DISCLAIMER: There are still many unanswered questions about this model. I provide this essay for the purposes of discussion, but I give no pro or con endorsement – Anthony
Guest essay by David Archibald:
Back in July, David Evans released his Notch-Delay Model which uses Total Solar Irradience (TSI) to predict climate up to 10 years in advance. Soon had previously derived a possible mechanism for the 10 year delay that he found between TSI and tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. This is the lower panel of Figure 4 from his paper:
To test the hindcast match of the Notch-Delay Model, the model was stopped at December 1991 for the TSI data up to that point and at two year intervals thereafter up to December 2012 for a total of 12 prediction runs. The predictions produced were then plotted on the UAH lower troposphere anomaly record up to August 2014:
There were two big departures in the 1990s due to the Mt Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and the 1998 El Nino. Just after that el nino, the model predicted the period from 2000 to 2004 very well with a tight grouping of forecasts corresponding to the shape of the temperature profile. From 2004 to the end of the decade, the model forecasts then dispersed with average temperatures generally above what the model forecast. The run of El NiƱos during those years would have played a part in the divergence. The prediction from 2004 gave an early, accurate forecast of the temperature peak in 2013 as it would have incorporated the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 in 2003.
The prediction from 2006 was the first indication of a sharp temperature fall this decade with a 0.4Ā° fall over the last three years of the forecast. This predicted temperature decline would have been due to the sharp fall in the Ap Index in 2005. In the following prediction using data to the end of December 2008, the forecast decline increased and steepened up to a 0.8Ā° decline over four years. The subsequent model runs of 2010 and 2012 are similar with a predicted flattening out between 2018 and early next decade.
Barring major volcanic eruptions and El NiƱos, the Notch-Delay Modelās resolution looks like it is of the order of 0.3Ā° or so. That resolution matches the inter-annual variation in temperature over the last couple of decades. The next couple of years will show if it can predict major swings in climate from TSI data. If so, and I expect it to be successful, it is a major advance in climate science. Thanks to Soon and others, we were aware of the lag between solar activity and climate. David Evansā Notch-Delay Model is the first practical application of that knowledge to quantify future temperature response to changes in solar output and will assist with planning.
The problem with hindcast modeling is that the record is not nearly long enough and/or qualitative enough to produce a result with anything near sound predictive quality. I fear it may be so here.
Some of us will live to see. Don’t fear just observe with an open mind !
I seem to recall 2016 and/or 2020 were significant points. Most of the readers here, hopefully, will be alive at these dates. One thing about Fouirer’s: its useful for linear time-invarient systems which seems to be the correct method to use for solar, climate and other mysteries of the universe. And one doesn’t even need to understand much about solar science to construct a model which just might be accurate. At the very least, it beats chopping all the trees down to use their rings in some chicken bone magical chart.
Still, the solar watching is a great deal like watching a 24 hour road race in super slo-mo. I’m still waiting to see if I should build a green house to grow tomatos if the Ice Age hits in my lifetime. Otherwise, I’d suggest the old Rutgers heirloom variety.
Wiggle matching.
Rather depends on whether they have correctly identified a dominant climate forcing. Nobody is having much luck with assuming CO2 is the control lever.
Konrad, you may be right, David Evans has not thus far defined the mechanism for the notch, and a UV effect has the right timing to generate the cancellation that he postulates is occuring. In my discussion with him he agrees that a component of the insolation that reduces surface irradiance at the same time that TSI would suggest surface irradiance should peak meets the criteria for the notch filter delay, that is the effect can be phase inverted and synchronised with the effect of TSI.
In short nothing DE has done precludes your explanation
With your icons having fiddled recent temps up and earlier temps down to tilt the warming slope up, a hind cast that is too high, is probably close to right on and a forecast too low also right on for this reason. When someone does figure climate out, their first observation will be the extent of the fiddling.
Gary,
If I understand you comment correctly, you are referring to homogenization and adjustment of the surface temperature data sets. The plot above is against UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature anomaly which I think to date has been immune from data adjustment/tampering of the sort to which you refer.
Bruce
David Evans got close but he got it wrong.
It’s surface incident UV variance. Even the “leaf-blower’s” efforts can’t stamp this flat.
Below the diurnal overturing layer in the oceans is a solar accumulation/release layer. UV variance matters. It matters a lot.
Go on. Challenge the leaf blower. You’ll get some TOA tripe and surface UV incident modelled not actually recorded. I know, I’ve tried. he’s got nothing. He would best imitate the last bin he turned over. He’s empty.
Three points to note –
1. The dramatic variance in solar UV between solar cycles is a recent discovery.
2. Most climastrologists are snivelling idiots unable to run the FEA to determine what differing depth of UV/SW absorption in the oceans means to ocean temps.(let alone the empirical experiments)
3. The “leaf-blower” wishes you didn’t disturb his little satellite insurance game.
The MET seems to have addressed it,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/solar-variability
TY. That’s interesting!
Who is the “leaf-blower?”
That would be Dr. Svalgaard, whose opinion merits more respect than I see here.
Leif Svalgaard.
Numbers, numbers, numbers. What is the variance in watts/m2 at the surface? Most of UV gets absorbed in the stratosphere.
Numbers indeed. Yet numbers without residence time of input are deceptive. A small heat source below a large open pot of water will have little affect. Place a thick lid on the pot and increase the insulating qualities of the sides, (IE, greatly increase the residence time within the pot) and the small heat source will not have a many times larger affect. Knowing the residence time of the change in input is critical to understanding the affect of small changes.
typo correction… “and the small heat source will NOW have a many times larger affect
Konrad, two things:
1) Disrespecting Dr. Svalgaard makes it harder for me to give you an objective hearing that it would otherwise be. As it is, I’m strongly tempted to just conclude you’re a troll and be done with it without looking at what you’re saying at all. Others may feel this way as well, so if you’re trying to make some point about the study or UV, maybe you should reconsider the ‘something extra’ you’re flavoring the sauce with.
2) Do you have some evidence that backs up your claim about UV variance you’d like to share.
Indeed. Leif is a respected professional in the solar community. I might not agree with everything he say, but I’d never stoop to name – calling, and the fact Konrad does hurts his argument.
*note I don’t categorically rule out name – calling. For instance… Piltdown Mann.
Mark,
1. I don’t disrespect Dr. S. He was one of the most accurate with his SC 24 prediction. I do however feel fair in having a jab (in this case pre-emptive) at knee-jerk gate keeping. The TSI record discussion down thread indicates I was not too far of the mark š
The perception of gate keeping has been a long running issue. From 2009 –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/09/chicago-coolest-july-8th-in-118-years/#comment-156972
This long running game has become one of (dare I say it?) āPattern recognitionā š
2. No real world evidence besides knowing that UV strength below 50m can be as powerful as 10w/m2 and that the size of UV variance between solar cycles is only a recent discovery. (note Richards link above). The mechanism (UV variance below the ocean diurnal overturning layer) can be easily demonstrated āin the labā, but āin the wildā is far harder. Fortunately ARGO buoy data is accumulating and it reaches 700m depth. Two full solar cycles of this combined with multi frequency surface incident UV (not TOA) measurements should do the trick. Remember, we are looking for just part of just 0.8C in 150 years.
Konrad,
Thanks for your response. My ignorance regarding UV and the ‘ocean diurnal overturning layer’ are appalling (had no clue UV had any impact on ocean temps whatsoever, honestly), but you’ve given me enough of a directional that I can probably remedy that. š
“Dr. Evans is close but he got it wrong”
Have you looked at the model documentation located at sciencespeak(dot)com(slash)climate-nd-solar.html? If you had you would noted that you can modify the inputs with the “UV variance”. You can run this on a desktop. Dr. Evans has taken the climate modeler keys out of the hands of the super-computer gods and placed them in your hands. Instead of complaining RTFM.
CC Squid,
I’m not complaining, at least not too loud.
To closely model the mechanism of variance in UV absorption in the oceans below the diurnal over tuning layer, CFD would be required. The would strain the capabilities even of the computers used in the failed GCMs.
My point about Davidās model is that while the energy absorption and release cycle can be parametrised (the notch) for a fair result, just like a maths exam ā right answer, wrong working still gets an F.
My second point is that I have little personal interest in the complexities of full climate modelling. I found the UV mechanism by accident while looking at a completely different issue, how the sun alone not DWLWIR is heating the oceans. Here it is worth asking the Question āWhat is the end goal of David’s modelā? One answer is to effectively eliminate CO2 as a primary driver of climate.
I’m essentially providing a short cut to this goal. When you understand the critical role depth of solar absorption plays in ocean temperatures, you will be able to work out that AGW is a physical impossibility š
What sort of correlations does this give.? At what significance? If the model is good, it should be just as good at hindcasting from say, 1940 onwards, and should be able to show good predictions for the drop in temperatures in the 1970s (“We are entering a new Ice Age”) and the 1980s (“No we are not, we are going to cook!”)
