Does a Quieter Sun equate to a Colder Climate on Earth

originally posted by: Phage
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?

Are you trying to make me say something Phage so you can catch me out? It feels like you are. What do you mean radiating to where? The Earth's surface is radiating at 390 W/sq.m. Is that something you disagree with?

a reply to: Nathan-D

Are you trying to make me say something Phage so you can catch me out?

No. I'm asking you a question. I'm not trying to make you say anything.

Given that I'm willing to accept that Earth's surface radiates at 390w/m2, where is that power radiated to? Radiation represents a transfer of energy, correct? Where is that energy being radiated to?

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

Are you trying to make me say something Phage so you can catch me out?

Where is that energy being radiated to?

Fu*k if I know.

Not to space though, that's about 240 W/sq.m according to Trenberth.

Scratch that, it's 239 W/sq.m according to Trenberth.

a reply to: Nathan-D
I wonder if it might be warming something up. Like the oceans and atmosphere.

We've got satellites that actually measure how much radiation is escaping to space but they aren't really purpose built. But a new flock of birds is going up soon which will tell us a lot more about that outgoing energy. It will give us the actual values so we won't have to rely on educated guesses.
directory.eoportal.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D
I wonder if it might be warming something up. Like the oceans and atmosphere.

I wonder too. So, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the surface of Earth up and then the Earth's surface warms up the atmosphere again?

Wouldn't that create an infinite positive feedback loop of sorts?

Awesome: Phage has busted out his sock-accounts to award himself stars again. That's the sort of commitment that I like.

a reply to: Nathan-D

So, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the surface of Earth up and then the Earth's surface warms up the atmosphere again?

Yes. But you left out an important factor. Unlike the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth is warmed significantly by shortwave radiation. It then re-emits that energy as longer wave radiation which does warm the atmosphere. As you say, greenhouse gasses then return some of that energy back to the surface. At night the surface is only affected by that "reflected" energy (not the Sun) so things can cool down some as the surface continues to radiate. I'm sure you've noticed though, that clear nights tend to be colder than cloudy nights. It's the same principle if not the same cause.

Wouldn't that create an infinite positive feedback loop of sorts?

It would, if all of the energy were re-emitted back to Earth. But it isn't. The question is, how much of that energy escapes and how much does not. Less than all and more than none, certainly.

We can measure the incoming radiation at the surface pretty well. We haven't been able to do the same for the outgoing radiation at the edge of the atmosphere. But RAVAN will change that. We will be able to accurately measure the outgoing radiation.

originally posted by: Phage
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?

The good doctor's 2000 'prediction' was for no more snow in a few years, however he also said, "snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time, and we won't be prepared" that's not 2010 is it?
Now guess what the good doctor did say in 2010's very cold winter period, and about 2010's very cold winter,

'Dr Viner, now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, last week said he still stood by that prediction: "We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything."
"This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event"

Wow! a little cooler than average? A weather station not far from me had a record cold reading of -18+°C in that period, concrete in my driveway cracked and stood up on end from it's base level as the water content inside froze, then fractured the concrete.
As for the question, "do you think that temperatures are rising globally, on average?"
What does that mean? a belief system? I'm not a man who stares at goats, so I don't read minds, however, I do understand verbal diarrhoea when it presents itself..no matter from what quarter.
Sincerity today is such a buggered thing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greven

Pop quiz: what was the total solar irradiance in the past compared to today?

42?

Phage are you Deep Thought from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy mmmm



42, the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. This Answer was first calculated by the supercomputer Deep Thought after seven and a half million years of thought. This shocking answer resulted in the construction of an even larger supercomputer, named Earth, which was tasked with determining what the question was in the first place.

hitchhikers.wikia.com...

a reply to: smurfy

Wow! a little cooler than average? A weather station not far from me had a record cold reading of -18+ degrees in that period, concrete in my driveway cracked and stood up on end from it's base level as the water content inside froze, then fractured the concrete.

Yes, records are being set. Both cold and warm. But tell me, was that an all time low temperature record, or a record for the date? There are a much greater number of all time high temperature records being set than all time low temperature records though. Both globally and in the US.

What does that mean? a belief system?

No. I asked you what you think, not what you believe. I consider thinking something to be different from believing something. Thinking is a process of considering available information. Believing may or may not involve that. That is why I make, and made, a distinction.

