saying "look what happens if the spectrum change?" is 'effin stupid, being that THE SPECTRUM HASN'T CHANGED. Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

Of course, maybe you're being dishonest instead of amazingly stupid. Is that the case? Being charitable, I always start out assuming deniers are simply raging dumbshits, walking examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, people too retarded to ever understand how retarded they are. I'm almost always correct on that count. However, I don't discount the possibility that they might instead be deliberately lying for the glory of their religious-political cult.

Obviously -- you are ONE TARD that just hasn't had a real technical think on this topic. Because IF YOU HAD -- you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth. The very atmosphere that the Incoming insolation is coming thru is masking the true measurement. In the OLD days, they used to cart a spectrometer up the mountainside to 12,000 feet or so to make measurements that were SLIGHTLY more accurate. But STILL incapable of doing that CONTINUALLY or with the precision required to find solar spectral shifts.

So we only have about 15 or 20 years of "real-time" data to look at the variability from satellite. That's not even more than one solar cycle. We basically know NOTHING about shifts in insolation that could modulate the GHouse absorption spectra. All the early "orbiting solar observatories" concentrated on High Energy particle spectra because the "THREAT" was due to solar flares and storms. Very damn few UV/Visible/IR full spectrum instruments were EVER available. And OCCASIONALLY we'd get a Shuttle or Space Station experiment that did this ONE TIME.

Shows how little thought has been given to declarations that the "science is settled". Especially when you realize that MINUTE shifts in spectral density could change the climate in catastrophic ways..

Tard on admiral..

 

[Crick]

Would you care to explore the conflict between your claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is too low to have caused the warming we've observed by greenhouse effects but is simultaneously high enough (much higher than mainstream science has ever claimed it to be) in order to have caused the heating by way of minute spectral shifts into and out of the CO2 absorption bands?

 

[RollingThunder]

Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

...you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth.

And that's why scientists measure solar insolation with satellite instrumentation, you pathetic retard.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tards, Retards, -- nothing there that NEEDS a response is there?
Folks that are following the premise already understand where the distracting baiting is coming from..

We know damn little about this most important aspect of GH theory. I TOLD you why. Not gonna engage at your level.. To have even the faintest confidence about theories, you would have to have had satellites up with these pkgs for a couple solar cycles. How long is a solar cycle Princess?

 

[jc456]

Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

...you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth.

And that's why scientists measure solar insolation with satellite instrumentation, you pathetic retard.

blunderbomber, didn't he state that?

 

[flacaltenn]

I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation..

Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..

Glad to hear from BillyBob that this problem is being worked. Part of the "renaissance" of Climate Science that I'm seeing in the past year or so. Real stuff is gonna apparently gonna get more attention than the fables.

 

[RollingThunder]

I put up SEVERAL threads on this topic over the past couple years.
Because there was no real comprehensive information available, I didn't draw any conclusions other than to state how little we know about OTHER monumentally important details of the Climate system. Especially, the variance of direct solar excitation..

Folks who are screaming consensus and settled science will naturally attack any science that points out MASSIVE HOLES in general climate knowledge. That's OK -- guess they would consider themselves Grateful Tards. Especially gaps that could potentially put the dangers of CO2 into its proper perspective..

Glad to hear from BillyBob that this problem is being worked. Part of the "renaissance" of Climate Science that I'm seeing in the past year or so. Real stuff is gonna apparently gonna get more attention than the fables.

This whole thread is nothing but retarded denier cult twaddle and pseudo-science. The Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, at its most stunningly stupid.

 

[Crick]

Would you care to explore the conflict between your claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is too low to have caused the warming we've observed by greenhouse effects but is simultaneously high enough (much higher than mainstream science has ever claimed it to be) in order to have caused that same heating by way of minute spectral shifts into and out of the CO2 absorption bands?

Eh?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.

Like almost all deniers, you suck balls at common sense. A long post saying "look what happens if the spectrum change?" is 'effin stupid, being that THE SPECTRUM HASN'T CHANGED. Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

Of course, maybe you're being dishonest instead of amazingly stupid. Is that the case? Being charitable, I always start out assuming deniers are simply raging dumbshits, walking examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, people too retarded to ever understand how retarded they are. I'm almost always correct on that count. However, I don't discount the possibility that they might instead be deliberately lying for the glory of their religious-political cult.

To funny; Denying the spectral shift in 1998.. and then going on to call names and produce absolutely NO FACTS to support your rant..

Alarmist Drivel...

 

[Crick]

Billy Bob, what was the source of these graphics and commentary?

Solar Spectral Shift and Earths Atmospherics.

Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.

So lets look at the solar down-welling spectrum.

So we see that the sun has a very broad range with which to transmit its energy onto the earth. The Solar spectrum is generally 0.2um to 2.57um. You will also note the intensity of certain bandwidths which indicates the amount of heat generated by that bandwidth.

What would happen to the earth if just 3% of the heat intensity being delivered in the 0.2um -0.6um suddenly shifted to an area around 1.2um? This question is a rather complex one as it now involves earths atmosphere and how it responds to the varying bands or wavelengths.

I've posted this before however, it is necessary to do it again. Below is the major gases in earths atmosphere and how they pass energy in differing bands.

View attachment 31758

Please note that I have included the Black Body wave lengths in this graph. However, the graph shows how each area or wave length is affected by its passage through earths atmosphere. It is important to understand that if we pass a wave at 0.38um there is little in our atmosphere that stops the energy above the earths surface except for clouds or dust which would stop it from hitting earths surface. The same can not be said for 1.2um where a spike in the CO2 and water vapor would stop this above the surface of the earth in the upper troposphere. Leaving this heat to be easily returned to space and never making it to the surface.

 

[Crick]

First we must ascertain how much energy is being kept from the earths surface and how is it affecting the upper atmosphere.

