Solar Irradiance in a nose-dive...

[Weatherman2020]

Just when you thought it couldn't get stranger, Solar Irradiance has dropped to 1360.0 W/m^2. a full drop of 1.4 W/m^2 in just three days.

Confirmed with the SOURCE project that it is not a sensor malfunction and that it is a massive drop that is continuing to drop. The drop in TSI is substantial when you consider that just a 1.5W/m^2 will result in a 2 to 4 deg C drop on earth in rather short order.. They are hopeful that this is a short term drop and when the sun spots return to the face so will TSI.

These types of drops have been very rarely recorded with major sun spots and if they persist long enough it could result in an ice age.

This drop is different than previous ones, which were much smaller and were very short in duration...

Going to be watching this one with great interest... How low will it go and for how long..??

Get with the program. That little shiny thing in the sky has no influence on the environment like Dick Cheneys SUV does.

 

[jc456]

It is starting to bounce back... but will it return to base line or will step lower?

It's GONNA step lower because it's in that phase of EXPECTED cyclical downturn... Won't know if it's a deeper minimum for about 6 or 8 years..

I agree... The AGW faithful are going to be sorely disappointed as this recent loss of heat will be felt in coming weeks and months. The northern hemisphere above 9,000 feet has cooled about 1.5 deg C in the last two weeks....

wooooo, haven't you heard? CO2 is a magic heat source, and can warm the planet without the sun.

Yep, .4% of the gas in the atmosphere has more heat than the sun.

 

[mamooth]

yes even though it does on mars and the surrounding plants

Mars is certainly not warming, and some other planets are cooling as well.

Try to keep current with what stupid denier propaganda has been debunked by the hard evidence, will you?

 

[jc456]

YOU are right, things are really lookin' up, can't argue with you. I could, but, no point in it. Global temperatures and overall averages? It IS getting warmer and drier were I live, in the last twenty years. That isn't science fiction, and I am not posting this just to be contradictory. It's just a fact.

so where is this magical location?

 

[mamooth]

Bullshit.. I can give you DOZENS of real systems that have ramp or near-linear outputs from step function inputs.

But you can't give me one that accelerates again after leveling out a bit, like the climate did.

You wouldn't have MADE that stupid statement if you realized what an integral of a step function was.. Or what what shapes a high order LPFilter might produce from a step input. So much for your retarded progress in recognizing the functional effects of delays, storage, and feedback mechanisms in complex systems..

Please, demonstrate for everyone your expertise by showing us the system that responds to a step input by looking like it's slowed down and started approaching a new equilibrium, then suddenly taking off again. You know, like the climate did.

Your theory was somewhat defensible during the sort-of pause, as that kind of resembled the response to a step input. However, the recent acceleration in warming has destroyed your theory.

And as far as the IPCC "TSI graph" is concerned.. Why only show the last 30 years if all these RECOGNIZED delays and storage elements exist??? Aren't we discussing effects that presumably have effects out to 80 and 100 years??? When it comes tto their famous "Forcings Since 1850" Table -- They simply toss TSI and it's baseline right the hell out the window. And invent their OWN definition of "solar forcing" based on SunSpot #s and RECENT phases of solar "activity".. NO WHERE do they ever include the baseline rise in solar forcing since 1780s -- that PEAKED in about 1968... NO WHERE in that table of forcings has it EVER been mentioned

Why not show it? Because magic has been ruled out. Heat can't just hide in the system and then magically pop back into view 100 years later. The heat has to be somewhere and be measurable.

You are a brave turd. I'll give you that. For continually pretending that you grasp more than you actually do..

Almost EVERY calculation in GW is taking a forcing in units of POWER and calculating resultant ENERGY (in thermal temperature increases or storage amounts).. That very relationship is an INTEGRAL relationship..

If you have a step in a forcing function in W/m2 -- it's ENERGY production wrt to time is that INTEGRAL which produces so many Watt-Secs/m2 over a time interval.. In other words. if the forcing function steps up by 5W/m2 it will produce 5Joules/m2 in one second or 25 J/m2 in 5 seconds or 300J/m2 in one minute. Don't look now -- but that's not leveling off to a new equilibrium -- is it?

It should be, being that energy going out of the system would have to go up as temperature rises.

That's because you don't understand the diff between a "forcing" in power and the ENERGY into the system that creates a new thermal set point.

