Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Dancing David]

None of the papers cited considers spectral variation in TSI as a possible source of cooling (or less warming).
The according to recent studies the actual incident solar entropy flux is 4 times larger than was previously estimated. So all of the papers you cited are seriously flawed.

Can you cite any paper that properly estimates the incident solar radiation entropy flux at 0.31Wm⁻² K⁻¹?

The papers I cited, what are you talking about? The papers where, which I cited? About which part of the OP? In response to which?

 

[CapelDodger]

"As historical support for his theory, Abdussamatov cited the observations in 1893 made by the English astronomer Walter Maunder who came to the conclusion that from 1645 to 1715, sunspots had been generally absent, which coincided with the middle and coldest part of the severe temperature dip known as the “Little Ice Age” that stretched from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries."

Observations made in 1893 demonstrated that sunspots were generally absent from 1645 to 1715? How the heck did that work ?

Sunspots were generally unobserved, not necessarily absent. Does anyone know who was actually looking for them at the time, with what equipment? And who funded them ?

 

[Dancing David]

None of the papers cited considers spectral variation in TSI as a possible source of cooling (or less warming).
The according to recent studies the actual incident solar entropy flux is 4 times larger than was previously estimated. So all of the papers you cited are seriously flawed.

Can you cite any paper that properly estimates the incident solar radiation entropy flux at 0.31Wm⁻² K⁻¹?

You know that you aren't addressing the Op and I asked you for data supporting the OP, is this just your standard operating procedure? If you want to talk about something other than the topics at hand Astrometria and Corbyn, please start another thread, I asked you, what data do you have that support the OP or Corbyn? Do you need me to explain what those words mean?

If you want to find out how they estimate the solar irradiation, that would be another thread, and you are welcome to move goal posts over there.

 

[Furcifer]

You know that you aren't addressing the Op and I asked you for data supporting the OP, is this just your standard operating procedure? If you want to talk about something other than the topics at hand Astrometria and Corbyn, please start another thread, I asked you, what data do you have that support the OP or Corbyn? Do you need me to explain what those words mean?

If you want to find out how they estimate the solar irradiation, that would be another thread, and you are welcome to move goal posts over there.

You seem a little slow on the up take, what are the effects of underestimating the incident solar radiation flux on the calculation of anthropogenic warming?

 

[CapelDodger]

Going back to the OP and Project Astrometria http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

The TSI activity of the Sun defines temporal scales for practically all physical processes in the system Sun-Earth.

Let's accept that for now. At least it cuts out cosmic rays.

The solar energy flux dynamically defines the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System.

Not for Jupiter it doesn't. Just saying.

The solar energy flux is in turn defined by the area of solar surface or, in the other words, by the diameter of the Sun.

Now that's contentious and I can't find any support for it in the remainder of the piece. References to the 4th Heatland Conference I can find easily, but not that.

An exact value of variations of the solar diameter is an important fundamental parameter and the most important indicator of the TSI variation and of sunspot activity.

Again, not exactly obvious.

Precise measurements of the temporal variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun, not distorted by instabilities of the Earth atmosphere and oscillation processes within it, can only be conducted from an airless space.

Which explains why there's no support provided for Abdussamatov's claim. He can't know how the Sun's diameter has changed, or whether that has a close relationship with TSI, until his team gets up there and measures it.

Abdussamatov is telling us what will be observed from the Great White Elephant (aka the International Space Station) and how it backs up his theory. A theory that must be highly credible, else why the Heatland Conference attention it garners? irony

Solar-observing satellites have been up there for a while now - do they not observe Solar diameter? If not, I'm sure it can be picked out of the images they've supplied. Then again, that wouldn't justify funding Project Astronomia space-junkets.

He's provided his TSI predictions for 2009 on, so no doubt he'll have an update soon. He also has sunspot number (on a 2-century sliding average) decreasing for some time now, below a picture of a painting of a frozen Thames (for some reason), but we'll all be long-gone before that pans out.

He does provide the TSI value he's using for Solar Cycle 22 (1365.99 W/m²) and Solar Cycle 23 (1365.82 W/m²). 0.17 out of 1365 and a bit. Not much, is it? Rather less than the 30% increase in atmospheric CO₂ in the last century or so, and rather difficult to correlate with solar diameter measurements "distorted by instabilities of the Earth atmosphere and oscillation processes within it".

("Oscillation processes"? Maybe it's better in Russian.)

 

[CapelDodger]

You seem a little slow on the up take, what are the effects of underestimating the incident solar radiation flux on the calculation of anthropogenic warming?

By how much, give or take? And what are the effects on Abdussamatov's Solar Diameter Theory? Pretty disastrous, I'd say, if they're at all significant.

(I know "flux" is your new toy, but you'll wear it out very quickly at this rate of use. "ncident solar radiation flux" is TSI.)

 

[Furcifer]

(I know "flux" is your new toy, but you'll wear it out very quickly at this rate of use. "ncident solar radiation flux" is TSI.)

Not even close.

 

[CapelDodger]

The papers I cited ...?

3bodyproblem is probably referring to the papers RealityCheck cited, which he'll have checked out before posting.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not even close.

Not only close but precise.

 

[Furcifer]

Not only close but precise.

No, you're off by a mile. I suspect you don't really know what "flux" is. The fact that "Total" is part of TSI should be a clue.

Keep trying.

