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.
The system ate my last post…
Leif Svalgaard (22:36:02) :
The TSI graph is just another way of expressing the 10Be modulation or solar activity as such. And UV follows ‘TSI’ and cosmic rays too, they shouldn’t be any different, so there is nothing to wait for.
Crazy logic, its already known the UV components can vary much more than the rest of the TSI so they can not be treated the same and just ignored. The same goes for cosmic rays, these 2 factors alone leave the door well and truly open. Your sounding like the IPCC with their “science is settled” argument.
Also interesting to see the regular (172 yr) fluctuation in the 10Be graph as in the 14C record
I do not see the 172 yr fluctuation in the 10Be graph. And you have not demonstrated it in the 14C either. Try to superpose the two.
I have already shown clearly the 172 period in the 14C record…but you just blindly ignore it. I have compared the major dips in both the 14C & 10Be graph you referenced and they line up accurately, just as the strong AM disturbances that all line up with those major dips (which you also choose to ignore). Once I get my software sorted again I am planning to overlay Hong’s temperature reconstruction over both isotope records.
Here is an older graph showing both 14C & 10Be:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/holocenec1410be.jpg
Nasif Nahle (22:49:43) :
Then, the Sun doesn’t radiate energy either… Hehehe!
On energy radiated by protons:
All of these are non-thermal emissions due to changing the direction of a moving proton and do not heat the corona and are of such low intensity that they don’t matter.
What’s that luminosity of solar corona during total eclipses?The visible corona is not due to protons radiating, but to ordinary sunlight scattering of electrons in the corona. You can see the same effect if you drive a car on a foggy night. The headlight beams become visible, not because the fog is glowing white-hot, but because the drops scatter the the beam.
My hypothesis is better because it is based on observation of real phenomena.
Explain again how ‘your’ hypothesis works. It didn’t make sense before. Try again.
2. So, Neutrinos don’t radiate energy?
No. Radiative energy is in electromagnetic waves, and neutral particles like a neutrino does not emit electromagnetic waves.
I just described how the nanoflares originate:
“In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”
Oh! Sorry… Nevertheless, those nanoflares are an impossibility in the real world
And show why that is.
and have not been observed or confirmed,
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/nanoflares_boost_heat_suns_corona
if a system has magnitudes or quantities flowing through that system, it is a thermodynamic system.
A vacuous definition. Anything would qualify. The magnitude could by accident even be zero and it would still be a TD. The 2nd law works well with dQ = 0. So, a red herring.
Perhaps you must stop first
The folks have a reasonable expectation of a website with real information.
Nasif Nahle (22:57:51) :
The system ate my last post…
Perhaps a built-in filter doing its job 🙂
Geoff Sharp (23:51:48) :
Crazy logic, its already known the UV components can vary much more than the rest of the TSI so they can not be treated the same and just ignored.
UV is but a small part of TSI and cannot vary more than TSI.
The same goes for cosmic rays, these 2 factors alone leave the door well and truly open.
The variation of cosmic rays is but a few percent. The change of the cosmic ray flux due to the changing magnetic field of the Earth is MUCH larger than that due to solar activity:
e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
or http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
Your sounding like the IPCC with their “science is settled” argument.
Most of science is settled in the sense that a vast body of knowledge exists.
I have compared the major dips in both the 14C & 10Be graph you referenced and they line up accurately, just as the strong AM disturbances that all line up with those major dips (which you also choose to ignore).
No, you have not done that at all. What you need to do is for each dip produce a figure [there should only be about 12000/172 = 70] so it is a doable job well worth it [or do you consider it worthless?] that shows three curves: 14C, 10Be, and AM and show that they line up. The long, stretched out, curves with connecting lines and dots sprinkled here and there do not show anything.
Here is an older graph showing both 14C & 10Be:
And the dips disagree at times up to several hundred years, and the heavy smoothed lines have a quasi-period closer to 500 years.