Could be happenstance, but is there really a fair, plausible, theory to explain the apparent confirmation?
This result is consistent with the most obvious, easy answer. (See Occam). Sun causes day/night, summer/winter and long term climate. Anyone who has done control systems analysis knows that lags are to be expected. The sun heats land and sea, while atmosphere is just a slave to land/sea thermodynamics. The sea is especially like a big honking inductor. The mechanism is obvious. The oceans have large currents in 3 dimensions. Equatorial waters are continuously heated in 11 year pulses, which are transported by currents, and eventually sinking, travelling along a long conveyor belt. Heyerdahl showed this in 1947, so it should be common knowledge. A particularly hot pulse from a hundred years ago could manifest itself as an El Nino. Out side of such events, there would have to be a normal lag between TSI and climate. David Evans has created a model which seems to indicate that the data shows that it’s a 10 year lag.
Anyone who has done control systems analysis knows that lags are to be expected.
Yes, but a ten year lag? I might be able to swallow a system response with a 10 year length, but as a decaying impulse response through a low pass filter with most of the power in the first two years.
Equatorial waters are continuously heated in 11 year pulses,
Mixed in with diurnal pulses, seasonal pulses and yearly pulses. That 11 year pulse (if it exists at all) is the most subtle of the bunch.
which are transported by currents, and eventually sinking,
and mixing and conducting and cooling off,
travelling along a long conveyor
belt.bifurcating currents.
Stephen, I generally agree with what you wrote. As for where the dominant harmonics are, most of the energy is going into warming night into day, winter into summer, etc. As for the 11 year pulse, I’ve done calculations to show that the difference in energy between solar max and min is enough to explain the entire temperature variation we’ve seen so far. As for your comments about currents, you’re right. However, it doesn’t change the point.
I think an 11 year relaxation response would be more easily justified physically and would give comparable long term variation.
The UAH lower troposphere temps shouldn’t be in the 1.0C range. Yearly Atlantic 10-20N sea surface temperatures is too small of an area to use in any analysis because it will have very high variability (as all very small regions do).
Just remember, if you hind cast and match closely to HadCrut, you are probably wrong !
> Just remember, if you hind cast and match closely to HadCrut, you are probably wrong !
This is a good point. Its become clear that a significant portion of the “observed” warming is simply an artifact of several bad homogenization methods. If we find that about .2C of that “observed” warming is erroneous, that basically invalidates the work of anyone using the homogenized weather station data. Indeed, if .2C of the warming is an error, it drops the observed warming to the edge of statistical significance.
BIG NEWS Part VII: Hindcasting with the Solar Model. The notch-delay solar model hindcasts temperatures from 1770 to 2013 reasonably well, getting most of the major turning points about right, including āthe pauseā. It also reproduces some of the short term jiggles known as ānatural variationā, which the CO2 models cannot begin to predict because CO2 rises smoothly. The notch-delay solar model is a quantified, physical model ā not merely handwaving, a rough calculation, curve fitting, or an unexplained correlation. Itās existence demonstrates that the global warming of the last two centuries could have been mainly associated with TSI rather than CO2. This overcomes one of the bedrock beliefs of anthropogenic global warming, namely that the recent global warming could not plausibly be due to anything other than CO2. The notch-delay theory provides a second, alternative solution to the climate problem. No longer is climate a āone horse raceā, where you are limited to either supporting the CO2 theory or focusing on its deficiencies.
The oceans are the key.
Like Konrad, I frequently comment that there is a failure to grasp the significant difference between how DWLWIR may behave over land, and how it behaves over the oceans.
The oceans are sensitive to wavelength, and thus changes in the distribution of wavelength profiles within TSI could well play a role.
I do not see that temperatures will fall off a cliff which is what it appears is being predicted by this model. The oceans act like a great buffer, and given the immense stored capacity if there is going to be a temperature fall over the coming decade or so, the fall will be gradual.
Agreed. Any model which views a single variable as the driving “force” will overestimate reality in its output. I don’t know what is in this model but I suspect it assumes TSI wins and thus ignores everything else. Even so, if it is directionally correct there could be merit here for use by policymakers.
“Any model which views a single variable as the driving āforceā will overestimate reality in its output.”
+1
The only reason for a lag I can fathom is the oceans. That means you will need to add in ocean cycles to get a good answer vs. some fixed lag. Otherwise you are likely to go off the rails at some point. This already is apparent in the El NiƱo years.
The TSI record shown on the first Figure is not correct. Garbage in = garbage out.
Leif, from eyeballing it, it looks very similar to this one
http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grlfig4.gif
If you dispute it, can you point us all in the direction of the ‘right’ one? Thanks.
Leif;
What record should be used and do you have a record of UV variance that we could use to look at this issue?
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png
Not to trivialize Leifs graphs below, but I was reading some Thomas Jefferson letters fro the 1790’s and in many of them he commented how mild the summers where in that period. Just a curiosity.
My bad, how mild the winters were
So there is no record of UV variance just TSI?
Leif, they are differing graphs, no doubt, but what makes yours the ‘right’ one?
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 1, 2014 at 11:04 am
Leif, they are differing graphs, no doubt, but what makes yours the ārightā one?
http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
I don’t think the TSI record shown in the first figure is the record used in this model.
As discussed back in July, the record Evans used then was wrong too.
Leif
What is the maximum variability as percentage of TSI that you would except as possible over the time period being discussed here. Your graphs I think are about .1 percent.
Testing being Sky Dragons in new clothes, masochistically.
Anthony, just buy a gun.
Point it at the center of your head.
Don’t miss.
[And, for that pleasant thought, you will be cut off. .mod]
[Held here in queue for concurrence and banning. .mod]
[gets my vote too. He has been a total dick of late . . mod]
[Yes what a stupid HATEFUL call for violence comment – BANNED PERMANENTLY – get the hell off my blog. – Anthony]
Let this comment above be a lesson to people, I’m growing weary of this “anything goes” comment attitude. This is MY HOME ON THE INTERNET. And Nik has just been shown the door.
I also banned a NASA GISS researcher (Jan Perlwitz) for a similar infraction. I don’t care who you are. If you come on here and say things like that, you get the boot.
If you wouldn’t say something in polite company, don’t say it in my home here.
Clean it up people, because I’m very close to going back to all comments must be moderated.
Good on ya… I usually stop reading the comments after entries like that.
WTG! I totaly agree.
It is a shame that Nik has been banned …Im sorry you had to do that: he brought some interesting insights to the table.
well done anthony.
Needed to be done. Hatred and violence have no place in any civil discussion anywhere.
+ a few points
Damn, warmists are getting nasty lately, about killing ‘deniers’. Mann’s trial fiasco, you think? Or just that the world has started to ignore them?
Laymans question: Was the anomaly base period selected to produce the desired graph of the anomaly? What would that graph look like with different base periods?
We hope it would be the same “curve” (the same vertical displacements with respect to time if plotted on the same scale axis) as the present anomaly. But the visual “impact” the same plot can be very, very different when it is used as a propaganda tool if the “zero” of the axis is moved.
The other question is, If there is some cooling, how will it get past the Giss and Hadcrut gatekeepers to show up in the temperature series.?
Can UAH and RSS put enough pressure on them to properly reflect any cooling trend ?
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
There is good work here and this is what we need to straighten out some of the questionably work of NASA and the IPCC
Any and all energy storage systems have some sort of phase delay in their response to any input. Think inductors and capacitors for example. The earth is an energy storage mechanism. A phase delay in its temperature response is to be expected. Further, such a storage mechanism usually acts as a low pass filter of sorts. It is my opinion that the low pass nature of the earth’s temperature response is insufficient to pass the “11 year wiggles” but will pass the much lower frequencies. That and a Charlie Card gets you a ride on the Red Line in Boston.
Northern Hemisphere temperature variability is closely related to the regional direction of the Arctic jet stream Two major ādeflectorsā of the jet stream from zonal to meridional flow are semi-permanent Icelandic and Aleutian low atmospheric pressure systems, of which Icelandic is the more prominent one.
Both of these areas are characterised by presence of both atmospheric and sub-marine volcanic and other tectonic events. The well respected Loehleās global temperature reconstruction (1650 ā 1980) has good correlation with the secular magnetic changes in the Nordic saes.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LLa.gif
(note that time relationship between two moves back and forth)
It is difficult to determine if these secular changes are the part of the cause, or just a proxy for the tectonic activity in the underlying crust. Neither of two are predictable, but there is some correlation between solar and the local magnetic variability.
Extrapolation suggest a temperature fall to the 1960s levels. Note that extrapolation is not a prediction, the first is purely impersonal numerical exercise, while the second is the experience and detailed knowledge based personal opinion.
Good observation. Even better reservation and caution in your conclusion.
If Harry, Larry, Moe and Curly are consistently moving together as a crowd over several centuries, you CAN make conclusion and rationally follow their paths and changes even when all four footprints are not always visible. (Thus, if that EITHER trends on that plot were extended past 1980 up until 2014 – we “should” be able to verify or falsify the GISS “reconstructions” and revisions in the GISS/BEST/NOAA/NWS revised surface temperature infomration for similar regions in the Arctic, right? )
But!
