Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate?

I’ve mentioned this solar data on WUWT several times, it bears repeating again. Yesterday, NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center released their latest data and graph of the interplanetary geomagnetic index (Ap) which is a proxy for the activity of the solar dynamo. Here is the data provided by SWPC. Note the graph, which I’ve annotated below.

At a time when many predicted a ramp up in solar activity, the sun remains in a funk, spotless and quiet. The Ap value, for the second straight month, is “3”. The blue line showing the smoothed value, suggests the trend continues downward. To get an idea of how significant this is in our history, take a look at this data (graph produced by me) from Dr. Leif Svalgaard back to the 1930’s.

The step change in October 2005 is still visible and the value of 3.9 that occurred in April of this year is the lowest for the entire dataset at that time. I’m hoping Dr. Svalgaard will have updated data for us soon.

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image

Why is this important? Well, if Svensmark is right, and Galactic Cosmic Rays modulated by the sun’s magnetic field make a change in cloud cover on Earth, increasing it during low solar magnetic activity, we are in for some colder times.

There’s a presentation by Jasper Kirkby, CLOUD Spokesperson, CERN, which shows what we currently know about the correlations between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) and variations in the climate.

The CLOUD experiment uses a cloud chamber to study the theorized link between GCR’s and cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere. Kirkby talks about the results from the first CLOUD experiment and the new CLOUD experiment and what it will deliver on the intrinsic connection between GCR’s and cloud formation. This is from the Cern, one of Europe’s most highly respected centers for scientific research.

Kirkby’s one hour video presentation is hosted here. It is well worth your time to view it.

h/t to Russ Steele

Share


Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed success in SY0-201 exam with help of N10-004 practice test and up to date 70-640 exam dumps.


About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar. Bookmark the permalink.

225 Responses to Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate?

  1. INGSOC says:

    Now if only they would divert 1/100th of the dough being thrown away on dendro, we’d actually be onto something relating to climate.

    Great read. Thanks

  2. Michael says:

    Updated 2009 Dec 08 2201 UTC

    Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

    SDF Number 342 Issued at 2200Z on 08 Dec 2009

    Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 07/2100Z to 08/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares occurred during the past 24 hours. The solar disk was void of sunspots.

    Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low.

    Geophysical Activity Summary 07/2100Z to 08/2100Z: The geomagnetic field was quiet.

    Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet for the next three days (09-11 December).

    http://www.solarcycle24.com/

  3. Julie L says:

    After an Un.God.Ly hot summer in Tx, we’re all freezing our noogies off this December. If the trend continues, mid-January will be incredibly cold.

    OOooooOOoooh. Goreble warming! More weather extremes! The sky is falling!

  4. twawki says:

    Cold ahead with a warming tax!

  5. eric anderson says:

    Thank you WUWT, for doing the Lord’s work. You and Blankfein at Goldman. LOL.

    Unfortunately, looking at that graph, I feel colder already.

    Massive blizzard, colder than normal temps here today in Iowa. But it’s only weather, not climate.

  6. Ray says:

    Would it be possible for the solar geomagnetic activity to affect the dynamo inside the earth by interacting with its magnetic field? Could it be possible that this reduced magnetic interaction be responsible for the increased tectonic activity during solar minimum? Is it just possible that a weaker interaction between the two magnetic fields could have the interior of the earth cool down slightly and this cooling would be responsible for the increased tectonic activity, because of a small volume change due to cooling?

  7. Vincent says:

    I can see something is low but what exactly is ap and index of?

    REPLY: more on the Ap index here http://www.nwra.com/spawx/ap.html

  8. Amir Netz says:

    Anthony,

    In the last couple of years now the tempratures seems fairly stable and I kind of expected them start dropping visibly.

    What is the expected lag between this reduced sun activity and until we actually get lower temps?

  9. coaldust says:

    Looks like two simultaneous experiments – one tiny one called CLOUD and another much larger one.

  10. jbrodhead says:

    Oh Crap! Now I’ll have glacier-side property!

  11. Invariant says:

    Journalists: check the official solar predictions:

    Do you still rely on model predictions? You see, the solar cycle is way out of sync, extremely strange! I would expect a similar temperature drop the start of this century exactly as we saw in the start of the previous century when Titanic unfortunately hit the ice berg. If we go Maunder, our civilisation may hit an “ice berg” too…

  12. adamskirving says:

    Is it an all time low, or merely the lowest on record. Either way it allows for an interesting opportunity to disconfirm Svensmark’s hypothesis. But let’s not lapse into warmist type hyperbole and confirmation bias.

    That said I do worry it might be about to get a lot colder, and we are just not preparing for that scenario.

  13. Adam from Kansas says:

    Apparent Siberian blast set to strike Copenhagen and the Climate-Change summit

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Siberian_Blast_about_to_hit_Europe_and_The_Summit.htm

    If this actually happens there will be some incredible irony as they wrap things up.

  14. JonesII says:

    Thanks for the update!. Really chilling, as “The chilling stars”. This is real, all the rest, copenhagen etc. is forgettable monkey business.

  15. George E. Smith says:

    I take it that these two graphs are supposed to be plots of the same basic data but with different time resolutions, so the top one is a more smoothed version of what really looks like the bottom one.
    Also I take it this data is Solely a property of the sun and its environs, at least as observed from earth; in other words, it is not subject to modifications by earth events (but may be a causal factor in those earth events.

    That is pretty dramatic (to me anyway) change in something that we tend to think of as relatively immutable.

    We sure are living in interesting times. I’m eager to see what Dr Svalgaard has to tell us about this ongoing decline; just don’t try “Mike’s Trick” on us Leif, we are up on that now.

  16. DaveF says:

    Even a prolonged period of cooling will not put off the True Believers. They’ll just say that a cool sun is masking a runaway warming trend that’s all our fault, and it’ll shoot off again just as soon as the Scottish and Northern English ice-cap melts.

  17. Ray says:

    George E. Smith (11:01:23) :

    Makes you wonder what the “Solar Constant” really means…

  18. Peter Taylor says:

    Anthony –

    First – another big thank you for your work, most especially on the emails material and on the Darwin temperature record (when you add that to the Swedish professor’s comments on Fennoscandinavia I raises huge questions over the reality of global warming in the past 50 years).

    However, in relation to the low AP, cosmic rays and climate – I have some comments:

    * Svensmark and colleagues seem to have abandoned their work on cloud correlations in favour of cloud chambers – which is a shame – both are necessary, but the latter locks up all that expertise for several years underground, when just a fraction of the CERN millions would provide for a better surveillance of the satellite record on clouds and correlations with GCR flux;

    * That correlative work was getting difficult after cycle 22 and was harder to establish for cycle 23 – we still don’t know why. In my own survey (reported in ‘Chill’) there seems to have been a break point around 2001 when cloud cover increased by 2% globally after falling by 4% over the period 1980-2000 (and allowing extra sunlight to the ocean – quite enough to drive all the late 20th century warming);

    * GCR are not the only relevant factor related to a low AP – during the Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum, there is evidence that the jetstream shifted southward, and Drew Shindell at NASA was working on correlations of the solar wind and UV-induced chemistry in the upper atmosphere to changes in the polar vortex which then affected the jetstream.

    * the jetstream redistributes cloud cover – and a spatial change can be just as important as a percentage change – it also directs the vortices that suck heat out of the oceans upper waters and then dump it on land.

    I suspect that when the AP low for several decades, the shifts noted above lead to a gradual cooling down of the planet – especially in the northern hemisphere where the oceans store heat at depth – and then as the AP recovers, so do the oceans, but slowly – as in ‘recovery from the LIA’ and the upward trend of the last 150 years.

    Would love to get some feedback on this supposition. Leif did tell me he thought Shindell abandoned the work because of changes to the solar proxy – but that did not make a lot of sense, since it is the AP we are discussing, and the recent pattern would tell us that when sunspots disappear, the AP is low – as also does the be-10 and c-14 record (which Leif doesn’t trust either!). So – lots to discuss.

  19. JonesII says:

    Oh! Hide the decline!!!!

  20. Jack Green says:

    The top graphs starts in 2000 the bottom graph in 1930 so they are different time series.

    REPLY: Yes, so? This is clearly identified in the body of the post. Both are valid. – A

  21. Kate says:

    [snip - thread bombing]

  22. Invariant says:

    Amir Netz (10:57:21): What is the expected lag between this reduced sun activity and until we actually get lower temps?

    Possibly in the range from 3 to 9 years. Stephen E. Schwartz has estimated the characteristic time constant for our planet to be 8.5 years

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

    Natural ocean cycles may “hide the decline” though… :-)

  23. Doug says:

    I don’t really see any correlation with temperature. It was very warm in the late 90’s when the solar index was very low (yes due to El Nino, but still), and temperatures didn’t budge in the 2000’s when the solar index was very high. So why do we think we are in for a cold spell now?

  24. Michael says:

    You’ve just exposed my trump card that I was going to use on those AGW’ers.

  25. CalGrad says:

    “That said I do worry it might be about to get a lot colder, and we are just not preparing for that scenario.”

    Therein–since Al’s quoting Shakespeare today–lies the rub, and you’ve put your finger right on the sore spot. Those who fail to plan for the future are less likely to have a satisfactory one.

  26. Jeff L says:

    Ray (10:53:30) :
    “Could it be possible that this reduced magnetic interaction be responsible for the increased tectonic activity during solar minimum?”

    Could you provide a link to a publication / data on the hypothesis of increased tectonic activity during solar minimum. I have heard that claim before but never seen any data to substantiate,

    …. call me a skeptic, but I would like to see the data & let it do the talking

  27. James F. Evans says:

    The ionosphere is quiet with little magnetic disturbance.

    Are any other physical properties within the ionosphere effected?

    Does the height or thickness of the ionosphere change relative to the Earth’s surface?

  28. Joanne says:

    The lack of solar activity has a number of effects on the earth including on the earth’s ionosphere. High frequency (15 MHz and up) radio activity has been very low or impossible in recent years due to the ionosphere. Thomas F. Giella, I believe he used to work for NASA, has been predicting an extended period of low solar activity for some time. He’s got some interesting stuff, if you can dig it out here http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o1.htm

    Dr. Svalgaard’s position makes a lot of sense to me. A lot more than poorly kept temperature records that have to be cooked to show warming.

  29. But didn’t the UN just announce that this decade, right now, is the warmest decade evah in the history of the world? I’m so confused!

    If the facts don’t fit, just fix the facts?

  30. Jim Cripwell says:

    Amir Nitz writes “What is the expected lag between this reduced sun activity and until we actually get lower temps?”

    I dont know the answer. During the Maunder minimum sunspots disappeared around 1645. The coldest temperatures were recorded in England in the mid 1680’s. L&P suggest sunspots may disappear around, but before 2020.

  31. Michael says:

    Copenhagen attendees are climategate conspiracy deniers.

    I know our Sun is going to give them and the alarmists everything they deserve.

  32. Invariant says:

    Doug (11:18:26) : I don’t really see any correlation with temperature.

    Well, if we assume that HMF B influence cloud cover, it follows from the first law of thermodynamics that it is the time integral of HMF B that should correlate with temperature. So, if we integrate HMF B over time and compare with global temperature, we see the following curve (two parameter fit):

    We note that the cooling has started. This model may be modified to also include radiation, but I am uncertain whether this is a good idea.

  33. Doug in Seattle says:

    adamskirving (11:00:13) :

    “let’s not lapse into warmist type hyperbole and confirmation bias.”

    I second that sentiment.

  34. Michael says:

    “The ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference on climate change to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the “scientific fascism” ends.”

    Sensenbrenner to Tell Copenhagen: No Climate Laws Until ‘Scientific Fascism’ Ends

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/sensenbrenner-climate-fascism/

  35. Jeff L says:

    Peter Taylor (11:09:03) :
    “GCR are not the only relevant factor related to a low AP – during the Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum, there is evidence that the jetstream shifted southward, and Drew Shindell at NASA was working on correlations of the solar wind and UV-induced chemistry in the upper atmosphere to changes in the polar vortex which then affected the jetstream.”

    For long time Accuwx pro subscribers, you might recall the busted winter forecast of 2001, when there was a 2nd unexpected spike in solar activity, which Joe Bastardi correlated with a strong zonal & northward shifted jet, which prevent much of any cold air getting into the core of North America. I remember at the time thinking that Joe made some very good points along the same line as quoted above.

    Similarly, this year we are seeing a very blocky / non-zonal flow with what appears to me as an abundance of cutoff upper level lows – basically breaking off from the main flow. Much more than average it appears to me (although I have not tried to quantify). Anyway -this would also be consistent with the quoted hypothesis, I believe.

  36. Adam from Kansas says:

    For those who say it will get colder, oh it will probably get colder alright.

    NOAA will have to extend the chart space downward if we’re going to see how low the AO index is now forecast to go

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_ensm.shtml

    The NAO looks to be forecast to go through a similar nosedive downwards as well

    Meanwhile the AAO index is forecast to go positive, a far cry from when it collapsed as seen in this link

  37. Dan says:

    Good Lord! This CO2 thing is worse than ever! Now the sun, too!

  38. Michael says:

    Secret Draft Leak Proves More Damaging Than ‘Climategate’ As Climate Talks Are Suspended

    http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/09/secret-draft-leak-proves-more-damaging-than-climategate-as-climate-talks-are-suspended/

  39. Stephen Wilde says:

    This post is relevant to one of my articles which I’ve referred to a couple of times already so I won’t link to it again at this stage.

    Suffice it to say that according to the SABER satellite it seems that a more turbulent solar energy flow actually increases energy loss from the stratosphere to space whereas a more stable energy flow seems to decrease energy loss from the stratosphere to space.

    One has to set against that effect the fact that during a period of active sun there is a very slight increase in the power of the solar energy flow.

    Consequently the current solar quietness would seem to be allowing the stratosphere and higher levels to settle down with a REDUCED flow of energy to space. Thus the change in the late 90’s when the stratosphere started to warm again following the cooling of the stratosphere during the previous period of active sun.

    In contrast the more lively the sun the more energy gets into the oceans even if the change in solar power is only small.

    Then the issue is as to when that solar energy is released back to the air by ocean SST variability.

    The tropospheric temperature therefore depends on the balance between the rate at which solar energy is released from ocean to air (much more variable than was ever anticipated when the CO2 theory was proposed), the rate at which the hydrological cycle pumps energy from surface to stratosphere and then finally the rate at which energy is lost to space from the stratosphere.

    The troposphere has warmed up a bit this year because the oceans are releasing energy a little faster due to the ongoing moderate El Nino event and the rate of energy transfer by the hydrological cycle is being slowed down a little by the quiet sun allowing the stratosphere to accumulate energy a little.

    In the meantime the past strong La Nina is still working through to the polar oceans so the poleward air masses have cooled in both hemispheres allowing a greater contrast between equatorial and polar air masses, hence the large movements of air recently between the poles and the mid latitudes as exemplified by the cold air plunges over the US and so far relative mildness in parts of Russia.

    I think the implications of the SABER findings for an analysis of the net global energy flow at any given time needs urgent investigation.

    As I have suggested in my article at Climaterealists.com the implications appear to solve several longstanding observational puzzles.

  40. meemoe_uk says:

    Maybe if Obama only taxes us on warm days we’ll be OK.

  41. Richard Sharpe says:

    Thomas F. Giella, I believe he used to work for NASA, has been predicting an extended period of low solar activity for some time. He’s got some interesting stuff, if you can dig it out here http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o1.htm

    Wow, our firewall/proxy at work classifies that site as hate speech.

  42. Wanglese says:

    and from the Sydney Morning Herald:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-emails-a-dirty-war-swirls-around-swindle-20091209-kk69.html

    “The computer models used to predict future climate change scenarios take these simple concepts and some other variables, such as solar activity, into account. ”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHA!

    The elephant in the room is that at least solar physicists acknowledge somethjing is wrong with our understanding of the Sun.

  43. Stephen Singer says:

    Re: James F. Evans (11:26:50)

    Yes. I saw a story in the last couple of days that under the current deep solar minimum that the earth’s atmosphere has shrunk down to about 260mi from a normal(?) range of about 400mi. Thus, much space junk that normally runs into the outer atmosphere and slowly crashes back to earth is suspended in place till the outer atmosphere again expands back out to its more normal distance.

    Unfortunately I don’t recall right now where I saw the story. Might have been ScienceDaily.com, msnbc.com, maybe even Nasa’s site.

  44. supercritical says:

    OT in a way, but if the likely result is an increase in cloud cover and so a cooling effect, then what about the massive increase in aircraft contrails since the ‘sixties?

    Do contrails have a warming, or a cooling effect? Can anybody point to work on their effects?

  45. Michael says:

    “Citizen-researchers—some of whom are, indeed, skeptics—have been after some of this information for years. CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, is only the tip of the iceberg. ”

    The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
    The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

    I understand now, they see us as the big bad wolf.
    Green Jello “Little Pig, Little Pig”

  46. Otter says:

    Is it just me, or do temperatures seem to lag the spikes in activity by about 5-7 years?

