mamooth
Diamond Member
I'll give you a hint. It can't be explained without taking the effects of CO2 into account. Orbital effects alone aren't even close to being able to pull it off.
Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #283
For someone who claims I am attacking him, it didn't take long to attack me and to avoid the science I put in front of you.
Do you really want to play this game?
You call me inept and a fraud, you run from the very basic and elementary science put forward. Tell me how the simplest of changes in output on our sun, noted by David Archibald Ph.D, Solar Helios Observatory scientist, lowered solar panel output by 10% and as that same band of solar emissions also affects out oceans how it will affect them. Pony up liar boy.
Last edited:
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #284
When you spout bull shit you spout mountains of it. Solar input into the earths oceans are what drive our climate. As I pointed out, when we account for all other drivers of temperature, what we find is what CO2 is actually doing in our atmosphere. 0.024 deg C is what CO2 is responsible for when all other active items in our atmosphere are accounted for, when we expected 2.1 deg C.
Please explain how you stopped all other drivers and left CO2 the only force in our atmosphere. The fact that this falls to significantly less than the MOE (Margin of Error), this tells me that its effect is Zero or very nearly ZERO.
Mans impact, through CO2 and Methane, is so small that it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.
Last edited:
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #285
Come on Snagletooth, answer my question..
The image below is the Down Welling Solar Radiation distribution into our oceans.
Practical Handbook of Marine Science (routledgehandbooks.com)
You note the notations on the graph above for 100m, 10m, 1m, 1cm, and surface. These are the regions of DWSR and what in the ocean they affect. Anything larger in wavelength 1.1um (1100nm) will impact the skin of the ocean and be defeated in the evaporation layer. (First ten microns) The layer just below this is about 150 microns in depth and is cooler than the evaporation layer. Even with mixing from waves, the energy that impacts the skin is too small to generate heat into the oceans due to the mixing with the colder region.
This graph demonstrates how a minor shift in energy output on our sun can directly affect our oceans. Over 90% of the energy into our oceans occurs in the 380nm to 540nm region. A 5% shift from this region to 1.0-1.4um would put the energy outside the ability for most of the ocean to absorb.
The shift in energy that affected our solar panel arrays is in the same region that affects our oceans. The PV arrays lost 10% of their output, indicating at least that amount of shift in power from the sun. If approximately 5% of that energy falls in the primary ocean heating area this can affect our oceans uptake of 345W/m^2, were looking at a potential change nearing 16W/m^2 and the reason our ENSO is not recharging, and our oceans are cooling.
This also demonstrates why "back radiation" or LWIR that is emitted by CO2 cannot warm our oceans. The wave is too long to penetrate the oceans evaporation layer in all three of its bands of emission. Even with mixing the mass of the evaporating layer is insufficient to warm the thermocline barrier just below it that is about 150 microns in depth.
Originally posted here: Solar Dimming... What is at stake With This Change on our Sun?
The image below is the Down Welling Solar Radiation distribution into our oceans.
Practical Handbook of Marine Science (routledgehandbooks.com)
You note the notations on the graph above for 100m, 10m, 1m, 1cm, and surface. These are the regions of DWSR and what in the ocean they affect. Anything larger in wavelength 1.1um (1100nm) will impact the skin of the ocean and be defeated in the evaporation layer. (First ten microns) The layer just below this is about 150 microns in depth and is cooler than the evaporation layer. Even with mixing from waves, the energy that impacts the skin is too small to generate heat into the oceans due to the mixing with the colder region.
This graph demonstrates how a minor shift in energy output on our sun can directly affect our oceans. Over 90% of the energy into our oceans occurs in the 380nm to 540nm region. A 5% shift from this region to 1.0-1.4um would put the energy outside the ability for most of the ocean to absorb.
The shift in energy that affected our solar panel arrays is in the same region that affects our oceans. The PV arrays lost 10% of their output, indicating at least that amount of shift in power from the sun. If approximately 5% of that energy falls in the primary ocean heating area this can affect our oceans uptake of 345W/m^2, were looking at a potential change nearing 16W/m^2 and the reason our ENSO is not recharging, and our oceans are cooling.
This also demonstrates why "back radiation" or LWIR that is emitted by CO2 cannot warm our oceans. The wave is too long to penetrate the oceans evaporation layer in all three of its bands of emission. Even with mixing the mass of the evaporating layer is insufficient to warm the thermocline barrier just below it that is about 150 microns in depth.
Originally posted here: Solar Dimming... What is at stake With This Change on our Sun?
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #286
I love confirmation by other scientists... Refute this paper Snagletooth The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation - Wong - 2018 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library
"
Come on Mamy... show me your Ph.D. skills... Prove my assessment, by a real Ph.D., incorrect.
