Where's the heat?

[Wild Cobra]

Still no apparent activity with the 11 year sunspot cycle. How much longer will we be cooling?

I found a cool video related to SOHO:



Enjoy.

Current sunspots:

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm still curious: if your Keplerian cycles can account for the heating and cooling of the Earth (as they should have been able to do since at least 1630, give or take) why have the past few years' weather patterns been so literally unpredictable?

If it was solely an orbital issue it would be easy enough to predict, wouldn't it? But it hasn't been, so how do you account for the added heat in the system? That's what I don't get, personally.

By the same token, that's why I'm still between the global warming hippies proffering solutions and the industrialists recommending no action be taken. Nobody can account for the heat scientifically.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm still curious: if your Keplerian cycles can account for the heating and cooling of the Earth (as they should have been able to do since at least 1630, give or take) why have the past few years' weather patterns been so literally unpredictable?

Now I assume by "Keplerian" you mean my solid belief that we will continue to see warming for the next 26,000 years, due to the reducing eccentricity of the earths orbit.

I seem to be the only one out there that sees long term climate change related to the eccentricity. The Milankovitch cycle uses primarily precession to explain the changes in season severity, and most others also tie it to ice ages. I believe it is eccentricity rather than precession that causes these events. With zero eccentricity, there is zero effect from precession!

What I was saying in the thread is about solar intensity, not orbital change. They are two distinctly different factors. The sun has been more calm now than anytime since we have been able to see it by satellites, about 30 years now.

If it was solely an orbital issue it would be easy enough to predict, wouldn't it? But it hasn't been, so how do you account for the added heat in the system? That's what I don't get, personally.

Sure. Anything is easy to predict if you only have one variable to deal with. problem is, we have orbital changes that affect us in the tens of thousands of years, solar changes that harmonize with a 11 and 19 year cycle, ESNO, and several other variables.

By the same token, that's why I'm still between the global warming hippies proffering solutions and the industrialists recommending no action be taken. Nobody can account for the heat scientifically.

But the heat is accounted for scientifically. The truth is simply suppressed. It doesn't fit anybody's political agenda. Now I don't agree with the industrialist take either. I dislike government for most things, but I appreciate things like "The Clean Air Act."

The IPCC allows for an approximate 0.15 watt increase in radiative forcing from the 0.2% increase in solar radiation. Problem is, that is only accounting for part of the equation. The earth receives about 1366 watts per meter of energy outside the atmosphere. After you account for surface area, disk effectiveness, day/night cycle, and what reflects off the atmosphere, we average about 235 watts per meter of solar energy. Now a 0.2% increase would be 235.47 watts. Why does the IPCC then only account for a 1/3rd of this 0.47 increase? Simple. That's what goes directly into the atmosphere. The other 2/3rds hits the ground, and they hope everyone forgets about it. Now the dirty little secret they don't tell you is that this is re-radiated into the greenhouse effect, and almost tripled (x 2.69). Now we have about 0.15 direct radiative forcing and another 0.86 from the extra heat amplified by the greenhouse effect, for a total forcing increase of 1.01 watts! Now they claim a total of 1.8 between CO2 and solar, so that leaves 0.79 for CO2 if that's the only changes. Half of what they claim for CO2. They have to hide the effect of the sun to make CO2 look like the culprit. But wait... We haven't addressed the true effects of Black Carbon on the Arctic Ice cap yet...

[admiralsnackbar]

But wait... We haven't addressed the true effects of Black Carbon on the Arctic Ice cap yet...

I need to get ready for a drive to see my sick Dad in Houston tomorrow, but say more about this, please.

And thanks for the civil, personal answer. I know I've accused you of mindlessly re-posting other's opinions in other threads and I duly eat my crow for it here, whether or not I agree with you yet. Happy Thanksgiving

[rjv]

I need to get ready for a drive to see my sick Dad in Houston tomorrow, but say more about this, please.

And thanks for the civil, personal answer. I know I've accused you of mindlessly re-posting other's opinions in other threads and I duly eat my crow for it here, whether or not I agree with you yet. Happy Thanksgiving

once again, best wishes for your father.

[Wild Cobra]

I need to get ready for a drive to see my sick Dad in Houston tomorrow, but say more about this, please.

And thanks for the civil, personal answer. I know I've accused you of mindlessly re-posting other's opinions in other threads and I duly eat my crow for it here, whether or not I agree with you yet. Happy Thanksgiving

Thank you for the civility too, and Happy Get Stuffed day. How about picking one topic at a time. Maybe just place a question in a past thread.

Past good threads that I didn't bump today:

Solar Global Warming

Gavin Schmidt vs. Gavin Schmidt

Yes, Back to Global Warming (salinity and the carbon cycle)

Black Carbon Global Warming

Good links to see:

Deconstructing Global Warming

Global warming - still not convinced

Correlation of Carbon Dioxide with Temperatures Negative Again

Good to watch:

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Admiral, I switched from memory mode, and verified the numbers.

Hansen et. al. 2004, the most respected solar data from NASA, has a 0.24% solar increase from 1700 to 2000. I applied it to a global warming model you can find in Wiki: Greenhouse Effect.

The IPCC says the radiative forcing increase from 1750 to 2005 is 0.12 watts. Well, I realized they were using 1750 rather than 1700, but it's still a 0.15% increase and still a 0.78 watt increase rather than 0.12. Thing is, they talk about since the maunder Minimum, but use numbers 50 years after it ended. I missed that trick until today.

They are only a factor of 10 off since it's 1.24 watts rather than 0.12 watts since the Maunder Minimum. Of course, they conveniently made that error, or else they would have to reduce the radiative increase from CO2 from 1.66 watts to 0.44 watts, which is far more realistic.

With the 1750 to 2004, it's still 0.66 they would have to remove from the CO2 radiative forcing to balance the work.

Anyway, close to realistic solar radiative forcing changes since 1700:



I will have to remake this graph again to accommodate 1750 as a starting point.

[Wild Cobra]

A funny thing happened when I switched to a 1750 to 2004 timeframe. The direct radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watts, just like the IPCC says!

[admiralsnackbar]

Just wanted to say I'm now "officially" aware of the data you provided -- let me try to assimilate it when I get some time and I'll get back to you.

Cheers.