Thread: The Sun

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Oh... another

    Without the impact of solar radiation, the temperature on the earth would be about the same as the temperature of space, which is about -454 F. The amount of radiation reaching the earth is about 1,368 watts per square meter. This is a vast amount of energy, which would require the simultaneous output of 1.7 billion of our largest power plants to match. About 70 percent of this solar energy is absorbed and 30 percent is reflected. However, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth is not constant, but varies in several independent cycles of different degrees of magnitude, which may or may not reinforce each other.

    These cycles include a 100,000-year cycle, which results from the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun, a 41,000-year (obliquity) cycle, which results from the tilt of the earth on its axis, a 23,000-year cycle which results from "climatic precession" or changes in direction of the earths axis relative to the sun, and an 11-year sunspot cycle, during which solar radiation increases and then declines. The most recent sunspot radiation cycle peaked in the year 2000, and currently is approaching a minimum. Curiously, NASA and the Russian Observatory both report that total solar radiation now has peaked, and all these cycles may be simultaneously in decline


    Each 100,000-year peak in radiation appears to last about 15,000 to 20,000 years, and each has been coincident with massive surges of carbon dioxide and methane (the green house gasses), into the atmosphere, causing de-glaciation of the Polar and Greenland ice caps. Surges of these greenhouse gasses have always been vastly greater than the amounts currently being generated by burning fossil fuels. For example, the most recent 100,000-year cycle raised sea levels 400 feet in the first 10,000 years, but since then sea levels have risen very little. In the current warming period, sea levels are rising only about 3 millimeters per year, and temperatures over the last 100 years have risen a modest 0.6 of a degree C.

    Superimposed on this latest 100,000-year peak have been 6 secondary warming periods, each coincident with additional surges of carbon dioxide and methane, lasting about 200 years and then subsiding. Each of these previous warming periods was warmer than the current warming period, and current temperatures are below the median for the last 3000 years. Most remarkably, civilization first emerged in the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile River Valleys about 3400 B.C. in that period of great warming, and even more remarkably, each of these secondary surges of greenhouse gasses (none of human origin), has also been coincident with the rise of a major civilization.

    For instance, 3,000 years ago in the 1000 B.C. warming period, the Babylonian era emerged. Then, 500 years later, the Greek civilization flourished, followed by the Romans 400 years later. A 1,000-year cold period followed through the dark ages, but then in the very warm 1000 A.D. Medieval Period, the ice and snow melted on Greenland; the Danes farmed there for 200 years, until it froze over again. There are no reports of seaports being flooded during this warm period.


    About 500 years after the Medieval period, another surge of greenhouse gasses initiated the Renaissance, which was followed by an unexplained "Little Ice Age" from about 1600 to about 1750. (This was coincident with the Maunder Solar Radiation Minimum). During this period, Europe was covered with ice and snow, growing seasons were short, and starvation was common. Farmer unrest may have triggered the French Revolution. The most recent warming period began as solar radiation rapidly increased.
    Whole story here

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,907
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I thought this was interesting...



    Story found here
    Well that ought to convince Wilbur! Now we can move on to something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I'm not sure what you meant to say here... but I am saying that climate scientists, when investigating climate trends, absolutely do take into account solar variance.
    I can't recall when, but at some point I had speculated based on articles that I read that Solar Radiation was the culprit in Global Warming and not the actions of man. You stated (correct me if I am wrong or misunderstood you) that solar radiation had little to do with the temperature increases that the earth was experiencing. It was man's emission of green house gases that were the leading cause.

    Perhaps I misstated my premise in my original post but I believe that most of those reading it understand my intent and that your interpretation was more literal than it should have been.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I'm not sure what you meant to say here... but I am saying that climate scientists, when investigating climate trends, absolutely do take into account solar variance.

    REAL scientists do, but the AGW crowd are not real scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    Empirical evidence, Wilbur. Scientists whose tenure and living is on the line hardly trump what is actually happening. They can say "The emperor's new clothes look great" to get their paychecks, but the rest of us with no vested interest can see the emperor's balls; and they ain't pretty.
    Climate science is extremely important, and the demand for experts in the field will be growing regardless of whether or not global warming is happening. They would have their salaries and opportunities for tenure regardless - so that's really a non-starter as a plausible motive.

    And just who are these 'vested interest free' people from whom you get your climate facts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Wilbur

    What are your scientific qualifications?

    You pass yourself off as "an expert" so I ask the question again.

    I will keep asking. The longer you ignore the question is proof you have no credibility.

    So tell me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •