Nicola Scaffetta sent several people a copy of his latest paper today, which address the various solar TSI reconstructions such as from Lean and Rind 2008 and shows contrasts from that paper. While he suggests that TSI has a role in the temperature record, he also alludes to significant uncertainty in the TSI record since 1980. He writes in email:
…note the last paragraph of the paper. There is a significant difference between this new model and my previous one in Scafetta and West [2007]. In 2007 I was calibrating the model on the paleoclimate temperature records. In this new study I “predict” the paleoclimate records by using the solar records. So, I predict centuries of temperature data, while modern GCMs do not predicts even a few years of data!
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta
Abstract
The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: and
or
. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.
Excerpts from the Conclusion (from a pre-print provided by the author)
Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009]. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.
…
This finding suggests that the climate system is hypersensitive to the climate function h(T) and even small errors in modeling h(T) (for example, in modeling how the albedo, the cloud cover, water vapor feedback, the emissivity, etc. respond to changes of the temperature on a decadal scale) would yield the climate models to fail, even by a large factor, to appropriately determine the solar effect on climate on decadal and secular scale. For similar reasons, the models also present a very large uncertainty in evaluating the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration [Knutti and Hegerl, 2008]. This large sensitivity of the climate equations to physical uncertainty makes the adoption of traditional EBMs and GCMs quite problematic.
About the result depicted in Figure 6, the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: 1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate; 2) by the findings by Scafetta [2008a] and Schwartz [2008] about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models. The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions were not used to calibrate the model, as done in Scafetta and West [2007]. Thus, the finding shown in Figure 6 referring to the preindustrial era has also a predictive meaning, and implies that climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
with a hockey stick temperature graph.
The complete paper is available here:
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stephen Wilde (07:03:13) :
Certainly the oceans do seem to perform most of the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy coming in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out. Is that in dispute or not ?
That function is performed on any and all bodies in the solar system, even the Moon, oceans or not. On the Earth is just happens that most of the surface is covered by oceans. If the Earth was covered with green cheese, then it would be correct to say that green cheese performs the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out.
Leif Svalgaard (07:50:13) :
tallbloke (02:12:52) :
Correction, the paper says 70% increase in the solar open magnetic flux over the last century, not 40%.
One little word ‘over’ is the important one. The solar magnetic field ‘over’ the 20th Century has varied in a cyclic manner with a maximum in the middle of the century. Lockwood computed his ‘centennial’ increase as the change from 1903 to 1956. It has now come down to where it started. So, no change ‘over’ the century. In addition, his values around 1900 are in error [as Rouillard has admitted] and in his latest paper [“The Rise and Fall of the Open Solar Flux (ApJ 2009)] he omits his erroneous data before 1905.
The maximum is around 1990 according to fig 1 in the pdf
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2007/2006JA012130.pdf/
So, from a minima around 1900 which would still be a minima even if the anomalously low data point were ignored, there is a big rise of 70% in the solar open flux up to 1990 (not “the middle of the century”) and then a rapid falloff to now from ~2000. Very, very significant.
The anomalously low data point around 1900 is discussed in the paper too. Of interest to me is that the low point around 1900 and high point in 1990 coincide with extrema in the solar-barycentric ‘z’ axis motion too. Around 1900 there seems to be a shift in the lag period between LOD and temperature.
Stephen Wilde (07:03:13) :
Certainly the oceans do seem to perform most of the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy coming in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out. Is that in dispute or not ?
Leif Svalgaard:
That function is performed on any and all bodies in the solar system, even the Moon, oceans or not. On the Earth is just happens that most of the surface is covered by oceans. If the Earth was covered with green cheese, then it would be correct to say that green cheese performs the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out.”
Of course it would. That must be trivially correct.
However the physical properties of liquid water and the stabilising effect of an infinitely (almost) variable hydrological cycle embedded in air and water vapour are somewhat different to the physical properties of green cheese.
In the process converting shortwave to longwave heat energy is released. The question is whether the oceans can vary the amount of heat energy generated independently of variations in solar input.
Likewise would it not be the case that the Earth’s temperature depends primarily on that interaction occurring in the oceans and not on the trivial portion of that interaction that occurs in the air ?
tallbloke (10:12:18) :
The maximum is around 1990 according to fig 1 in the pdf
Except that Fig 1 does not show the heliospheric magnetic field. Fig 5 is somewhat better, although the best representation we have is this one http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric-Magnetic-Field-Since-1835.png There is no centennial rise, there may be a hint of the ~100 Gleissberg ‘cycle’, but it would be better to say that the HMF consists of ‘pulses’ of ~50 years, so there is no significance to the 1900-1990 trend as such.
Stephen Wilde (11:12:45) :
The question is whether the oceans can vary the amount of heat energy generated independently of variations in solar input.
This depends on the time scale. On a time scale of, say one year, that may be true, but not on a time scale of centuries. If you claims this, you must justify the claim with a mechanism and/or order-of-magnitude calculation.
Likewise would it not be the case that the Earth’s temperature depends primarily on that interaction occurring in the oceans and not on the trivial portion of that interaction that occurs in the air ?
Why bring in the red herring of the air? Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude.
Jim Masterson (15:34:50) :
>> oms (01:02:34) :
The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers. <I’m very critical of K-T 1997. For example, where did they get the 40 W/m^2 for the IR window? Their calculation is nonsense. I asked Dr. Roy Spencer what the value was, and he said it was very difficult to measure/calculate but gave no value or estimate. Nowhere do I find any support for that figure, yet it’s THE figure.> D. Patterson (08:43:37) :
I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion . . . . <It’s just more hand waving.> The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi . . . . <It would be nice if these new theories would create a corrected cartoon of their heat flows. In the end, the heat flows have to balance, and I’ve not seen much of a balancing act. All they say is that K-T 1997 is wrong. Fine, so do I.> D. Patterson (09:47:11) :
The following appears to be the likely source for some of Will Alexander’s comments. <You left out the title (Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission). Someday, I’ll read it. For now, I would like to see their numbers balance.
Jim<
Yes, sorry about that. Lost it in the editing.
All of this makes a person wonder what independent experiment/s would be capable of confirming or denying the validity and accuracies for some of these foundational assumptions, such as K-T 1997?
bill (06:59:24) :
>OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?<
Displacement and a number of other factors in combinaton with displacement. Although some or much heat will be lost to overlying layers, warmer water sinks in circumstances where horizontal displacement of colder bottomwater occurs. Coriolis force, lunar tides, Solar tides, and a combination of other influences cause cold water to wellup off coasts such as Chile in South America and warm waters to subside elsewhere as the cold bottomwater is displaced in the circumglobal circulations.
Leif Svalgaard (12:26:36) :
>Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude.<
We care about it because its is often the small details overlooked when oversimplifying a problem which holds the key to an unexpected effect or combination of effects. In this case, it is untrue in the absolute sense to say, "The atmosphere is basically heated from below…." In fact, the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases within the stratosphere, where the UV catalytic photolysis reactions result in significant warming and the permanent presence of the stratosphere as an inversion layer. Although the quantitative proportion of the stratospheric versus tropospheric warming can be regarded as assymetrical, there are other known and perhaps yet unknown considerations in which the stratospheric warming exerts a disproportionate qualitative influence. The influence of the thermosphere and its inversion layaer effects are still a subject of early and ongoing research. So, eliminating them from all substantial consideration may not be warranted and constitute an oversimplification of the problem being researched.
“>OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?<"
Evaporation of warmer surface layers gives higher salinity hence density which overcomes the tiddly thermal expansion of water.
bill (06:59:24) : “The sahara must be a very cloudy place with all that sun!”
Inverse relationship – more solar = less cloud. And non-linear and non-uniform too, which is why no-one has nailed it yet. [“non-linear” : more solar = less cloud but n*solar does not necessarily give m*cloud. “non-uniform” : the effect may occur more in some places than in others.]
“OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?”
ENSO/PDO do it, for starters. D. Patterson (13:34:57) provides more suggestions. I don’t think anyone has suggested that when warm water moves down from the surface, the surface stays unchanged.
Stephen Wilde (11:12:45) :
The question is whether the oceans can vary the amount of heat energy generated independently of variations in solar input.
Leif Svalgaard:
This depends on the time scale. On a time scale of, say one year, that may be true, but not on a time scale of centuries. If you claim this, you must justify the claim with a mechanism and/or order-of-magnitude calculation.
Reply:
It appears to be true on a time scale of 25 to 30 years because that is the time scale upon which the oceanic phase shifts have been observed to occur. I rely on that observed phenomenon as the mechanism. No one has yet quantified it on an order of magnitude it so you cannot expect me to do so.
