Does a Quieter Sun equate to a Colder Climate on Earth

originally posted by: Phage
you get a kick out misquoting people, don't you?

See my preamble? it says, "Perhaps something like this",
I'm a musician, that's where I get my 'kicks' laddie, so no, you can't read my mind, but anyway I'm 'guessing' that wasn't the intent of your post, 'maybe' a sarcastic attempt at a putdown.
This what Dr David Viner said in 2000,

within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”

So I gave him the grace of ten years...not a few, still he failed miserably.
He also said,
"snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time, and we won't be prepared"
So again I gave him the grace of his quoted twenty years time on top of that, that's very good of me.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: glendWhat a coincidence! I wrote a post about just that a little bit ago, give it a read.

Even if that study is correct an increase of 0.2 W/sq.m per decade from CO2 isn't that much when compared to the increase in radiation from decreased cloud cover. Also the study you cited says in the abstract that the 0.2 W/sq.m of forcing is "attributable" to an increase in CO2 of 22 ppmv. So the IPCC's equation you cited would give us Ln(390/368)*5.35 = 0.31 W/sq.m whereas the study only finds an increase of 0.2 W.sq.m. Therefore the IPCC's equation overestimates the forcing from CO2 by a factor of 1.55 (so K should be closer to 3.45). Also that 1K temperature increase from 3.7 W/sq.m is the warming at 255K at the top-of-the-atmosphere. The warming at the surface where the temperature is 288K would be less. An increase of 0.2 W/sq.m only gives 0.037K/decade at the surface under the S-B law. They aren't going to scare anyone into accepting punitive green taxes with that, are they?

The study also could only attribute about 1/10th of the increased infrared radiation trend directly to CO2. Consider what that means.

The back calculation was K=3.83, not K=3.45 - something I mentioned in that post. Your lower calculation of 0.037K/decade is still ~10% of what the trend shows. Is that a bit more scary now?

I'm curious, though: why don't you explain how the Stefan–Boltzmann law calculates applies here.

The study also could only attribute about 1/10th of the increased infrared radiation trend directly to CO2. Consider what that means.

Well, I suppose it means CO2 is not a big contributor.

The back calculation was K=3.83, not K=3.45 - something I mentioned in that post.

I understand that your constant was 3.83, but I think that is too high. The study says that the increase of 0.2 W/sq.m is "directly attributable" to 22 ppmv of CO2 and the IPCC's equation gives 0.31 W/sq.m for a 22 ppmv increase (i.e. 368 ppmv to 390 ppmv). So K would be lower at 3.45.

I'm curious, though: why don't you explain how the Stefan–Boltzmann law calculation applies here.

What do you mean? Should I? There's a fixed relationship between temperature and radiation that is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Basically every time a body doubles in temperature it requires 16 times more radiation. So a colder body requires less radiation to increase its temperature by 1K than a warmer one. When you say the 3.7 W/sq.m corresponds to a 1K tempeature change, that's only in the atmosphere where the temperature is colder. At the surface where the temperature is 288K, that 3.7 W/sq.m comes out as 0.7K. 0.037K is what would be expected at the surface from 0.2 W/sq.m.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I'm aware of the law. How do you think it applies to CO2 reradiating to the ground?

Perhaps a thing to consider - what does the law calculate, and what is reality for the Earth?

a reply to: glend

He couldn't be more wrong. NASA recent results show between 1992 and 2001 that Antartica ice sheet has gained 112billion tons of ice per year.

So, Viner was talking about the children who will be living in Antarctica?

But what do you say about quotes from those that were regarded by IPCC as experts.

I think they are wrong, for the most part.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Nathan-D
I'm aware of the law. Why do you think it applies to CO2 reradiating to the ground?

Why would it not?

a reply to: smurfy

So I gave him the grace of ten years...not a few, still he failed miserably.
He also said,
"snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time, and we won't be prepared"
So again I gave him the grace of his quoted twenty years time on top of that, that's very good of me.

Apparently, you didn't need to:
2010

Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK

news.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Nathan-D
I'm aware of the law. Why do you think it applies to CO2 reradiating to the ground?

Why would it not?

Sorry, I meant "how" not "why."

Consider: what does the law calculate for the Earth, and what is the Earth's actual temperature?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Nathan-D
I'm aware of the law. Why do you think it applies to CO2 reradiating to the ground?