No, that's your completely unsupported weird little strawman.

The really interesting thing is how you've declared a system output will keep keep rising infinitely in response to a step input. By your theory, the earth is doomed to be incinerated.

Same thing with your home HVAC.. The thermostat does not make the supply HOTTER.. It INTEGRATES the forcing (basically a step function) LONGER to ramp up the room temperature over a longer period of time. Another linear ramp in thermal energy from a STEP CHANGE in a "power forcing"..

That example doesn't pertain to the climate system in any way, unless you think the sun flips on and off when the earth reaches a certain temperature.

A more applicable example is having the furnace run non-stop. Unlike your system, this will not cause the house to heat up endlessly until it spontaneously ignites. Instead, as temperature increases, more heat will leak out, heat-out will eventually match heat-in, and the temperature will stabilize at some new higher equilibrium point.

Sit.. Down,... Good Squid.....

You're just not very good at the common sense physics aspect of this.

BTW -- For extra credit.. Realize that the BTK Ocean ate my Warming graph is in JOULES.. And since we all see a fairly constant linear climb in stored thermal energy at ocean depth --- can any one in the room tell me the likely shape of the "FORCING FUNCTION" for that thermal energy storage???? It takes off at about 1960 and climbs at essentially the same rate until about 2000 when it seems to level off some..

To get a long-term near-linear output, you'd need more of linear input, as , for example, you have with increasing CO2. A step input wouldn't produce that result, being it would result in an output that eventually starts leveling out.

 

[jc456]

Bullshit.. I can give you DOZENS of real systems that have ramp or near-linear outputs from step function inputs.

But you can't give me one that accelerates again after leveling out a bit, like the climate did.

You wouldn't have MADE that stupid statement if you realized what an integral of a step function was.. Or what what shapes a high order LPFilter might produce from a step input. So much for your retarded progress in recognizing the functional effects of delays, storage, and feedback mechanisms in complex systems..

Please, demonstrate for everyone your expertise by showing us the system that responds to a step input by looking like it's slowed down and started approaching a new equilibrium, then suddenly taking off again. You know, like the climate did.

Your theory was somewhat defensible during the sort-of pause, as that kind of resembled the response to a step input. However, the recent acceleration in warming has destroyed your theory.

And as far as the IPCC "TSI graph" is concerned.. Why only show the last 30 years if all these RECOGNIZED delays and storage elements exist??? Aren't we discussing effects that presumably have effects out to 80 and 100 years??? When it comes tto their famous "Forcings Since 1850" Table -- They simply toss TSI and it's baseline right the hell out the window. And invent their OWN definition of "solar forcing" based on SunSpot #s and RECENT phases of solar "activity".. NO WHERE do they ever include the baseline rise in solar forcing since 1780s -- that PEAKED in about 1968... NO WHERE in that table of forcings has it EVER been mentioned

Why not show it? Because magic has been ruled out. Heat can't just hide in the system and then magically pop back into view 100 years later. The heat has to be somewhere and be measurable.

You are a brave turd. I'll give you that. For continually pretending that you grasp more than you actually do..

Almost EVERY calculation in GW is taking a forcing in units of POWER and calculating resultant ENERGY (in thermal temperature increases or storage amounts).. That very relationship is an INTEGRAL relationship..

If you have a step in a forcing function in W/m2 -- it's ENERGY production wrt to time is that INTEGRAL which produces so many Watt-Secs/m2 over a time interval.. In other words. if the forcing function steps up by 5W/m2 it will produce 5Joules/m2 in one second or 25 J/m2 in 5 seconds or 300J/m2 in one minute. Don't look now -- but that's not leveling off to a new equilibrium -- is it?

It should be, being that energy going out of the system would have to go up as temperature rises.

That's because you don't understand the diff between a "forcing" in power and the ENERGY into the system that creates a new thermal set point.

No, that's your completely unsupported weird little strawman.

The really interesting thing is how you've declared a system output will keep keep rising infinitely in response to a step input. By your theory, the earth is doomed to be incinerated.

Same thing with your home HVAC.. The thermostat does not make the supply HOTTER.. It INTEGRATES the forcing (basically a step function) LONGER to ramp up the room temperature over a longer period of time. Another linear ramp in thermal energy from a STEP CHANGE in a "power forcing"..