On the scale of centuries I think that in due course we may or may not find that solar variations are enough to provide a background trend upwards or downwards.
I do not currently claim an oceanic effect on century time scales but of course we might in the future find an ocean cycle that covers that time scale too.
My current concern is primarily to ascertain the reason for and effect of the 25 to 30 year phase shifts because they appear to be the primary driver of multidecadal shifts in global air temperature trends such as occurred during the 20th Century
If you accept that that particular role of the oceans occurs on a scale of one year or so then I would agree with you because of the existence of the ENSO phenomenon. However it also appears to occur on that 25 to 30 year timescale and that is seen to have a far more profound effect on global air temperature trends than shorter term ENSO events.
If we do find an ocean cycle on even longer time scales that will further reduce the need to fall back on solar variations over centuries but observations do not yet support that. If we did find such a longer term ocean cycle then that would take us close to agreement about the relative insignificance of solar variations.
What matters to me most at this point is that you do seem to accept the general principle that the slowing down or acceleration of solar energy transmission through the oceans would affect the oceanic energy content independently of solar variation.
Stephen Wilde
Likewise would it not be the case that the Earth’s temperature depends primarily on that interaction occurring in the oceans and not on the trivial portion of that interaction that occurs in the air ?
Leif Svalgaard
Why bring in the red herring of the air? Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude
Reply:
It’s not a red herring in my description because it is needed to put the role of anthropogenic CO2 in it’s correct miniscule and insignificant context. I think we are in agreement that CO2 is not a significant climate driver and that the air is heated from below and not by GHGs within the air.
Summary:
The sole remaining difference between us appears to be whether on century time scales the solar variations are sufficient to deal with multi – century scale background global temperature trends. If there are found to be century scale oceanic cycles (effectively a third level of oceanic variation) then that would square the circle and we would have no reason to disagree. That said your solar knowledge is formidable and what you say leads me to think there may well be another (third) level of oceanic variation yet to be found.
However we do not need to resolve that issue to dispose of AGW theory. The current background warming trend has been ongoing for several centuries and therefore cannot reasonably be attibuted to human CO2 emissions. For AGW purposes the clear background warming trend over the past several centuries plus the 25 to 30 year ocean phase changes are enough to explain all observed regional climate changes without involving human CO2.
Leif Svalgaard (12:26:36) :
>Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude.<
D Patterson
We care about it because its is often the small details overlooked when oversimplifying a problem which holds the key to an unexpected effect or combination of effects. In this case, it is untrue in the absolute sense to say, "The atmosphere is basically heated from below…." In fact, the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases within the stratosphere, where the UV catalytic photolysis reactions result in significant warming and the permanent presence of the stratosphere as an inversion layer. Although the quantitative proportion of the stratospheric versus tropospheric warming can be regarded as assymetrical, there are other known and perhaps yet unknown considerations in which the stratospheric warming exerts a disproportionate qualitative influence. The influence of the thermosphere and its inversion layaer effects are still a subject of early and ongoing research. So, eliminating them from all substantial consideration may not be warranted and constitute an oversimplification of the problem being researched
Comment:
This is an interesting issue from my point of view.
I have said before that the oceans appear to set up discontinuities in the energy flow and it is the job of the air circulation systems to both equalise sea surface and surface air temperatures whilst simultaneously ensuring that outgoing longwave approximately equals incoming shortwave in terms of the total energy value of each.
That is not an easy task because it means that from time to time the air circulations in the stratoshere have to restrain the rate of energy lost to space even while warming SSTs are pumping energy into the troposphere during a positive oceanic phase.
I think that when warming occurs with increasing height then that is part of the mechanism for reducing the speed of energy flow from stratosphere to space and it may well (for a time) stabilise the overall energy flow by overriding the effect of a speeded up hydrological cycle moving energy from surface to stratosphere.
There is a complex worldwide energy balancing act going on at all times so that all we observe in climate and weather is a consequence of that moment by moment balancing of energy flows through the seperate parts of the system (ocean and air).
Leif Svalgaard (12:20:42) :
tallbloke (10:12:18) :
The maximum is around 1990 according to fig 1 in the pdf
Except that Fig 1 does not show the heliospheric magnetic field. Fig 5 is somewhat better, although the best representation we have is this one http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric-Magnetic-Field-Since-1835.png There is no centennial rise, there may be a hint of the ~100 Gleissberg ‘cycle’, but it would be better to say that the HMF consists of ‘pulses’ of ~50 years, so there is no significance to the 1900-1990 trend as such.
