Track tsi(solar energy reaching the earth)

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,792
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
pmod


This shows that our minimum is longer and deeper then the mins in 22, 23. What is even bigger is the fact that even in 2011 it is not much higher then the minimum. A little sure, but not much.

You better believe that is a negative forcing on our global temperatures. It got down to 1365.2 or 1365.25 around that area, but now we're near 1365.55. Quite a bit below what is normal for the past 50 years within a solar max, which is near 1366.5-1366.6 range in 22 and 23. The minimum of 22 was 1365.5 or 1365.6 range, so within a max we're now on touching the min of 22.

You not only have to consider the depth(Y), but the length(X) to understand just how big of a negative solar minimum this is compared to 22, 23. This is not even going into how sad this maximum is.

Lets just say that since late 2005 or early 2006 we've been as low as nearly any part of min 23 and all of 22.
 

Attachments

  • $pmod.png
    $pmod.png
    2.7 KB · Views: 75
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
Lets say Z=co2 forcing, X=is the means solar forcing and X1=solar cycles from means, S=sulfur

So Y=X(+-)x1+Z-S
()->to denote that it can be a positive or negative as x1 is a cycle.

This is how it shall be looked at. As Z is only part of the system, but a important part of the energy budget of the earth.

X has 95 percent of energy on the means
Natural green house effect keeps the other 5 percent

Z is the extra unnatural Positive forcing
S is the unnatural negative forcing

Both right now are increasing...
Of course you have internal variables that cause yearly change like pdo, amo, nao, ect, but they add no energy or take away. So over 5 or more years they mean nothing.

So X1 is deeply negative right now...How negative forcing could be enough to slow the effects of Z down. That is my theory onto why global warming went from nearly .17 per decade in the 1990s to .12-.13c/decade range today.

If Z is growing and it is then -x1 and S is growing to match it. Guess what it is. So it would make sense to predict once x1 becomes positive again and the developing world caps there sulfur emissions in S that Z will be able to increase the temperature of the earth as the positive forcing will grow as the negative decreases.

Lets pull some numbers out of ones ass to plug into the equation...
Y=X(+-)x1+Z-S
80 for X
5 for Z
-2 for S
-1.5 for X1 for this cycle
Y=80-1.5+5-2
Y=81.5

But if it was not for the negative forcing of both x1 or S it would be
y=80+0+5+0
Y=85

So you would get more warming without the negative forcings from S and x1.

Does this make any sense? As this is my Hypotheses of why the decrease of the rate of the warming of our planet in the first decade of the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
Your conclusions are basically what the climate scientists are stating.

If you look at the TSI graph, note that 1998 was a high TSI year, with a super El Nino. 2010, was a very low TSI, with a moderate El Nino and the last half of the year in a very strong La Nina. Also, a good deal more aerosols in the atmosphere. Yet it matched 1998 for heat. What that demonstrates is just how strongly the GHGs are retaining heat. And when there is a strong El Nino, a high TSI, and less aerosols, well, Katy bar the door.

Add in the affects of the GHGs coming out of a thawing Arctic. We have not given our grandchildren a world that they will thank us for.
 
We are giving our grand kids a wonderful world of freedom and democracy despite the hysterics and extortion schemes perpetrated by the left. Forty years ago you could find the same scientists postulating theories about a new ice age if the grant money was good enough.
 
Same old lie, dumb fuck. Are you incapable of learning anything?


Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

10% of the papers predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming.
 
We are giving our grand kids a wonderful world of freedom and democracy despite the hysterics and extortion schemes perpetrated by the left. Forty years ago you could find the same scientists postulating theories about a new ice age if the grant money was good enough.

If you Know-nothings have anything to do with it, there will be no Democracy in this nation.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
We are giving our grand kids a wonderful world of freedom and democracy despite the hysterics and extortion schemes perpetrated by the left. Forty years ago you could find the same scientists postulating theories about a new ice age if the grant money was good enough.

Nah, even if it was not for co2 forcing the world we're giving our children and grand children is another dark age. Why the entire global economy is about ready to collapse on its self. It will make anything since the last dark age look like a joke. Look at the defaulting going on with the eu. This is of course economic and has nothing to do with this thread!

What is your scientific case to say I'm wrong? Seriously??? because in science you have to be able to challenge with the facts and data :eusa_whistle:

Can you Challenge my thinking with the facts?
 
