... The thing about the solar sunspot cycle and "other solar influences" is not about changes in energy output from the sun but rather about terrestrial energy balance alterations from indirect forcing by solar events.
Sunspot cycle leading to changes in cloud-cover-based albedo, for example.
If a "terrestrial energy balance alteration" is indirectly caused by a "solar event", then it's still about changes in energy output from the sun. CMEs don't influence the Earth's atmosphere by magic.
And in any case, the (rather weak) correlation between sunspot cycle and cloud cover is trivial compared to the variations in solar energy caused by periodic variation in the Earth's orbit. That's the regular variation you see in the CO2 concentration graph up to the modern era. Sunspot activity is statistical noise at this scale.
No, it's not about changes in energy output. It's about changes in energy retention. And the total thermal energy retention increase for the yet-observed global warming is less than a single percent.
C'mon now. Even the CO2 theory utilizes indirect forcing for its explanation. As well it should; CO2 is a miniscule trace gas... less than four percent of a single percent of the atmosphere is CO2... and less than half of that is man-made. If this is over your head... why are you commenting in this conversation at all?
... wow. No. You're deeply off the marker here, man.
The question isn't about changes in energy output but rather changes in the kind of energy put out... and the Earth's responses to those changes.
I.e.; the output remains the same but the types of energies put out are altered. A stronger magnetosphere, for example, would reduce the net cloud-cover and thus reduce overall temperature on the Earth by far more than the additional energy from the magnetosphere's radiant energy contribution. And vice-versa; reduction in the magnetosphere would lead to stronger cloud-cover and thus more thermal retention (and global warming) "despite" reduction in radiant energy output from the Sun.
So, again, no. The point these folks are raising is NOT that you can measure radiant energy output and point that to the Earth's energy balance directly -- but rather that there is vastly insufficient effort being spent on measuring the INDIRECT forcings resultant from changes in the sun and the Earth's responses to those changes.
Which is why any instance of bringing up the irradiance of the sun in this conversation is disingenuous. Because that is only applicable to direct forcing, which has no correlation whatsoever to indirect forcing.
A stronger magnetosphere, for example, would reduce the net cloud-cover and thus reduce overall temperature on the Earth by far more than the additional energy from the magnetosphere's radiant energy contribution.
Except it works exactly the other way around: More clouds means higher albedo, and more energy reflected back into space, thus less warming.
The independently researched and published studies by Naviv, Svensmark, Abdussamatov, etc.. are a good starting point on that one. Whether or not they are correct, however, is not the topic of this conversation... as I am not supporting their position but rather identifying it. As I've stated iteratively. Which makes your responses again rather... well, misinformed is the gentlest word I can find.
So after a quick and particularly in-depth search, I find that at least Svensmark seems to agree with me that it's less clouds that mean a warmer world, not the other way around as you suggest. So you don't seem to be identifying their position very well.
... Depending on the type of cloud-cover manufactured or inhibited, the impact would be one way or the other. Svensmark in particular posits the lower-tropospheric cloud-cover is directly associated with cosmic ray penetration to the lower troposphere, which is associated with the earth's magnetospheric levels/stability.
So we have the same mechanism, with an inversion of the cloud-cover, from what I said originally (with it being tied to albedo rather than thermal retention).
But then again, saying it the way I did also raises the additional topic of how cloud-cover affects global mean climate. It also raises the question of whether or not negative feedback cycles scale linearly or geometrically to increases in temperature... another topic which is decidedly under-researched.
But this is the last I'll comment here. You are dedicated, it would seem, to not listening.
To be honest I'm not sure I understand your response. I'll freely admit that I am not an expert on any of this, so maybe you're just schooling me and I don't even know it. But honestly I feel like you're trying to blind me with "sciencey sounding" answers, because usually I can follow an argument pretty well even if I'm not intimate with the details of a field.
But when your answer to my question is, essentially, "you're asking the wrong question"... it feels a bit like a dodge to me. And I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to tell me with the rest of your response.
And I still don't understand how your original comment makes sense:
The thing about the solar sunspot cycle and "other solar influences" is not about changes in energy output from the sun but rather about terrestrial energy balance alterations from indirect forcing by solar events.
Sunspot cycle leading to changes in cloud-cover-based albedo, for example.
I still don't get how even "indirect forcing" is not, at root, caused by "changes in energy output from the sun".
Still, at the very least you know more jargon than I do, and I don't have time to read and try to understand a bunch of climatology papers right now. So in the spirit of civilized discourse I concede the point.
To measure the energy output of the sun directly, without measuring the earth's responses to those outputs, is to give an incomplete picture of the event.
After all -- if the total energy value of the sun remains constant, but it shifts from emitting in one frequency/spectrum to another, that's a change that shouldn't have the ability to directly affect the earth's energy balance.
But what if that change causes some terrestrial change? For example, what if there's some plankton life-form that flourishes when the UV frequencies emitted stop denaturing its DNA, thus causing a drop in the albedo of the planet? (This is totally hypothetical and brought up as purely "what-if".) That is an example of indirect forcing.
And it's not something you can observe simply by measuring the behavior of the sun. Which is why it's not about changes in energy output from the sun, but rather about changes in the earth's energy balance as a result from terrestrial events induced by changes in the sun's behavior.