    I’m just wondering if there is any correlation there. To my mind it looks as though we are due to have at least 3 more years of cooling after the step-down that occured in 2005.

  47. P. Hager says:

    Joanne (11:27:39)
    You are correct about the effect on radio communications above 15MHz.
    The HF band starts at about 2MHz and goes to about 50 MHz. The low solar activity is great for the 80M (3.75MHz) band and the 40M (7.00MHz) amateur radio bands because of reduced solar noise and less absorption in the ionosphere. It stinks on the higher end of the HF band in particular the 10M (28MHz) band because propogation is very poor.
    For those brave souls that like to do long distance communications on VHF the lack of solar activity is a real problem.
    Anthony has very kindly provided a widget on WUWT that shows the effect on HF radio propagation.

  48. David A. Burack says:

    Why is this sunspot scarcity so hard to undrstand? It’s clearly a CO2 forcing.

  49. Howarth says:

    It seems to me from the second graph that in 1998 when we had relatively low Ap. That same year we had large El Nino event. As a predictor of global temperature, a record low Ap would not necessarily be a slam dunk indicator. Its not the only driver, but it would be hard to imagine it not being a contributing force.

  50. wws says:

    ashes to ashes, funk to funky,
    we know Major Tom’s a junkie,
    strung out on heaven’s high,
    and hitting an all time low.

    – David Bowie

  51. JonesII says:

    Michael (11:39:36) : Your link gives ERROR 404 (Censored)

  52. Steven Hill says:

    Man has killed the Sun with runaway CO2!

  53. yonason says:

    CURRENTLY 16 DAYS WITH NO SUNSPOTS

    http://spaceweather.com/

    ASIDE – note that blurb on STRANGE LIGHTS OVER NORWAY: just for an interesting diversion.

  54. crosspatch says:

    “What is the expected lag between this reduced sun activity and until we actually get lower temps?”

    Several years, most likely. The majority of the heat stored in the Earth’s climate system is in the oceans. It takes considerable time for that heat to decline. Think if it like a tire with a varying amount of air coming in (solar radiation changes, cloud cover changes, etc) and a varying amount leaking out (radiation into space modulated by cloud cover depending on type and altitude of clouds). As you put more air in and increase the pressure, you get more volume/unit of time leaking out (as you increase the temperature of the planet, it radiates more heat into space) so the tire will inflate some but at some point reach equilibrium at a larger size as Earth would reach equilibrium at a higher temperature and then settle. Now if you increase the cloud cover, you reduce the radiation into the system, that is like slightly decreasing the amount of air being pumped into the tire but increased clouds can also reduce the amount radiated into space at night, too.

    Other things are at work, too. If the ocean cools a little, then the amount of evaporation reduces a little. This reduces the absolute humidity (though probably not the relative humidity) of the air. Less water vapor means less greenhouse warming from Earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas. So the colder it gets, the colder it CAN get still because as the oceans cool, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere drops. But less water vapor would mean less cloud cover so that balances. But increased GCRs might result in a higher cloud cover for a given humidity than in a period of lower GCRs. See? It is a complicated system but it appears to me that the “system” is inclined to cool more easily than warm because warming causes increased evaporation which increases cloud cover and heat transport to the upper troposhere which tends to cool the surface. There doesn’t seem to be any such limitation on cooling. The colder it gets the dryer the air becomes allowing more heat to radiate out at night (and in polar winter) than the decrease allows in due to less cloud cover. When it gets cold the net albedo might remain the same because while you have decreased clouds, you have increased ice which acts to reflect much of the heat back into space.

    I believe that is why glaciation is the “normal” state. We have 100K years of glaciation punctuated by 10K years of interglacial warmth. I believe “cold” is the more stable state over the long term. Also, I haven’t seen any data on GCR rates prior to the Holocene but I suspect there are some because there are some papers behind pay walls that appear to have such information. We tend to come out of glaciation only when insolation is most favorable but there is something else at work.

    We come out of glaciation to interglacial temperatures in less than 100 years. Now consider that Chicago was under 5000 feet of ice. Imagine a block of ice that is, say, 500 square miles in surface area and a mile thick sitting someplace at about the latitude of Chicago in North America today. How long do you think it would take to melt that ice? It won’t melt much in winter. In fact, will will probably accumulate in mass in winter. And the ice itself will affect surface temperature so it would still be fairly cold in the middle of that 500 square mile area at night as breezes blow across that ice even in summer. And there won’t be a lot of thermal updrafts over it to get storms started. The weather would be more stable over the ice than over land surrounding it.

    Something else acts to melt all that ice in such a short period of time and I believe that something else is rain and quite a lot of it. You can melt back quite a lot of ice if you have rain practically every day for a month in the middle of summer. A very gradual increase in solar insolation is not going to cause a very fast collapse of the ice sheet in only a few decades time without some other trigger.

  55. JohnV says:

    Hypothetically speaking…
    What would it mean if Ap stays low but 2010 sets a record for warmth?

    The decline in solar intensity since the max in 2000-2001 is undoubtedly part of the reason for the relatively flat temperatures since that time. What’s going to happen as the sun’s intensity stays constant or ramps up again? It should be interesting.

  56. Barry L. says:

    Re:

    Jeff L (11:24:52) :

    Ray (10:53:30) :
    “Could it be possible that this reduced magnetic interaction be responsible for the increased tectonic activity during solar minimum?”

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2003ESASP.535..393S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

    It looks like we are one eruption away from a new (gore?) minimum

  57. twawki says:

    As the Copenhagen gravy train rolls on (Cost over $300 million dollars) a Siberian blast is about to hit Europe, with Copenhagen about to drop to minus 15. In the USA a monster storm stretching across the country is causing significant cold and snow. In Australia record cold is being experienced. Meanwhile solar geomagnetic activity hits an all time low meaning an increase in precipitation and cold, and the inconvenient truth is clouds dominate everything. Meanwhile UK group proposes carbon tax to stop the poor from breeding!

    http://www.twawki.com

  58. Ray says:

    Jeff L (11:24:52) :

    It’s more complicated than what I said earlier but apparently there is a strong connection.

    Maybe those could be a start:

    http://www.khalilov.biz/pdf/About%20possible%20influence%20of%20solar%20activity%20upon%20seismic%20and%20volcanic%20activities%203.pdf

  59. FergalR says:

    Oops, you guys just made a b-class flare by talking about a lack of sunspots:

  60. Robert Wood says:

    I have some property in Canada to sell you; “ski-hills” nearby :-)

  61. Rick says:

    But this is all just weather, not climate, right?

    Remember, if the weather supports the models, then it’s climate, but if the climate doesn’t support the models, then it’s just weather.

  62. simon says:

    I want to put together a simple sequence for posting to internet forums, but I’m still fairly new to all this. Can someone knowledgeable advise on the following:

    Increased solar activity (sunspots etc)

    ==> increased solar wind
    ==> reduced cosmic rays reaching earth
    ==> reduced ionized particles in atmosphere
    ==> reduced cloud formation
    ==> reduced albedo effect
    ==> increased solar energy reaching earth’s surface
    ==> increased global temperatures

    OR

    Reduced solar activity (sunspots etc)

    ==> reduced solar wind
    ==> increased cosmic rays reaching earth
    ==> increased ionized particles in atmosphere
    ==> increased cloud formation
    ==> increased albedo effect
    ==> reduced solar energy reaching earth’s surface
    ==> reduced global temperatures

  63. Michael says:

    The SUN, not AGW, is the thing

    http://www.examiner.com/x-30215-LA-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d1-The-SUN-Not-AGW-Is-The-Thing

    This from July 09. Solar minimum is much deeper now.
    Sun Spots

  64. Doug Janeway says:

    Now we need a really good volcanic eruption (away from civilization, of coarse) to put the ice-ing on the cake.

  65. Bill Jamison says:

    Just imagine how cold it would be if not for a moderate El Nino!

    Or just imagine how cold it WILL be when the El Nino fades and a La Nina blossoms!

    BRRRRRR

  66. Robert Wykoff says:

    From Spaceweather.com

    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 16 days
    2009 total: 259 days (76%)
    Since 2004: 770 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days

    Note: Last years total spotless days was 265. We are 6 days from that now.
    Also in yearly spotless days, 2008 was ranked #4 since 1849. So the odds are very high that 2009 will be at least #4 since 1849. It is unlikely, but possible it will reach #3 (1878). It would take zero days this month to do it, and there is a possible sunspeck rotating into view on the eastern limb right now, but #3 is not impossible.

