|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually LowSolar Activity
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low
Solar Activity http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and 2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum. Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter). "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," Hansen said. According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future. See: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite UnusuallyLow Solar Activity
On Feb 6, 2:36*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity * *http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html * A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and 2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum.. * Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter). * * "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," Hansen said. * * According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future. See:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html We have spoken of an imbalance here for the last few months,one where modelers use an imbalance of 1465 rotations for 1461 days despite every indication that the huge daily temperature fluctuations keep pace with the 1461 rotations in 4 years . http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg It is not convenient to dwell on the intentions of others who cannot read these graphs and put things into proper perspective,just that reader here now can as astronomers.With Feb 29th approaching,it would be brilliant to turn a student's attention to what that day represents in terms of the daily and orbital cycles of the Earth thereby making amends for some failed propaganda where people actually feel cheated. I have to ask,do you really want to instruct your students that the daily temperature fluctuations do not keep in step with the rotation of the Earth ?.These are the very real challenges facing everyone,not just astronomers and my thoughts g out to those who know how important these things actually are. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite UnusuallyLow Solar Activity
There IS no equlibrium, not as long as we have a sun with variable
output and an Earth orbit that wobbles. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:46 -0800 (PST), Scammed Public
wrote: There IS no equlibrium, not as long as we have a sun with variable output and an Earth orbit that wobbles. The Earth is in thermal equilibrium most of the time. The tiny variability of the Sun and long term orbital variation of the Earth do not change this. They merely are part of the reason why the equilibrium point shifts slowly over thousands or millions of years. We are currently out of equilibrium, because we are absorbing significantly more energy than we are radiating, as a result of human caused changes to the atmosphere. This is no different that natural changes that have occurred in the past, just faster. The Earth will be in equilibrium again; the only question for humans is how comfortable that point will be for us, and how well we can deal with the rapid shift. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite UnusuallyLow Solar Activity
On Feb 6, 9:49*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:46 -0800 (PST), Scammed Public wrote: There IS no equlibrium, not as long as we have a sun with variable output and an Earth orbit that wobbles. The Earth is in thermal equilibrium most of the time. The tiny variability of the Sun and long term orbital variation of the Earth do not change this. They merely are part of the reason why the equilibrium point shifts slowly over thousands or millions of years. We are currently out of equilibrium, because we are absorbing significantly more energy than we are radiating, as a result of human caused changes to the atmosphere. This is no different that natural changes that have occurred in the past, just faster. The Earth will be in equilibrium again; the only question for humans is how comfortable that point will be for us, and how well we can deal with the rapid shift. Natural and artificial global dimming is perhaps worth 50% of the 296 TW. Uranium usage and its spent byproducts (none of which are good for the environment or much less human DNA friendly) isn’t much better than hydrocarbons and the gauntlet of associated elements (most of which are toxic and some can even be considered lethal in small dosages), although unlike hydrocarbon consequences it’ll be dozens of generations from now that’ll get to pay the most for the uranium fission consequences initiated today. Conventional nuclear fission produced electricity isn’t much better than 20% efficient once the all-inclusive (birth-to grave) thermodynamics and delivery efficiency is put squarely on the table. In some instances of a failed or dysfunctional reactor site(s), make that overall efficiency worth less than 10%. End result is, not much work for the total amount of thermal energy created. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...budget_prt.htm “According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future.” So, what part of this .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are you buying or not buying into? What part of burning hydrocarbons and fission derived energy is this 296 TW of AGW that doesn’t seem all that bad, that is unless your local drought and/or weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing you. In other words, if we added up all the hydrocarbon burning and fission energy we contribute to our environment, could 25%(74 TW) be about right, or is it more like 50%(148 TW)? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite UnusuallyLow Solar Activity
There's lots of renewable energy that's failsafe and doesn't create
CO2, CO, NOx and a slew of other nasty toxins, as well as not releasing precious helium, but they are not nearly as profitable nor worth going to war over. There’s also numerous methods of utilizing our energy a whole lot more efficiently and making it more reliable at the same time. Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of AGW. Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay from start to exit) is still going to become the surface or photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has proven when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as such hasn't offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with, such as when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science. Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured reduction in global heat. On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down. The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission and hydroelectric energy. “According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future.” So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal imbalance are you buying or not buying into? 296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your bank account or otherwise killing you. I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related. However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42 ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot, CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including helium) is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement (.058 W/m2), but none the less it's certainly a terrific start in the right direction. Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea, considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable, with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could become the new Eden for us. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 5, 6:36*pm, Sam Wormley wrote: Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity * *http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html * A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and 2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum.. * Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter). * * "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," Hansen said. * * According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future. See:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
Brad Guth wrote:
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isnt such a bad idea, considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable, with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could become the new Eden for us. That's even madder than your Venus fantasies. Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level even without the other ice sheets in the world. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
Mike Collins:
That's even madder than your Venus fantasies. You just now realized he's totally bonkers? Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level even without the other ice sheets in the world. Still, a 7.5 metre rise in sea level would put me very close to having beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I drive a Prius :-) OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
Davoud wrote:
Mike Collins: That's even madder than your Venus fantasies. You just now realized he's totally bonkers? Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level even without the other ice sheets in the world. Still, a 7.5 metre rise in sea level would put me very close to having beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I drive a Prius :-) OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden. I see it in a slightly different light since both my children have houses at about the 6 metre contour. (At different sides of England) and my son's family have already had to evacuate once due to a storm surge in the North Sea. The water rose to within one inch of the sea defences. And at an average 60 miles per gallon my car archives about the same mpg as a Prius but without the smugness. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite UnusuallyLow Solar Activity
On Feb 8, 1:46*pm, Davoud wrote:
Mike Collins: That's even madder than your Venus fantasies. You just now realized he's totally bonkers? Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level even without the other ice sheets in the world. Still, a 7.5 metre rise in sea level would put me very close to having beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I drive a Prius :-) OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm I was only suggesting another 50% thaw that's probably going to happen anyway, so make that 3.75 meters, and then it doesn't sound to bad. Btw; take a good look at the bedrock contour map, and then make your mind up about how Greenland and our future Eden might not be that far apart. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Radiation-Eating Fungi Could Change The Energy Balance On Earth And Beyond. | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 4 | May 27th 07 05:26 PM |
MSG-2 will advance long-term monitoring of Earth's energy balance (Forwarded) | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | December 25th 05 11:43 PM |
MSG-2 will advance long-term monitoring of Earth's energy balance(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | December 24th 05 11:12 PM |
MSG-2 will advance long-term monitoring of Earth's energy balance | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | December 20th 05 03:09 PM |
Scientists confirm earth's energy is out of balance | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | April 30th 05 09:13 AM |