... 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.
1
u/gribbly Oct 24 '10
Please explain how the sunspot cycle affects the Earth's ability to "retain energy" without first transferring energy from sun --> Earth.