Last edited:
I truly wish some of these people would actually challenge the conclusions that are being forced on us by the data with facts. I would love to have something positive posted concerning global warming. Unfortunately, the denier posts are all about opinion, and the world as it ought to be.
 
Granny says, "Dat's right - Bible says the earth gonna be destroyed by a big ol' ball o 'fire...
:eusa_eh:
Sun storms 'could be more disruptive within decades'
18 August 2011 - Solar storms may be more powerful at times of middling solar activity
Within decades, solar storms are likely to become more disruptive to planes and spacecraft, say researchers at Reading University. The work, published in Geophysical Research Letters, predicts that once the Sun shifts towards an era of lower solar activity, more hazardous radiation will reach Earth. The team says the Sun is currently at a grand solar maximum. This phase began in the 1920s - and has lasted throughout the space age.

Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at Reading, said: "All the evidence suggests that the Sun will shortly exit from a grand solar maximum that has persisted since before the start of the space age. "In a grand solar maximum, the peaks of the 11-year sunspot cycle are larger and the average number of solar flares and associated events such as coronal mass ejections are greater.

"On the other hand in a grand solar minimum there are almost no sunspots for several decades. The last time this happened was during the Maunder Minimum, between about 1650 and 1700." The research indicates that most radiation hits the Earth during periods of middling solar activity. Increased radiation is a particular problem for aviation and communications - technology that did not exist the last time the sun cycle ended its grand maximum.

Ice core data
 
Lets say Z=co2 forcing, X=is the means solar forcing and X1=solar cycles from means, S=sulfur

So Y=X(+-)x1+Z-S
()->to denote that it can be a positive or negative as x1 is a cycle.

This is how it shall be looked at. As Z is only part of the system, but a important part of the energy budget of the earth.

X has 95 percent of energy on the means
Natural green house effect keeps the other 5 percent

Z is the extra unnatural Positive forcing
S is the unnatural negative forcing

Both right now are increasing...
Of course you have internal variables that cause yearly change like pdo, amo, nao, ect, but they add no energy or take away. So over 5 or more years they mean nothing.

So X1 is deeply negative right now...How negative forcing could be enough to slow the effects of Z down. That is my theory onto why global warming went from nearly .17 per decade in the 1990s to .12-.13c/decade range today.

If Z is growing and it is then -x1 and S is growing to match it. Guess what it is. So it would make sense to predict once x1 becomes positive again and the developing world caps there sulfur emissions in S that Z will be able to increase the temperature of the earth as the positive forcing will grow as the negative decreases.

Lets pull some numbers out of ones ass to plug into the equation...
Y=X(+-)x1+Z-S
80 for X
5 for Z
-2 for S
-1.5 for X1 for this cycle
Y=80-1.5+5-2
Y=81.5

But if it was not for the negative forcing of both x1 or S it would be
y=80+0+5+0
Y=85

So you would get more warming without the negative forcings from S and x1.

Does this make any sense? As this is my Hypotheses of why the decrease of the rate of the warming of our planet in the first decade of the 21st century.

Finally...some truth. 'Out of ones ass is right"
 
Predicting solar storms...
:eusa_eh:
Solar storms: Two breakthroughs could lead to better warnings
August 19, 2011 - The solar storms that cause blackouts and damage satelites have always been hard to predict, but two new methods of monitoring them could lead to much more accurate forecasts.
Intense solar storms can disrupt satellites, airline and electric-utility operations, and, in the case of astronauts on orbit, directly endanger lives. Thursday, independent teams of researchers unveiled a pair of storm-tracking techniques that could significantly improve forecasts of "space weather" storms, the researchers say.

One team's approach tracks magnetic fields while they are still taking shape nearly 40,000 miles below the sun's surface, well before they form and corral groups of sunspots on the solar surface. These sunspot groups represent active regions that spawn coronal-mass ejections – outbursts that can send up to 1 billion tons of hot plasma hurtling through space at up to 1 million miles an hour.

The second team used a pair of sun-watching satellites to build detailed images of a coronal-mass ejection and its evolution as it traveled from the sun to Earth. Until now, researchers had been able to track these eruptions in detail for only about the first 20 percent of the trip, yet a cloud's structure and speed, among other traits, can change markedly across the missing 80 percent of the trip.