Why would it not?

Sorry, I meant "how" not "why."

Consider: what does the law calculate for the Earth, and what is the Earth's actual temperature?

It predicts 255K for Earth without an atmosphere. This does not mean the law is not applicable to Earth. The mainstream theory says that greenhouse gases increase the Sun's incoming radiation by 150 W/sq.m by recycling energy which increases the temperature from 255K to 288K. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a universal law of nature and applies wherever and whenever a body absorbs radiation. There are no circumstances where it does not apply. Sure, you could argue it applies specifically to black-bodies, but it can be generalized to cover grey-bodies like the Earth when combined with the absorptivity/emissivity coefficient of the body. The Earth's surface is essentially a black-body anyway, with an average emissivity of 0.97.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy

So I gave him the grace of ten years...not a few, still he failed miserably.
He also said,
"snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time, and we won't be prepared"
So again I gave him the grace of his quoted twenty years time on top of that, that's very good of me.

Apparently, you didn't need to:
2010

Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK

news.bbc.co.uk...

No, I gave him 20 years from 2010, (the year on your link), being a failure limit I think, since he said in 2000 "the next few years" when most of that decades years there was plenty of winter snow, bar 2006, quite the opposite of what the good doctor had said.

a reply to: smurfy

You missed my point. He predicted that snowfall would cause chaos in the UK. I showed an article from 2010 about snowfall caused chaos in the UK.

But weather aside, do you think that temperatures are rising globally, on average? Or not?

originally posted by: Nathan-D
It predicts 255K for Earth without an atmosphere. This does not mean the law is not applicable to Earth. The mainstream theory says that greenhouse gases increase the Sun's incoming radiation by 150 W/sq.m by recycling energy which increases the temperature from 255K to 288K. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a universal law of nature and applies wherever and whenever a body absorbs radiation. There are no circumstances where it does not apply. Sure, you could argue it applies specifically to black-bodies, but it can be generalized to cover grey-bodies like the Earth when combined with the absorptivity/emissivity coefficient of the body. The Earth's surface is essentially a black-body anyway, with an average emissivity of 0.97.

I didn't say it isn't applicable to Earth.

I was pointing you to the realization that there is more energy than there ought to be by that law. You at least note, even if you might not agree, that this difference is from greenhouse gasses.

We're discussing reradiation of energy by CO2, which is both close to the Earth's surface and a simplified layer of which has a very similar surface area. It does not increase the Sun's radiation, but reradiates it.

That is the origin in the case of such reradiation, not the Sun. What do you suppose your calculation would be with the correct source?

I'll drop this video here. Adapt2030 does great work, and needs more subscribers to get this information out to people.

I was pointing you to the realization that there is more energy than there ought to be by that law.

And that is because (as I understand) greenhouse gases are recycling power back to the surface, thereby increasing its temperature, and the 255K calculation with the S-B law does not take this into account. However, if it did, the law should have no trouble predicting the correct temperature of the planet. Where does the 33C of warming come from if not from the atmosphere? Incoming solar power at the Earth's current albedo is ~240 W/sq.m but the surface is radiating power at a mean rate of ~390 W/sq.m. How is that possible without invoking the greenhouse effect and where is the required top-up power of 150 W/sq.m coming from if not from the atmospheric greenhouse? The basic greenhouse principle explains it as power that came from the surface originally and is being recycled back to the surface via the atmosphere. The same thing applies to Venus, although is much more obvious. Incoming solar radiation on Venus at its current albedo is ~65 W/sq.m but the planet is radiating power at ~17,000 W/sq.m. If the S-B law is not being applied properly then why is that so? What should be applied?

a reply to: Nathan-D
Greenhouse gasses don't magnify energy coming from the Sun, but instead trap energy already coming from the Sun. Or - more accurately - from the Earth. Recall the basic concepts.

The Sun is very hot and so radiates more energetic radiation - radiation with shorter wavelengths - which the Earth intercepts. The atmosphere is fairly transparent to such wavelengths. Some of this is reflected by clouds or ice immediately and remains at shorter wavelengths. The much cooler Earth then radiates what it absorbs away at less energetic longer wavelengths. However, greenhouse gasses like CO2 intercept some of that radiation and radiate heat again. Such radiation doesn't all go towards the Earth. However, because CO2 is pretty well mixed in the atmosphere (even vertically), escaping radiation isn't home-free after the first bit of CO2 as it tries to escape.