Knowing where the group of Harry, Larry, Moe, and Curly were at various times in the past by plotting the location of Moe and Joe CANNOT tell you where they will be in the future (as individuals or as a group) UNLESS you can determine the logic and theory of their previous path: Are they walking uphill? Running on the flattest path possible? Marching in formation: Always in the same relative position to one another, but going in different directions at different times? Running as a football team: Sometimes all stopped, sometimes all moving, all moving in different directions at different times, but always in the same general location? Moving as a group, but only half the time?
Supposedly, it is the “basic physics” that will tell us the strategy of the “movement” of the temperature record(s) over time. But it is this “basic physics” that the CAGW Catastro-phenomenomal-physicists have gotten dead wrong every time they make a prediction!
And, the “basic physics” as Leif properly requires, might be “right” – but ONLY under “some” ideal basic-physics theoretical conditions that ARE duplicated in the “theoretical” physics of the computer climate models.!
To make another analogy: One does NOT need to know the theoretical nor the absolute details of all of the electro-magnetic physics and all of the finite details of metallurgy and astronomy to notice that after a loadstone wipes an iron rod, that iron rod points towards the north star, which is “fixed” for some other unknown reason permanently in one spot in the heavens! To navigate a ship or to cross the desert or the steppes or the forest, you only have to “read the compass”.
Now, that proves the loadstone trained the rod to point to the North Star, right? Perfectly duplicate-able!
Perfect theory, right? The gods must be pleased.
But that only works in lower latitudes away from the north magnetic pole. Until your ship gets so far north and so far west that the north magnetic pole is a different direction than the north axis, you could NOT tell that your theory was dead wrong. And, unless you DID question “99% scientific consensus” WHILE you were near the north magnetic pole (and survived to return home and publish your results) NOBODY else would suspect anything wrong.
And your editor would reject the transcript. Reject your funding. Send you packing.
Thanks for the comment. I am well aware of difference between things that work (trained as an engineer) and ideas that science is allowed to speculate (also trained as a scientist), fortunately I was able to earn solid living in engineering.
One of the most reliable climate related data (imho) is the 150+ years long Reykjavik atmospheric pressure, which is not subject to as many location variables as the temperature records, and in this case as instruments became more sophisticated parallel recalibration was done, and best of all, there was no need for CRU, GISS or NOAA to fiddle with data.
So what, you might say ?
Reykjavik pressure is the northern leg of the NAO, very important climate index, or not so, unless decipher what is driving it. About 3 years ago I compiled a tectonic index for the N. Atlantic, and only recently realised that integral of one matches very closely the other and both precede the good old N.A. SST by number of years (as I am just out of moderation, will post link some other time).
Since magnetics are unlikely to affect atmospheric pressure, submarine tectonics is the most likely culprit, but may never be proved, since we canāt build a prototype and test it.
Further down the thread
George E. Smith October 1, 2014 at 7:54 am said:
ādonāt see a big inductor as a correct analog for energy storage in the ocean. A capacitor model is more appropriate.ā
I agree, inductor analogue is the atmospheric pressure, it leads the SST by Ā¼ cycle, more some other time.
I’m confused. Your first graph plots ΔBz. Your second graph plots dBz/dt. I’m not sure what GT stands for.
The axes on both graphs refer to micro Teslas (μT) and not μT/t.
Your graphs imply a that the absolute value of temperature is correlated with the rate of change of the magnetic flux density with respect to time.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
delta Bz = Bz(t) ā Bz(t-20years), the unit is still microTesla
note is now added on the graph.
Loehle’s (global non-tree ring) temperature reconstruction and the magnetic field intensity change in the Nordic Seas appear to be correlated.
Changes across 10, 20 or 30 years periods follow similar pattern, but 20 years produces the highest R^2
This appears to be the original Loehle reconstruction which was found to have some errors, the corrected version by Loehle and McCulloch is here:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
Thanks for the note.
Link from the paper (page 98) didnāt work. If you have another web link to corrected data I will look into it, and update as necessary.
.
Folks can argue right or wrong all day long. There is only one test in science that has any value. Does it predict with any skill?
+1.
God have mercy, please don’t try to explain interpretations of quantum physics to me. Does your theory make useful and accurate predictions about something in reality I care about that are borne out by experimentation? Yes?!? Sold, you smooth talking devil!
Prediction based on possible solar/ocean connections, the ENSO will retreat from it’s current position around the middle of this month.
Numbers Goldminor, numbers. I’m not buying anything without them.
Well I can’t begin to fathom the legitimacy of any of the data of either of the two plotted curves, and I noted Dr. Svalgaard’s dissention on the TSI curve, so I just take what is presented, and assume that there is some basis for those two curves; Leif’s objection included.
But looking at the plots, with just my calibrated eyeball, I would say the ten year offset is incorrect, and the two curves look as if they match better with a longer delay, maybe even 5 years longer. But maybe Evans arrived at the ten years, by statistication rather than eyeball.
From a modeling point of view, I don’t see a big inductor as a correct analog for energy storage in the ocean. A capacitor model is more appropriate.
And I wouldn’t discount the influence of land storage (of energy). It seems to be fairly well known, that ground Temperatures just a few feet down are remarkably constant. The thermal capacity of rocks has to be larger than even water I would assume, and the solar spectrum absorption coefficients for rocks would be a lot higher than sea water.
Rocks can also radiate better than water in BB like fashion, so a bi-directional energy flow, would occur on land as well as in the sea.
I couldn’t even guess at what sort of thermal time constants, one could come up with. Sea Water thermal processes include evaporation as a unique process that rocks don’t have, and rocks can get a lot hotter so can cool quite fast on the surface.
But in any case, thermal processes seem to be a likely best process for 10-15 year offsets.
But some folks have shown equally good correlations to stock market indices.
But it is rare to find MSM climate alarms, that even consider ANY time offsets as a possibility. Climate can change as soon as yesterday’s news.
Climate is too complicated for me to comprehend; I plead ignorance.
George, of course, land & sea store an enormous amount of energy. I used “inductor” for my analogy because inductor current lags voltage. In a similar way, Atmospheric temperatures lag Energy Input. With a capacitor, current leads voltage.
Well as I see it, what is being stored is radiant energy which is converted to heat, and the incoming rate of energy input (TSI) is the analog of electric current not Voltage, which would relate to a pressure. So energy (charge) is being stored in a thermal mass (capacitor)and the buildup of that energy is resulting in an increase in Temperature (Voltage on the capacitor).
Inductors don’t react to current, only to change in current..
And yes, the solar energy input would lead the increase it temperature (that it causes).
If the ocean were an inductor, it would not allow the rate of energy input (current) to change. In fact the solar energy at any location can change with impunity, and that changes the rate of temperature change.
Well, how slow does an alternating current need to be to mimic a slow-rising DC current? How fast does a changing DC current need to change before it becomes an AC current?
Heat input IS a close sine wave approximation – changing from about 1407 watts/m^2 TOA in January down to 1320 in July because the earth’s orbit is elliptical. Daily changes follow a sine wave also – Well, cosine wave for yuose Aussies and southerhenerns below the equator. 8<) Over a year's cycle of air temperatures, you need to oscillate a 24 hour cycle between daily minimum and maximums to a longer yearly cycle of changing average temperatures, winds, air pressures, and humidities.
But the delays? Each real world delay in heat transfer behaves like a parallel path AND a series path resistor/inductor/capacitor in a multi-connected line of dozens of parallel paths – depending on the season and the speed of the change, each can change mode too. An inductor at slow changes of current is only a resistor, a capacitor mimics an open circuit to DC or very slow AC. OR a battery to slowing changing DC if the line voltage is lower than charge voltage.
It depends. A capacitor behaves the same with respect to voltage as an inductor behaves with respect to current. If you choose your units correctly, either may be a good or poor analogy.
Need to add a diode on the way in and some resistors on the way out. SW comes in slicing through the atmosphere at the speed of light. LW goes out by a series of mechanisms such as conductance, evaporation, and radiance constrained by layers of absorption and re-radiance.
Even then you would have a rather poor model as absorption doesn’t happen in one place (like and inductor or capacitor would represent) and it doesn’t escape by a single path either.
The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years. So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
Don’t assume its directly related to the solar cycle, just because the number is similar. My daughter is 11, but her age is not dependent on the solar cycle.
Viking Explorer;
Yes but your daughters age will change and next year she will be 12 but the cycle will still be 11 so there is no correlation over more then that one cycle.
Bob, exactly my point. I would assume that the time lag in the system has nothing to do with the solar cycle. Solar cycles may change, but the time lag will still be 10 years.
Viking Explorer;
My bad I thought you were arguing it the other way,
I agree, inductor analogue is the atmospheric pressure, it leads the SST by Ā¼ cycle, more some other time.