Between the two projects, the teams have developed tools to track some of the most severe types of space weather from gestation within the sun to delivery at Earth's doorstep. "For the first time, we're beginning to see a complete, predictive system," says Craig DeForest, a solar physicist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., who led one of the two teams. For federal space-weather forecasters, these techniques could lead to substantial improvements in the accuracy of their forecasts.

MORE
 
TSI = Total Solar Irradiance.

This is once again taking one part of a bigger process and calling it the answer.

Matt we have gone over this before, you should know this is no different than claiming CO2 drives the climate or that radiation from the sun reflecting off the planet reacts with CO2 the EXACT same way every time.

All of them have elements of fact, and all of them do help make the planet warmer, but NONE of them alone are the answer to climate nor are any of them alone that climate change smoking gun you are looking for.

Dude you are missing the forest cause the trees are in your way...

TSI is the suns output, and DOES NOT take in various other factors that play major roles in our planets level of radiation from it. Position of our planet in the solar system at a given time of measurement, the position of our solar system relative to other celestial bodies in our galaxy and their respective positions, and our and other electro-magnetic fields.

Until people stop trying to take an amazing and complex thing like climate, and try to assign one factor that drives it, there will continue to be false predictions and baseless claims regarding climate changes.
 
Matthew:

The curious part of your chart is that we've only had solar observation satellites up since 1980s or so and before then -- it was a modeling "guess" at the actual incident flux as seen THROUGH the atmosphere. So it's hard to say how much "sensor adaptation" has affected our view of what is an 11 year cycle.. Very hard to say with less than 2 cycles under our belt.

A large part of climate modeling is also updating models based on the "recent" advances of so many orbiting solar observatories. We actually only NOW have the ability to look at SPECTRAL shifts of Solar incident flux without the confounding changes in atmospheric composition.. And I personally think that we might yet discover that the sun isn't as "yellow" or spectrum stable as we think. And the interaction of those spectral variations with the absorption bands in atmospheric gases like water vapor and CO2 just might take us by surprise..
 
TSI = Total Solar Irradiance.

This is once again taking one part of a bigger process and calling it the answer.

Matt we have gone over this before, you should know this is no different than claiming CO2 drives the climate or that radiation from the sun reflecting off the planet reacts with CO2 the EXACT same way every time.

All of them have elements of fact, and all of them do help make the planet warmer, but NONE of them alone are the answer to climate nor are any of them alone that climate change smoking gun you are looking for.

Dude you are missing the forest cause the trees are in your way...

TSI is the suns output, and DOES NOT take in various other factors that play major roles in our planets level of radiation from it. Position of our planet in the solar system at a given time of measurement, the position of our solar system relative to other celestial bodies in our galaxy and their respective positions, and our and other electro-magnetic fields.

Until people stop trying to take an amazing and complex thing like climate, and try to assign one factor that drives it, there will continue to be false predictions and baseless claims regarding climate changes.

LOL. While there are many factors that affect the year to year, and decade to decade variations, there are only two factors that determine the long term warming or cooling of the Earth. The first is the amount of energy it recieves from the sun, the second is the amount of energy it retains.

The Milankovic Cycles and the TSI determine the amount of energy we get, the atmospheric GHGs determine how much is retained.

In past geologic eras we have shown that when the amount of GHGs was small, for that era, the earth went into an intense glacial period. And when the amount of GHGs were large, it was very warm.

But more importantly, we have also seen the evidence for the fact when the warming from a rapid infusion of GHGs into the atmosphere happened over a short period, 10,000 to 100,000 years, there were major extinctions.

At present, our rate of emissions exceeds the lead up to any of the major extinction periods.
 
TSI = Total Solar Irradiance.

This is once again taking one part of a bigger process and calling it the answer.

Matt we have gone over this before, you should know this is no different than claiming CO2 drives the climate or that radiation from the sun reflecting off the planet reacts with CO2 the EXACT same way every time.

All of them have elements of fact, and all of them do help make the planet warmer, but NONE of them alone are the answer to climate nor are any of them alone that climate change smoking gun you are looking for.

Dude you are missing the forest cause the trees are in your way...