Thanks Leif, especially for the reference to the more recent paper, much to digest in currently limited spare time.
I think it’s a bit early to draw conclusions about the meaning of the levels currently being back down to those of the start of the C20th. After all, the sun is not currently behaving in line with the theoretical expectations of the proponents of the currently dominant Babcock Leighton dynamo theory.
We may be witnessing a once in 180 year event more in line with the planetary theory of solar activity modulation.
It’s interesting to watch it all unfold before our eyes.
>tallbloke (15:57:03) :
It’s interesting to watch it all unfold before our eyes.<
It would be even more interesting if they didn't keep trying to hide things from our eye sight.
D. Patterson (13:55:26) :
In fact, the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases within the stratosphere, where the UV catalytic photolysis reactions result in significant warming and the permanent presence of the stratosphere as an inversion layer.
And that has nothing to due with the climate, so is a red herring.
tallbloke (15:57:03) :
After all, the sun is not currently behaving in line with the theoretical expectations of the proponents of the currently dominant Babcock Leighton dynamo theory.
But it is. Our prediction of a weak SC24 depends on the BL dynamo theory and more detailed calculation of the same supports that, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Jiang-Choudhuri-2007.pdf
The Sun is doing just what BL says it should be doing.
D. Patterson (13:34:57)
Sandy (14:09:23)
I already gave you salinity. BUT the hot has to sink through the rising cold transfering heat and salinity.
I alrady said I knew of places where annual inversions occur. BUT I though we were looking for inversions that were stable over decades.
If you have references for such a stable pattern why not give them?
>bill (22:20:22) :
D. Patterson (13:34:57)
I already gave you salinity. BUT the hot has to sink through the rising cold transfering heat and salinity.<
No, it does not, because you are wrongly asuming vertical mixing.
The cold water is not rising at the location where the arm water is sinking/subsiding. The cold bottomwater circulates away from the location along the seafloor to another location. The cold bottomwater upwelling along the coast of Chile began its journey from other locations far removed from the coast of Chile. When the cold water flow encounters the continental shelf, the momentum causes the denser cold water to flow upwards, displacing the warm surface waters adjacent to the coastline.
Back at the location where the cold bottomwater originated, the outflow of the cold bottomwater can cause warm topwater adjacent to a continental shelf, for one example, to subside or simk by force of gravity to fill the space vacated by the cold bottomwater. As the warm topwater subsides or sinks to refill the space vacated by the cold bottomwater, adjacent topwater may flow into the space being vacated by the sinking warm topwater. Oceanic circulation is not controlled eclusively by convection. Coriolis force, tidal, submarine topography all contribute to establishing, sustaining, and redirecting oceanic circulation patterns. Consequently the departure of cold water on the seafloor can cause the overlying layers of water to fall and flow into the oceanic depths when submarine terrain and/or other circulation patterns prevent other cold bottomwater from flowing into the space vacated by the departing mass of cold bottomwater.
Leif Svalgaard (17:05:37) :
>And that has nothing to due with the climate, so is a red herring.This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about<
Earth and the inversion layers of its stratosphere and thermosphere are extraordinary in comparison with the atmospheres of the other planets. It is this isothermal atmospheric difference in optical depth which has played a critical role in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere and maintained it as a suitable environment for all life on the planet. For you to say the increasing temperatures with altitude and unique characteristics of the stratosphere and thermosphere "has nothing to due with the climate" is so patently false and bizarre, we have to wonder what you did with the real Leif Svalgaard. Are you holding him for ransom, or what?
Geoff Sharp (06:13:19) :
Leif Svalgaard (22:10:50) :
Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
————–
TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot
Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken. Also the amount of your UV variance in the TSI is also of question. I will come back shortly with some data. Stay tuned…..