One cool thing about this is its early and easy falsifiability. Cool, dang, that word’s everywhere, and means anything.
=====================
Thanks, Dr. Archibald, Dr. Evans.
The Notch-Delay Solar Theory makes a testable prediction:
The Earth will start cooling now. We shall see.
I’m surprised Archibald would buy into this.
confirmation bias
Why are you surprised? He’s jumped on to pretty much every solar bandwagon in existence.
John;
And you deny every possible solar explanation because you are firmly on the CAGW bandwagon even though the evidence is piling up against you. At least he is not claim this as settled science he is putting it out as possible and for discussion, unlike the CAGW crowd who are ready to change every aspect of every ones lives based on models that don’t work.
I like my approach more then the solar notch theory. Mine is straight forward with specific parameters with a climate outcome.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
tsi off by .15 percent or up by that amount in last hundred years. .5 c rise in last hundred years equals .17 percent rise K in last hundred years
Interesting
0.1 % is about right [in yearly values]. From day-to-day the variation
can be several times higher
Leif,
Maximum possible percentage difference in average TSI between the highest average cycle and the lowest average cycle in this time period taking in to account cycle length and TSI range over the cycles?
I think there are good reasons that TSI at all solar minima is about the same, so the variation over time is just that of the solar cycle, which is between 0.05 and 0.15 %
Be careful, this isn’t good reasoning. The magnitude of TSI percentage change would not be the same as the percentage change in atmospheric temperature. Analogy: you measure a percentage change in water flowing over Niagara Falls. However, one should not expect this to relate in magnitude to the percentage change in Lake Ontario water levels.
>> However prolonged changes in the amount of water from the falls would have effect on the level of the lake.
It might, but my point is that comparing percentage changes is simply wrong. Assume, for example, if the water going over the falls in a certain time period is equal to 1% of the water in the Lake Ontario. A 10% increase in this flow represents only 10% of 1% = .1% of lake water level. A careful analysis would include the volume of water in the lake, all inflows (Niagara, rivers, rain) and all outflows (St Lawrence, evaporation).
Similarly, a careful analysis of climate would include the amount of energy in land, sea and atmosphere, all inflows and outflows. Temperature is a state variable associated with energy level, and so it is analogous to lake water level.
I was reacting to your comparison of %change in TSI to %change in Temperature. It’s like confusing power and energy, speed and position. It’s like saying “I’ve increased my speed by 10%, therefore the distance from my home should be 10% greater.
Viking Explorer;
Do you own analysis, what is the storage capacity of the system? its very close to zero so the a change in the input energy would be very close in proportion to the change in energy in the system. Like I stated below it is more like comparing the percentage change in the amount of water going over the water fall to the percentage change in the kinetic energy from the water fall.
>> storage capacity of the system? its very close to zero
Bob, you’re completely wrong about this. The earth has a very large amount of energy “stored”. If it didn’t, it’s temperature would be zero.
VikingExplorer;
Very large amount of energy stored? If you turn off the sun how long would it take for the atmosphere temperature to reach near zero degrees?
The atmosphere doesn’t have a large amount of energy stored that is why it cools so much at night. The ocean have a lot of energy yes but if you are comparing it to heating a house or running an engine, but how much is stored when compared to the energy coming if from the sun?
is there a proxy for the ratio of uvb to uva? rather than climate, i’m interested in seeing if there is a relationship between decreasing uvb and pandemics. tia.
Sal;
Solar radiance off by .1% or more by Leif’s estimate (which would be low compared to most, but i deffer to him for now) see below, Not .015%.
This solar variation would be enough to account for almost all of the temperature change over the last 100 years if you take the view of most here that its has been on the order of .5 degrees C and not the adjusted 1 to 1.5 C claimed by the alarmist. Add in spectral shift and the oceans as a dampening factor you don’t need anything else to explain what has happened. the proof of course will be in the pudding over the next 5 to 10 years we should have some answers as we have had an answer for the CAGW arguement over the last 18 years.
Viking explorer;
However prolonged changes in the amount of water from the falls would have effect on the level of the lake. hence my comment about the oceans dampening effect. The atmosphere doesn’t have the ability to store energy over long periods of time, this is why it gets cold at night.
Viking explorer;
let me put it this way your see percentage change in the amount of water going over your water fall, what would be the percentage change in the kinetic energy of the water falling over your water fall?
Bob, I’ve previously done some calculations that accounts for energy levels in land/sea/atmosphere. Based on that, I think your conclusion happens to be correct (that solar changes alone are quite sufficient to explain all the temperature variation we’ve seen). I also agree that given that the scientific method starts with unexplained phenomena, there is no rational reason to seek an alternate hypothesis, since there is nothing for it to explain.
However, what you’ve written here is either faulty or just doesn’t make sense. For example, if the atmosphere has a temperature, it’s storing energy. However, since it’s mass is so tiny, and the exposed surface to space is so large, it loses energy quickly.
In your comment at October 2, 2014 at 6:45 am, I’m at a loss to explain or understand. In my analogy, Water level of Lake Ontario is like the Temperature of the system, while water flowing over the falls is like solar energy applied to the system. Your statement makes no sense.
Viking explorer;
Lets say you have a water fall that flows a 1 gallon per hour
You have a lake that can store 1 gallon of water
you have an outlet that flows at the same rate as the water fall
the water temperature going into the fall is 10 degrees
The water in your lake is 10 degrees (it is perfectly insulated)
the water leaving your lake is 10 degrees
Now change the temperature of the water coming into your lake.
what is the temperature of the water in your lake for the first hour?
what is the temperature of the water leaving your lake for the first hour?
What is the temperature of your lake after 1 hour?
what is the temperature of the water leaving your lake after the first hour?
Your lake still has the same volume, the same storage capacity and the same thermal capacity.
Bob, either you can’t understand my analogy, or my point that comparing %change in TSI to %change in Temperature is wrong, or you are simply throwing up a smoke screen. Your response on October 2, 2014 at 11:39 am, makes no sense whatsoever.
Viking explorer;
I do get your analogy, what i am saying is that it has nothing to do with my argument the earth is not lake Ontario and solar energy is not Niagara falls and neither have anything to do with energy storage or heat in a system which is not the same thing.
let me ask you this if you half the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth what would be the effect in temperature in the atmosphere? If you eliminate the solar radiation to the earth what would be the effect in temperature of the atmosphere? How long would it take for the temperatures to reach equilibrium?
There is some progression, your trying to make the point that it is not linear and you may be right but i think its close.
Your analogy about lake Ontario is irrelevant, the input in to the lake varies all over the place but its storage capacity is so large that it is only the average that matters and your are talking volumes not energy flows they are not the same. The atmosphere has very little storage capacity and the variation in solar irradiation happen over very long periods so changes in input to the system have a relatively rapid effect (over say 11 years or so). The only modifier is the oceans ability to store energy.
My point in my last argument to you was that the earth is a very small lake and that is why what I am saying may be correct. I am not saying your Niagara falls point is wrong I am saying that it doesn’t fit this particular situation. i am not even saying that what I state in the begin is defiantly correct. it is just very interesting to me how close the two percentage changes are and if the effect of change in input from the sun is proportional to the temperature change (or even close) of the atmosphere then you need no other explanation.
The atmosphere doesn’t heat because solar radiation enters it, it heats because the solar radiation hits the earth and is converted to a different wave length of energy i.e. work is done. This energy work causes a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere and this is radiated into space as IR energy. The atmosphere doesn’t store the heat it simply acts like a resister and slows the transfer of this energy. Solar radiation is energy not heat, heat is the by product of this radiation doing work. If you lower the amount of energy entering the system you also lower the amount of work being done in the system. if you change the amount of energy entering the system over periods of decades it will have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. i believe changing the energy input to the system will have a proportional effect on the work be done in the system and thus have a proportional effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. do I know this to be true? No, but nothing you have said convinces me other wise and the argument in this articles does support it and the fact of the proportionality of the 2 items I brought up is interesting and also supportive, does this prove anything? No only time will tell.
Viking Explorer;
To put it another way, take my 11:39 post. I am saying the Earth IS THE 1 gallon bucket. What you were saying is that it could be a billion gallon bucket. I got that I just don’t agree.
>> I do get your analogy, what i am saying is that it has nothing to do with my argument the earth is not lake Ontario and solar energy is not Niagara falls and neither have anything to do with energy storage or heat in a system which is not the same thing.
This paragraph actually indicates that you do NOT understand the analogy at all. Maybe you aren’t used to abstract analogies like A is to B like C is to D.
The atmosphere is NOT the system. It’s just a component of the system. The sun provides energy to the system, not just the atmosphere. Just considering the crust of the earth alone, there is a tremendous amount of energy stored. The ocean is also a large reservoir of energy storage.
Temperature is a state variable, which reflects the energy in the system. It’s the result of Energy (initial) + Energy (inflow) – Energy (outflow). The energy in the land/sea components is extremely large.