You have good 14C and [now] 10Be. Show 1st, that they line up in detail [not smoothed over a century], then show that each line-up line up with your AM-curve. That is how to do it. As I said, don’t you consider this to be worthwhile? If so, do it. If not, continue as before.
Leif Svalgaard (00:25:16) :
I am truly impressed yet again at your ability to calmly answer the same question/statement for the umpteenth time, and your depth of knowledge which you willingly share. Thank you!!!!!!
Geoff Sharp (23:51:48) : Even I as a mere electronics engineer understand that TSI means TOTAL SI i.e. it is all the energy thrown out from the sun at all wavelengths that arrives at the top our atmosphere.
UV is a fraction of that total not separate from it. If Yobba rays ( http://homepages.tesco.net/~space.patrol/SpacePatrol/SlimW.htm ) were 0.0001% of the TOTAL tsi and they increased 100% then I think you would agree that Yobba rays must be pretty amazing to have any climate influence at 0.0001% of TSI increase. The amplification factor would be phenomenal!
UV (long to ultra short) changes TOTAL SI only fractionally. If the amplification factor were sufficiently large that they had SIGNIFICANT effect at these changed levels then we would be in serious trouble. The ozone layer SIGNIFICANTLY affects the amount of UV reaching the surface. The ozone hole(s) is a significant size and the increase in UV allowed through would have cooked us by now if a large amplification were present.
The only very slight possibility in solar variation that could affect climate is GCRs and clouds. But even this is unlikely. GCR do vary with solar activity. But they are always present in large numbers. But so are micro particles (dust, pollen etc). At low altitude just how many GCRs/particles are required to create a cloud?
Some of these discussions have been getting weirder by the comment – perhaps the next step is postulating the presence of yobba rays capable of tunnelling past atmosphere an ocean surface and re-appearing in the ocean depths where they create a pure energy store which one day appears at the surface!
bill (02:19:57) :
Some of these discussions have been getting weirder by the comment – perhaps the next step is postulating the presence of yobba rays capable of tunnelling past atmosphere an ocean surface and re-appearing in the ocean depths where they create a pure energy store which one day appears at the surface!
Or, like neutrinos tunneling up through the Earth to erupt on the night side… and heating the Ocean from the bottom up, hey, here is an idea: warm water is buoyant and will rise, so this mechanism certainly has legs. But it will not work when Neptune/Uranus are opposing, of course, so that explains why it was so cold on that fateful Jan. 13th, 1812.
Bill 2:19:57
I read a long time ago that cosmic rays have an outsized effect because the atmosphere is often supersaturated with water vapor, that in fact there is a dearth of dust and other cloud forming nuclei.
=========================================
kim (04:30:16) :
I read a long time ago that cosmic rays have an outsized effect because the atmosphere is often supersaturated with water vapor, that in fact there is a dearth of dust and other cloud forming nuclei.
The main modulator of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere is not solar activity, but the changing magnetic field of the Earth.
http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
shows the 14C proxy for cosmic rays as the red curve. You can see the very large variation which is unrelated to solar activity. If you subtract this variation you get the blue curve that shows the solar modulation. There you can see the Maunder Minimum and the other solar variations. In this graph: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg I show the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment directly and compared with the cosmic ray activity. You can clearly see the anticorrelation and also how puny the solar modulation is compared to the elephant in the room that is the changing geomagnetic dipole. Now if cosmic rays have such an outsized effect then the temperature should vary according to the actual cosmic flux [red curve] which it has not. The solar modulation is only a tenth of the actual change and the actual flux does not match the reconstructed temperatures for the past 12000 years.
Leif Svalgaard (00:25:16) :
And the dips disagree at times up to several hundred years, and the heavy smoothed lines have a quasi-period closer to 500 years.
You have good 14C and [now] 10Be. Show 1st, that they line up in detail [not smoothed over a century], then show that each line-up line up with your AM-curve. That is how to do it. As I said, don’t you consider this to be worthwhile? If so, do it. If not, continue as before.
