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.
tom (03:03:22) :
Do you think you could stop lacing your responses with gratuitous ad hominem attacks as they make your arguments appear much weaker than they already are?
If they are already so weak, they don’t lose much by appearing weaker still.
Geoff Sharp (00:15:02) I agree that one should not dismiss Pseudo Science out of hand. Something may be missed.
However, I do believe that where physical evidence for wrong PS is concerned one is right to dismiss and even ridicule it!
For example the change in UV is science but as a change in TSI it is very very small. For it to have an effect on global temperature there would have to be a multiplier in the loop. If this multiplier were present then there would be instability as the ozone level changes. This has not ben observed. Also being part of TSI it would leave a 11 year hall mark on the temperature. This is not visible above the general noise.
Holding energy in deep oceans is an impossible concept for me to understand. Water can be heated, be set in motion or grow biomass as a means of storing energy,I cannot see any state of water that could otherwise retain energy. It has been said that the ocean will retain TSI input during the peaks and release it in the troughs or other TSI minima. The shortest time it has to keep this energy away from the atmosphere is 5 years. Energy stored as motion would not last this long friction etc. Heat in an inversion layer perhaps could (although conduction and mixing would diminish the store amount. But I have seen no reports of a massive inversion layer remaining stable for 5 years (annual events perhaps). If you know of such research can you give a link to it? One also has to question how this energy “knows” that TSI is low and should therefore re-emerge. If stored as biomass then how does this then give up the energy when required?
If logic says the PS is BS then I am afraid PS should be dismissed
Leif Svalgaard (23:17:35) :
I have been checking into the wondrous world that opens up when one follows the links provided by your new type of thermodynamic consultant/expert. Here is an excerpt:
“The solar surface has recently been imaged in high resolution using the Swedish Solar Telescope. These images reveal a clear solar surface in 3D with valleys, canyons, and walls. Relative to these findings, the authors insist that a true surface is not being seen. Such statements are prompted by belief in the gaseous models of the Sun. The gaseous models cannot provide an adequate means for generating a real surface. Solar opacity arguments are advanced to caution the reader against
interpretation that a real surface is being imaged. Nonetheless, a real surface is required by the liquid model. It appears that a real surface is being seen. Only our theoretical arguments demand the neglect of the obvious.”
It is becoming clear where you are coming from and to what pseudo-scientific [PS] clan you belong. Of course, you are not the only such PS on this blog. One can only implore the depth of ignorance the public has sunk to.
You’re obssessed on trying to denigrate my person; however, my work is absolutely adhered to clean and clear science.
It is not my fault that you confound thermodynamic concepts. I have shown you in good terms what aspects of your arguments are plainly wrong comparing them with scientific literature: Engels, Potter, Glasser, etc. Even so, you insist on changing the basic concepts and mixing them; so, it is not me who are on the side of pseudoscience, as you are pretending to place my person, but you, Leif, who is inventing terms, unexistent systems, processes, dennying the basic physics, etc.
The readers on this blog are not stupid. They can take any book on physics, thermodynamics, thermal science, astrophysics, solar science, etc. and corroborate that I have been given real concepts about the issues touched by you and I; the readers will also corroborate that you are deeply confused on physical concepts.
If you are not just confused, but you are conscious of what you are doing, you would be doing pseudoscience, then.
See for yourself. Look for the definition of thermodynamic system, heat, thermal energy, internal energy, kinetic energy, etc., and recognize, honestly, that you are wrong.
You can continue doing ad hominem attacks. Science is supporting what I am saying. There are many books on physics, thermodynamics, solar physics, etc., and the readers and moderators perfectly know that I am right and mine is not pseudoscience, but clean, clear and real science.
Nasif Nahle (07:39:02) :
he readers and moderators perfectly know that I am right and mine is not pseudoscience, but clean, clear and real science.
And I’m sure they appreciate this to the fullest, including neutrinos emitting electromagnetic radiation and the physical impossibility of nanoflares.
Leif Svalgaard (07:46:18) :
Nasif Nahle (07:39:02) :
he readers and moderators perfectly know that I am right and mine is not pseudoscience, but clean, clear and real science.
And I’m sure they appreciate this to the fullest, including neutrinos emitting electromagnetic radiation and the physical impossibility of nanoflares.
