I know I’m late to yet another wall of text, but in case you are reading this you’re to be commended for your continued patience in educating the public on solar science.

Were I in your shoes I’d disclaim with a tag line: “It’s not TSI, it’s not UV and any solar effect has years of cumulative lag. If we’re going to research the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nuclei, please don’t expect instant correlations. And anybody who mentions solar-planetary barycenters will be ignominiously plonked.”

Cheers! — leebert

Please don’t ban “skeptic” for having different views from most on your blog. If you do you will be no different from Gavin Schmidt and cronies at RealClimate. I’ve been banned from that blog as I criticised the unseemly way all there reject anyone that suggests and anything that indicates, the science underpinnng AGW may very well not be settled. This blog is, naturally, akin to my own views which are that there is a hell of a lot of stuff clearly suggesting AGW is a dodgy concept, stuff that the AGW proponents don’t analyse rationally but just dimiss abitrarily. Skeptic seems a definite AGW believer but he/she should be able to argue their side without fear or favour.

Well, I have done what I could. You decide to remain in the dark and so shall it be.

“Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago.
Thank you in anticipation.”

Your answers:
1. Moon: “What ever you think of the theory there seems to be general agreement that the Moon was MUCH closer billions of years ago as I said.”

2. Sun: ” We can today directly see sun-like stars form and measure their rotation rate [which is much faster than that of old Sol] and magnetic fields, so we know that they have a MUCH stronger stellar wind and magnetic field”

Is that all the evidence you have in answer to my question?
I don’t want to seem disrespectful but I was hoping for something more tangible than mere speculation

To answer your last question, I am after the truth. And, just because someone says they are a “scientist” and therefore should be respected is not enough for me. There are many examples of bigoted scientsts refusing to question their dogma which hides under the guise of “science”. I question everything and so should you.

For the Sun, the situation is, of course different. We can today directly see sun-like stars form and measure their rotation rate [which is much faster than that of old Sol] and magnetic fields, so we know that they have a MUCH stronger stellar wind and magnetic field. As I already explained, a strong and magnetic solar wind is the only thing that can slow the Sun’s rotation, so we know that the sun had such a wind and field.

Now, there much be a reason [or an agenda] why you are so skeptical [and hence ignorant] of this. Care to tell us what it is?

If the moon is closer than a certain distance to the earth (there is a name for this distance, which I’m sorry, I can’t remember) It is broken up by the earth’s gravity, like Saturn’s rings. This would argue against your theory would it not? Also I think there are some who would disagree with your calculations and put the adjacency of the moon to earth closer to 1 billion years. (The rate of increase is proportional to the inverse of the 6th power of the distance)

However this is all speculation and it seems the the only hard data is the gradual movement of the moon away from the earth, unless you have anything else.

Thanks again.

If so, [otherwise we back up a bit], as we go back in time, the Moon was 4 cm closer per year and the Earth was rotating faster. As the Moon was closer in the past, the tides were bigger and the friction larger, so the slow-down of the Earth and the speed-up of the Moon [because of conserved angular momentum] and hence the rate at which it moves away would be bigger. Agree?

If so, [otherwise we back up a bit], as we go further back in time the Moon was more than 4 cm closer per year. At the 4-cm/year rate the distance to the Earth [386400 km] is covered in 10 billion years, but as the rate was higher in the past it is easy to calculate that it only takes about 4 billion years for the Moon to be on top of the Earth, agree so far?

The Apollo astronauts brought moon rocks back. We can date rocks accurately and they are indeed 4 billion years old. So the moon was MUCH closer to the Earth, billions of years ago. Agree?

If so, there you have your evidence, that you yourself have concluded.

As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.
If you agreed so far, we can on to the Sun, but let us first get some feedback as how far you actually agree…

My question again. “Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago?”
We’ll come to this in due time.

As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.

Thank you once again.

We know the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 4cm per year. This is an observed fact which I do not question. However, as I understand it, we do not know how or when the moon formed or appeared in orbit about earth.

My question again. “Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago?”

As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.

Thank you once again.

You should read about Descartes “evil genius” and then try to move forward a little with your philosophy on proof etc.

Do you expect Leif to send you a photograph of the sun and the moon closer to the earth, together with the visible end of a tape measure, and the masthead of the new york times for that day billions of years ago?

“a very large body of facts, or explains a large amount of observations”

Yes. Please give evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago.

You have not done so.

I do not think that you have any.
I want obsevable facts . Not speculation.

And please, no arguments from authority. Thay are distractions to the free exchange of information.

Thank you

I don’t think you understand what scientific evidence is, or what a ‘theory’ is. A scientific theory, like the ‘theory of relativity’ or the ‘theory of evolution’, is a synthesis [in words or mathematical symbols] that encompasses a very large body of facts, or explains a large amount of observations. The solar wind and solar rotation is a good example. We can measure the rotation of many stars and their age and find invariably that young stars rotate fast, while old stars [as the Sun] rotate slowly. We can calculate from physical laws verified by laboratory experiments how much the solar wind slows down a star with age and we find that a very strong wind is needed in the youth of the star to explain its slow-down. We also know that solar activity in the end is produced by solar rotation and that therefore a fast rotating Sun will have a strong solar wind. Putting all these things together we get the picture of the formation of the solar system that I referred you to.