    2009 is already at #5, so no matter what happens, there will be two years in a row within the top 5 spotless days count since 1849, and 2007 is #20.

    Coooool

  67. Michael says:

    And just remember, some of the sun specks they count today would never have been counted by Galelao.

  68. kevin roche says:

    A couple of weeks ago Science daily reported on a study using lake sediments in the tropics which showed a perfect correlation of climate change with orbital dynamics affecting solar radiation reaching the earth. It would seem that any factor that affects the amount of radiation reaching the earth, including changes in solar activity, would have the same potential to affect climate. I would be interested in some informed reaction to that study and what it says about the perspective I have seen at times on this and other sites, that the changes in solar output or other solar radiation reaching the earth dynamics don’t have a significant effect on climate. If it affects climate in the tropics shouldn’t it also affect it elsewhere on earth, either directly on mediated through the effects on the tropics.

  69. Robert Wykoff says:

    Forgot to mention, some interesting information comparing previous cycle records can be found at

    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html

  70. TJA says:

    “Chilly today, hot tamale” – Standard weather forecast from Met Office

  71. Les Francis says:

    Jeff L (11:24:52) :

    Ray (10:53:30) :
    “Could it be possible that this reduced magnetic interaction be responsible for the increased tectonic activity during solar minimum?”

    Could you provide a link to a publication / data on the hypothesis of increased tectonic activity during solar minimum. I have heard that claim before but never seen any data to substantiate,

    …. call me a skeptic, but I would like to see the data & let it do the talking

    You will probably find there is no serious information on tectonic, geologic or volcanalogic before Krakatau. Even the tectonic plate movements were not an accepted theory until relatively recently.

  72. Mihail says:

    I want to stress again a previous comment I made and which agrees with Peter Taylor’s comment.
    The increase in GCR wouldn’t increase the could cover, but it will change the distribution and maybe in the long run it will decrease it and this is why.

    Normally, when the GCR are low, where the sun blasts most, the water gets warm and it evaporates. A natural consequence of the evaporation would be an increase in the pressure and all the humidity will travel to less sunny areas (away from the equator and it would condense and form clouds there). As the GCR increase, the clouds would form closer to the evaporation points increasing the albedo in the regions where the sun blasts most. Conversely, there won’t be much humidity left to reach regions far away from the equator, so the subpolar regions would start to experience a decrease in the cloud cover and at these regions the radiation of the heat away from earth dominates anyway, so the lack of clouds would enhance the cooling.

    In conclusion the combination of these effects would cause the earth to go into a cooling mode at all the latitudes.

    In the long run, a new equilibrium point would be reached. The cooling trend caused by the GCRs would cause the oceans temperature to go down. Cooler oceans mean less evaporation, so in general there would be less water in the atmosphere to form clouds, at all the latitudes.

  73. Brian says:

    Hey all, Ive notices its been pretty gray in the sky these last couple of months. Lots of rain not as much blue sky here in the tropics. We’ve been sleeping with the ac off most evenings also.

    It would be interesting to see the cloud density figures.

  74. Michael says:

    From Google search;
    “Secret Draft Leak Proves More Damaging Than ‘Climategate’ As …Dec 9, 2009 … No one had expected that the talks would be suspended. Every month, for the last few months the climate negotiators of various countries had …
    cleantechnica.com/…/secret-draft-leak-proves-more-damaging-than-climategate-as-climate-talks-are-suspended/ – 2 hours ago”

    So thats how the squelch any decenting opinions within their own organizations.

    How do I find the article in my cache for a screen shot?

  75. Michael says:

    Secret Draft Leak Proves More Damaging Than ‘Climategate’ As Climate Talks Are …
    CleanTechnica – Mridul Chadha – ‎2 hours ago‎
    The leakage of an alternative negotiations draft has put the credibility of the Conference of Parties in question. The leaked draft was prepared by so …

  76. David says:

    Anybody know the time lag before the cold spell starts, acording to Svensmark work? Should we expect it for this winter (or later)?

  77. David says:

    Sorry, just found Invariant’s response at 11:15:43

  78. Jerry says:

    The most striking thing about this thread is the exposure of the myth of “settled” science.

  79. Steven Hill says:

    Gore states arctic ice to be gone in 5-15 years. Wow is he just so smart. I guess he knows just about everything.

    The last suit you’ll wear, has no pockets.
    You can’t take it with you, when you go.
    When that hand full of dirt, goes back into the earth.
    What your worth, only heaven knows.

  80. exNOAAman says:

    “http://www.wcflunatall.com/nz4o1.htm

    Wow, our firewall/proxy at work classifies that site as hate speech.”

    Same here. We use Websense.
    I recall Mr. Giella running one of the earliest skeptic websites years ago when he was KN4LF. It had great Florida weather facts. He shut it down though, eventually.

  81. Roy Lofquist says:

    Ray et. al.,

    The question about Solar activity affecting the interior of the earth is one I’ve posed a number of times over the last 6 months and have never gotten a response.

    The question of tectonic activity hadn’t occurred to me. My question is whether it might not account for the heat of the core.

    The solar wind was discovered by the Russian Luna 9 spacecraft in 1979. Its effects on the ionosphere and satellites have been the focus of research.

    It comprises thermally ejected protons and electrons – the electrons travel 39 times as fast as the protons (square root of the mass ratio). When electrons and protons travel at different speeds you have an electric current. You also have an associated magnetic field – Love & Marriage, Abbott & Costello.

    The core of the earth is a 2,000 mile diameter ball of mostly iron. It rotates – once a day. As I remember from 5th grade, when a ferrous metal rotates in a magnetic field electrical currents are induced. It heats up. The thermal inertia of the core would smooth transient effects but might cause long term variations in internal temperature.

    I haven’t heard of any identified proxies for solar wind so we’re stuck with info going back to 79.

    All studies I have seen for the effects of solar output on earth weather have been about microwave and up radiation. I don’t believe the idea of solar wind coupling has been looked at.

  82. David Archibald says:

    The Ap Index average for the first nine days of December is 1. The no-sunspots zone is entered at a monthly Ap Index average of 2. While the Ap Index is falling, the Oulu neutron count will continue rising up to a year later.

    REPLY: Citation for that data?

  83. a jones says:

    I have never studied the sun or followed the physics, except in the most general terms, of those who do.

    Frankly I have no idea what this means, if it means anything at all. Perhaps it does but our instrumentation only goes back some fifty years. Before that we have only basic observations and supposed proxies most of which are about as reliable as trying to tell past temperature by a tree.

    However I can predict with a high degree of certainty that this will cause immense interest, discussion and disputation amongst solar physicists. astronomers and others who study the sun. Some of it quite bad tempered.

    And that for all the excitement the great ‘Consensus’ will be ‘ We don’t know’ and ‘Time will tell’

    Bit different from so called climate science you know.

    Probably because these are the real hard headed people of science: not poseurs, charlatans and mountebanks. Believe it or not they can actually add and subtract and even understand statistical analysis.

    Which is more than many of their counterparts in the upper echelons of climate science seem able to do.

    Understand I do not mean to insult the many genuine scientists who do good work on weather and climate, only the fraudsters, the forgers and the High Priests of AGW.

    And as for old Sol I foretell that we shall see what we shall see. And I didn’t even consult my Tarot cards.

    Kindest Regards.

  84. Adam Smith says:

    Some research has shown a correlation between solar minimums and earthquakes.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/buvw2tq081013210/

    It says in part: “(1) Earthquakes occur frequently around the minimum years of solar activity. Generally, the earthquake activities are relatively less during the peak value years of solar activity, some say, around the period when magnetic polarity in the solar polar regions is reversed. ”

    I believe that there will also eventually be shown to be a correlation between solar minimums and volcanic activity. This may be the actual causal link behind the observed correlation between solar minimums and lower global temperatures, not Total Solar Irradiance or cosmic rays (per Svensmark).

  85. Ray says:

    Roy Lofquist (13:53:45) :

    Charged particles (from the solar wind) going through the magnetic field of the earth induces a current and such current generates a magnetic field. Most of the time it reinforces the original magnetic field, generating a dynamo. The induced magnetic field is what protects the surface of the earth during pole reversal… good thing it’s there!

  86. Arizona CJ says:

    I really do wish you guys would stop reporting on the solar downturn, because I have no dount that somewhere, there are politicians already scheming to create a tax for the solar issue, an issue they will invarilbly try to pin on George Bush. Can’t you hear it now?