Viking explorer
You keep say extremely large in relationship to the energy stored in the system. Again turn off the sun, then tell me how much energy is stored.
If its so large why does it cool so much at night?
Take you Lake Ontario example, turn off the falls how long would it take for you to notice the change in the level of the lake? A week, a Month. Turn off the sun for 10 hours and the temperature of the atmosphere drops so much you can feel it.
You say you have done the calculations? How much energy is there? You know the amount of energy coming from the sun and if you don’t you can get it anywhere on the web. From that you should know exactly how much energy it takes to keep the atmosphere warm, it should be pretty easy to calculate how fast the atmosphere would if you turn the sun off. If you don’t want to do it give me your calculations of the energy in the system and I will do it.
Viking explorer
I also understand that the atmosphere is not the entire system, but it is what happens to the atmosphere because of the system that is important. I make the distinctions on purpose. If the ocean is warm but the atmosphere cools anyway that is what we are concerned with.
Viking explorer
Most importantly heat is not the energy in the system it’s the by product of the energy doing work in the system. Much of the energy from the sun passes through the system with out generating heat.
>> You keep say extremely large in relationship to the energy stored in the system. Again turn off the sun, then tell me how much energy is stored. If its so large why does it cool so much at night?
Does it? The temperature of the land & sea remain roughly unchanged through the night. You simple refuse to understand that the atmosphere is only a minor component of the system. In physics, one must define the system.
The system: core, mantle, crust, lithosphere, ocean, atmosphere. There is heat transfer between all of these components. The ocean may store a lot of heat, compared to the atmosphere, but it is but a thin layer over the earth’s crust, which is a thin layer over the earth’s hot interior. The mass of the earth’s crust is only 0.374% of the Earth’s mass (5.9742Ć10 ^24 kg), but the mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35 Ć 10^18 tonnes, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. So, the ocean mass is only about 6 % of the crust mass.
The total atmospheric mass is 5.1480×10 ^18 kg. This is only 1/271 of the mass of the ocean (.023 % of earth).
However, since the heat capacity of water 4x of air, there is 1,125 times more energy in the ocean than in the atmosphere. Thermodynamically, the atmosphere is a complete slave to land & sea.
Viking explorer
Yes if I dig a hole in the ground I might stay warm. What does that have to do with the temperature of the atmosphere? All these source will transfer some energy through convection to the atmosphere (at least until their reserves are depleted) but the end result will be an atmosphere (while it last) that is marginally above absolute zero and unfortunately for you and me we live on the surface of the earth not underground. Your argument at this point is getting ridiculous the sun heats the surface, the ocean and the atmosphere. If it didn’t then it wouldn’t be colder at the poles and it wouldn’t cool very much at night and there would be no frozen ground any where. Yes they all store massive amounts of energy but not in relation to the energy coming from the sun. Geothermal energy is massive but its movement to the surface is very limit at least according to the experts, so much so that they disregard it a source to the atmospheric system ( incidentally I agree that this source is underestimated as a source of energy input to the oceans). With out the sun the temperature would start to drop immediately and would not stop until you reach what ever equilibrium geothermal energy could swing, a few tens of degrees over absolute zero maybe.
I agree that the climate system is controlled by the oceans primarily but only as long as energy keeps entering the system. It moves energy around the system and controls the weather and can store and release energy affecting the over all temperature in system for decades at a time. It is not the source of the energy and can only work to moderate the effect of the sun over time it can not counter act it.
Again you said you have done the calculations in the past, how much energy is stored in the oceans, the atmosphere and in the surface of the earth? The geothermal energy being transferred to the surface is a constant that I can get myself, I want the stored energy. Then we can compare this to the energy constantly coming from the sun and we will know then how long this stored energy could replace the energy from the and how long it would take for the atmosphere to cool to near absolute zero. Then we can discuss how fast and much a reduction in energy from the sun would effect the atmospheric temperatures.
Bob,
Do you have a science degree? Have you ever taken college level physics? I’m not saying this to imply that only people with science degrees can discuss these matters, but if you don’t have any background in science, you should at least be careful not to contradict known science. I would suggest reading about these topics before responding.
>> The atmosphere doesnāt heat because solar radiation enters it, it heats because the solar radiation hits the earth
Atmospheric molecules are few and far between, so most solar radiation goes right through it and strike land/sea. However, in the day time, all air molecules receive solar radiation, and are heated because of it. That’s why we measure temperature in the shade.
>> and is converted to a different wave length of energy
Some of the radiation is reflected from land/sea, which is how we see them. Some is absorbed, adding energy to the component. Every molecule of land/sea with a temperature is vibrating, and the electrons are along for the ride. An electron creates an electric field. A moving electron creates a magnetic field. Because of the nature of Electromagnetism, the molecular vibration of electrons causes EM energy to radiate away (typically at an IR frequency). You should not think of this as “conversion” of radiation being absorbed. The IR radiation is strictly a function of molecular structure and the temperature of the object. If the temperature doesn’t change, than neither does the amount of IR radiation. Solar radiation could be absorbed by an object, but then be conducted away, leaving the temperature unchanged. In this case, the outgoing IR radiation remains the same as it was before.
>> i.e. work is done. This energy work causes a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere
Thermodynamic Work, by definition, does not include any energy transferred between systems as heat. In this case, Work performed is the expansion of the volume of air (adiabatic), increasing buoyancy, resulting in rising air (i.e. warm air rises).
>> The atmosphere doesnāt store the heat it simply acts like a resister and slows the transfer of this energy.
This is simply not correct. Anything with a temperature has an internal energy (“stored”). I’m an EE, but a resistor is a bad analogy for the atmosphere. There is no time delay with a resistor. Apply a voltage, current flows right away. Increase the ohms, and less current flows. For the same current, increasing the resistance increases the power transfer. None of this is true for the atmosphere.
>> Solar radiation is energy not heat, heat is the by product of this radiation doing work.
Heat is defined as the transfer of energy, so solar radiation is definitely heat. You need to use words by their scientific definition, otherwise, you risk making up your own science.
>> If you lower the amount of energy entering the system you also lower the amount of work being done in the system. if you change the amount of energy entering the system over periods of decades it will have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Agreed, I never said otherwise.
>> Yes if I dig a hole in the ground I might stay warm. What does that have to do with the temperature of the atmosphere?
The atmosphere is a thermodynamic slave of the land & sea.
>> (at least until their reserves are depleted)
You greatly underestimate the reserves and the length of time required.
>> Your argument at this point is getting ridiculous the sun heats the surface, the ocean and the atmosphere.
You seem really confused about what I’m arguing. I agree that the sun heats the land & sea, which in turn heat the atmosphere. You seem to be putting words into my mouth to imply that I’m somehow saying that the sun is not important. Far from it, I believe the sun is the primary driver of climate. I’m reacting to your “story” to support this idea, which seems to lack a firm scientific foundation.
>> With out the sun the temperature would start to drop immediately and would not stop until you reach what ever equilibrium geothermal energy could swing, a few tens of degrees over absolute zero maybe.
I agree that the temperature would drop immediately. Not that I ever said that the sun was not crucial, but most of the planets in our system are losing energy. For example, while Earth receives 1367 W/m2, Jupiter receives only 50 W/m2. Despite this, although it’s a chilly -171F at 1 bar, it’s a toasty 152F just a little ways down (@10bars).
>> I agree that the climate system is controlled by the oceans primarily but only as long as energy keeps entering the system.
I agree that solar energy input is crucial, but it’s both land and sea that are important thermodynamically.
>> I am saying the Earth IS THE 1 gallon bucket. What you were saying is that it could be a billion gallon bucket. I got that I just donāt agree.
It’s not a matter of opinion. You should be able to calculate this quite easily.
>> The geothermal energy being transferred to the surface is a constant
Please understand that it’s certainly NOT a “constant”. It’s completely dependent on delta T. On average, it’s low because the surface air temperature is a slave to the land/sea temperature.
>> how much energy is stored in the oceans, the atmosphere and in the surface of the earth?
I can’t find my previous calculations right now. I’m doing it again here quickly, so mistakes could happen. Please check my numbers. I’m just going for rough numbers here:
Atmosphere:
mass = 5.1480×10 ^18 kg, Cp ~= 1000 J/kg/K, T = 287K (assuming most of the mass is near the surface), E = 1.48 x 10^24 J
mass = 5.1480×10 ^18 kg, Cp ~= 1000 J/kg/K, T = 200K (assuming a lower average temperature), E = 1.03 x 10^24 J
Ocean:
mass = 1.4×10 ^21 kg, Cp ~= 4185 J/kg/K, T = 273K (assuming 90% of total volume is below thermocline), E = 1.6 x 10^27 J
Crust:
mass = 2.8×10 ^22 kg, Cp ~= 800 J/kg/K, T = 500K (assuming an average temperature), E = 1.1 x 10^28 J
Solar Energy:
received each day = 1.5 x 10^22 J
received each year = 5.5 x 10^24 J
Energy(crust) = 7x Energy(ocean)
Energy(ocean) = 1280x Energy(atmosphere)
Energy(ocean) = 290x Energy(solar-year)
Energy(atmosphere) = 83x Energy(solar-day)
So it is hard to accept these “ideas” when they consistently use outdated TSI graphs. Let stick with the updated TSI then we can talk but until then it is hard to agree on anything. I personally think that it is a combination of TSI, solar wind and the frequency of CME’s. All of which have an effect on the atmosphere. Just my two cents.
