Jump to content

Reaction of Earth to Changes in Total Solar Irradiance


Recommended Posts

 

 

Convection, conduction, and ocean currents, after the waters absorb the energy.

Isn't it obvious?

Not enough proportional energy is absorbed in deep enough water, and what is is not emerging by convection or conduction or currents on that time scale.

 

So that doesn't work.

 

 

I am asking why such things are acceptable as CO2 increases, but not for solar variations

Because for CO2 there are known mechanisms, and the results match observation.

 

Once again: do you have a mechanism for your hypothesized delay?

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites
I gave it to you. It doesn't matter to me what you believe of it.

Belief has nothing to do with it. You have posited a 40 year storage and release of heat energy in the deep ocean that is not in agreement with the physics of light penetration in seawater, does not account for the pattern of atmospheric warming you put it toward, and and is not observed where it should be visible (upwellings of deeper water, temperature profiles of ocean water, etc).

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

It most certainly can if I were to use daily, or even hourly values instead of annual. However, the percentages would be smaller.

 

You wouldn't need that. The seasonal lag is not primarily a result of TSI variations, it's purely geometric. (I hope it's obvious how we know this). You should be able to pick a reasonable TSI and work it from there. Pick a latitude. The deposited energy increases by X%, owing to the angle and duration changes. That accounts for an increase in temperature. e.g. where I live the average temp is ~15ºC, but the July/August average is ~25ºC. Does your model agree if only ~1% of the excess deposited solar energy is making it back into the atmosphere? (1/4 of 4% in 3 months) Or must that number be bigger?

 

 

The only claim I am making is that if there is a response, that if slow enough, can account for solar effect of warming into this century. I don't know if my low values of 3% or 4% is in the ballpark. I could be off. What annoys me is the certainty by you and others that it is so much higher.

 

Your idea flies in the face of well-established physics. Plus, you haven't made your case. You decry the use of blogs to make arguments, but how are discussion-board posts any different? Why should we just assume you are right?

 

Maybe I incorrectly assumed what you meant. Sorry if so.

 

Do you claim radioactive decay is linear as will, since it consistently reduced by 50% over a given number of years, and another 50% over the next step of the same number of years?

 

Radioactive decay is a well-established principle. The probability of decay is directly proportional to the number of atoms, and the result in an exponential decay. Those are well-defined terms in a well-known model.

 

Your model, OTOH, has not been explained to nearly the same degree of thoroughness. What's surprising is that you are surprised that people are confused. To wit:

 

It's simply an unquantified value. It only shows a relative change of energy change not yet quantified. Quantification, I would leave to those who have a better tool-set for such matters.

 

"An unquantified value"? Really? How can you make a quantitative prediction from it? And without that, how can you have any legitimate confidence that you're right? How is it reasonable for you to expect us to follow your model when the linchpin is an "unquantified value"?

 

I'm going by the approximate 10 meters seen in various works of spectral absorption in sea water.

 

 

It appears to me that around half the shortwave by this graph, penetrates past 10 meters. Most the ocean will fall into catagory I, II, and III.

 

10 meter penetration has nothing to do with mixing.

 

Most of the oceans do not fall into category I, II, and III quite so simply, since "Incidence angle is 90°". The sun is directly overhead over only a small fraction of the ocean. Coming in at an angle increases the path length for a given penetration depth. e.g. at 45º, you get 10 meters of penetration at a depth of only 7 meters. (Also, reflection generally increase as you move away from normal incidence, so it ignores the reduction in energy that's deposited.)

 

Still, if you are at a transmission of even 80% per meter, half of the energy is deposited in the first 3 meters. (and less depth than that, if not at 90º).

 

Didn't I elude to emissivity and re-emission of energy?

 

If not, I meant to. It amounts to the absorbed energy being re-emitted with Planck's law of black-body radiation. this only happens at the immediate surface of the earths surface. It doesn't apply to energy absorbed meters deep in the water.

 

You asked about reflection, and I answered. Planck's law is about thermal radiation, so whether you "eluded" (sic) to it or not is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.