How about this, do you have an opinion on whether or not temperatures are rising globally, on average. Feel free to answer no.

originally posted by: Phage

I Thinking is a process of considering available information. Believing may or may not involve that. That is why I make, and made, a distinction.

That's much better,
As for, "do you have an opinion on whether or not temperatures are rising globally, on average"...on what basis would that be, (I left out your "feel free to answer no" bit, as out of bounds) given the parameters of this thread?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Phage

I Thinking is a process of considering available information. Believing may or may not involve that. That is why I make, and made, a distinction.

That's much better,

Better than what? This is what I originally asked:

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

As for, "do you have an opinion on whether or not temperatures are rising globally, on average"...on what basis would that be, (I left out your "feel free to answer no" bit, as out of bounds) given the parameters of this thread?

I can't tell if you are answering the question or, if you are, what your answer is.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D
I wonder if it might be warming something up. Like the oceans and atmosphere.

I wonder too. So, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the surface of Earth up and then the Earth's surface warms up the atmosphere again?

Yes. Infrared emitted by the surface is partially absorbed by greenhouse gases which then re-radiate isotropically, and half of that goes back down again, increasing the surface warmth.

Wouldn't that create an infinite positive feedback loop of sorts?

Yes, if you try to bean count, but you end up with a finite net effect.

Why can you add up infinite series and come up with a finite value: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + .... = 2 and not infinity

It's just normal radiative transfer and you solve for equilibrium.

Happens all the time in physics; perturbation theory for particle cross sections---adding up infinite numbers of Feynman diagrams for various interaction processes---and yet the total cross section is some finite value, it's not a black hole.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D
At night the surface is only affected by that "reflected" energy (not the Sun) so things can cool down some as the surface continues to radiate. I'm sure you've noticed though, that clear nights tend to be colder than cloudy nights. It's the same principle if not the same cause.

It is the same cause, water is a greenhouse gas. Vapor is simple.

And humid nights are warmer than dry nights, which is why night-time in New Orleans in the summer can be warmer than Phoenix in the summer.

Clouds can go both ways in daytime, but at night the increase in optical albedo doesn't matter.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

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

Are you trying to make me say something Phage so you can catch me out?

Where is that energy being radiated to?

Fu*k if I know.

Not to space though, that's about 240 W/sq.m according to Trenberth.

Scratch that, it's 239 W/sq.m according to Trenberth.

The following diagram seems to show the general principles.

hypergeometric.files.wordpress.com...


On the boundary of space, there is 101.9 W/m^2 of outgoing optical radiation and 238.5 W/m^2 longwave (IR) radiation, adding up to 340.4 W/m^2 nearly matching the 341.3 W/m^2 of incoming solar radiation. Net absorbed is 0.9 W/m^2 according to the diagram which is mostly visible in the increasing heat content of the oceans.

Yes. Infrared emitted by the surface is partially absorbed by greenhouse gases which then re-radiate isotropically, and half of that goes back down again, increasing the surface warmth.

Yes, I am than familar with how the greenhouse effect operates. The issue was not with greenhouse gases increasing the surface temperature but with the surface re-heating the atmosphere to a higher temperature after the radiation from the greenhouse gases had already been absorbed by the surface.

The following diagram seems to show the general principles

Yes, the ~240 W/sq.m is the energy absorbed/emitted by the Earth (without including the reflected energy).

Net absorbed is 0.9 W/m^2 which is mostly visible in the increasesing heat content of the oceans

Over what years does that 0.9 W/sq.m radiative imbalance occur? CO2 has increased by 120ppmv since 1850 and is meant to be recycling around 1.8 W/sq.m back to the surface. Is that 0.9 W/sq.m the radiative imbalance over the last 20 years, or 40 years? And how much of that 0.9 W/sq.m is warming the oceans?

a reply to: Nathan-D

The paper is here:

journals.ametsoc.org...

The measurements appear to be aggregated over march 2000 to march 2004. So presumably now the numbers for greenhouse effect are a bit bigger given the increase in gases.

I don't know for sure how much is warming oceans vs land, but as there's more ocean than land you can make a first guess. The big differnce is of course that oceans transport heat and have a high heat capacity and change weather which changes surface temperatures over land.