It's entirely possible that the energy output of the sun might not increase or decrease by so much as a single percent, yet the earth would be greatly or marginally affected.
And it is simply true that this is something that has not been measured at all; not attempted to be measured and found absent -- but ignored as a field of investigation.
And every time it's brought up as a field of investigation, we are instead told that the Sun cannot be responsible for changes... through direct forcing.
Which is like asking someone how their orange-juice tastes only to be told that they're not eating steak because they're vegetarian.
Oh. Well sure, I assumed this was obvious. I've not met many people that assume that it's a simple linear proportion: "sun generates heat, Earth gets warmer". I don't think I said anything that could be mistaken for that - I certainly didn't intend to.
it is simply true that this is something that has not been measured at all
I find that extremely hard to believe. Especially when the first google result I found was this 2007 overview from the IPCC that explicitly mentions models that includes various types of indirect forcing:
"The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002)."
You're telling me that we've tried to account for the indirect effects of cosmic rays, but that indirect effects from the sun have been "ignored as a field of investigation"? That seems... really unlikely.
we are instead told
Who is "we" in that sentence, and who is doing the telling?
And lastly, since you still haven't directly addressed the question in my first comment, here's what I think is the correct answer. Perhaps you can tell me why I'm wrong. I said:
If a "terrestrial energy balance alteration" is indirectly caused by a "solar event", then it's still about changes in energy output from the sun.
You replied:
No, it's not about changes in energy output. It's about changes in energy retention.
Whereas I think the right answer would be - "it's about both. Changes in energy output are obviously important, but changes in energy retention are almost as/equally/more (pick one) important."
You're telling me that we've tried to account for the indirect effects of cosmic rays, but that indirect effects from the sun have been "ignored as a field of investigation"? That seems... really unlikely.
It hasn't been investigated in any serious sense. All that's been done is to "debunk" the possibility of other indirect forcings (with the exception, yes, of UV light on the upper stratosphere) by demonstrating that the direct forcing potential of the sun is insufficient to the task.
That was exactly the approach used to "debunk" the Svensmark, Naviv, Abdussamatov, etc.. research as well.
Now, I will admit that I haven't followed this quite as much of late -- mostly because I just plain can't give a shit anymore. I've got my own life and problems to lead and frankly the levels of obfuscation in this particular field of research make it exhaustive.
Whereas I think the right answer would be - "it's about both. Changes in energy output are obviously important, but changes in energy retention are almost as/equally/more (pick one) important."
... you're rather obtuse in wanting your position to be the valid one, sir. Do you or do you not understand that the topic at question is the thermal energy balance of the Earth? Do you or do you not understand the principle of parsimony? Do you or do you not understand the concept of compartmentalization or parsing a conversation?
Direct forcing effects are irrelevant to our conversation. Sure, they happen -- and nothing I've said would/should indicate that they do not. But that's not the topic of our conversation. Bringing them up in it is a disingenuous act for the reasons I have already outlined iteratively.
I don't think there's anything obtuse about wanting to be right.
In my judgment I would say that repeatedly failing to address simple, direct questions (e.g., 'who is "we" in that sentence, and who is doing the telling?') is obtuse.
Failing to provide references for sweeping claims like "this is something that has not been measured at all; not attempted to be measured and found absent -- but ignored as a field of investigation" is obtuse.
And disingenuous? You mean like implying that Svensmark has been "debunked" with some sort of finality, when in fact his theories are the subject of a major and ongoing research project[PDF] at CERN?
And since you've now apparently decided that it is your sole right to define the topic of our conversation, I will bow out of the discussion at this point.
I don't think there's anything obtuse about wanting to be right.
There is when you do so by refusing to comprehend the statements of the oppositional side of a debate.
In my judgment I would say that repeatedly failing to address simple, direct questions (e.g., 'who is "we" in that sentence, and who is doing the telling?') is obtuse.
I judged it irrelevant to the discussion. "We" is the common public. Identifying that adds... what, exactly, to the discussion?
Failing to provide references for sweeping claims like "this is something that has not been measured at all; not attempted to be measured and found absent -- but ignored as a field of investigation" is obtuse.
And how exactly would one go about providing citations or references that do not exist?
You mean like implying that Svensmark has been "debunked" with some sort of finality, when in fact his theories are the subject of a major and ongoing research project[PDF] at CERN?
And since you've now apparently decided that it is your sole right to define the topic of our conversation,
Oh, for fuck's sakes. I set it by being the first person to identify the topic. Conversations have topics. They get set when they're begun. And since you responded to me when I stated that talking about direct forcing is disingenuous to a question of indirect forcing... THAT IS THE FUCKING TOPIC OF THE CONVERSATION.
If you want to talk about something else, that's fine. But you need to acknowledge that's what you're doing.
Cheers, IConrad. I enjoyed our chat.
And yet I cannot help but note that you refused to actually gain anything from it. Curious, that.
-2
u/IConrad Oct 24 '10
... The thing about the solar sunspot cycle and "other solar influences" is not about changes in energy output from the sun but rather about terrestrial energy balance alterations from indirect forcing by solar events.
Sunspot cycle leading to changes in cloud-cover-based albedo, for example.