When you consider that just 237-458W/M^2 makes it to the surface of the earth of the 1354.2 W/M^2 that hits the outer atmosphere you can see just how important a 2-5% change becomes.

Billy Bob, what is the source of this graphic and commentary?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Going to do a little theroy and see where it leads. The Alarmists will deny simple physics while kicking and screaming about their beloved CO2, but hey I like to poke holes in CAGW theroy.

Like almost all deniers, you suck balls at common sense. A long post saying "look what happens if the spectrum change?" is 'effin stupid, being that THE SPECTRUM HASN'T CHANGED. Do you 'tards really not get that we constantly measure the output of the sun?

Of course, maybe you're being dishonest instead of amazingly stupid. Is that the case? Being charitable, I always start out assuming deniers are simply raging dumbshits, walking examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, people too retarded to ever understand how retarded they are. I'm almost always correct on that count. However, I don't discount the possibility that they might instead be deliberately lying for the glory of their religious-political cult.

Obviously -- you are ONE TARD that just hasn't had a real technical think on this topic. Because IF YOU HAD -- you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth. The very atmosphere that the Incoming insolation is coming thru is masking the true measurement. In the OLD days, they used to cart a spectrometer up the mountainside to 12,000 feet or so to make measurements that were SLIGHTLY more accurate. But STILL incapable of doing that CONTINUALLY or with the precision required to find solar spectral shifts.

So we only have about 15 or 20 years of "real-time" data to look at the variability from satellite. That's not even more than one solar cycle. We basically know NOTHING about shifts in insolation that could modulate the GHouse absorption spectra. All the early "orbiting solar observatories" concentrated on High Energy particle spectra because the "THREAT" was due to solar flares and storms. Very damn few UV/Visible/IR full spectrum instruments were EVER available. And OCCASIONALLY we'd get a Shuttle or Space Station experiment that did this ONE TIME.

Shows how little thought has been given to declarations that the "science is settled". Especially when you realize that MINUTE shifts in spectral density could change the climate in catastrophic ways..

Tard on admiral..

Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling.

Abstract. The lack of long and reliable time series of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) measurements makes an accurate quantification of solar contributions to recent climate change difficult. Whereas earlier SSI observations and models provided a qualitatively consistent picture of the SSI variability, recent measurements by the SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment) satellite suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth's atmosphere. Motivated by these results, we summarize here our current knowledge of SSI variability and its impact on Earth's climate.

We present a detailed overview of existing SSI measurements and provide thorough comparison of models available to date. SSI changes influence the Earth's atmosphere, both directly, through changes in shortwave (SW) heating and therefore, temperature and ozone distributions in the stratosphere, and indirectly, through dynamical feedbacks. We investigate these direct and indirect effects using several state-of-the art CCM simulations forced with measured and modelled SSI changes. A unique asset of this study is the use of a common comprehensive approach for an issue that is usually addressed separately by different communities.

Some of the tards have issues with Google... And our current study uses many of the same data sets only we are looking at real time cause and effect..

 

[Crick]

Obviously -- you are ONE TARD that just hasn't had a real technical think on this topic. Because IF YOU HAD -- you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth. The very atmosphere that the Incoming insolation is coming thru is masking the true measurement. In the OLD days, they used to cart a spectrometer up the mountainside to 12,000 feet or so to make measurements that were SLIGHTLY more accurate. But STILL incapable of doing that CONTINUALLY or with the precision required to find solar spectral shifts.

So we only have about 15 or 20 years of "real-time" data to look at the variability from satellite. That's not even more than one solar cycle.

From Wikipedia's article on sunlight:
"– the amount of solar radiation received at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere – has been measured since 1978 by series of overlapping NASA and ESA satellite experiments"

So we have 36 years worth of data. That would be more than 3, 11-year cycles.

 

[Crick]

Some of the tards have issues with Google.

The poster here with the greatest, apparent difficulty using Google would be you. Otherwise I think we'd have seen either a great deal more supporting material for the claims you make here or, alternatively, less such claims.

 

[flacaltenn]

Obviously -- you are ONE TARD that just hasn't had a real technical think on this topic. Because IF YOU HAD -- you'd realize that you can't reliably MEASURE spectral power of the sun from the surface of the Earth. The very atmosphere that the Incoming insolation is coming thru is masking the true measurement. In the OLD days, they used to cart a spectrometer up the mountainside to 12,000 feet or so to make measurements that were SLIGHTLY more accurate. But STILL incapable of doing that CONTINUALLY or with the precision required to find solar spectral shifts.

So we only have about 15 or 20 years of "real-time" data to look at the variability from satellite. That's not even more than one solar cycle.

From Wikipedia's article on sunlight:
"– the amount of solar radiation received at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere – has been measured since 1978 by series of overlapping NASA and ESA satellite experiments"

So we have 36 years worth of data. That would be more than 3, 11-year cycles.

You are a true WikiTard. Measuring sunlight means what exactly? Did they use a spectrometer or a photometer? In 1980, they probably captured a single number for an entire band of frequencies. And why the fuck dont you believe what I am telling you? You think I have to lie and cheat to post in this thread? The type of tool you need was not permanently in orbit in the 80s....

 

[Crick]

I believe the invention of the spectrophotometer predates 1978.

BTW, I've just started a thread in the announcements and feedback forum about the use of the invective "tard". I wouldn't have thought I'd need to explain my objections to the term but surely it's obvious that its use, no matter at whom it's aimed or what the perceived justification might be, is extraordinarily painful and offensive to a group of people who deserve our care and compassion rather than this sort of puerile abuse. It is a term I would have thought you wouldn't hear from anyone who'd completed elementary school.

I'd like to ask all of you who've taken to using the term to think about who it is you're actually hurting by doing so.