And I sustain what I said. When you or other scientists demonstrate the existence of those imaginary nanoflares, I would accept that I was wrong.
Regarding neutrinos, it is elementary knowledge. Neutrinos are moving fast, so they contain thermal energy and momentum. From time to time, neutrinos interact with molecules and release energy. The possibility on the annihilation of neutrinos and antineutrinos is real, so don’t tell me they don’t interact with other particles:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~grb07/Presentations/Birkl.pdf
http://www.acadjournal.com/2001/v4/part4/p1/
Now it is time for you to be humble for an instant and accept that you are wrong in some thermodynamics concepts. I’m not discussing your knowledge on solar physics. Your opinions are valuable for many people in WUWT; but my knowledge and the knowledge of all my colleagues here is valuable also.
Ad hominem attacks weakens your credibility. Accepting your errors strengthen your credibility.
bill (06:04:43) :
For example the change in UV is science but as a change in TSI it is very very small. For it to have an effect on global temperature there would have to be a multiplier in the loop. If this multiplier were present then there would be instability as the ozone level changes. This has not ben observed. Also being part of TSI it would leave a 11 year hall mark on the temperature. This is not visible above the general noise.
Holding energy in deep oceans is an impossible concept for me to understand. Water can be heated, be set in motion or grow biomass as a means of storing energy,I cannot see any state of water that could otherwise retain energy. It has been said that the ocean will retain TSI input during the peaks and release it in the troughs or other TSI minima. The shortest time it has to keep this energy away from the atmosphere is 5 years. Energy stored as motion would not last this long friction etc. Heat in an inversion layer perhaps could (although conduction and mixing would diminish the store amount. But I have seen no reports of a massive inversion layer remaining stable for 5 years (annual events perhaps). If you know of such research can you give a link to it? One also has to question how this energy “knows” that TSI is low and should therefore re-emerge. If stored as biomass then how does this then give up the energy when required.”
The above post returns to issues of more interest to me.
I agree that the quantities of UV variation are very small but if it is primarily UV that gets past the region of ocean surface involved in evaporation then variations in UV could have disproportionate effects on the ocean energy balance. I previously asked which wavelengths are most successful in getting past the region of ocean surface involved in evaporation but did not get a reply.
I doubt that that would be sufficient on it’s own but the presence of multipliers such as the response of oceanic organisms and the response of internal oceanic movements could well scale it up several times.
I agree that it is misleading to propose that oceans hold energy in reserve for use at a later date.
However, solar energy is always entering and leaving the oceans. The amount of energy held by the oceans is simply a function of how long the oceans slow down the release of the energy received. The longer it is retained the higher the ocean energy content and the higher the temperature. If the solar energy were passing through the oceans with no delay at all then there would be no heat energy in the oceans, the oceans would have long ago frozen solid or would have been evaporated to space because there would be no hydrological cycle either.
I have no difficulty envisaging that the oceans themselves (possibly over very long time scales in a number of overlapping cycles) vary the speed of transmission of solar energy through those oceans before it is released to the air. If the ocean temperature is a function of the speed of transmission of energy (rather than the absolute quantity of that energy) then that largely decouples the small solar variations from climate changes except over even longer periods of time.
A constant current through a resistor will result in different amounts of heat being produced depending on the efficiency of the resistor.
There is no need for the oceans to be ‘holding’ any energy. All they need to do is accelerate or decelerate the release of energy to the air and that results in temperature changes largely independent of solar variations.
The higher the input and the lower the output the higher will be the ocean energy content and thus the temperature at any given time and vice versa.
Furthermore when the oceans release energy faster as in El Nino conditions the air warms but the oceans are in the process of losing energy unless it is being replaced even faster.
Faster release of energy to the air implies that the oceans have become a less effective resistor and less heat is produced within the oceans. Slower release of energy to the air implies that the oceans have become a more effective resistor and more heat is produced within the oceans.
But the air warms as the seas cool and the air cools as the sea warms.
Leif Svalgaard (03:51:56) :
maksimovich (23:15:02) :
‘Indeed in the satellite era accurate uv observations are only 7 years old.