That example doesn't pertain to the climate system in any way, unless you think the sun flips on and off when the earth reaches a certain temperature.

A more applicable example is having the furnace run non-stop. Unlike your system, this will not cause the house to heat up endlessly until it spontaneously ignites. Instead, as temperature increases, more heat will leak out, heat-out will eventually match heat-in, and the temperature will stabilize at some new higher equilibrium point.

Sit.. Down,... Good Squid.....

You're just not very good at the common sense physics aspect of this.

BTW -- For extra credit.. Realize that the BTK Ocean ate my Warming graph is in JOULES.. And since we all see a fairly constant linear climb in stored thermal energy at ocean depth --- can any one in the room tell me the likely shape of the "FORCING FUNCTION" for that thermal energy storage???? It takes off at about 1960 and climbs at essentially the same rate until about 2000 when it seems to level off some..

To get a long-term near-linear output, you'd need more of linear input, as , for example, you have with increasing CO2. A step input wouldn't produce that result, being it would result in an output that eventually starts leveling out.

so tooth, if LWIR is down, how can it be getting warmer. you still have not answered that question.

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes even though it does on mars and the surrounding plants

Mars is certainly not warming, and some other planets are cooling as well.

Try to keep current with what stupid denier propaganda has been debunked by the hard evidence, will you?

it has been warming for years

try and not to be a sheep

NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up

 

[mamooth]

it has been warming for years

try and not to be a sheep

NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up

That's Fenton from 2007. It didn't say Mars had warmed. It doesn't even use temperature measurements. It only measured albedo changes, and theorized that such changes could cause warming in the future.

So, if true, that destroys your "the sun did it!" theory.

And, if false, it also destroys your "the sun did it!" theory.

We actually have almost no temperature measurements of Mars, so nobody knows exactly what the climate is. We can look at the ice caps, and they get bigger and smaller, not showing any indication of long term warming.

And again, we measure sun's output directly. It's been going down.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it has been warming for years

try and not to be a sheep

NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up

That's Fenton from 2007. It didn't say Mars had warmed. It doesn't even use temperature measurements. It only measured albedo changes, and theorized that such changes could cause warming in the future.

So, if true, that destroys your "the sun did it!" theory.

And, if false, it also destroys your "the sun did it!" theory.

We actually have almost no temperature measurements of Mars, so nobody knows exactly what the climate is. We can look at the ice caps, and they get bigger and smaller, not showing any indication of long term warming.

And again, we measure sun's output directly. It's been going down.

all the plants in the solar system warmed

 

[mamooth]

all the plants in the solar system warmed

This paper describes the cooling observed on Uranus.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Odd how Jon and the rest of the nutters on this board never bother to research anything before posting their drivel. Yes, Uranus is cooling. And some are warming. Orbits, ect. have a lot to do with a planet warming or cooling. We know that from the Milankovic Cycles on our own planet.

The TSI has been going down for at least a decade. Very slightly, but still down. Yet, the dingbats will say it is warming because of the sun, then turn right around and say that we are going to be cooling because the output of the sun is less. Contradicting themselves, and not even beginning to comprehend why we hold their logic in such disdain.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

Climate Myth...
It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

so you can't say why you believe the earth may be warming while the sun is at minimum. hmmmmmmmm. It should tell you that if someone is saying the earth is warming then, that they are full of shit. See if LWIR is down, then scientifically the earth can't get warmer. Not my rules.

Earth's warming: how scientists know it's not the sun - Yale ...

Even with the sun at minimum as you claim the temperatures are going up ...I put up a graph showing exactly that but somehow you think that you are unto something...you are not onto anything....


the Sun is the first place scientists looked to explain modern global warming.

They haven’t found it there. Why do they rule out the Sun as the major cause of climate change over the past seven or so decades?

Because the energy Earth receives from the Sun hasn’t changed much at all over the past few decades. In fact, since about 1960 this energy has been on a slight downward trend, while Earth keeps getting warmer.

Judith Lean, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. who studies how the Sun influences Earth’s climate, calls this the most compelling evidence for the conclusion that the Sun is not the cause of Earth’s warming.

“In the past four decades at least — we’ve measured the Sun’s brightness since 1978, using very precise space-based instruments”– Lean explains. “And the overall trend has been downwards by a few tenths of a percent.”