This sure beats dismissal of solar effect outright based on simple-minded observation of limited effect in real time without heat storage considered. Those who hate wiggle models could at least look for experimental design opportunities out of this, as in direct measures of heat storage systems in the environment and biological systems. At this rate the AMO will even get recognized in models!
Yes it’s the Sun, but who can predict how Sol will act in the future. Was the current state of Sol predicted ?
By a few such as Leif, yes!
Except their view was watered down in committee-type approach to forecasting and science.
That resolution matches the inter-annual variation in temperature over the last couple of decades. The next couple of years will show if it can predict major swings in climate from TSI data.
I love to read model predictions, and I always hope for model success. I shall await the updates eagerly.
I find it amusing that it does not match any of major El Ninos but matches all of major La Ninas.
We’ll see in three years if these predictions had any merit. In my opinion it is very unlikely that the temperature will decrease in the predicted way but I would be very pleasantly surprised if it did.
Be careful what you wish for.
This contains the Evans prediction, I think:
There are three big drops in solar radiation in the 400 years of records.
The first, in the 1600s, led to the Maunder Minimum, the coldest time in the last 400 years.
The second in Napoleonās time, led to the Dalton Minimum, the second coldest time in the last 400 years. The third started in 2004, but hasnāt led to cooling…yet.
The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years.
So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017.
The cooling will be at least 0.2Ā°C, maybe 0.5Ā°C, enough to undo global warming back to the 1950s.
The carbon dioxide and ND solar theories have been in agreement over the least century due to generally rising carbon dioxide and solar radiation, but now they sharply diverge. Only one of them can be correct, and soon weāll know which one.
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1Ā°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
If the criterion does not occur then the ND solar theory is rubbish and should be thrown away.
If it does occur then the carbon dioxide theory is rubbish, and should be thrown away.
From http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.htm – The Notch-Delay Solar Theory
(New Solar climate model: natural influences can explain the recent global warming).
I’m sorry, the correct link is http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
>> But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years
Evans is obviously wrong here. The time lag of the system is an attribute of the system, not of the input function.
If D Evans had tested his theory against CET or even Australian RAW data from 2-3 reliable reliable raw data records (Refer to J Mahorasy’s recent posts concerning this), it might make more sense. All other temperatures records have been adjusted. BTW Armagh (central Irish temp record also reliable)
Thanks Eliza. The Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset is here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
But I think it is only a proxy for global temperatures.
September (SIDC) SSN = 87.6 (monthly non smoothed) up on August (74.7)
Note that the SC23 peaked around 14 years ago, the major solar slowdown.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNbf.gif
we shouldnāt underplay its possible effect on the global or at least the N. Hemisphereās climate (may turn out to be irresponsible to have done so) where the vast majority of the human population lives.
Even if temperatures drop to 1960s, let alone to the early 1900ās, present levels of energy supply availability would be far bellow what would be required.
Building power stations, fracking reserves search, etc. should be order of the day.
There were two big departures in the 1990s due to the Mt Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and the 1998 El Nino
============
One can understand that volcano eruptions cannot be included in forecasts, as yet. But to explain away lack of conformance to reality of a recurring event like El Nino makes this model as suspect as other Climate models that can explain observations post facto.
Thanks Jo, Dr. Evans.
I have published an article on Dr. David Evans ā The Notch-Delay Solar Theory, 2014.
The English version is at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm (Black on white) and http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm (Red on black).
The Spanish version āDr. David Evans ā La TeorĆa Solar Ranuras-Retraso, 2014ā³ is at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClimaBW.htm and http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm
Correction I meant .15% not .015% for solar irradiance changes in my earlier post.
David, thanks for the post. You say:
I have never, ever seen the release of the information necessary to replicate the “Notch-Delay” model. Not to use the model, you understand. We have the model and we can do that, as you (or someone) has done.. But we need to be able to replicate the TRAINING of the model, and AFAIK we don’t have the information necessary to do that.
So when you say “the model was stopped at December 1991” ā¦ what was the training period for the model? What data was it trained on? The full dataset? The first half of the dataset? The last half?
JoNova said that the bozo-simple test had already been done, the test where you train the model on half of the data and then run it on the withheld other half of the data. She also said they were going to release those results, but as far as I know, those results were never released either. So we have neither the information necessary to build and test the model, nor the results from the tests the authors admit were done but which remain unpublished..
So if you or anyone else is under the misapprehension that what David Evans, Joanne Nova, and you yourself are doing is science, I fear I must disabuse you. It will become science when they release, not the model, but the method used to build and test the model. Until then it’s just apocryphal stories, just an advertisement and not a study at all ā¦
w.
PSāWhen David Evans first posted the theory, I and others said, but where is the information necessary to build and test the model? We were assured over and over that these folks were going to release all of the information soon, very soon. And they were going to release their test results soon, very soon.
When the model itself was published, we repeated our requests for the information necessary to investigate the calculation and setting of their nine or eleven tuned parameters, and for the results of their own testing of the model that JoNova said was already done.
As far as I know, so far we’ve gotten none of that missing information. Call me crazy, but my rule of thumb is that when someone is hiding something ā¦ it’s because they’ve got something to hide.
It appears Willis that patience is not something that you possess in abundance. But that surely is not a problem is it . . . at least for the rest of us?
I presume that you did follow closely enough to know that the model was revised following the period of on-line review.
You’re not crazy ; you just can’t wait. š
Farmer, you totally misunderstand my position. I’m not impatient. I don’t care in the slightest if David and Jo never comply with the norms of transparent, honest science by publishing their data and code. I’m not waiting for them, I’m not holding my breath until they publish. If they don’t want to be scientists, that’s up to them, and it’s no business of mine
I’m just pointing out that at present it’s still not science, no matter how much lipstick they put on it, or how much patience you have …
w.
As I have pointed out, the TSI input used is not correct, but since the process by which the model is derived is not described in enough detail [or even given by a program, which would be the usual procedure], then, as Willis points out, we cannot test the model with the correct input data. I have asked Evans to [using his secret sauce] derive a model using the correct TSI, but to no avail.
“Iām just pointing out that at present itās still not science,”
That’s fair enough. And nobody is claiming that it is science. It’s an open question I think ; can the climate be modeled so as to yield some sort of useful prediction. It’s a really interesting question.
” but to no avail.”
So far Lief. All in good time . š
farmerbraun says
So ā¦ now you’ve taken to prognosticating the future? Your “prediction” is as vague as one from Piers Corbyn. How on earth could you possibly know that Leif will get his answer “in good time”? We’ve already waited a good long time, and there is no sign of answers to either his question or mine.
In fact, you sound just like an alarmist warning us of sea level acceleration and other disasters. All of these, we are solemnly assured by folks just as full of themselves as you are, will appear “in good time” ā¦ but like the listeners to Chicken Little, some of us are getting bored with empty warnings.
So how about this. How about David Archibald and his minions such as yourself stop flogging this dead horse until the “good time” arrives? You’ve agreed it’s not science ā¦ so why are he and you pushing it before it is ready for prime time?
So, as they say, “laissez le bon temps roulez!” ā¦ and do come back and notifiy us when they do.
w.
Yeah O. K. Willis ; everything should be done within a time-frame dictated by you.
And you will be the judge of whether or not a conjecture can make it to the stage of a testable hypothesis.
It’s your world. š
But it’s possible that we have a point of agreement here:-
farmerbraun October 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Good heavens, is my writing that unclear? I didn’t dictate a time-frame, I’ve set no deadlines, that’s pure fantasy.
I just pointed out that they still have not released the data or the code.
Say what? I’ve said nothing about a “testable hypothesis”, I defy you to find anywhere I’ve discussed testable hypotheses in this thread.
I’ve merely said “no data, no code, no science”. Why not? Because without the data and the code we can’t understand and explore what someone has done. More to the point, it makes their work unfalsifiable, and thus not scientific in the slightest.
I’m sorry that you don’t seem to like that fact, but science requires transparency, which means you put out all the information, all the data, all the code, so that people can examine and investigate what the original investigators have done.
That’s how science worksā no transparency, no science, and to date, we haven’t gotten that transparency from David and Jo.
Best regards,
w.
I’ve been reading about this with interest for a time. It is not without merit. The thing we need to work on and verify are time lags. (Inductive — dynamo?).
For cooling lets say discharge lags or magnetic decay. I also believe there’s been too much interference with “adjustments” to hand us an honest result for these recent years. A good lag will kick in and the house of AGW cards will tumble.