    “During his tenure of office, Bush did precisely nothing about solar emissions!”

    Hrmm, this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek on my part, but I’ll seriously guarantee you this: if this solar trend continues, there will soon be new taxes proposed as a result. It’s a rule of the universe (perhaps its only one): Politicians favor new taxes at only two times; when there is a problem, and when there isn’t.

    And on another serious note: Thank you very much for tracking this issue, and all the work you’ve done. Without the “skeptic” blogs, I think we’d be looking at a far, far graver likely result from the Copenhagen nonsense.

  87. Mihail says:

    Roy,

    The coupling between the solar wind intensity (or the solar activity for the same reason) with the earth activity seems very interesting because as I see it, it’s very hard to explain. The idea you propose seems to be a valid one, but based on my intuition the magnitude of the direct effect seems to be much smaller than what’s required to have a sensible warming of the core. An indirect effect might have a higher effect. When we create a current in the core, there is a torque applied to it. The torque is small too, but this might make the core of the earth try to spin at a different angular frequency than the mantle, which is not metallic. The core, but especially the mantle have a tremendous angular momentum and the result of this friction might cause warming at the core/mantle interface. I didn’t go thru the numbers yet, but so far, this makes sense.

    Also another idea than went thru my mind, but I also think it has an insignificant magnitude would be a direct heating. We know that the only solar particles that penetrate to the core of the earth are the solar neutrinos. Their production also fluctuates along with the solar cycle (showing that the burning process in the sun also correlates to the solar activity cycle) and they do carry an important amount of the total energy output. Anyway, even if they do penetrate the earth to the core, the absorption optical depth of neutrinos is much larger than the earth radius, so they don’t do much heating. The earth is pretty much transparent to neutrinos.

  88. Jerry in Detroit says:

    I’m starting the next big crisis; anthropogenic sunspot depletion. ASD is caused by all of Al Gore’s mythical solar energy plants.

  89. AndyL says:

    I don’t understand the point here.

    If low solar activity = colder temperatures, and we now have warmer temperatures despite the low solar activity, doesn’t that make the argument for AGW stronger?

  90. Harod Blue Tooth says:

    And don’t miss the most chilling (literally) prediction of all based on a careful study of sunspot intensity. This prediction was originally submitted and rejected for publication in 2005 (Sunspots May Vanish by 2015), but has been coming true ever since. The earth appears to be headed toward a period of dramatic cooling, at present, due to reduced solar activity

    —————————————

    This is a bit disconcerting.

  91. Ipse Dixit says:

    I think it would be a hoot to find that the Mayans had it right and that 12/21/2012 turns out to be the first day of a VERY long winter.

  92. DR says:

    Do folks realize warmers are going to seize upon 2010 which as it stands now may in fact zoom past 2007 at least in amplitude?

  93. jim says:

    It would be interesting to plot hurricane/storm activity along with solar activity over the last ten years I looks like they would match up pretty well .

  94. Pascvaks says:

    Ole Humlum has a quick review of climate changes in Europe following the MWP at the following link:

    http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory.htm

    Seems Solar Mimimums and their resulting weather/climate changes take as long to develop as Solar Maximums.

  95. Invariant says:

    Another possibility is that our planet is being heated from the little ice age just like a cold cabin can be heated from a fireplace; a perfectly constant sun will warm up our planet until the heat radiated to space is balanced by the heat input from the sun. This does not explain the origin of the little ice age, however, while we are aware of the short ocean cycles, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) ~1 yr period and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) ~30 yr period, can we be certain that longer ocean cycles do not exist? What about a Little Ice Age Oscillation (LIAO) with a period of several hundred years? :-)

  96. DaveE says:

    Peter Taylor (11:09:03) :

    Congrats on finally getting some cover in the MSM Peter. Long may it continue ;-)

    DaveE.

  97. Roy Lofquist says:

    Ray,

    I think the cause and effect is the opposite. To posit that earth has a magnetic field implies that there is some permanent magnet involved. The core is molten – no permanent magnet. What we perceive as the earth’s magnetic field is actually the interaction of the rotating core with the magnetic field entwined with the solar wind.

    Hypothesis – the historical reversal of the magnetic poles occurred when the SW went to zero at some point. The orientation of the field (NS) is very sensitive to initial conditions. A DC motor can be started CW or CCW with a small initial push in either direction.

    The main point is that I wonder if the SW, interacting with the rotating core is making a significant contribution to the internal temp that has been overlooked.

    It’s been 45 years since I worked the equations and my old textbooks have turned to dust. I don’t have the time or the energy to reeducate myself. I was hoping that somebody who was more current with the numbers could offer any insight.

    Regards,

    Roy

  98. Mark says:

    Has anyone seen any papers in the literature smoothing sunspot numbers with very-long-term-moving-averages and correlating to temperature? The longest moving averages I have seen in the literature were 11 years on the duration of solar cycles (not the actual sunspot numbers). Take a look at the remarkable correlation between a 75-year moving average of normalized SIDC monthly sunspot numbers vs. HadCrut3v temp data I generated using the woodfortrees.org site:

    The plot seems to suggest a 20 year lag time between solar magnetic activity and global temps. Has anyone seen any literature using very-long-term moving averages or other smoothing over periods exceeding 20 years?

  99. DaveE says:

    P. Hager (12:02:12) :

    The radio bands are nicely divided up.

    HF = 3MHz – 30MHz
    VHF = 30MHz – 300MHz
    UHF = 300MHz – 3GHz

    & so on.

    DaveE.

  100. Gino says:

    AndyL (15:09:15) :

    I don’t understand the point here.

    If low solar activity = colder temperatures, and we now have warmer temperatures despite the low solar activity, doesn’t that make the argument for AGW stronger?

    ——————————————————

    I don’t thinks so. First we don’t really have ‘warmer’ temps now. Second, weren’t the late 80’s through 2000 were a period of intense solar activity?

  101. jack morrow says:

    Plasma cosmologists believe the sun is not driven by fusion but is a electric ball of plasma with connections across space just like electric circuits. I wonder how many astrophysics scoff at them and don’t allow them to publish their theories and work? An electric universe makes for common sense but I really don’t know. I find dark matter and other such stuff hard to believe too. I also wonder what Dr Svalgaard and Dr Svensmark think about an electric universe and if true ,how could this have an effect on our weather?
    Maybe I read too much for someone with just a science degree. But–Like I have said before-I did spend last night reading WUWT.

  102. DaveE says:

    Roy Lofquist (16:07:19) :

    A DC motor can be started CW or CCW with a small initial push in either direction.

    Not if it has an odd number of poles!

    DaveE.

  103. DaveE says:

    AndyL (15:09:15) :

    I don’t understand the point here.

    If low solar activity = colder temperatures, and we now have warmer temperatures despite the low solar activity, doesn’t that make the argument for AGW stronger?

    Does the water in your kettle immediately settle back to room temperature when you turn down the heat?

    DaveE.

  104. shellback says:

    Click on Solarcycle 24 board under sceptic views above
    could keep ya busy for years
    very good site, knowledgeable people

  105. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Effects of the Sun on the Earth:

    1. Day/night = warm/cool, with a lag of 2 1/2 hours.
    2. Summer/winter = warm cool with a lag of 6 weeks.

    So, we understand that solar effects are not directly noticable, but lag. Longer solar cycles will surely have longer lags, given the thermal mass of the oceans. What is that lag? perhaps 30-60 years?

  106. Patrick Davis says:

    “DaveF (11:08:00) :

    Even a prolonged period of cooling will not put off the True Believers. They’ll just say that a cool sun is masking a runaway warming trend that’s all our fault, and it’ll shoot off again just as soon as the Scottish and Northern English ice-cap melts.”

    Well that’s the whole idea isn’t it. There is a mad rush, as I see it, to have some sort of “carbon tax” in place before 2012-2015. I wonder why this is? My suspicions are that by this time the Earth will be in another cooling period similar to that experienced between ~1941-~1975, and while CO2 emissions may or may not be falling, the “carbon tax” policies will be touted as a success as the Earth will be cooler then than today.

  107. Phil. says:

    AndyL (15:09:15) :
    I don’t understand the point here.

    If low solar activity = colder temperatures, and we now have warmer temperatures despite the low solar activity, doesn’t that make the argument for AGW stronger?

    From the point of view of TSI the sun is getting more active!

  108. Roy Lofquist says:

    Dear DaveE,

    There are three kinds of mathematicians – those who can add and those who can’t.

