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

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.

There IS no equlibrium, not as long as we have a sun with variable
output and an Earth orbit that wobbles.

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.

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”

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

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.

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

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.

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.