How constant is the “solar constant?”

Posted: September 19, 2018 by oldbrew in Analysis, data, IPCC, Measurement

Well…it’s complicated. The available data is less than perfect, but the ‘natural variation option’ (so to speak) is still on the table.

Andy May Petrophysicist

The IPCC lowered their estimate of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate from the already low value of 0.12 W/m2 (Watts per square-meter) given in their fourth report (AR4), to a still lower value of 0.05 W/m2 in the 2013 fifth report (AR5), the new value is illustrated in Figure 1. These are long term values, estimated for the 261-year period 1750-2011 and they apply to the “baseline” of the Schwabe ~11-year solar (or sunspot) cycle, which we will simply call the “solar cycle” in this post. The baseline of the solar cycle is the issue since the peaks are known to vary. The Sun’s output (total solar irradiance or “TSI”) is known to vary at all time scales (Kopp 2016), the question is by how much. The magnitude of short-term changes, less than 11 years, in solar output are known relatively accurately, to better…

View original post 3,387 more words

  1. Salvatore Del Prete says:

    We do not know how constant the solar constant is although some will try to provide the falsehood that we do.

    We do not know how weak TSI was during the Maunder Minimum.

    We have inadequate measurements of TSI now .much less trying to extrapolate what is was in the past.

    TSI is constantly revised.

    In addition TSI changes within themselves are but a small part of the solar/climate connection.
    Then to top it off you have the dishonest IPCC trying to downplay solar climate connections and prop up human contribution. It is so ridiculous , ludicrous and so fake, and such a waste of time, but if they want to bring it on ,bring it on.

    Not to worry however, because AGW fake theory is now in the process of ending as the global temperatures are no longer rising and better yet falling, and even better yet will continue to fall as we move forward.

    More on my thoughts below.

    It is ridiculous to even entertain the thought that non existent AGW, which has hi jacked all natural variability which was in a warming mode from the end of the Little Ice Age to 2005 had any climatic impact on this event much less the global temperature rise.

    My point will be proven now – over the next few years as global temperatures continue to fall in response to all natural climatic factors now transitioned to a cold mode.

    If there is any validity to AGW , the global temperatures should continue to rise now-next few years, but they will not because AGW does not exist.

    What controls the climate are the magnetic field strengths of both the sun and earth. When in sync as they are now(both weakening) the earth should grow colder.

    In response to weakening magnetic fields the following occurs:

    EUV light decreases – results in an weaker but more expansive polar vortex. Greater snow coverage.

    UV light decreases – results in overall sea surface oceanic temperatures decrease.

    Increase in GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS- results in changes to the global electrical circuit, cloud coverage , explosive major volcanic activity.

    In other words during periods of very weak long duration magnetic field events the earth cools due to a decrease in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud/snow coverage and explosive volcanic activity.

    Thus far all overall global temperature trends for the past year or two have been down and I expect this trend to continue.

  2. J Martin says:

    Excellent analysis.

  3. tom0mason says:

    Well said Salvatore Del Prete.
    IMO the time to watch will be the NH 2020 winter.

  4. oldbrew says:

    SdP says: In addition TSI changes within themselves are but a small part of the solar/climate connection.

    This is the point. Visible light is only one part of the spectrum.

    We also have the variable solar wind, coronal mass ejections, solar flares etc.

  5. oldbrew says:

    A phenomenological study of the timing of solar activity minima of the last millennium through a physical modeling of the Sun–Planets Interaction

    Authors: Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Willie Soon

    Solar activity Grand Minima (GM) are related to the Sun’s closest approaches to barycenter.

  6. dscott says:

    “value of 0.12 W/m2 (Watts per square-meter) given in their fourth report (AR4), to a still lower value of 0.05 W/m2 in the 2013 fifth report (AR5),”

    Nothing like trying to minimize a huge number don’t you think?

    So what’s the number we assign to the total square-meter area of the daylight side of the Earth?

    The entire Earth is 510 sq km according to accepted estimates

    So that’s 510 sq km divided by 2 = 255 sq km

    1 million sq meters in 1 sq km

    255,000,000 sq meters on daylight side of earth

    .05 W/m2 x 255,000,000 m2 = 12,500,000 W every second or hour?

  7. oldbrew says:

    dscott – it’s 510 million square km .

  8. dscott says:

    Thank you oldbrew, I was in a hurry to go to dinner and failed to edit my post before submitting.

    Yes, So that’s 510 million sq km divided by 2 = 255,000,000 sq km

    1 million sq meters in 1 sq km

    Therefore 255,000,000,000,000 sq meters on daylight side of earth

    .05 W/m2 x 255,000,000,000,000 m2 = 12,500,000,000,000 W every second, minute or hour?

    So in what physical terms can someone claim that a loss or gain of 12.5 trillion watts of power doesn’t have an effect? This is a huge amount of power.

    Every site I reference seems to suggest this value is in minutes:

    IF this W/m2 is indeed over a minute period of time, then 60 minutes x 12.5 trillion watts =

    A change of 750 trillion watt-hours (750 billion KWHRS) of power lost or gained in just one hour clearly has a profound effect on the climate. IF 1 watthour = 3600 joules, then 2,700,000,000,000,000,000 joules or 2.7 x 10 to the power of 18. I think this hourly amount even makes our atomic bombs look like fire crackers in comparison.

    Let’s remember the Climate Alarmist claim that an increase in a TRACE gas of less than 1% of the the total atmosphere called CO2 heats the planet. Any claim that a small incremental change in TSI “doesn’t” impact the climate is ludicrous given their claims for a minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere making their claim for CO2 equally ludicrous. You can’t have your cake and eat it too IF you are a reputable scientist.

  9. oldbrew says:

    dscott: well, they have been having their cake for far too long already, and the end product is rather like food waste 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s