I am sorry but you are making no sense in regard to the other solar factors that influence climate….so lets leave that one until the discoveries are unveiled.
I have completed a first pass on combining the 2 isotope graphs and the initial result is very promising. They look to agree with only a few anomalies, which is backing up my earlier work. There does seem to be a difference in the overall shape of the curve (the 10Be is flatter) which suggests perhaps a different outcome on the TSI level for both graphs. Which one is correct?
You will also notice the black and purple squares on the graph that represent AM in timing and strength, the purple squares with green arrows representing strong AM disturbance. Almost all the strong grand minima line up with strong AM disturbance that also line up with the Suns altered path of the era along with the exact planetary position…too many coincidences to ignore.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/solanki_sharp.png
Geoff Sharp (06:08:23) :
You will also notice the black and purple squares on the graph that represent AM in timing and strength, the purple squares with green arrows representing strong AM disturbance. Almost all the strong grand minima line up with strong AM disturbance that also line up with the Suns altered path of the era along with the exact planetary position…too many coincidences to ignore.
The ‘agreement’ is simply not there. You are not following my advice as how to present this in a convincing manner. First, you get rid of the black squares as they are just fluff that doesn’t mean anything. So, for each of your grand minima show the 10Be and 14C and AM curves. You can do one at a time and show the result here as separate posts as you make then with an explanation of how to interpret just that one minimum. Start now and work back in time.
Geoff Sharp (06:08:23) :
I am sorry but you are making no sense in regard to the other solar factors that influence climate…
No need to feel so sorry for yourself. See my reply to ‘kim’ that disposes of the cosmic rays. The UV is dealt with by ‘bill’.
Leif Svalgaard (06:02:30) :
The main modulator of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere is not solar activity, but the changing magnetic field of the Earth.
The 14C record (INTECAL98) already has the adjustments made for Earth’s magnetic field?
Also the temp record does follow the 14C record fairly closely if using a mean value. Hongs overlays to follow.
Leif Svalgaard (06:36:03) :
No need to feel so sorry for yourself. See my reply to ‘kim’ that disposes of the cosmic rays. The UV is dealt with by ‘bill’.
See my reply that disposes your reply to Kim (this is getting ridiculous). Bills comments are as vague as your own. Its not rocket science to see that there is a greater variance in UV over the cycle compared with the total TSI. You need to isolate that component and make sure it doesnt affect climate.
Leif Svalgaard (06:23:26) :
The ‘agreement’ is simply not there. You are not following my advice as how to present this in a convincing manner. First, you get rid of the black squares as they are just fluff that doesn’t mean anything. So, for each of your grand minima show the 10Be and 14C and AM curves. You can do one at a time and show the result here as separate posts as you make then with an explanation of how to interpret just that one minimum. Start now and work back in time.
I am in the process of doing that Leif, so far the results are quite astounding but no response from you? This now shows both isotope records are in agreement.
You dont quite understand the AM component, I cant plot an AM graph against an isotope record, I would have to reconfigure it somehow. What is important is to show the strength of the disturbance as well as the timing, which I have done with the purple squares (the timing is right altho just showing the centre). I have used a rough scale for the strength of the disturbance which can be improved on but basically the lower the purple square is on the graph, the stronger the disturbance.
Your suggestion is good though, I just need to come up with a better method of displaying AM.
Geoff Sharp (06:53:11) :
The 14C record (INTECAL98) already has the adjustments made for Earth’s magnetic field?
No, see: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
Since our knowledge of the Earth’s field is evolving, we cannot and do not make adjustments. Solanki’s reconstruction of SSN does have adjustments. Follows closely the blue curve in
http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
Also the temp record does follow the 14C record fairly closely if using a mean value.