This is part of why your calculation doesn't make much sense. The result is that the upper atmosphere gets increasingly cooler with added CO2 - something well documented in satellite measurements, which can see the upper atmosphere more plainly than other layers.

If we were to be superbly accurate, we would consider the atmospheric CO2 molecules individually; starting with a mass (as calculated in the other thread) of 3,129.4654 gigatones (November 2015), divide that by the molar mass of 44.0095 g/mole, leaving 7.1109 x 10^16/mole, then multiplying that by Avogadro constant yields ~4.2822 x 10^40 CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

CO2 has a density of ~1.98 kg/m^3; the volume would be molar mass / (density * Avogadro constant) or ~3.691 x 10^-26 m^3. To estimate the diameter of that, you just take the cubed root, yielding ~3.3295 x 10^-9 meters, which you can then translate to a surface area of ~1.3931 x 10^-16 square meters for each CO2 molecule (if I did all this correctly anyway).

Multiply that by the number of molecules in the atmosphere and it is a 3-dimensional vertical minefield for infrared energy (an area of ~5.9655 x 10^24 sq m or 5.9655 x 10^18 sq km). Makes it a bit of a pain to figure out, so some simplify it to a layer or a few layers.

a reply to: glend


well then.... TG for the Globalists causing the pumping of chem-trails into the high atmosphere to create Golbal-Warming ( this is called "Serendipity"~~ when by accident good comes from intended harm of trying to overheat the globe)

also we are accidently warding off the 'cooling' by the vast amounts of Methane being released by accident in California and by an ironic mistake from the Perma-Frost of the Russian-Siberian Tundras.


now, lets see if-when the Jihadists turn on Mecca & the Saudi Harlot-Kingdom instead of the Host Countries that are generally 'Golden Rule' oriented (but not avowed Christian)

Greenhouse gasses don't magnify energy coming from the Sun

Magnify. Recycle. Trap. It doesn't matter what words we use. The fact is the Sun is only providing ~240 W/sq.m and the Earth is radiating at ~390 W/sq.m. Where is that extra energy coming from if not from the greenhouse?

This is part of why your calculation doesn't make much sense. The result is that the upper atmosphere gets increasingly cooler with added CO2 - something well documented in satellite measurements, which can see the upper atmosphere more plainly than other layers.

But why is that in conflict with the 33C of warming coming from greenhouse gases? Is stratospheric cooling from CO2 a result of more CO2 in the stratosphere or more CO2 in the troposphere? Keep in mind that 90% of the atmosphere is in the troposphere and so when CO2 increases in the troposphere it absorbs more energy emanating from the Earth's surface and more energy is then re-directed back towards the surface and less energy escapes into the stratosphere, thereby cooling the stratosphere. The Earth is not being cooled by greenhouse gases. It is being warmed (by something other than the Sun) to the extent of about 33C above black-body temperature. If the Earth was being cooled by greenhouse gases instead of warmed by them, its surface temperature would be below its black-body temperature instead of above it as we find it to be. If you don't like the idea that greenhouse gases could warm the Earth's surface up by 33C above the energy provided by the Sun then you might be interested in looking into the gravitational compression theory, which uses the Ideal Gas law to calculate the temperature of Venus and Earth instead of the S-B law, and states that the extra warming above their black-body temperatures are due to the compression of gases.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Sun is only providing ~240 W/sq.m and the Earth is radiating at ~390 W/sq.m. Where is that extra energy coming from if not from the greenhouse?

Please provide a source for 390W/m2 for outgoing power.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

Sun is only providing ~240 W/sq.m and the Earth is radiating at ~390 W/sq.m. Where is that extra energy coming from if not from the greenhouse?

Please provide a source for 390W/m2 for outgoing power.

390 W/sq.m is not the outgoing power but the power that the Earth's surface is radiating at. There are many different sources out there (Trenberth's Global Energy Budget is probably one) but it can calculated with the S-B law. The Earth's surface at a temperature of 288K should be radiating at 390 W/sq.m.

a reply to: Nathan-D

390 W/sq.m is not the outgoing power but the power that the Earth's surface is radiating at.

Radiating to where?