We have good data for the Near UV [Ca II K-line] back to 1915’
Du Wit et al 2009
“Unfortunately, there has been no long-term and continuous measurement of the full solar UV spectrum until Feb. 2002, when the TIMED satellite started operating.”
….The altitude of strongest absorption is shown in Fig. 1, together with the average spectral irradiance. No single proxy can reproduce the solar variability over the whole UV spectrum.
Nasif Nahle (08:54:20) :
Regarding neutrinos, it is elementary knowledge. so don’t tell me they don’t interact with other particles
I tell you that they interact extremely rarely, but the issue was not interaction, but whether they emit electromagnetic radiation, and they do not. Be humble and accept that. It is, of course , a hallmark of pseudo-science to divert to irrelevant straw men [do neutrinos interact?]
you are wrong in some thermodynamics concepts.
This is a hold-over of the previous discussion of storage of heat. I pointed out that this was not a question about thermodynamics, but simple of accepted usage in climate science. I cannot be right or wrong on that, the usage is what it is and hampers communication if you try to correct that.
but my knowledge and the knowledge of all my colleagues here is valuable also.
And what knowledge would that be? radiating neutrinos? solid sun? quantum tunneling through non-existing barrier? None of this has any value.
Ad hominem attacks weakens your credibility. Accepting your errors strengthen your credibility.
I’m not fishing for credibility. And you have not demonstrated any errors. If and when you do, I’ll be glad to accept.
maksimovich (12:03:07) :
No single proxy can reproduce the solar variability over the whole UV spectrum.
This is a straw man, as we don’t need to be perfect and cover the whole spectrum, only the part that is of interest, and that would be the near UV [which we have observed back to 1915] as that is what mostly reaches the ocean. The shorter wavelengths are completely absorbed much higher up.
Stephen Wilde (10:41:32) :
A constant current through a resistor will result in different amounts of heat being produced depending on the efficiency of the resistor.
A constant current through a fixed resistor produces the same amount of heat (I^2*R). The actual temperature will depend on rate of loss of heat (thermal resistance)
UV seems to penetrate to 10 to 40 m (2nd paper). However it is absorbed all the way down. i.e. the surface will receive and absorb most UV allowing progressively less UV to pass and be absorbed as depth increases. UV does not bypass intervening layers and simply heat the water at max penetration depth.
The increased temperature generated by UV will immediately begin diffusing through the water and in general the warmer water will convect to the surface. The increased surface temperature will allow the air to heat. (1deg C increase at sea surface will allow the surface air to heat to 1 deg higher
http://spg.ucsd.edu/People/Mati/2002_Vasilkov_et_al_Opt_Eng.pdf
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_34/issue_8/1623.pdf
I do not understand how you expect heat to be generated by the water. The only way I can thik of is similar to the vortex tube – http://www.airtxinternational.com/vortex-tubes/?google&gclid=CLvTpsLwxJwCFUYA4wodh18XoA – centrifuging to separate hot and cold molecules. I’m sure you do not mean this. I need an explanation please!
bill (15:26:59)
“I do not understand how you expect heat to be generated by the water. ”
You may as well ask how heat can be generated by the metal in a resistor. It isn’t the material that generates the heat. The heat is generated when current passing through the resistor is slowed down whilst it is being transmitted through the resistor and in the process one gets a reduction in voltage plus heat.
As for the oceans the solar energy enters the oceans and in the process is slowed down which increases wavelength and generates heat within the oceans. The length of the delay is only miniscule as is the length of delay in the energy flow through any resistor but it is enough).
The loss of heat (thermal resistance) occurring in the oceans appears to be variable due to the internal behaviour of the oceans quite unlike a fixed resistor. The oceans are therefore collectively a variable resistor generating heat from the energy flow and the heat generated varies in quantity over time independently of solar variability.
The variations in the length of delay in the transmission of solar energy are miniscule but enough to show varying heat production.
The only energy from the sun which significantly affects ocean energy content is that portion which gets past the region of the surface water involved in evaporation.
As you point out that would appear to be quite a narrow band of UV (or is it near UV as per Leif). Yet that UV varies more than TSI so if only UV gets deep enough to make a difference then it is the proportionate variation in UV that matters not the proportionate variation in TSI. The deeper the solar energy (whether it be UV or more energetic wavelengths) gets into the water the more is likely to be diverted away from the surface by internal oceanic movements.