Yet at the same time, the global surface temperature has increased by about 1.1⁰F (0.6⁰C). If the Sun’s irradiance were the dominant force driving changes to our climate, the planet should be experiencing a slight cooling.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

so again, if the sun is only responsible for 10% of warming wtf else warms the earth? I'm intrigued now.

WTF warms the Earth is what you are denying...read it
Heat-trapping emissions (greenhouse gases) far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate.

..its not me saying that LOL
How Does the Sun Affect Our climate?
although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun (seeFigure 2).

Heat-trapping emissions (greenhouse gases) far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate. Source: Hansen et al. 2005, Figure adapted by Union of Concerned Scientists. [5]
References

[1] de Jager, C. and I. Usoskin (2006). On Possible Drivers of Sun-induced Climate Changes. J. Atmos. And Solar-Terrestrial Physics 68, 2053-2060.

[2] Hameed, S. and J. N. Lee (2005). A mechanism for Sun-Climate Connection. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23817, doi:10.1029/2005GL024393

[3] Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[4] Schiermeier, Q. (2007) No Solar Hiding Place for Climate Skeptics. Nature 448, 8-9.

[5] Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431-1435.

 

[jc456]

so again, if the sun is only responsible for 10% of warming wtf else warms the earth? I'm intrigued now.

WTF warms the Earth is what you are denying...read it
Heat-trapping emissions (greenhouse gases) far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate.

..its not me saying that LOL
How Does the Sun Affect Our climate?
although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun (seeFigure 2).

Heat-trapping emissions (greenhouse gases) far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate. Source: Hansen et al. 2005, Figure adapted by Union of Concerned Scientists. [5]
References

[1] de Jager, C. and I. Usoskin (2006). On Possible Drivers of Sun-induced Climate Changes. J. Atmos. And Solar-Terrestrial Physics 68, 2053-2060.

[2] Hameed, S. and J. N. Lee (2005). A mechanism for Sun-Climate Connection. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23817, doi:10.1029/2005GL024393

[3] Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[4] Schiermeier, Q. (2007) No Solar Hiding Place for Climate Skeptics. Nature 448, 8-9.

[5] Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431-1435.

what's going to warm the greenhouse gases? doh!!!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

what's going to warm the greenhouse gases? doh!!!!

You are like a little kid coming up with infantile stuff...read the posts and links...the sun puts energy into a complex Oceanic Atmospheric system...the gases we have put into that system make the oceanic atmospheric system retain heat energy more effectively .. because of the retained heat energy the Climate is warming...you do not grasp that being the argument ...?

 

[jc456]

what's going to warm the greenhouse gases? doh!!!!

You are like a little kid coming up with infantile stuff...read the posts and links...the sun puts energy into a complex Oceanic Atmospheric system...the gases we have put into that system make the oceanic atmospheric system retain heat energy more effectively .. because of the retained heat energy the Climate is warming...you do not grasp that being the argument ...?

it does? hmmmmm we've been asking for that evidence and to date three years later there are still crickets. So please post where there is any heat in the oceans. Haven't you been following along with the forum? I thought you were. Hmmmmmmm. But dude, you're funny.

 

[jc456]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

it does? hmmmmm we've been asking for that evidence and to date three years later there are still crickets. So please post where there is any heat in the oceans. Haven't you been following along with the forum? I thought you were. Hmmmmmmm. But dude, you're funny.

OK you are just plain Gish galloping...you are a "genius" LOL that has out thought all of Science...all those agencies NOAA , NASA they bow LOL to you grand mind LOL
Where is evidence of your thesis that "there is no such thing as AGW" you have any facts figures link anything ?

of course you don't ...you ignore the facts I posted the links I posted the direct refutal of your argument and you come back with repetition that "JC456 is some sort of genius who grasps what all of Science does not"...you are ridiculous

 

[idb]

what's going to warm the greenhouse gases? doh!!!!

You are like a little kid coming up with infantile stuff...read the posts and links...the sun puts energy into a complex Oceanic Atmospheric system...the gases we have put into that system make the oceanic atmospheric system retain heat energy more effectively .. because of the retained heat energy the Climate is warming...you do not grasp that being the argument ...?

it does? hmmmmm we've been asking for that evidence and to date three years later there are still crickets. So please post where there is any heat in the oceans. Haven't you been following along with the forum? I thought you were. Hmmmmmmm. But dude, you're funny.

**GASP**!