Mean value? And the temperature record does not match. Going back 7000 years the cosmic ray intensity goes way up, which should give more clouds and colder temps, but temps have declined over the past 7000 years. I’ll let you find the links.
a greater variance in UV over the cycle compared with the total TSI. You need to isolate that component and make sure it doesnt affect climate.
The greater variance is of a much smaller number so the effect will be much smaller. It is like thinking the variations of the coins in my pocket are more important than my total assets.
I am in the process of doing that Leif, so far the results are quite astounding but no response from you? This now shows both isotope records are in agreement.
Because you are not doing what I asked you.The isotopes are in agreement [as I knew they would be – BTW the 10Be is the better one, because the 10Be deposition is better understood and more direct than the 14C cycle]. The issue is the match with AM.
What is important is to show the strength of the disturbance as well as the timing
You have zero, nada, zilch if you cannot put a number to or definition of the ‘disturbance’.
Your suggestion is good though, I just need to come up with a better method of displaying AM.
My suggestions are always good 🙂
You problem is not displaying AM, but putting a number or measure to ‘the disturbance’.
Geoff Sharp (06:58:09) :
See my reply that disposes your reply to Kim (this is getting ridiculous).
The ridiculous bit is that you make statements with no base on fact, because you don’t check things out:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The Holocene Climate Optimum [HCO] was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P..”
So, one more time: going back 7000 years, the cosmic rays intensity was much larger [compared to recent variations] which should mean more clouds and colder, yet at that time we had the HCO. So, the temperatures do not match the cosmic rays. But it beats me why this is such a problem for you, as it has nothing to do the your planets. What difference would it make to your ideas if Svensmark is wrong? None.
Leif Svalgaard (07:50:19)
So, one more time: going back 7000 years
I dont think that Wiki page is too accurate…a lot of the records are showing a cooling 7000 years ago. Hong (2000) shows a sharp decline in temps at 6000 years ago. More homework required there I think.
Yes the climate aspect is secondary for me, but still relevant.
Leif Svalgaard (23:55:19) :
On energy radiated by protons:
All of these are non-thermal emissions due to changing the direction of a moving proton and do not heat the corona and are of such low intensity that they don’t matter.
Your concept of radiative energy is wrong, I see. It seems you think there is no thermal energy in the solar corona, although you see the solar corona exhibits temperature. The solar corona exhibits temperature; temperature is clear indication that the system has thermal energy. This argument from you is an absolute contradiction to the observations and to what you say.
What’s that luminosity of solar corona during total eclipses?The visible corona is not due to protons radiating, but to ordinary sunlight scattering of electrons in the corona. You can see the same effect if you drive a car on a foggy night. The headlight beams become visible, not because the fog is glowing white-hot, but because the drops scatter the the beam.
Hey! Don’t shift so fast!!! Haven’t you assured the solar corona was not a thermodynamic system and it had not limits?
My hypothesis is better because it is based on observation of real phenomena.
Explain again how ‘your’ hypothesis works. It didn’t make sense before. Try again.
2. So, Neutrinos don’t radiate energy?
No. Radiative energy is in electromagnetic waves, and neutral particles like a neutrino does not emit electromagnetic waves.
I just described how the nanoflares originate:
“In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”
Oh! Sorry… Nevertheless, those nanoflares are impossibility in the real world
And show why that is.
I am taking all your twaddle to give a concrete answer below. I will answer only two of the next “questions”:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/nanoflares_boost_heat_suns_corona
That’s not a confirmation of the occurrence of nanoflares in the corona, but of a flare. The remainder of the article points to a model, that is, conjectures:
“We simulate bursts of heating and predict what the loop should look like when observed with a variety of instruments.”
A vacuous definition. Anything would qualify. The magnitude could by accident even be zero and it would still be a TD. The 2nd law works well with dQ = 0. So, a red herring.
Uh! Oh! Major mistake! Another war of definitions. My definition was taken from Glasser’s Biophysics and Engel’s Thermodynamics. So those authors are vacuous.
Perhaps you must stop first
The folks have a reasonable expectation of a website with real information.