After a total pc rebuild I have had time to find some data. There looks to be conflicting reports on the level of UV change over the cycle and also on what wave length is measured. But here is one excerpt from Landscheidt that casts some doubt:
“Change in the ultraviolet radiation of the sun is much greater than in the range of visible radiation. The ultraviolet range of the spectrum lies between 100 Å and 3800 Å. Wavelengths below 1500 Å are called extreme ultraviolet (EUV). The variation in radiation between extrema of the 11-year sunspot cycle reaches 35% in the EUV- range [119], 20% at 1500 Å [21], and 7% around 2500 Å [34,97]. At wavelengths above 2500 Å, the variation reaches still 2% [21]. At the time of energetic solar eruptions, the UV-radiation increases by 16%. At a sunspot maximum the EUV-radiation raises the temperature in the Ionosphere by 300% in relation to the minimum [21]. Yet most important is that the UV-radiation below 2900 Å is completely absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere. The resultant rise in temperature is augmented by positive feed-back, as the UV-radiation also generates new ozone. Satellite observations show that the ozone content grows by 2% from sunspot minimum to maximum [113]. D. Rind and J. Overpeck are working on a model which explains how the rising temperature in the stratosphere influences the circulation in the troposphere. J. D. Haigh [29] has already assessed this effect in quantitative terms and shows that temperature in the Subtropics and North Atlantic storm tracks are especially affected.”
I have found several references to 16% variance of UV during solar eruptions, and 2% total over the cycle. Some of the EUV range looks to vary by large proportions.
Geoff Sharp (18:01:39) :
But here is one excerpt from Landscheidt that casts some doubt
Landscheidt is hardly a reliable source of anything.
I have found several references to 16% variance of UV during solar eruptions, and 2% total over the cycle. Some of the EUV range looks to vary by large proportions.
You are not thinking here. The total radiation below 400 nm is 105 W/m2. We call that ‘the UV’ [includes a negligible amount of radiation ‘below’ UV [X-rays, gamma rays]. You claimed earlier:
Geoff Sharp (19:50:14) :
“UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle”
Now you say 2% over the cycle. The 16% during solar eruptions is also wrong. 16% of 105 W/m2 is 17 W/m2. The biggest flare ever observed [in modern times] resulted in an increase of TSI [which includes UV] of 0.35 W/m2 [ http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Chree_Analysis_for_Flares ] or 0.267%. which is 60 times smaller than the 16% you quote.
Leif Svalgaard (18:48:25) :
or 0.267%. which is 60 times smaller than the 16% you quote.
Even I was wrong here. It is 0.33% [0.35W/m2 out of 105W/m2] if we assume that ALL the increase was in the UV.
Leif Svalgaard (18:53:58) :
Leif Svalgaard (18:48:25) :
or 0.267%. which is 60 times smaller than the 16% you quote.
Even I was wrong here. It is 0.33% [0.35W/m2 out of 105W/m2] if we assume that ALL the increase was in the UV.
Some of the EUV varies more than 16%….the point being that the TSI 0.1% variance doesnt tell the whole story. Even at a 2% variance total UV there is reason to think there could be climate implications. There is too much emphasis on the 0.1% figure, the data range is too short, some papers suggest the difference during the Maunder was 0.4% TSI.
Geoff Sharp (19:37:52) :
Some of the EUV varies more than 16%…
some varies by several hundred percent…
My comment was simply that your claim “UV varies 16% over the cycle” was grossly incorrect.
some papers suggest the difference during the Maunder was 0.4% TSI.
So? Any paper on this before about 2007 is suspect, obsolete, outmoded, not to be used.
Leif Svalgaard (07:49:15) :
Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :
you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.
Except when it is carried by your quantum tunneling mechanism that heats the solar corona.
Evidently, you don’t know what “quantum tunneling means”. It has nothing to do with creation of energy or the flux of energy from a low density field towards another high density field.
Quantum tunneling refers to the possibility that a particle confined behind a barrier (Plasma Helmet Streamers, for example) without an adequate amount of energy for overcoming the barrier, may cyclically appear on the other side of the barrier (the interplanetary space, for example) without permeating or collapsing it.
What you are saying is a fragment of a TV series at SciFi, i.e. imaginary stuff.
Reply: Go back to playing nice. Both of you ~ ctm
Leif Svalgaard (19:56:38) :
Geoff Sharp (19:37:52) :
Some of the EUV varies more than 16%…
some varies by several hundred percent…
My comment was simply that your claim “UV varies 16% over the cycle” was grossly incorrect.
some papers suggest the difference during the Maunder was 0.4% TSI.
So? Any paper on this before about 2007 is suspect, obsolete, outmoded, not to be used.
I didnt say total UV….and who knows what part of the UV spectrum is the most able to inflict climate changes.
So what was the big deal in 2007, did they invent a time machine and send satellites (which work) back 350 years?….. The data is shaky, no firm conclusions can be made, the 0.1% figure only relates to recent times, proxy figures are just that.