That UV varies by 6% or so does it not ? That is somewhat more than the TSI variation of 0.01% which Leif has told us about.
bill (06:04:43) :
Bill, mixing and conduction (molecular diffusion) are very slow processes in the abyssal ocean. Meanwhile, friction is so small compared to the inertial masses that you can virtually ignore it in the ocean interior.
Besides, if the energy does dissipate as heat in the interior (near rough topography or whatever), that would be a way for energy to be moved to depth.
It doesn’t need to be an inversion layer; it only needs to be substantially different from what would otherwise be there (in a completely “stable” profile) to count as stored heat or potential energy.
Imagine a smoke plume — it doesn’t need to “know” anything to fill in the holes, it just does after a long time.
As seen in this new WUWT thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/ncar-spots-the-transistor-effect-small-solar-activity-fluctuations-amplify-to-larger-climate-influences/ there is much we dont know about UV and climate effects but it is thought to play an important role.
The previous statements seem to be concentrating on the UV and how it is absorbed/used in the oceans, but as the article referenced suggests UV causes secondary processes that affect cloud cover which in turn sends less or more heat to the hot water bottle.
Stephen Wilde (16:22:58) :
oms (16:48:40) :
What are you lot talking about – it certainly is not scientific!
Solar radiation enters the ocean. It heats surface layers down to a depth where the final energy is converteed to heat (or it could be absorbed by organics for growth). You now have warmer water (the molecules vibrate more).
The oceans are therefore collectively a variable resistor generating heat from the energy flow and the heat generated varies in quantity over time independently of solar variability
What???? Ok the temperature of the water will fall over time with no energy input. Once the solar energy has been converted to heat then the temperature of the water will rise no more. The conversion of solar radiation to heat will be fast and then there will be no more solar energy to convert. The water temp will therefore not be able to rise without further energy input – turn the power to the resistor off and the resistor temperature will fall there is no other option.
UV is a small part of tsi and will have little effect on climate. Changing this a few percent will have even smaller delta effect.
Leif Svalgaard (12:13:48) :
I tell you that they interact extremely rarely, but the issue was not interaction, but whether they emit electromagnetic radiation, and they do not. Be humble and accept that. It is, of course , a hallmark of pseudo-science to divert to irrelevant straw men [do neutrinos interact?]
This is a hold-over of the previous discussion of storage of heat. I pointed out that this was not a question about thermodynamics, but simple of accepted usage in climate science. I cannot be right or wrong on that, the usage is what it is and hampers communication if you try to correct that.
And what knowledge would that be? radiating neutrinos? solid sun? quantum tunneling through non-existing barrier? None of this has any value.
I’m not fishing for credibility. And you have not demonstrated any errors. If and when you do, I’ll be glad to accept.</i
Then accept reality… You are wrong and point. You're spending too much energy and resources trying to create your own science on a phony universe plagued with dark protons, dark neutrons, dark neutrinos, dark solar corona, etc.
Leif… I insist because I am right and you are wrong. Neutrinos have movement, that is, thermal energy or kinetic energy. There is not system in the known Universe which escapes to its laws. As they "move" out from the Sun's core to the end of the known Universe, they are losing thermal energy in form of radiative energy. Your "systems" violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics. That's the same problem AGWers have.
Besides, you have made that protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc., don't radiate energy (again, you transformed them into dark matter), and that the solar corona stops being a thermodynamic system!
Get some advice from your colleague, revise those points where you are wrong and accept that you-are-wrong.
The magnetic barriers exist and most astrophysics authors talk about those barriers. Get rid of your obsession, Leif.
Sorry, I forgot to close itallics. My text is as follows:
Then accept reality… You are wrong and point. You’re spending too much energy and resources trying to create your own science on a phony universe plagued with dark protons, dark neutrons, dark neutrinos, dark solar corona, etc.
Leif… I insist because I am right and you are wrong. Neutrinos have movement, that is, thermal energy or kinetic energy. There is not system in the known Universe which escapes to its laws. As they “move” out from the Sun’s core to the end of the known Universe, they are losing thermal energy in form of radiative energy. Your “systems” violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics. That’s the same problem AGWers have.
