Blinded by the Light

Foxfyre said:
Still sunspots on the sun are cooler than the surrounding surface and increase UV rays that emit from the sun and do affect the Earth's climate. Until we fully understand that dynamic, and I believe we are centuries away from being able to fully do so, we cannot say that the sun is a 'constant' or entirely predictable factor in the climate that we experience on Planet Earth.
Click to expand...

Sure ... my claim is this doesn't change temperature ...

If we want to move the goalposts and only consider climate ... you said "[sunspots] do affect Earth's climate" ... care to explain the physics behind that statement? ... what physical mechanism on the Sun changes wind direction here on Earth? ... how about pressure or humidity? ...

Surface temperature determination is a well worn path in astronomy ... we use these theories all the time when we look at the spectrum of distant stars ... and for most stars, we can determine their surface temperature with just this spectrum ... c.f. Wien's displacement law - Wikipedia ... this article gives wonderful examples here on Earth ...

Point a flashlight at the wall and the wall will warm up where the light is shining, and then re-radiates the energy back out, the wall acts as a radiator ... ideally we paint the wall flat black, so the wall absorbs all the radiant energy, and then re-radiates all the energy back out ... an ideal blackbody radiator ... both the Earth and the Sun are very very close to this idealized case, close enough for weather and climate research ...
 
Last edited:
ReinyDays said:
what physical mechanism on the Sun changes wind direction here on Earth? ... how about pressure or humidity? ...
Click to expand...
Doesn't the sun affect wind patterns?
Don't changes in solar intensity affect wind patterns?
 
ding said:
Doesn't the sun affect wind patterns?
Don't changes in solar intensity affect wind patterns?
Click to expand...

What's the mechanism? ...

The intuitive explanation for prevailing wind patterns is the Coriolis force ... which is caused exclusively by Earth's rotation ... and then this is modified a little by terrain, and only near the surface ... the mathematical deduction involves cross products and I'm guessing you haven't seen one of those since you left school ...
 
ReinyDays said:
What's the mechanism? ...

The intuitive explanation for prevailing wind patterns is the Coriolis force ... which is caused exclusively by Earth's rotation ... and then this is modified a little by terrain, and only near the surface ... the mathematical deduction involves cross products and I'm guessing you haven't seen one of those since you left school ...
Click to expand...
It's great to state facts but don't come to any wrong conclusions again. You're being watched.
 
ReinyDays said:
What's the mechanism? ...

The intuitive explanation for prevailing wind patterns is the Coriolis force ... which is caused exclusively by Earth's rotation ... and then this is modified a little by terrain, and only near the surface ... the mathematical deduction involves cross products and I'm guessing you haven't seen one of those since you left school ...
Click to expand...
Uneven heating of earth's surface.
 
ReinyDays said:
Aeronautical engineers now ... still pathetic ... so now these climate model are spot-on correct? ... or just correct if you agree? ...

Then why are these winds from the east between 0º and 30º ... then west between 30º and 60º ... hint, half your answer is half right ...

No answer is an answer in itself ...
Click to expand...
That you don't believe wind patterns for any given landmass configuration are driven by the sun is mind boggling.

Wind Formation | manoa.hawaii.edu/ExploringOurFluidEarth

manoa.hawaii.edu manoa.hawaii.edu

ugc.berkeley.edu

Wind - Understanding Global Change

ugc.berkeley.edu ugc.berkeley.edu
 
CrusaderFrank said:
The Sun doesn't vary?????
Click to expand...
The sun varies day by day.

While Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) remains near constant, the fusion reaction is always changing.

Attached is a paper and graphing showing the changes in solar output and why we are now cooling. The heat spike is over and here we go. The sun is again cooling today.
 

Attachments

Billy_Bob said:
The sun varies day by day.

While Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) remains near constant, the fusion reaction is always changing.

Attached is a paper and graphing showing the changes in solar output and why we are now cooling. The heat spike is over and here we go. The sun is again cooling today.
Click to expand...

The conclusion of this paper states that their results are "inconsistent" with other measures and "climate change attribution, but are consistent with known effects of instrument sensitivity drifts, demonstrated to be present in SIM observations during the recent solar minimum period." ... [emphasis mine]

Further:

"To prevent future research following a path of unrealistic solar-terrestrial behavior, the SORCE SIM observations should be used with extreme caution in studies of climate and atmospheric change until additional validation and uncertainty estimates of these observations are available." ...

You didn't do the math ... did you? ... that's what separates Middle School from High School ... algebra ... the change in irradiation found by this group of researchers only changes temperature here on Earth by 0.02ºC ... way way below instrumentation error ... and that is what the researchers claimed ... you must have only read the abstract, not the paper itself ... because the authors do not confirm your claims ...

From Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, we have:

T^4 = ( S ( 1 - a )) / 4oe [where T=temperature, s=solar constant, a=albedo=0.30, e=emissivity=1 and o=SB constant=5.67x10^-8]

Setting S = 1361.3 W/m^2 ... we get T = 254.596 K
Then S = 1361.6 W/m^2 ... we get T = 254.610 K

... and that's why we use 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 for our value of the Solar Constant, because this gives temperatures to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... which is how we read our thermometers ...to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... and that value is constant ... why it's called the Solar Constant ... Algebra 101 ...

We just don't measure temperature that accurately here on Earth ...
 