    Let’s see. North Pole (yay Santa) and South Pole.

    Regards,
    Roy

  109. Smokey says:

    Phil.:

    “From the point of view of TSI the sun is getting more active!”

    So, how exactly is cloud cover affected by TSI? Use any model you like.

  110. Geoff Sharp says:

    The Sun continues to stay under the monthly sunspot mean of 5. This has been going on for 20 months now, at this rate a solar grand minimum will be called perhaps in the next 12 months.

    This of course is no surprise and the Sun is following the script written by the solar system.

    Soon Climategate and the coming cooling will move the world away from the wasted funding in search of AGW. The Sun will be seen as our climate modulator and the necessary funds might start to appear.

    Lets hope the funds go to a whole range of solar science and not just the existing science which has mostly failed us.

  111. DaveE says:

    Roy Lofquist (17:28:53) :

    I was only making the point that perhaps the analogy you chose may not have been a good one.

    DaveE.

  112. Roy Lofquist says:

    Dear DaveE,

    I made a good analogy once – think it was 1952. However, the mathematician joke has been good for many years and I slip it in whenever I can.

    Regards,
    Roy

  113. Brian Dodge says:

    If Svensmark is right, we should have been cooling since 2000, or if there is a time constant long enough to hide the solar cycle, we won’t see cooling for >40 years. If CO2 is causing warming to offset the cooling we should be seeing from the lack of sunspots and increased GCR, if the solar cycle starts up, then warming will take off like 1998.

  114. Philip_B says:

    Something else acts to melt all that ice in such a short period of time and I believe that something else is rain and quite a lot of it. You can melt back quite a lot of ice if you have rain practically every day for a month in the middle of summer. A very gradual increase in solar insolation is not going to cause a very fast collapse of the ice sheet in only a few decades time without some other trigger.

    Crosspatch,

    I think there is a bit more to it.

    The oceans lose the very large quantities of heat they gain from solar radiation, by evaporation. That water vapor then gets transported by the atmosphere and falls as precipitation.

    Basic physics tells us that the heat energy gained by the water vapor when it evaporates is lost when it condenses to water droplets and then precipitation. Hence, the proportion of the water vapor evaporated from the oceans that condenses over land is the proportion of the heat lost by the oceans that is transferred to the atmosphere over land.

    That amount of heat is very large. My rough calculations says it is approximately equal to the total solar heating of the land surface (averaged across the globe).

    When orbital changes increase solar isolation and thus cause ocean warming, atmospheric water vapor will increase, resulting in increased precipitation over land and increased atmospheric temperatures over land.

    Precipitation falls disproportionately on land due to mountains. And it’s a peculiarity of the Earth’s topography that mountains are disproportionately on the western side of land masses. So increased precipitation causes a stronger fohn/chinook effect over land masses, such as your Chicago example.

    So, while you are likely correct that rain causes rapid melting the ice, it is primarily due to warmer atmospheric temperatures warming the rain, rather than increased precipitation, or at least both effects will be at work.

    BTW, some very interesting comments in this thread. The hydrological cycle is indeed the elephant in the climate that many are trying to claim is a rather small and insignificant elephant.

  115. Stephen Wilde says:

    Invariant (15:55:01)

    Elsewhere I have proposed at least three timescales for ocean cycles namely:

    Interannual – ENSO

    Multidecadal – PDO

    Millennial – ? Yet to be named

    I regard the signal of an oceanic oscillation to be a latitudinal shift in the positions of the air circulation systems so my evidence for the millennial cycle is the report that apparently the ITCZ was on the equator during the Little Ice Age.

    That, conveniently, gives us a 1000 year cycle with 500 years from peak to trough and 500 back again thus Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, MWP, LIA and Modern Maximum (which may or may not have recently peaked).

    Against that we have the solar variability which appears to affect the rate of energy loss from upper air to space according to the observations of the SABER satellite.

    At present the solar variability is timed with the oceanic variability so that they offset one another (stratosphere is warmed by low solar activity while the troposphere is cooled by low rates of energy emissions from the oceans and vice versa) and give us a relatively stable interglacial period.

    I propose that in due course they will change their respective timings so that they will supplement each other and give us the large temperature variability observed during the glacial epochs. At such times the stratosphere would be warmed by periods of low solar activity at the same time as the troposhere is warmed by high rates of energy release from the oceans and vice versa).

    That process not only accounts for the observed three main non seasonal timescales in climate variability but also the large differences in climate stability between interglacials and glacial epochs whilst simultaneously explaining why the climate can change so much despite small changes in the power of the solar output. It also fits the SABER observation that increased turbulence in the flow of energy from the sun increases the rate of energy loss from stratosphere and upper atmosphere to space.

    We have four sets of apparently contradictory observational data duly resolved by that scenario.

    As Leif has conceded, the current timing of an inactive sun with colder periods may just be coincidental and arising from the current interglacial timing of the solar and oceanic variability.

    Ultimately the solar variability will be the source of the ocean variability but modulated through the fluid dynamics of the oceans.

    I suggest that the ice build up during periods of high variability is a consequence of the current landmass distribution.

  116. Patrick Davis says:

    “twawki (12:31:41) :

    In Australia record cold is being experienced.”

    Not heard anything about this in the MSM here in Sydney, but that would not surprise me at all. We have had a couple of warm days, which have been hyped out of all proportion and called “Scorchers” LOL, but today and the last almost week now, is certainly not December weather at all.

  117. John says:

    I’m a bit confused. If a low AP index means cooler weather, then why weren’t the 1930s cold? According to the second graphic above, the AP index was low then as well.

    If solar activity, or lack thereof, can influence climate on earth in meaningful ways over periods of years and decades (I’m not discounting the possibility), then shouldn’t there be a different indicator of that activity than the AP index? Wouldn’t sunspots be better? They were reasonably high in the 1930s, and very low for the 70 years of the Maunder minimum, in the LIttle Ice Age.

  118. Philip_B says:

    kevin roche (13:08:44) :

    A couple of weeks ago Science daily reported on a study using lake sediments in the tropics which showed a perfect correlation of climate change with orbital dynamics affecting solar radiation reaching the earth. … If it affects climate in the tropics shouldn’t it also affect it elsewhere on earth, either directly on mediated through the effects on the tropics.

    The tropics are different, because the atmosphere is saturated with vapor all the time (over short timescales – less than a day – any humidity gain is rapidly lost as precipitation). Hence, humidity can’t increase in the tropics to the extent it can at higher lattitudes.

    Increased solar heating of the oceans will be largely released to the atmosphere toward the poles, which obviously takes time to be transported poleward.

    Hence, increased solar heating of the oceans will be disroportionately released to the atmosphere toward the poles, with a time lag increasing as you go poleward.

  119. I’m hoping Dr. Svalgaard will have updated data for us soon.

    Here is the Ap-index [monthly values] since 1844:

    The data includes November. December is not done yet.
    Ap is now down to where it was in 1901 and 1879. Sharp drops [like in Oct. 2005] occur frequently, e.g. 1873, 1900, 1911, 1022, 1961, 2005.

    Many of the comments border on nonsense [sorry to call it for it is]. Running the gamut from astrology to electric universes.

  120. David.Gibson says:

    Does anyone know where to find the powerpoint originals or a pdf of the powerpoint originals of his slides (Jasper Kirkby, CLOUD Spokesperson, CERN). All I was able to find was his presentation from last year which only includes about a third of the slides

    Oops, I was able to find it – I searched for him at CERN not for his presentation and then looked for it after finding the CERN links for him

    for downloading the video in various qualities

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073?ln=en

    for downloading the presentation slides in pdf

    http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=52576

    He raises more questions then he answers.
    A true researcher at heart :-)

    enjoy,
    David Gibson

    Thank you

  121. Leif Svalgaard (19:12:25) :
    Sharp drops [like in Oct. 2005] occur frequently, e.g. 1873, 1900, 1911, 1922, 1961, 2005.

    Most of the high-frequency signal is due to the semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity that makes solstices ~25% more quiet than equinoxes [part of the explanation for low December values]. This variation is largely terrestrial and not due to the Sun.

  122. Ap [and Aa] can be calculated from solar wind data. Let B be magnetic field strength [at Earth] in nanoTesla, and Vo be solar wind speed in units of 100 km/s [so that Vo=4 means solar wind speed at 400 km/s]. The Aa is given by Aa = (1/6)*B*Vo^2, and Ap = 0.2854 Aa^1.2131. Example: B = 4 nT, Vo = 3, then Aa = 6.0 and Ap = 2.5.
    The formula are for mean values over a day or more.