"
Come on Mamy... show me your Ph.D. skills... Prove my assessment, by a real Ph.D., incorrect.
Last edited:
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #287
WOW... we glaciate every 110 thousand years. How nice of you to notice. During these cycles we have 9,000-to-13.000-year periods where we warm. The one we are currently in is the Holocene. Snowball earth lasts for roughly 90,000 years in this cycle. And not one of these cycles was slowed by CO2 or enhanced by CO2. Infact, CO2 lags warming and cooling by 80-200 years.
Sorry Snagletooth, but you have no idea what reality is. We have glaciated with CO2 levels above 7000ppm and nothing has forced the earths systems to go outside of the limits we see historically.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #289
Actually, if you look back at solar output you will notice that solar output was more intense and as the star has aged the fusion reaction is dimming. IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.
Between the suns output changing and our position galactically there are several factors that cause this gradual change from greenhouse to hot house, and glaciation. And it all starts on our sun.
Sun Activity Has Collapsed To The Lowest In 9,300 Years | Armstrong Economics
THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist. Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term "lunatic" referred to
www.armstrongeconomics.com
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Actually, if you look back at solar output you will notice that solar output was more intense and as the star has aged the fusion reaction is dimming. IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.
Between the suns output changing and our position galactically there are several factors that cause this gradual change from greenhouse to hot house, and glaciation. And it all starts on our sun.
Sun Activity Has Collapsed To The Lowest In 9,300 Years | Armstrong Economics
THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist. Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term "lunatic" referred to
IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.
I hate to break it to you, seeing as you have a PhD in science, but the sun isn't massive enough to go supernova. Not even close.
Matted Joybeard
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2014
- 1,043
- 361
- 208
Pretty huge Dipshit in science
Matted Joybeard
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2014
- 1,043
- 361
- 208
How does a once solar physicist, now atmospheric physicist, not understand how the sun works?
With respect to the relatively recent transition from a greenhouse planet to icehouse planet, plate tectonics were responsible for thermally isolating the polar regions from the warmer ocean waters which lowered the temperature threshold for glaciation at each pole with each pole's glaciation threshold being different due to the differences in how they were thermally isolated (continent parked over the pole surrounded by ocean vs ocean over the pole which is thermally isolated due to surrounding lands). As temperatures declined due to natural forces orbital forcing triggered glaciation. Which there have been ~30 such glaciation events in the last 3 million years.Actually, if you look back at solar output you will notice that solar output was more intense and as the star has aged the fusion reaction is dimming. IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.
Between the suns output changing and our position galactically there are several factors that cause this gradual change from greenhouse to hot house, and glaciation. And it all starts on our sun.
Sun Activity Has Collapsed To The Lowest In 9,300 Years | Armstrong Economics
THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist. Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term "lunatic" referred to
That sound right to you IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT
Actually it's not. We see the exact same thing in the present glacial cycles. Orbital forces trigger extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere and the planet slowly warms back to what it's temperature was prior to extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere.
Like I already said... snowball earth is not relevant to today because land mass distribution and ocean circulation - which is the real driver of the earth's climate - was totally different than today.
CO2 doesn't drive climate change. Orbital effects can't initiate glaciation unless the poles are thermally isolated and the planet is at the threshold for extensive continental glaciation. The southern hemisphere will be the first to glaciate but the oceans limit the expansion. The northern hemisphere has a higher threshold (lower temperatures required compared to the southern hemisphere) but has more land for glaciation to spread,
That sound right to you, Toro
For Ding:
You seem never to have noticed this, but the poles are the portions of the Earth which receive the LEAST insolation. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I'm pretty certain that has a lot to do with it being cold there. I'm pretty certain it has ALWAYS been cold there, whther or not there was a continent at the South Pole or a partially bounded ocean at the North.
You seem never to have noticed this, but the poles are the portions of the Earth which receive the LEAST insolation. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I'm pretty certain that has a lot to do with it being cold there. I'm pretty certain it has ALWAYS been cold there, whther or not there was a continent at the South Pole or a partially bounded ocean at the North.
Cold yes, glaciation, no. It's glaciation which produces the "runaway" colder temperatures. Just look at the oxygen isotope curve.
It might be helpful for you to look at the different landmass configurations through time to see which configurations produced glaciation at the poles. It's only been 3 to 5 million years that glaciation in the northern hemisphere occurred. Let me remind you that landmass configuration is only one piece of the puzzle, the other pieces are orbital forcing and glaciation thresholds which are a function of land mass configuration.
What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?
An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.
www.theatlantic.com
Toro and IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT does this sound right to you?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,683
- 34,701
- 2,180
Why do you think? Was it man?
