Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

[Billy_Bob]

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.

graph source

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.

Interesting, HTML killed the Source link, I wonder why?

Going to review the other graphs for attribution..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

graph source

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?

Attributions added. Commentary is mine.

 

[Crick]

Thanks

 

[Billy_Bob]

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 really do not understand solar variance in cycles.. I am not surprised..

 

[Crick]

36 years is more than 15-20.

The spectral absorption of the greenhouse gases was well known before this as was the black body spectrum. It would not be difficult to fill in the gaps of the solar spectra seen at the Earth's surface. Not perfect, but enough to see major changes.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the absorption of IR by CO2 could be inadequate to cause the observed global warming but a shift of a few percent of signal from the visible spectrum into one of the many GHG absorption bands could. Do you not see the conflict?

 

[flacaltenn]

36 years is more than 15-20.

The spectral absorption of the greenhouse gases was well known before this as was the black body spectrum. It would not be difficult to fill in the gaps of the solar spectra seen at the Earth's surface. Not perfect, but enough to see major changes.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the absorption of IR by CO2 could be inadequate to cause the observed global warming but a shift of a few percent of signal from the visible spectrum into one of the many GHG absorption bands could. Do you not see the conflict?

Conflicts exist only in your head. Different mechanisms. The magnitude of climate change is FAR MORE devasting than a 1degC/doubling of CO2 -- any way you look at it.. Incoming solar irradiance is over a 1000W/m2 at TOA.. Just a small fraction of a percent change in the amount hitting the surface (or NOT hitting the surface) is FAR bigger than 2W/m2 of back radiation..

 

[Billy_Bob]

36 years is more than 15-20.

The spectral absorption of the greenhouse gases was well known before this as was the black body spectrum. It would not be difficult to fill in the gaps of the solar spectra seen at the Earth's surface. Not perfect, but enough to see major changes.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the absorption of IR by CO2 could be inadequate to cause the observed global warming but a shift of a few percent of signal from the visible spectrum into one of the many GHG absorption bands could. Do you not see the conflict?

The point of heat integration is paramount. if the heat is absorbed at 60,000 feet, the heat is lost to space in seconds. If it is absorbed on the surface, that heat may take days or months to reach space.

The spectral shift is about where in the atmosphere the energy exchange takes place and the duration loss if that heat is lost high in the atmosphere. I have but scratched the surface as to why this is so important.

 

[Crick]

Keep scratching

 

[Billy_Bob]

Keep scratching

Ok Genius. Tell me why the durational loss is so important. Lets see if you have any concept of the problem.

 

[Crick]

Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.

Your turn. Explain how random fluctuation in solar spectra have produced the warming observed over the last 150 years, particularly when the spectral shifts (randomly) move energy into only one of the many absorption bands that folks on your side of the argument have been characterizing as inadequately sensitive in toto to have caused the observed warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.

Your turn. Explain how random fluctuation in solar spectra have produced the warming observed over the last 150 years, particularly when the spectral shifts (randomly) move energy into only one of the many absorption bands that folks on your side of the argument have been characterizing as inadequately sensitive in toto to have caused the observed warming.

Your answer is only partially correct. Heat latency is the duration the heat has to further move into those objects. So the build up of heat is severely diminished. GHG's can not effect that which is outside of their range of influence.

The removal of 2.4W/M^2 is all that it takes at earths surface to cause cooling to occur. The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2. add to this the thinning of the atmosphere due to earths natural magnetic field shift (which we are at historically recorded lows) and the heat loss is massive. One need only look to current polar regions to see how this affects them. Polar lows increase in size, ambient air temps become lower, etc. All of which we are currently observing in these regions.

TO answer your question, YES this simple sift can place the earth into not only a glaciation phase if it lasts long enough or it could warm us to prehistoric levels again. All despite CO2 or its concentration levels. Changing where energy is being spent in our atmosphere can have devastating effects.

This is why it is a complex problem. There are individual sinodal cycles and when they fall all at the same time the result can be sever.

 

[Crick]

Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.

Your turn. Explain how random fluctuation in solar spectra have produced the warming observed over the last 150 years, particularly when the spectral shifts (randomly) move energy into only one of the many absorption bands that folks on your side of the argument have been characterizing as inadequately sensitive in toto to have caused the observed warming.

Your answer is only partially correct. Heat latency is the duration the heat has to further move into those objects. So the build up of heat is severely diminished. GHG's can not effect that which is outside of their range of influence.

The removal of 2.4W/M^2 is all that it takes at earths surface to cause cooling to occur. The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2. add to this the thinning of the atmosphere due to earths natural magnetic field shift (which we are at historically recorded lows) and the heat loss is massive. One need only look to current polar regions to see how this affects them. Polar lows increase in size, ambient air temps become lower, etc. All of which we are currently observing in these regions.

TO answer your question, YES this simple sift can place the earth into not only a glaciation phase if it lasts long enough or it could warm us to prehistoric levels again. All despite CO2 or its concentration levels. Changing where energy is being spent in our atmosphere can have devastating effects.

This is why it is a complex problem. There are individual sinodal cycles and when they fall all at the same time the result can be sever.

My answer was completely correct - you added nothing to what I already said.

I would like to see a source for your claimed loss of 6.2 W/m^-2 for the poles. Currently, the net global transfer is positive. The earth is taking in more than it releases to space so you will have to explain the value of your hypotheticals.

And, again, the shifts in solar spectra have not been systematic or long term. They have been either random or rapidly cyclical - no long term trend that might support the idea that they are responsible for the observed warming over the last century and a half.

The causes of the ice ages, glaciations and interglacials have been widely discussed but I see few voices suggesting that spectral shift are the primary causes. What are the voices you hear saying such things?

 

[flacaltenn]

The "little ice age" was a shift of only 0.1% of solar insolation NOT impinging on the surface.. Most likely due to OVERALL solar power and not spectral shifts -- but that's the point. We have no way of actually knowing --- do we? All we know is that is that it never got to the surface.

And no one Bullwinkly is making statements about the 0.5degC rise in temperature that you are hysterical about here. This is about LARGER Climate Science knowledge which currently is sorely lacking.. Only assertion being made here is that the science is FAR from being settled..

 

[Crick]

AGW in the last 150 years is settled science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

AGW in the last 150 years is settled science.

in a word... NO Anyone who claims it is, is not practicing true science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Obviously less opportunity for the heat to be transferred further into the atmosphere and the land/ocean surface.

Your turn. Explain how random fluctuation in solar spectra have produced the warming observed over the last 150 years, particularly when the spectral shifts (randomly) move energy into only one of the many absorption bands that folks on your side of the argument have been characterizing as inadequately sensitive in toto to have caused the observed warming.

Your answer is only partially correct. Heat latency is the duration the heat has to further move into those objects. So the build up of heat is severely diminished. GHG's can not effect that which is outside of their range of influence.

The removal of 2.4W/M^2 is all that it takes at earths surface to cause cooling to occur. The polar regions have had a drop of over 6.2W/M^2. add to this the thinning of the atmosphere due to earths natural magnetic field shift (which we are at historically recorded lows) and the heat loss is massive. One need only look to current polar regions to see how this affects them. Polar lows increase in size, ambient air temps become lower, etc. All of which we are currently observing in these regions.

TO answer your question, YES this simple sift can place the earth into not only a glaciation phase if it lasts long enough or it could warm us to prehistoric levels again. All despite CO2 or its concentration levels. Changing where energy is being spent in our atmosphere can have devastating effects.

This is why it is a complex problem. There are individual sinodal cycles and when they fall all at the same time the result can be sever.

My answer was completely correct - you added nothing to what I already said.

I would like to see a source for your claimed loss of 6.2 W/m^-2 for the poles. Currently, the net global transfer is positive. The earth is taking in more than it releases to space so you will have to explain the value of your hypotheticals.

These are not hypothetical. These are direct measurements at 3 points in each hemisphere.

And, again, the shifts in solar spectra have not been systematic or long term. They have been either random or rapidly cyclical - no long term trend that might support the idea that they are responsible for the observed warming over the last century and a half.

The causes of the ice ages, glaciations and interglacials have been widely discussed but I see few voices suggesting that spectral shift are the primary causes. What are the voices you hear saying such things?

Your supposition is incorrect. There is indeed a great body of evidence which supports this hypothesis. From Paleo climate records, to frozen foliage removed from glaciers, to sediment samples of life forms. Sun light is a necessity for most all life on earth and solar activity can been rendered from these proxies.

Many things can affect the sun. The fusion reaction itself has a cycle of clean burn and as expended material clouds the reaction it slows and as it cools the matter falls from the reaction to the suns core until the sun then accelerates its reaction with clean materiel. Some physicists estimate that this reaction time is our 90,000 years of a cool cycle followed by a rapid ignition and 11,000 to 16,000 years of higher solar output. Evidenced by the rapid rise from a cold phase to slowly fall until the reaction again goes cold. This phase is evidenced by the output wave lengths and their shifts. There are mountains of evidence to support this even though many other things are given 'attribution' without fully exploring other potential causes using the scientific method.

CO2 should have been thrown out right from the start as the paleo climate records show the levels way above 7,000 ppm without runaway warming. The physical evidence simply disproves the hypothesis from the start. And then they say it cant be the sun because in the short 700 years of observations they have never seen the cool cycle of the sun. Yet the physical evidence is staring them in the face. This is the problem with agenda driven pseudoscience.

The main point, The science is not settled by any means.... We have just scratched the surface.

 

[mamooth]

BillyBob, we notice your failure to back up your claims of reduced solar flux at the poles. Or any of your claims. But then, our resident Ph.D geologist wouldn't ever back up his crazy pronouncements either.

Oh, the solar scientist here also doesn't seem to know that when CO2 was at 5000 ppm, the sun was significantly cooler. Combined forcing of the sun and CO2 was similar to today. Essentially, the paleorecord proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, otherwise it would have been snowball earth. Poor Billybob, alas, doesn't understand such basics, and declares CO2 is meaningless.

BillyBob, if you ever want to publish, I suggest you fix such glaring errors in your logic first. Unless you're aiming for a denier pal review junk science journal. No reputable scientists would let your twaddle pass.

 

[Crick]

AGW in the last 150 years is settled science.

in a word... NO Anyone who claims it is, is not practicing true science.

Feel free to do research challenging any part of AGW - no one is saying you cannot. But the size of the consensus among the experts do make this science settled. For policy makers, for teachers, for the lay public, this is a done deal. For those of you who insist it must be wrong, you've attained fringe-hood. Congtatulations.

 

[flacaltenn]

BillyBob, we notice your failure to back up your claims of reduced solar flux at the poles. Or any of your claims. But then, our resident Ph.D geologist wouldn't ever back up his crazy pronouncements either.

Oh, the solar scientist here also doesn't seem to know that when CO2 was at 5000 ppm, the sun was significantly cooler. Combined forcing of the sun and CO2 was similar to today. Essentially, the paleorecord proves CO2 is a greenhouse gas, otherwise it would have been snowball earth. Poor Billybob, alas, doesn't understand such basics, and declares CO2 is meaningless.

BillyBob, if you ever want to publish, I suggest you fix such glaring errors in your logic first. Unless you're aiming for a denier pal review junk science journal. No reputable scientists would let your twaddle pass.

Nice try Sylvester.. CO2 warming is an impedance to surface cooling, not a heat source. So it is INDEPENDENT of solar input flux. It will raise thermal equilibrium by approximately the same amount REGARDLESS of the state of the sun.. So if the Atmos reached those levels before, the trigger condition for your imagined "thermal runaway" was met -- UNLESS of course that period of time WAS a snowball earth.

And what is this ridiculous denial of "reduced solar flux" at the poles? You think the winters there are sunny? I didn't hear BillyBob say that. What I heard him say was that the effect of spectral shifts would be magnified at the poles because of reduced atmos thickness. And if you've done ANY work at all at understanding the science, you'd understand that the CO2 forcing function does indeed have a very different atmos profile at the poles..

 

[Crick]

Do you buy Billy Bob's reduced atmospheric thickness at the poles? You might want to look into that before you shove that foot too awful far down your own gullet.

I've got a good piece of advice for you... for anyone reading these discussions: don't take Billy Bob's word for jack shit. Go check it out yourself.