  123. rbateman says:

    John (19:02:55) :

    I’m a bit confused. If a low AP index means cooler weather, then why weren’t the 1930s cold?

    PDO warm and Sunspots high. And whatever else there is to toss in there.

  124. Squidly says:

    supercritical (11:57:16) :

    OT in a way, but if the likely result is an increase in cloud cover and so a cooling effect, then what about the massive increase in aircraft contrails since the ’sixties?

    Do contrails have a warming, or a cooling effect? Can anybody point to work on their effects?

    A year or so after 9/11, I watched a presentation by a researcher on this very topic. He asserted that contrails contributed to a significant amount of cooling, claiming much more than expected. It was interesting that he stated he was able to use the time during “no fly” over the US to gain a lot of data on the subject. Perhaps the most interesting part of his talk, was that this meant AGW was ever more dangerous and much greater than ever before (same old clap-trap). But, this researcher at least claims that contrails do provide some sort of cooling effect anyway.

  125. qwerty1 says:

    Thanks for the update Leif. I always appreciate your comments.

  126. Jeff L says:

    Barry L. (12:24:41) :
    Ray (12:33:49) :
    Adam Smith (14:09:18) :
    Thanks for the links; Interesting hypothesis; A correlation anyway, for now.
    More research needed to to get beyond correlation to causation though.

  127. David says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:51:59) :

    Something that has always perplexed me is why the solar wind does not contribute to wind on Earth. Am I confusing the term wind in solar wind with wind as it is used to describe what blew my neighbors’ trees over last year or is there an actual explanation for how the force of the solar wind does not translate into wind on Earth’s surface?

  128. AndyW says:

    Is their a graph of total earth cloud cover over the last few years that can be matched up against that graph?

    It’s fine talking about theory and cloud chambers, but lets take a look at the global values. From reports I have seen there seem to be no correlation actually from Earth observations between amount of cloud an changing number of cosmic rays….

    Andy

  129. David (21:19:48) :
    is there an actual explanation for how the force of the solar wind does not translate into wind on Earth’s surface?
    First of all, the solar wind is exceedingly tenuous. Second, the solar wind does not reach the surface because it is held at bay by the Earth’s magnetic field at an altitude about 45,000 miles.

  130. AndyW says:

    Pardon my spelling, their and there, I hope my mother doesn’t read this WUWT thread !

    Andy

  131. Keith Minto says:

    Squidley and Supercritical,

    I can recall a discussion about cooling after 9/11 due to the grounding of commercial aircraft and the absence of jet contrails causing daytime heating in continental USA. As suggested, daytime temps may be up (this can be verified,I guess) and night time temps down and the averages might be the same!

    The Horizon programme on the BBC made this comment….

    If the 9/11 contrail evidence suggests warmer nights due to the air travel, isn’t that global warming rather than dimming?
    The 9/11 study showed that removing contrails resulted in a large increase in the daily temperature range – in other words warmer days and cooler nights. The study does not really provide a clear-cut answer to the question of whether the overall effect of the contrails is a net warming or a net cooling averaged over the whole 24 hours. This question is controversial. But what seems clear is that contrails contribute to a reduction in the amount of daytime solar radiation reaching the surface, and that this has significant effects on temperature.

  132. Frank Perdicaro says:

    It is good to see Dr Svalgaard here again. Perhaps the last
    time he was here we exchanged a few friendly words over
    solar wind. The science is still the same, but it bears
    repeating.

    The most basic physics goes like this: When there is a
    conductor moving through a magnetic field you get
    a current — given there is something to conduct the current.

    The spinning, orbiting earth has a magnetic field that is not
    aligned with the spin axis of the earth. The solar wind, being
    in part an electric current, interacts with the earth’s magnetic
    field. Potentials must be induced, and since the atmosphere
    of the earth and the core of the earth are conductors, there
    are currents.

    How much of this heats the earth’s core? I have not done
    any calculations, but there must be some heating. Either
    eddy current heating (like you get in magnetic braking
    systems) or atomic spin-axis alignment heating (like in
    MRI imaging systems).

    Lots of things heat the earth. Incoming cosmic rays heat
    the earth, as do incoming space rocks.

  133. E.M.Smith says:

    So, given the formula, it looks like Ap can decrease toward, but never reaching, zero (unless, of course, SW dropped to zero or the B dropped to zereo, but I think that’s not possible?… I can’t imagine a zero solar wind… well, I can, but not without suspension of disbelief…

    This looks to me like a drop from 4 to 3 is a ‘bigger deal’ than a drop from 10 to 9. So if we drop from 3 to 2, or 1, is that a Really Big Deal or the Same Old Same Old?

  134. David says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:01:47) :

    I thought that might be it. Do the magnetic reconnection events allow any wind to seep through? Or does the actual reconnection event buffer the wind out of the way? Or is this not at all well studied to make any kind of assertion? I am not peddling any theories, I am just curious. Huge magnetic connections with the sun are fascinating and intimidating at the same time.

    Btw, I hope you enjoyed some extra time with grandchildren while you were gone. Days with my grandparents are some of my best childhood memories. :-)

  135. Frank Perdicaro (22:29:28) :
    Lots of things heat the earth. Incoming cosmic rays heat
    the earth, as do incoming space rocks.

    The heating produced by induced currents is absolutely negligible.

    E.M.Smith (22:33:57) :
    So, given the formula, it looks like Ap can decrease toward, but never reaching, zero (unless, of course, SW dropped to zero or the B dropped to zero, but I think that’s not possible?
    Vo cannot drop below 2.5 and B seems to have a floor about 4 nT [both should be taken over a solar rotation] so Aa cannot go below ~4, corresponding to Ap = 1.6. In practice, Vo would not go as low as 2.5 for a whole rotation, so Ap won’t drop below ~3. I think the important point is that we are now down to where we were in 1901 and 1879. BTW, at so low numbers, Aa and Ap are very difficult to even measure and the uncertainty of the numbers is large, so it may not make much sense to distinguish between Ap = 2 and 3 or even 4. Ap is defined as the deviation from the ‘regular’ variation that occurs every day, but which varies slightly from day to day and is really impossible to pin down to an accuracy of a few nanoTesla as would be required to determine an Ap of, say, 3.

  136. David (22:52:34) :
    Or does the actual reconnection event buffer the wind out of the way?

    The reconnected field is swept back into the magnetic tail where a second reconnection can accelerate particles onto the nightside of the Earth. The particles do not reach the surface, but the currents induced means that scores of Gigawatt are dumped into the high-altitude atmosphere. But even that is negligible compared to the amount of energy we get from ordinary sunlight on the dayside. Try to multiply 500 W/m2 by the area of the Earth’s dayside.

  137. David (22:52:34) :
    Or does the actual reconnection event buffer the wind out of the way?
    Many years ago I made a calculation of the energies involved. The numbers are still good. You can find it here [in the Appendix]: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf

  138. David says:

    Leif Svalgaard (23:04:06) :

    That would certainly explain why small changes in TSI do not cause much in the way of direct forcing changes. I guess what I am actually thinking about is the total of ways that the Sun can affect the Earth. If small changes in TSI + giving Svensmark the benefit of the doubt (solely to bounce around in my head) + energy from reconnecting + GHG forcing + ocean damping + Milankovic cycles et cetera, it seems like it would all be relatively stable, so why would the climate seem to be relatively stable, geologically speaking, as frozen instead of where we are now? I am surely in over my head, but being a glutton for learning stuff, I simply do not stop thinking and asking questions as they arise even if they are silly. I just have a hard time believing that only one factor (GHGs) can produce the catastrophic effects that are assigned to it by all the latest science and models. That is where I have a hard time grasping how a seemingly minor part of the Earth has such a grandiose effect.

  139. David says:

    Leif Svalgaard (23:09:11) :

    You, sir, have so many answers I almost want to ask you for tomorrow’s lotto numbers. I have bookmarked that for reading at a later (well, earlier) time. Thanks.

  140. Bart says:

    Frank Perdicaro (22:29:28) :

    Potentials must be induced, and since the atmosphere
    of the earth and the core of the earth are conductors, there
    are currents.

    I would expect the energy exchange to be more kinetic than heat, maybe adding some amount to the Earth’s wobble.

  141. Rob Vermeulen says:

    So… looking at the graph, the Ap index has been decreasing since the 50ies, which corresponded to the largest increase of temperature. So why does Svensmark state it has the opposite effect? He might be right concerning short-scale fluctuations but the long-term trend doesn’t fit…

    By the way, there’s a new sunspot rightnow – should update the widget!