TSI is the suns output, and DOES NOT take in various other factors that play major roles in our planets level of radiation from it. Position of our planet in the solar system at a given time of measurement, the position of our solar system relative to other celestial bodies in our galaxy and their respective positions, and our and other electro-magnetic fields.

Until people stop trying to take an amazing and complex thing like climate, and try to assign one factor that drives it, there will continue to be false predictions and baseless claims regarding climate changes.

LOL. While there are many factors that affect the year to year, and decade to decade variations, there are only two factors that determine the long term warming or cooling of the Earth. The first is the amount of energy it recieves from the sun, the second is the amount of energy it retains.

The Milankovic Cycles and the TSI determine the amount of energy we get, the atmospheric GHGs determine how much is retained.

In past geologic eras we have shown that when the amount of GHGs was small, for that era, the earth went into an intense glacial period. And when the amount of GHGs were large, it was very warm.

But more importantly, we have also seen the evidence for the fact when the warming from a rapid infusion of GHGs into the atmosphere happened over a short period, 10,000 to 100,000 years, there were major extinctions.

At present, our rate of emissions exceeds the lead up to any of the major extinction periods.

oldsocks your ability to think beyond greenpeace propaganda makes any statements you make regarding science suspect to say the least...

They measure TSI using satellite imagery. The sun's position relative to that measurement is a non-factor. Its a picture... The sun can be farther away yet still produce the same temps but we being farther away will not receive the same amount of its rays here.

Milankovitch cycles are one factor in a host of others.. We been down this road before tool and you made an ass of yourself then. If you really want to go this route again we can...:lol:
 
...They measure TSI using satellite imagery. The sun's position relative to that measurement is a non-factor. Its a picture... The sun can be farther away yet still produce the same temps but we being farther away will not receive the same amount of its rays here....

You really need to put spit-take warnings up before you actually post lines like these,..
 
We are giving our grand kids a wonderful world of freedom and democracy despite the hysterics and extortion schemes perpetrated by the left. Forty years ago you could find the same scientists postulating theories about a new ice age if the grant money was good enough.
40 years ago you could find the same deniers predicting a new ice age, and guess what, they still are! Maybe in the next few thousand years we will get a new ice age and then they can say "see I told you so." :lol:

Little Ice Age Now

I first published this forecast by Dr. Landscheidt in 2003. However, with the
recent reported cooling of the Atlantic Ocean, and with the first reversed
sunspot of what may be the beginning of the next solar cycle, and with Russian
scientists predicting a new Little Ice Age, I thought it would be an appropriate
to give more credit to Dr. Landscheidt. He had been predicting this
scenario for years.

Here's what Dr. Landscheidt had to say:
New Little Ice Age by 2030!
Analysis of the sun's activity in the last two millennia indicates that, contrary to the
IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming, that we could be headed into
a Maunder minimum type of climate (a Little Ice Age).

The probability is high that the minima around 2030 and 2201 will go along with
periods of cold climate comparable to the nadir of the Little Ice Age, and La Niñas
will be more frequent and stronger than El Niños through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000).

We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast is correct, however. A
declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long
before then.
The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker
activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted
on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño
periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less
frequent and strong.





Here's what I published in 2003

Dr. Landscheidt, author of "Sun - Earth - Man: A Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations", and
"Cosmic Cybernetics: The Foundations of a Modern Astrology," based his forecast on
the Gleissberg cycle of solar activity.

"Contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C
within the next hundred years," said Landscheidt, "a long period of cool climate with its
coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.""
It can be seen," added Landscheidt, "that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and a
nother one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe
cooling on Earth." (Posted 19 Sep 2003)
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

This confirms what I've been saying all along; that our climate is controlled by magnetic activity on
the sun.

It also makes my assertion that "we'll be admitting that we're headed into an ice age by the year 2012"
seem a lot more plausible.
 
...They measure TSI using satellite imagery. The sun's position relative to that measurement is a non-factor. Its a picture... The sun can be farther away yet still produce the same temps but we being farther away will not receive the same amount of its rays here....

You really need to put spit-take warnings up before you actually post lines like these,..

Excuse me Disproof man? Proof = noun, prove = verb..... Please tell us how that may be how we spell words but you know better again moron...:lol:

You really want to try and make the claim the earth will receive the same amount of radiation no matter if its further away or closer to us? Oh please do moron.....:lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top