ReinyDays said:
The conclusion of this paper states that their results are "inconsistent" with other measures and "climate change attribution, but are consistent with known effects of instrument sensitivity drifts, demonstrated to be present in SIM observations during the recent solar minimum period." ... [emphasis mine]

Further:

"To prevent future research following a path of unrealistic solar-terrestrial behavior, the SORCE SIM observations should be used with extreme caution in studies of climate and atmospheric change until additional validation and uncertainty estimates of these observations are available." ...

You didn't do the math ... did you? ... that's what separates Middle School from High School ... algebra ... the change in irradiation found by this group of researchers only changes temperature here on Earth by 0.02ºC ... way way below instrumentation error ... and that is what the researchers claimed ... you must have only read the abstract, not the paper itself ... because the authors do not confirm your claims ...

From Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, we have:

T^4 = ( S ( 1 - a )) / 4oe [where T=temperature, s=solar constant, a=albedo=0.30, e=emissivity=1 and o=SB constant=5.67x10^-8]

Setting S = 1361.3 W/m^2 ... we get T = 254.596 K
Then S = 1361.6 W/m^2 ... we get T = 254.610 K

... and that's why we use 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 for our value of the Solar Constant, because this gives temperatures to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... which is how we read our thermometers ...to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... and that value is constant ... why it's called the Solar Constant ... Algebra 101 ...

We just don't measure temperature that accurately here on Earth ...
Click to expand...
You just don't get it... Simple changes on the sun, where the energy shifts to a longer wavelength, will not penetrate our oceans and warm them. This shift is becoming more pronounced as the fusion reaction cools due to expended molecules in the reaction (clouding).

You're discounting well defined scientific evidence. You ignore these changes to your own peril. This is one of many reasons current modeling fails every time.

All I can do any more is laugh at those calling themselves scientists who ignore observable facts right in front of them.
 
Billy_Bob said:
You just don't get it... Simple changes on the sun, where the energy shifts to a longer wavelength, will not penetrate our oceans and warm them. This shift is becoming more pronounced as the fusion reaction cools due to expended molecules in the reaction (clouding).

You're discounting well defined scientific evidence. You ignore these changes to your own peril. This is one of many reasons current modeling fails every time.

All I can do any more is laugh at those calling themselves scientists who ignore observable facts right in front of them.
Click to expand...

He ignores the bandwidth changes that is why his infatuation of a single TSI number is hurting his case.
 
Billy_Bob said:
You just don't get it... Simple changes on the sun, where the energy shifts to a longer wavelength, will not penetrate our oceans and warm them. This shift is becoming more pronounced as the fusion reaction cools due to expended molecules in the reaction (clouding).

You're discounting well defined scientific evidence. You ignore these changes to your own peril. This is one of many reasons current modeling fails every time.

All I can do any more is laugh at those calling themselves scientists who ignore observable facts right in front of them.
Click to expand...

Your mistake is worrying about photons that penetrate the ocean surface ... and not focused on the photons absorbed AT the surface ... we are modelling this as a blackbody SURFACE ... your citation does NOT substantiate your claims here ... or lets see the quote ...

Please explain why you think Stefan-Boltzmann's Law "fails every time" ... there's some quantitative issues once we get above 10,000 K but we don't have any of that here in this solar system ... our Sun is 5,500 K ... Planck's Radiation Laws has proven to be robust at these temperatures ...

But I'll bite ... what model are you using that doesn't have gravitational collapse following "fusion reaction cool[ing]" ...

I call myself a uneducated construction laborer ... I took some college classes, but you can tell from my piss-poor Englishing that I was never a college student ... a scientist knows how to spelt and how to grammer a sentence ... and use periods ...
 
ReinyDays said:
Your mistake is worrying about photons that penetrate the ocean surface ... and not focused on the photons absorbed AT the surface ... we are modelling this as a blackbody SURFACE ... your citation does NOT substantiate your claims here ... or lets see the quote ...

Please explain why you think Stefan-Boltzmann's Law "fails every time" ... there's some quantitative issues once we get above 10,000 K but we don't have any of that here in this solar system ... our Sun is 5,500 K ... Planck's Radiation Laws has proven to be robust at these temperatures ...

But I'll bite ... what model are you using that doesn't have gravitational collapse following "fusion reaction cool[ing]" ...

I call myself a uneducated construction laborer ... I took some college classes, but you can tell from my piss-poor Englishing that I was never a college student ... a scientist knows how to spelt and how to grammer a sentence ... and use periods ...
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't read the paper BillyBob posted......., your snobbish arrogance is getting worse over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Climate Change No Longer A Domestic Threat

< Previous Thread

Dramatic cuts in China’s air pollution drove surge in global warming

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Delldude
Climate Change is all bunk?
2
Replies
30
Views
513
Sunsettommy
Sunsettommy
daveman
Met Office Shock: More Non-Existent UK Weather Stations Discovered Reporting Invented Data
Replies
3
Views
178
toobfreak
toobfreak
Crick
The Glacial-Interglacial Cycle is Driven by Orbital Forcing
14 15 16
Replies
315
Views
5K
Crick
Crick
daveman
How the grooming gangs scandal was covered up
Replies
10
Views
381
CrusaderFrank
CrusaderFrank
ThisIsMe
My chatGPT sessions
Replies
17
Views
416
JackOfNoTrades
JackOfNoTrades

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom