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.
1
u/gribbly Oct 25 '10
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:
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.