Nasif Nahle (22:57:51) :
The system ate my last post…
Perhaps a built-in filter doing its job 🙂
Nope, it was only that they were giving you the time for thinking about your physical concepts mistakes.
My answer to other of the above Leif’s “questions”:
Leif says that neutrinos don’t emit electromagnetic waves because they are neutral, so they do not emit energy:
You’re confounding “emission of electromagnetic waves” with “ionization” and, perhaps, with “emission of Cherenkov light”. Neutrinos don’t ionize because they are neutral. Nevertheless, neutrinos emit and absorb energy because they undergo acceleration. Saying that neutrinos don’t emit and/or absorb real photons is as saying that neutrinos violate the law of conservation of energy and momentum. Neutrinos are electrically neutral, of course; however, it doesn’t mean they cannot emit energy, but only that neutrinos don’t emit Cherenkov light, which is a very different thing. Cherenkov emission is due to the alteration of an electromagnetic field when a charged particle passes through it. Now you’re digging your hole when introducing the concept of those phony “dark neutrinos”.
Leif says the solar corona is not a thermodynamic system:
Nevertheless, you describe solar corona like a Fermi liquid in a critical quantum state. You cannot say that about a non thermodynamic system, let’s say, a process or a trajectory. Everything with mass is a thermodynamic system.
Regarding your Fermi system in a quantum critical state (deduced from your descriptions), which is absolutely homogeneous and symmetric (deduced from your descriptions), it seems to be a black hole that emits energy only when matter collapses (by gulp) into it. Are you talking about a black hole in the solar corona, Leif?
With respect to my hypothesis, I am yet elaborating it and you must wait until it is finished. I’ll send you the abstract via E-mail, if you have not an inconvenient.
Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
a lot of the records are showing a cooling 7000 years ago. Hong (2000) shows a sharp decline in temps at 6000 years ago. More homework required there I think.
Many here believe the Ice core data. I therefore present this below for you.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6826/iceage040kkq1.jpg
You will note that only the grip core (greenland) shows the younger dryas. However this shows slightly elevated temps from 2000 bp to 10000bp of ~.25degC
You will also note that the vostok core shows a dip to about -.25C variation at 7000 bp (corresponding to the CO2 dip)
which to believe – Vostok – no climate optimum and no younger dryas and no “sharp decline”
– GRIP no dip?
Or are these ice core data just rough indicators. (Why on earth does the CH4 have a younger dryas but offfset by 500years?)
Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
a lot of the records are showing a cooling 7000 years ago.
Figure 5 shows a good compilation: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Holocene,Historicandrecentglobaltemperatures.pdf
As usual you tend to cherry pick an isolated point. There are records that there was cooling 7000 years ago, but that is not the point [and you know it – if not, your opinion doesn’t count], which is that between now and 7000 years ago, there was a steady increase in temperature. As http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg shows, here was indeed cooling at and before 7000 years ago. Sad that you resort to cheap tricks like that.
Nasif Nahle (09:06:36) :
The solar corona exhibits temperature; temperature is clear indication that the system has thermal energy. This argument from you is an absolute contradiction to the observations and to what you say.
The question was if the protons radiate with a spectrum representative of their temperature, and they do not, because they cannot.
Hey! Don’t shift so fast!!! Haven’t you assured the solar corona was not a thermodynamic system and it had not limits?
Your question was what the luminosity of the corona was. I told you that the light of the visible corona is not due to radiation from protons, but to scattering of ordinary sunlight by electrons.
And you leave out the observations:
“To test their model, the team observed gas emissions in the solar corona using the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer on Japan’s Hinode spacecraft.”
So those authors are vacuous.
No, just you.
Nevertheless, neutrinos emit and absorb energy because they undergo acceleration.
How do you accelerate something with no charge and almost no mass? They do not emit or absorb energy. They can pass through a light-year of solid lead without interaction.
Everything with mass is a thermodynamic system.
