Weather Banter - View Single Post - Harvard astrophysicist says recent cooler temps are a result of fewer sunspots

T. Keating

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 14, 1:05 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

"http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm"
middle, A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"

From the NASA quote, "A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful
measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness
has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm.... only 0.02% lower verses previous minimum..

P.S.. Most UV is absorbed in ozone layer.

wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996."

Careful measurements, my ass. Careful measurements demand careful
reporting. A 0.1% variance in solar irradiance is "normal'. What is
happening is not "normal". What was meant (to be not disclosed) is
"that the sun's brightness has dropped by" 0.2% " at visible

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
verses 0.2%.. now how did that number change all by itself???

wavelengths and" 6% "at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar
minimum of 1996."

On a Kevin scale the earth sits "normally" at 288 K. 0.2% * 288 K. =
0.576 K. The trouble with the alleged "geniuses" at NASA is that none
of them can do high school math.

Wrong numbers.. Garbage in .. Garbage out.. end of story..

Variability is more like +- 0.5 watt/m^2 centered around 1366 watt/m^2
at the edge of earth's atmosphere.

Worse case, your math should start out using 0.07% + 0.02%.. or
0.09%.. but.. that's using the difference from the irradiance peak
instead of average..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

So the math should be .. 0.5w/1366w or 0.036% + 0.02% == 0.056%..

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/I...NCE/irrad.html