/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10258995
>integral of solar activity causing temperature means, moron.
Except you're the moron for thinking integrating sunspot number gives you an energy, moron.

>total solar irradiance can be directly measured and is far too small to account for the radiation imbalance
I know, and this is what people always tell me when I bring this up. Solar irradiance and sunspot number aren't the same thing though,, so it's technically true but irrelevant. The current solar grand maximum refers to solar magnetic activity and solar wind. We know this affects earth eg by auroras, we're trying to work out how much it affects temperatures and weather. There's plenty of evidence that it does substantially, like pic related.

>only way to explain the imbalance is via the greenhouse effect
No it's not.

>If it's receiving less energy then it's radiating less too!
Only assuming constant temperature.

>where the value for the offset came from. It's just an arbitrary number to fit the integral to the temperature
Long term average solar activity corresponding to stable earth temperatures, so that higher than average activity would be positive relative to it and correspond to positive temperature differential, or lower is negative with a negative differential. I did explain this already.

>what an integral is, by definition
??
Integrals are not energy by definition. Some of them might be but it depends on what you integrate. This one definitely isn't.

> pic related you can see the temperature was stable when solar activity was below average
In your pic related solar activity's normalised (average 0) over 1850-present, but that is a period of unusually high activity for the sun, not its long term average.