As I said: a vacuous definition if everything qualifies.
Are you talking about a black hole in the solar corona, Leif?
Guess where I think the black hole is? 🙂
With respect to my hypothesis, I am yet elaborating it and you must wait until it is finished.
I have better things to do.
bill (11:13:30) :
Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
So can we agree that as we go from today back in time to ~7000 years, the was a gradual warming? and that we ‘today’ are cooler than back then. If so, that disposes of the cosmic ray hypothesis, which predicts that as we go back in time to 7000 years ago, the cosmic ray flux increases dramatically [ten times as much as the solar modulation] and therefore predicts a strong and steady cooling back to then.
bill (02:19:57)
UV (long to ultra short) changes TOTAL SI only fractionally. If the amplification factor were sufficiently large that they had SIGNIFICANT effect at these changed levels then we would be in serious trouble. The ozone layer SIGNIFICANTLY affects the amount of UV reaching the surface. The ozone hole(s) is a significant size and the increase in UV allowed through would have cooked us by now if a large amplification were present.
UVA and UVB increases decrease phytoplankton (UVA: 320 – 400 most important)
UVA decreases photosynthesis by 40-50% (Cullen et al., 1992; Holm-Hansen et al)
maksimovich (12:27:43) :
UVA and UVB increases decrease phytoplankton (UVA: 320 – 400 most important)
UVA decreases photosynthesis by 40-50% (Cullen et al., 1992; Holm-Hansen et al)
But none of these have any significant influence on the climate.
Leif Svalgaard (11:41:38) :
The question was if the protons radiate with a spectrum representative of their temperature, and they do not, because they cannot.
There are thermal energy in the solar corona which causes temperature, Ok? Those protons, which you describe as isolated and closed systems, collide one with each other, right? Part of the thermal energy (internal energy) of those protons is released and transferred, correct? Now you see clearly that protons in the solar corona are not isolated, closed and paradoxical systems, but perfectly normal systems:
Two protons in the solar corona medium collide and from the collision two kinds of particles are released, one with a positive charge known as positron, and another known as neutrino, which has no electrical charge. The positrons collide with the electrons in the solar corona and completely annihilate mutually and release… Uh! Oh! Yeah, Leif! PHOTONS!
Your question was what the luminosity of the corona was. I told you that the light of the visible corona is not due to radiation from protons, but to scattering of ordinary sunlight by electrons.
And your explanation on luminosity of the solar corona fits perfectly with thermodynamic systems… No way. 🙂
And you leave out the observations:
“To test their model, the team observed gas emissions in the solar corona using the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer on Japan’s Hinode spacecraft.”
No, I didn’t. The observation of gas emissions in the solar corona are not evidence of “your” nanoflares, but only about a fragment of the electrohydrodynamical equilibrium in the Sun. No one has observed a single, solitary nanoflare in the solar corona. Nanoflares are simply hypothetical.
No, just you.
And for extension, those authors. Look for the definition of thermodynamic systems in your preferred source of knowledge, Wikipedia. 🙂
How do you accelerate something with no charge and almost no mass? They do not emit or absorb energy. They can pass through a light-year of solid lead without interaction.
Epur it has mass. Yours is not a valid argument.
Epur they interact. You have been “crossed”, at least, by 50 trillion neutrinos in the last second, for example. If they have hit on your neurons, then we have a feasible explanation for that idea of you on a black hole in the solar corona.
As I said: a vacuous definition if everything qualifies.
Tell physicists about your opinion. I cannot change the description of a thermodynamic system.
Guess where I think the black hole is? 🙂
Oh! Don’t guess any more, I found its position and origin two paragraphs above these lines. 🙂
With respect to my hypothesis, I am yet elaborating it and you must wait until it is finished.
I have better things to do.
I see… you have to invent solar coronas which are not thermodynamic systems, but black holes; dark neutrinos; temperature generated by static protons, neutrons and neutrinos, etc.