Besides, you have made that protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc., don’t radiate energy (again, you transformed them into dark matter), and that the solar corona stops being a thermodynamic system!
Get some advice from your colleague, revise those points where you are wrong and accept that you-are-wrong.
The magnetic barriers exist and most astrophysics authors talk about those barriers. Get rid of your obsession, Leif.
By the way, as Leif has mentioned that I “believe” in a solid Sun, I have to give an explanation.
Perhaps Leif has not read about neutrinos oscillations. Neutrinos oscillations refers to the results from four experiments that demonstrated the neutrinos have two masses (two states of energy which couldn’t be explained but through the absorption-emission of energy by the particle) and that it oscillates between two energy density states. One moment it is a neutrino and the next second it is a muon neutrino. The latter cannot occur if neutrinos, which carry energy, don’t radiate or absorb energy and don’t interact with particles.
What it has to do with a solid solar core? The experiments demonstrated three possible explanations:
1. The standard model on a completely-gaseous Sun’s is wrong.
2. The neutrino model is wrong.
3. Both models are wrong.
It’s a pity that Leif consider that clean science is pseudoscience just because it shows that the Earth is not flat. The results of the experiments show that both models are wrong, i.e. the standard solar model and the neutrinos model.
Perhaps I think the natural way by which gravity took the heaviest elements just to the center of the solar system and the lighter elements of the Sun were trapped by the positive gravity appeared from the formation of that massive core, which is the way on how matter is arrayed by the gravitational forces in the observed Universe and in each one of the cells of our body.
Perhaps I think a “singularity” occurred in the solar system during its formation which took the lighter materials to the center of the solar system, which is the most weird, tricky paradox offered by some solar physicists, opposed to the laws of physics acting in the macroscopic systems.
As long as those guys, i.e. some solar physicists, insist on walking away from common sense, observation and experimentation, as long the paradoxes and singularities have to be invented about how the Universe works.
I don’t know if other bloggers have noticed it, but always when an observed process or experiment contradicts the “masters’” ideas, paradoxes and singularities pop out trying to explain that “abnormality” of nature.
Now, go on the thermo-dynamicity of the solar corona. I have to say that Leif has a wrong concept about thermodynamic systems or he has none. Every author on thermodynamics defines a thermodynamic system as any system with mass contained into real or imaginary limits. When I mentioned the word “imaginary”, Leif immediately took the word and criticized it labeling as pseudoscience. However, every author defines “imaginary” as the decision of the investigator on placing the limits. In observations of nature, we can identify the limits of a thermodynamic system as walls, membranes, the place where a process begins and where that process finishes , the space between the point of origination and the point of rupture of homogeneity and symmetry of the system occurs, etc.
For the case of the solar corona, the investigator can place the limits precisely in where the temperature begins to increase above the photosphere (internal boundary) and where the temperature of the solar corona begins to decrease in the solar corona (external boundary), for example. The studied system considered between the inner and the outer boundaries is a thermodynamic system. Those are simple things that every scientist should have in mind when talking about temperature, heat transfer, etc.
bill (18:36:22) :
UV is a small part of tsi and will have little effect on climate. Changing this a few percent will have even smaller delta effect.
That’s a wild statement Bill…you are no authority on the topic to dismiss it. The previous link I gave and the article is in complete disagreement with you.
bill (18:36:22) :
Please separate out what you found unscientific about my posts so I can respond. Thanks!
Leif Svalgaard (12:48:22) :
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.
A post by anna v on another thread shows how NASA seems to think there might be climate implications by fluctuating levels of plankton…
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
The science is far from settled…
Nasif Nahle (22:05:18) :
I think a “singularity” occurred in the solar system during its formation which took the lighter materials to the center of the solar system, which is the most weird, tricky paradox offered by some solar physicists, opposed to the laws of physics acting in the macroscopic systems.
I accept complete and total defeat. You are just too far gone.
oms, apologies, I was going to add something about your piece, but not as non-scientific. Then I forgot!
Imagine a smoke plume — it doesn’t need to “know” anything to fill in the holes, it just does after a long time.