Here’s some graphs of interest.
Lovely wiki Solar variation which looks like the climate š http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
WFT Solar and HADCRUT3 global unadjusted
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
Hard to state any case saying there is no component involved here.
– – – – – – – – –
I look forward to the process that goes forward with David Evansā Notch-Delay Model.
Reality matching is not wiggle matching.
Reality matching is science.
John
“””””……Heat is defined as the transfer of energy, so solar radiation is definitely heat. You need to use words by their scientific definition, otherwise, you risk making up your own science……”””””
Well I certainly agree that we need to use words by their correct scientific definition. So perhaps you could give us a reference to your assertion that : “Heat is defined as the transfer of energy.”
In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of “HEAT” (noun).
If that is true, then an Exxon Tanker truck is heat, by your definition, since it certainly is transporting energy, and lots of it, so the Temperature rise due to all that heat, must be readily observable. How much would you expect to observe, with say a 10,000 gallon tanker truck, full of gasoline ??
But then maybe you have been working at this a lot longer than I have, so you might have encountered sources, that I haven’t known about.
George,
You’re confusing the “transfer of energy” with the “transportation of fuel”.
“Heat is defined as energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the systems.” Sonntag, Richard, Introduction to Thermodynamics 2nd Edition, Section 4.7 Definition of Heat, page 76
“heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object.” (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat)
Wikipedia: Heat, in physics, is a fundamental process in which an amount of energy flows spontaneously from hotter to colder objects.
Physicist James Clerk Maxwell, in his 1871 classic Theory of Heat.. ..Maxwell outlined four stipulations for the definition of heat: It is something which may be transferred from one body to another, according to the second law of thermodynamics.
Referring to radiation, Maxwell writes: “In Radiation, the hotter body loses heat, and the colder body receives heat by means of a process occurring in some intervening medium which does not itself thereby become hot.”
No response George?
I let a couple of days go by to let it sink in. I’m having a hard reconciling the following statement with reality:
“In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of āHEATā (noun).”
What kind of job is a “Professional Physicist”? Are you working at one of the very few national laboratories? What’s your specialty? I’m trying to imagine what kind of job or background you could have to be a “working Professional Physicist” and be ignorant of thermodynamics, Maxwell, etc. You seemed pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to come up with references to the definition to “Heat”. It’s been 33 years since I took college courses, but I simply reached over and grabbed my textbook on Thermo from back then. I’ve got 99 problems, but forgetting the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn’t one of them.
Well VE you are doing a lot of guessing. I never suggested, or imagined that you couldn’t come up with a definition of “Heat” (noun) or many of them. And I actually have work to do (yes as a Professional Physicist in Industry) , so I don’t spend all of my time here reading your dissertations, so I am not confusing anything with anything else.
So I read up on one of your learned sources.
“””””….. Heat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a type of transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one. For for other uses, see Heat (disambiguation).
Page move-protected
In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system……”””””
“”…In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. …””
”””In physics, heating is …””
Last time I studied English language (in 1954) This would be described as a definition of >> HEATING <> HEAT << a NOUN ; ie person, place, or thing.
This definition of "HEAT" (Noun) will get you laughed out of a 4h club discussion on how to raise and care for your New Zealand White Rabbit. No such animal exists in New Zealand or ever has.
And a tanker truck, is transporting "Fuel" as you say, which is a source of stored chemical energy; just as a photon is a source of stored Electro-magnetic energy. Hydrocarbon molecules are as inert, and sedentary as are photons, but each is capable of doing work when released, either by interacting with matter in the case of the photon, or initiation of the oxidation process, in the case of the molecule.
NOTE: """….other than by work or transfer of matter. …""""
That is a part of YOUR approved definition of HEAT (noun)
Also note, that most people claim that HEAT (noun) can be transported by conduction, CONVECTION, and radiation.
YOUR fabled wiki definition specifically EXCLUDES CONVECTION as a means of transport of energy , BY TRANSFER OF MATTER.
Photons or EM waves are a means of transporting energy, without involvement of ANY matter. They know absolutely nothing about Temperature or Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a macro property of systems. A photon is NOT any macro system that knows anything about thermodynamics or heat.
""""….What kind of job is a āProfessional Physicistā? Are you working at one of the very few national laboratories? Whatās your specialty? Iām trying to imagine what kind of job or background you could have to be a āworking Professional Physicistā and be ignorant of thermodynamics, Maxwell, etc…..""""
A professional physicist is a person who works professionally (for money, rather than gold medals) working on or solving problems or making things, using the various skills of Physics.
My undergraduate degree, actually had THREE majors in Physics; plus TWO in mathematics.
One of those PHYSICS majors was in fact RADIO-PHYSICS, as in Maxwell's equations and the various processes of Electromagnetic field generation, propagation and detection, Electronics, including digital and analog circuit design, antenna theory and EM wave generation and detection.
My regular PHYSICS major included ALL of the usual components of Physics: HLSE&M&M
Heat, Light, Sound, Electricity, and Magnetism, and Mechanics. The third was Mathematical Physics, which is all field theory and vector analysis and the like.
Well it's been 60 years since I took college courses (I was top of the class in English; my worst subject), and I lost every one of my college and University text books, in a box that was supposed to have gone on a boat, but never came off. So I have to remember a lot of stuff in my head. Wikipedia, is clearly an unreliable source of information since they specifically EXCLUDE convection (transfer of matter) from their definition of HEAT / heating.
But I still do remember a little bit about thermodynamics.
As for a specialty, I don't have one of those; that would take a PhD which I don't have.
But then I don't have a Resume either, and never have had, so I guess my specialty is whatever those people who know me, ask me to work on for them; as a professional for money of course.
My most recent professional physicist work for money, was finished just yesterday, over at NASA AMES on Moffet Field in Sunnyvale CA. No not actually for NASA, but a medical equipment company with that address; so I was doing optical modeling and simulations of a medical instrument device they are making, which uses optical and opto-electronic components. I'm told that they now want me to come back and work on the analog circuitry problems that the device has. Well dang if that thing doesn't actually have a real electronic thermometer in it as well, in fact it was a big part of the screw-ups in the optical system.
Quite often, Electronic engineers work on such problems (analog circuitry), but sometimes they don't know anything about the physics behind it. Luckily, I do.
But why did you ask ?
Energy can be transferred, without ANY Temperature gradients involved or even any Temperature definable. What is the Temperature of a 2.0 electron volt (eV) photon travelling from Jupiter to the earth ?? What about a 2.0 eV photon travelling from the sun to the earth; what Temperature does it have ??
Only National Lab, I ever worked at was the DSIR in Wellington NZ, but that was just a summer vacation job.
NEVER worked at any academic or government lab in the USA. I do believe I actually said already, that I worked in Industry; that's the capitalist system, that creates the products, that make the profits, that provide the taxes for the politicians to waste on the Government labs. (doing useless things like laser implosion to try and create thermo-nuclear energy.) Or climate research ! They don't apparently know about Earnshaw's theorem, which by the way, I learned about in school, and don't need to reach for a textbook to refresh
Wikipedia evidently can't even keep the parts of speech in the English language straight, confusing nouns and verbs as if the definition of one, is the definition of the other.
There are plenty of folks, who simply say, that HEAT is NOT a noun !
>> YOUR fabled wiki definition specifically EXCLUDES CONVECTION as a means of transport of energy , BY TRANSFER OF MATTER.
It’s not my definition. This is getting humorous that you ascribe to me the definition of heat, for which none other than James Clerk Maxwell is famous. Did you read this part:
“The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation”
So, convection is not excluded. Transfer of matter is referring to a system losing or gaining mass. If one pumps air into a container, it will get hotter, but it’s not because of Heat (energy transfer).
>> Energy can be transferred, without ANY Temperature gradients involved or even any Temperature definable
Two stars of equal temperature shine at each other. No net energy transfer takes place. A star and a planet shine at each other. A net energy transfer takes place.
Look, your argument is not with me, it’s with the laws of physics, which are quite precise about energy transfer. Energy-final = Energy-initial + Heat + Work + Mass-transfer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transfer)
Well VE, I’m wondering why you would believe any of the rubbish I wrote down there (up there) about “my specialty.”
I could write anything at all, and whether you believed it or not, is as much a question of YOUR credentials, as of mine. You would have to know enough, to know whether my claim was even credible.
Well I mentioned a number of “specialties”. How do you know that isn’t all poppycock.
What if I said for example, I could design and build you an integrated CMOS photo-diode detector, and current amplifier (not a trans-impedance amplifier), with a current gain of 500 at a 3dB signal bandwidth of DC to one MHz, and a 20:1 S/N ratio sensitivity of 750 pA.. And by design, I mean start with a silicon wafer, and design ALL of the required layers, and process diffusions and/or Ion Implants, for my own desired linear CMOS process, and even do all those process steps myself. Well probably not in the latest INTEL micro-processor process. That would not let me get a 1/f noise corner frequency of 50 Hz, which I would want for my circuit. Is any of that even possible.