 

[Reality Check]

None of the papers cited considers spectral variation in TSI as a possible source of cooling (or less warming).
The according to recent studies the actual incident solar entropy flux is 4 times larger than was previously estimated. So all of the papers you cited are seriously flawed.

You would be wrong - the papers are on topic and so not flawed.

IMO you are confusing somtheing here. The TSI is the Total Solar Irradance. It is a single number. It does not have a "spectral variation". Its numeric value can vary and is measured to vary, i.e. it has decreased over the the last 30 years.

You seem to be talking about the spectral variation in the solar output. This spectral variation is not really anthing to do with this thread which is about the TSI and climate change. I suggest you start a new thread on spectral variation in solar output and its effect on climate change. Start with posting the papers about it.

Of course if you cite any papers on "spectral variation in TSI" then they will be ignoring the variation in TSI and will be as you assert "serously flawed" .

Can you cite any paper that properly estimates the incident solar radiation entropy flux at 0.31Wm⁻² K⁻¹?

Can you cite the paper that measures the "actual incident solar entropy flux" and shows that it is 4 times the previous estimates?

What is a "proper" estimate?

 

[Reality Check]

This is most likely do to the spectral dependence that hasn't really been taken into account.

Spectral dependence of what is not being taken in account?
Where in the paper (Laštovička et al. (2006). ) should it be taken in account?

 

[Furcifer]

IMO you are confusing somtheing here. The TSI is the Total Solar Irradance. It is a single number. It does not have a "spectral variation". Its numeric value can vary and is measured to vary, i.e. it has decreased over the the last 30 years.

The number might not, but actual wave does.

You seem to be talking about the spectral variation in the solar output.

You seem to be making a distinction that doesn't exist.

Do you know what the solar output is? Or what the total solar output is? From a sphere striking another sphere?

This spectral variation is not really anthing to do with this thread which is about the TSI and climate change.

lol, explain why then.

I suggest you start a new thread on spectral variation in solar output and its effect on climate change. Start with posting the papers about it.

So we can talk about how that might be causing Global Cooling?

You're just objecting and don't have any clue why.

 

[Furcifer]

Spectral dependence of what is not being taken in account?
Where in the paper (Laštovička et al. (2006). ) should it be taken in account?

Right about here:
Over the past three decades, the global temperature at Earth’s surface has increased by 0.2 to 0.4oC, compared with a 5 to 10oC decrease in the lower and middle mesosphere.

 

[Reality Check]

The number might not, but actual wave does.

What is "actual wave"?
TSI certainly varies.

You seem to be making a distinction that doesn't exist.

It does exist.

Do you know what the solar output is? Or what the total solar output is? From a sphere striking another sphere?

Yes. Yes. Idoitic question.

lol, explain why then.

lol, you read the OP.

So we can talk about how that might be causing Global Cooling?

No because Global Cooling does not exist.


But if you want to talk about what fantasies might cause global cooling in the future then:

• The Sun turning off could be one fantasy.
• A giant alien spacecraft shielding the Earth from the Sun would be another.
• A wormhole transporting the Earth to interstellar space would be another.

Or more practically: A massive effort to reduce the level of CO2 together by the Sun going into a Maunder minimum would reduce global temperatures.

You're just objecting and don't have any clue why.

You're just lying about what I am posting - I have plenty of clues why thus I object.


For example:

• Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version) (no)
• Are we heading into a new Ice Age? (a new Maunder minimum would have little effect)

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations

Right about here:
Over the past three decades, the global temperature at Earth’s surface has increased by 0.2 to 0.4oC, compared with a 5 to 10oC decrease in the lower and middle mesosphere.

Which is exactly what should not be happening with any heating from Sun which predicts uniform heating of the atmosphere.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)

Inability to explain empirical observations
Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

You really need to present a coherent argument that this "spectral variation" explains any of the measurements. How about some citations?
Otherwise it sounds like your stance is a variation on the "X does it, I say so, I am always right, so X does it" that we see here from cranks.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes. Yes. Idoitic question.

OK explain this then:

The TSI is the Total Solar Irradance. It is a single number. It does not have a "spectral variation".

You seem to be talking about the spectral variation in the solar output.

It's obvious you don't have any clue what you're talking about. But I'll give you a chance to explain the difference between TSI and solar output

 

[Furcifer]

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)

Let's just start with baby steps OK?

What effect does underestimating solar flux have on this ^ calculation of anthropogenic warming.

It's a very simple question, so just answer it or just admit you don't know what's being discussed here.

After you answer that we'll talk about how the spectral variation in the incident solar irradiance has on the Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

It's obvious you don't have any clue what you're talking about. But I'll give you a chance to explain the difference between TSI and solar output

TSI = total solar radiance. It is a number representing the total radiation received from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. It has been decreasing since the 1980's (in contract to global temperatures which have been increasing.

solar output = the output from the Sun. It is intergrated over to produce the TSI.

It's obvious you don't have any clue what you're talking about. But I'll give you a chance to explain the difference between TSI and solar output, bodyproblem

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux

Let's just start with baby steps OK?

What effect does underestimating solar flux have on this ^ calculation of anthropogenic warming.

Here you go baby :
It is obvious that a solar flux = a higher TSI and means that there will be more heat contributed from the Sun and so we would have to attribute less of the observed global warming to greenhouse gasses (anthropogenic or otherwise).

This sounds like you have a citation for a higher solar flux so:
3bodyproblem: Citations for a higher solar flux?

We have talked about it so: 3bodyproblem: "spectral variation" influence on climate change citations?