It was this statement that I could not see the relevance for
Statements had been made that suggested that energy was stored in the ocean that emerged during lows of tsi. There was no suggestion that it was a continuous interplay between hot and cold and energy input. To me it seemed that what was being stated was that the “energy” stayed hidden and gained energy during TSI peaks to suddenly jump out during lows.
I have no problem with your smoke – it just seemed irrelevant. I have no problem with the ocean acting as a large heat capacitor reducing highs and increasing lows. I only have a problem in the idea of the ocean “slowing” energy down ie. acting as a lossless delay line!
bill (03:22:46) :
Such an interplay had been suggested earlier in the thread (and elsewhere) but probably just got lost in the noise. To me it sounds a lot more likely than hidden energy jumping anywhere. 🙂
The issue as to whether there is truly a slowing down of the flow of energy when it flows through a resistor is technically quite complex and this is the best answer I could find:
“DC (direct current) only flows in one direction. AC (alternating current) is current which changes direction back and forth with a regular period.
The electrons really do flow. If you look at the “drift”, or physical motion of an individual electron, it is much slower than you might think. In a 12-gauge copper wire carrying 20 Amps of current, the average speed of an electron is quite slow; about 1/250 of a mile per hour. There’s just so many electrons moving along so slowly that it adds up to a substantial current.
Why then, when you flip a switch, does the light turn on so quickly? That’s due to wave propagation, which is much faster. Think of waves in the deep ocean; the waves can move quite quickly, but if you’re swimming in it, you’re not moving nearly so quickly. You feel a slight up and down motion, but the wave may be propagating at 30 MPH. The water itself is not flowing along across the surface at 30 MPH, but the wave is.
It is exactly the same with electrons. While the wave is moving very quickly, the electrons themselves move very little. In the wiring of your house carrying 20 Amps of AC current, the electrons are wiggling back and forth 60 times per second over a distance of about one thousandth of an inch.
However, the wave moves much much faster, when you flip the switch, the change in voltage travels along the wiring at very near the speed of light (it’s slowed down about 30% below the speed of light by the plastic insulation on the wire).
With that prelude, to answer your questions:
– the copper wire is not typically called an ion. During current flow, an atom may hand its extra electron to the next copper atom, but it also gets an electron from the atom on the other side. Thus, each atom always stays about neutral in charge. This is described as the copper atoms forming a lattice through which the “sea” of electrons can freely flow.
– a heater does not work by converting kinetic energy of electrons to heat quite the way you describe. Instead, it uses the electrical energy available on the conductors of the power cord, which takes the form of electrostatic force of attraction which pushes electrons from the negative line to the positive line. As an electron eneters the heating element from the negative line, it feels a strong force of attraction towards the other end of the heating element, which is connected to the positive line. The electron accelerates due to this force, and speeds up somewhat, but it travels only a fraction of a millimeter before it collides with a microscopic defect in the lattice of the heating element, and decelerates and transfers its kinetic energy into vibration of the lattice of atoms of the heating element (i.e. into heat). It then accelerates again, then hits another defect.
The main thing which distinguishes the metal of the heating element from the metal of the copper wires feeding them is that the heating element has a higher density of lattice defects (i.e. higher resistance). An excellent analogy is American falls at Niagra, where the water approaches in a deep, broad stream moving relatively slowly at high potential (i.e. the negative copper wire), then tumbles down quickly under acceleration of gravity, losing potential, but hitting a bunch of rocks on the way down. Hitting each rock slows the water down, and also transfers some heat to the rock, but after each impact the water accelerates again as it falls to the next rock. Then, the water leaves at lower potential in another slow, deep stream (i.e. the positive copper wire).”
However one describes it the oceans do vary in their rate of energy release to the air, they do convert incoming solar shortwave to outgoing longwave and so it appears that they should also be generating heat energy internally independently of solar input.
Leif Svalgaard (00:01:02) :
Nasif Nahle (22:05:18) :
I think a “singularity” occurred in the solar system during its formation which took the lighter materials to the center of the solar system, which is the most weird, tricky paradox offered by some solar physicists, opposed to the laws of physics acting in the macroscopic systems.
I accept complete and total defeat. You are just too far gone.
I said “Perhaps”. Isn’t the standard theory weird, tricky and paradoxical?