Maybe I could make you some tuning fork quartz crystal oscillators, on a 50 micron thick Quartz crystal wafer, in either NT cut, or preferably an XY bar mode. Is that real. Why would you believe anything I might claim; well you won’t find it on Wikipedia, which WAS your choice of “HEAT” definition; not mine.
Why stay with silicon? Perhaps I could make you an integrated circuit on a GaAsP Epitaxial layer on GaAs substrates, that would emit light for you. What if I said, I would grow that epi layer myself, and of course also the single crystal GaAs substrate ingot. Well why not claim I could also build the two different reactors to do grow both of those materials, and also design the process controllers, to run those processes.
You see there’s no end to the extravagant claims, I might make, because you ask what is my specialty.
What does it matter what my specialty is; or yours for that matter. Even asking amounts to an ad hominem argument. Just take my posts on the subject of the thread as they are. You have no need to know just what MY credentials are; they aren’t relative to my posts.
As to your two stars shining equal amounts of radiant energy (photons) at each other. Suppose I instead send a He-Ne laser beam at 632.8 nm at one of your stars; maybe your star is at 6,000 K. Why don’t I also shine it onto one of those dead asteroids out there for good measure. Now tell me again how I am going to get my laser beam back from both of those objects in accordance with the second law of thermo-dynamics. Well I only sent the laser beam for one second. My location isn’t even pointing in the same direction, when either of those return laser beams get back, so I’m not going to receive ANY return power. My planet, is not infinitely thermally conductive, so even if the return land on the other side of the planet, I will never get anything to equilibrate to.
I’m sure my laser sent out photons, and I’m quite certain they, or some of them reached both the hot star and the cold asteroid. One is hotter than the earth, and the other is colder.
And I do have all of the available, in print texts of the work of James Clark, Maxwell. Of course I also claimed that I studied all of that at a university. No way you could actually check, whether that is true, or if I even have the books; or any books on thermodynamics.
Is electricity “HEAT” (noun) ? I know you can make heat with it, if you have a resistor handy. You could also make light with it, instead of heat. Well actually, you would have to turn the electricity into EM radiation at some photon energy between maybe 1.5 and 3.0 electron volt, maybe with one of those devices, I claimed I could design and build. But then you would have to look at it, because “light”, is all in your head; it isn’t electro-magnetic radiation either.
Have you ever wondered why we measure EM radiant energy or power, in joule, or watt units, but we specify “light” in talbot or lumen units, and intensities in terms of candela, rather than watt/steradian, that we use for EM radiant energy ?? Light is NOT EM radiation; it isn’t even energy; it’s entirely a psychophysical fabrication of the human eye/brain system. But we still call some EM radiation “light” as if it was real. Same thing for heat.
So I’ll ask you. What is the upper and lower frequency/wavelength limit values for EM radiant energy.
I know for example, that the fictional black body radiation, has limits from zero frequency, up to zero wavelength, which would correspond the infinite wavelength, to infinite frequency. Nobody ever observed all of that of course.
And we do have a bit of a problem there, with black body radiation, in that in arriving at his BB radiation formula, Planck asserted, quite arbitrarily, that his “quantum” of energy should have an energy (photon energy) equal to hf, or hbar(omega) if you like your frequencies in radians per second, rather than in hertz. Well oops, I see a problem The photon energy becomes infinite at the zero wavelength end of the black body spectrum.
I thought the Planck radiation formula was supposed to avoid the “ultraviolet catastrophe” that the Raleigh Jeans radiation formula gives for radiation at zero wavelength or infinite frequency. The Planck photon energy can still be infinite.
Ah you say, we never observe infinite frequency (zero wavelength) photons. Well nobody ever did, back in the day of Sir James Jeans, either. Planck’s radiation formula, is entirely theoretical describing something that nobody ever observed, or can observe, because no real physical material can ever emit real black body radiation, or even absorb all of it, if such a thing existed.
Well of course that is just my opinion VE. But if you are more comfortable with the totally anonymous Wikipedia authority, that is fine with me.
And you still don’t have the foggiest idea, what I really do, or what my “specialty” is. Why would you care ??
I wonder if there really is a person who can actually do all of that rubbish up there. I can assure you though, that I am NOT, the George E (lwood) Smith, who was awarded part of the 2009 Nobel prize in Physics for his part in the invention of the CCD photo-sensor (charge coupled device). I didn’t do that. There are actually some people (I know two; maybe three) who know both of us.
Our credentials don’t matter. The only thing that matters is scientific understanding and the scientific method. You questioned the scientific definition of Heat. You stand corrected.
>> Iām sure my laser sent out photons, and Iām quite certain they, or some of them reached both the hot star and the cold asteroid
Fundamental to thermodynamics is that it’s about NET energy transfer. AGW fanatics make this mistake as well. Some EM energy is coming from the asteroid, or we would not be able to see it. However, the NET energy transfer (Heat) is from earth and your laser to the asteroid. The star has a NET energy transfer to the earth.
>> Wikipedia, is clearly an unreliable source of information since they specifically EXCLUDE convection (transfer of matter) from their definition of HEAT / heating.
First of all, my first source was my college textbook on Thermodynamics. Second of all, I already explained to you that the Wiki definition did NOT exclude convection:
āThe pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulationā
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
So, convection is not excluded. Transfer of matter is referring to a system losing or gaining mass. If one pumps air into a container, it will get hotter, but itās not because of Heat (energy transfer).
>> What does it matter what my specialty is; or yours for that matter. Even asking amounts to an ad hominem argument. Just take my posts on the subject of the thread as they are.
If I had said “agree with me because I have credentials and you don’t”, the logic fallacy would be “Appeal to authority”, not ad hominem. However, I never did that. You were the one who claimed credentials as a “Professional Physicist”, so it was you who was making an “appeal to authority”. You said “In more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of āHEATā (noun).”
I first dealt with what you wrote by providing multiple sources establishing that Heat has been scientifically defined as I described since 1871. Later, I questioned your veracity because it was hard to imagine someone working as a “Professional Physicist” for 50 years and being ignorant of basic scientific definitions.
However, when you say “Light is NOT EM radiation; it isnāt even energy”, you basically disqualify yourself from further discussion about science.
“””””…..If I had said āagree with me because I have credentials and you donātā, the logic fallacy would be āAppeal to authorityā, not ad hominem. However, I never did that. You were the one who claimed credentials as a āProfessional Physicistā, so it was you who was making an āappeal to authorityā. You said āIn more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of āHEATā (noun).ā……”””””
Well I’m sure that a reader of this discussion, would find on re-reading, that it was YOU who specifically requested “my specialty”. so don’t come with your appeal to authority. You asked me a specific question about ‘my credentials’. I told you and everybody else that I had no such specialty. I also said as you re-iterate here: “āIn more than 50 years working as a Professional Physicist (in industry; not academia), I have never read, or even heard of such a definition of āHEATā (noun).ā……”””””
That is a simple statement of fact. If you don’t believe it, then it is up to you to show other readers, why you doubt what I said.
How many old and new papers and texts, did you cite, in YOUR appeal to authority, as to what “heat” is; even including ones dated before “the quantum” was even postulated, let alone And you DID cite Wikipedia, and that reference did specifically exclude the
transfer of material (convection) in their definition of heat. I cut and pasted their very words verbatim.
As for what is and is not “light”, I will take the definition provided by The Commission on Colorimetry, of the Optical Society of America, as my definition. And you can find that in the definitive book on that subject; The Science of Color.”
I noticed you conveniently omitted to note my question as to why “light” entities are specified in a completely different set of notions, than anything that has to do with energy. There are no joule or watt or other energy related quantities that are used to specify “light”. I told you, talbot, lumen, and candela, and some others are the units used to specify, various “light” properties, and if you don’t know that, then it is you that should disqualify yourself from discussing physics. None of those units relate to energy or power, they all relate to psychophysical responses of the human eye, which alone, can “see” light, and those units are the result of countless studies of the human eye behavior.
And I have never said or intimated anything about your credentials, other than to say that any statement, that I might make about MY “specialty” or “credentials”, would also become a “read” on your credentials. If I said my specialty was “nuclear physics”, well you might, or might not, be able to make a decision, based on the discussions, and YOUR knowledge, whether that was credible or not.
If you want to continue to believe that EM radiation is heat, that’s fine with me. I’m not the director of anyone’s beliefs.
If they are the same thing, they should be interchangeable. They are not. Conversion between them is not symmetrically bi-directional.
As was pointed out over a hundred years ago, radiation is slowly losing the battle against heat. The universe is slowly freezing to death. Luckily for us that process is slow enough to not bother us, and we will not run out of usable energy in the lifetime of our solar system.
george e. smith Oct 6, 10:05, refers to, VickingExplorer Oct 3, 11:11
I’m not qualified to coment..
db..
And those frequency/wavelength limits requested, were of course for the EM radiant energy that IS heat, and NOT something else.