  142. Mr. Alex says:

    “Brian (13:24:21) :
    Hey all, Ive notices its been pretty gray in the sky these last couple of months. Lots of rain not as much blue sky here in the tropics. We’ve been sleeping with the ac off most evenings also.

    It would be interesting to see the cloud density figures.”

    This has most definitely been the case in the subtropical region of South Africa too. Something is changing, there is near constant cloud and rain.

  143. ralph says:

    >>The warmers are out in force

    And the BBC is in overdrive – singing the praises of Warmism without a single shred of balance or real science.

    We had a whole series of dubious-looking tidal and wave electrical projects on last night. But not a single mention of the facts that really matter.

    How much electricity do they produce?
    What will the maintenance bill be?
    What is the environmental cost of stopping deep-water tidal flows?
    How often can these machines operate.
    . . . (Note, tidal systems stop four times a day, while
    . . . wave systems stop during anti-cyclonic conditions.)

    Is the BBC dumb, or just full of religious fervour?

    .

  144. ralph says:

    >>We understand that solar effects are not directly
    >>noticeable, but lag. Perhaps 30-60 years?

    The last quote I saw said 6 – 7 years.

    .

  145. Wayne Richards says:

    David 23:24:10
    Don’t ask Dr. Svalgaard for tomorrow’s lottery numbers; consult a good astrologer instead (who would also tell you that Dr. Svalgaard’s moon is obviously in feces).

  146. DaveF says:

    Patrick Davis (17:10:30:)

    I suspect energy security has a lot to do with it, too, but until recently it wasn’t politically correct to mention that most of the world’s oil is in countries run by bandits. Still, if they can get the peasants to pay even more tax and feel guilty as well, then that’s all to the good in their eyes. Especially if, as you say, they can claim the credit for future cooling as well. A contrite, grateful populace willing to pay up. Ideal.

  147. jbrodhead says:

    It’s dang cold. Could someone throw another Warmer on the fire?
    (That felt good to write.)

    This is an amazing website! Have been coming to WUWT for a few weeks and the wealth of knowledge and the patient explanations are really something special!

    I love the humor also :)
    Thanks to All. Good Morning.

  148. paulo arruda says:

    Dr. Leif could write a book for laypeople? so we could ask less stupid.

  149. Les Francis says:

    I see on Spaceweather.com and Solarcycle24.com that there has been a new sunspot numbered. ???
    Well! Where is it??
    Is this setting a new record for numbering a temporary spot?

  150. Andi Hasenkopf says:

    Hi, I’d like to mention a thing or two:
    If your prediction (facing colder times) is right, politicians and environmental activists will think THEY have saved the planet from the climate going wild…

  151. Aligner says:

    Leif Svalgaard (23:04:06) :

    The reconnected field is swept back into the magnetic tail where a second reconnection can accelerate particles onto the nightside of the Earth. The particles do not reach the surface, but the currents induced means that scores of Gigawatt are dumped into the high-altitude atmosphere.

    I’m still unclear about this. Last time I asked you left me with the impression that only electrons are swept back and protons carry on by. Are protons also swept back? If so, do they get into the upper atmosphere and react with the ozone layer and are ions larger than H+ involved?

    I have seen references to major flare events causing marked increases in the size of the ozone hole. If this is true, what is the mechanism in play, how well is the chemistry understood and has it been verified empirically?

    Lastly, is there a bias of these events toward the north or south pole depending on the sun’s polarity at the time?

  152. radun says:

    Anyone with knowledge of Norwegian language?

    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/vaer/artikkel.php?artid=596385

  153. rbateman says:

    Les Francis (02:44:05) :

    Try the GONG link at the bottom of this page:

    http://www.solarcycle24.com/

    Then click on Magnetograms/Intensity
    next page has 6 observatories. Click on the leftmost image in an observatory that has a green bar and in not presently cloudy.
    The current spot flared into life on the 7th, out of sight behind the limb.
    If you have even a pair of binoculars, project the Sun tomorrow onto a sheet of white paper. A small refractor is even better.
    Good luck.

  154. rbateman says:

    Andi Hasenkopf (03:13:10) :

    They have pre-claimed this by stating that Global Warming causes Global Cooling. It’s nothing more than a rubber check written by political science.
    We really do need empirical data.
    We really do need it because:
    1.) There’s too much polyscience-driven computer-model agenda out there.
    2.) The hemispherical winters are starting to look like where the 70’s left off.
    3.) Nature abhors a vacuum. Man will supply whatever he can find to stuff into the void to answer the question, come what may.
    Would you rather it be some real hard scientific evidence, or the other stuff?
    The trajedy here is that too much time & resource went into bad science.
    Now that the pressure is on, we are forced to make do with what we have.
    Does AP index help us?

  155. Aligner (03:21:07) :
    I’m still unclear about this. Last time I asked you left me with the impression that only electrons are swept back and protons carry on by. Are protons also swept back? If so, do they get into the upper atmosphere and react with the ozone layer and are ions larger than H+ involved?

    The magnetic field is swept back. Particles attached to the field follow [both kinds]. In the Earth’s magnetosphere are also ions that come from the ionosphere [e.g. Oxygen]. All of these particles can be accelerated by reconnection in the tail and can then precipitate into the upper atmosphere. A very small fraction does manage to make it into the polar regions on reconnected field lines. These particles will prefer one or the other pole depending on the polarity of the field in the near-Earth solar wind.

    I have seen references to major flare events causing marked increases in the size of the ozone hole. If this is true, what is the mechanism in play, how well is the chemistry understood and has it been verified empirically?
    Cosmic rays destroy Ozone, and [rare] very energetic solar flares generate Solar Cosmic Rays which then helps to destroy the Ozone. This is well-understood and observed.

    Lastly, is there a bias of these events toward the north or south pole depending on the sun’s polarity at the time?
    See above

  156. radun (04:14:10) :
    Anyone with knowledge of Norwegian language?
    Many of us. The article basically says that the Russians deny that the mysterious lights were due to a failed rocket, but they habitually deny failure or military tests.

  157. Pascvaks says:

    rbateman (05:30:52) :
    Andi Hasenkopf (03:13:10) :
    “They have pre-claimed this by stating that Global Warming causes Global Cooling. It’s nothing more than a rubber check written by political science.
    “We really do need empirical data.”
    _______________
    Sorry, political ‘science’? Unless Nazi and Communist propaganda is considered an advanced, special field in human psychology its more a scheister’s artform. Understand Ivy League and EU Law Schools have cornored the market and applied for patent protection. Its worth trillions.

  158. FergalR says:

    Well, fair enough it is looking like a genuine sunspot now:

    4 small flares associated with it in the last 24 hours, a coronal mass ejection most likely came from the region when it was pointing away from us last week.
    From http://www.solarcycle24.com

  159. radun (04:14:10) :

    Anyone with knowledge of Norwegian language?

    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/vaer/artikkel.php?artid=596385

    “The Norwegian Space Center believes the mysterious giant spiral is a Russian rocket, lauched from a submarine in the White Sea. The Russian northern fleet denies that anything like that has happened.

    The surprise was great from south in Trøndelag [near Trondheim, Norway] to Finnmark [far north, near Russian border] when a spiral of light spread across the sky. What many people ask is if this was a Russian rocket.

    – We have no information about anything like that, and we have not seen what you describe, says an anonymous spokesperson from the Russian northern fleet to VG Nett.

    This is in contradiction to the speculations of Pål Brekke [of SOHO fame] at the Norwegian Space Center, based on an earlier notification about a coming rocket launch via the maritime system Navtex Tuesday afternoon.

    The probability that it was remains of that launch that people from Trøndelag and further north saw, is big, said Brekke ….”

    It failed, so it didn’t happen I guess.

  160. seven says:

    Same talk, but on the CERN servers.

    This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    Ps I am from Europe ( NL ) CERN is really one of the most important science centers. It’s the place of the Large Hadron Collider and they really invented the internet (al least the www part and html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee )

  161. Aligner says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:26:43) :

    Thank you for the excellent clarrification.

    Another different topic: If the sun’s magnetic field declines into a grand minimum, what is the generally accepted hypothesis for its recovery? I have come across suggestions like galactic EMF pulses/fields, residual cycles from the big bang, etc. none of which seem very credible. A pointer to a succinct but complete and unembellished description of current dynamo theory [difficult to find!] would be a big help.

  162. Aligner (11:00:27) :
    If the sun’s magnetic field declines into a grand minimum, what is the generally accepted hypothesis for its recovery?

    There is none, but some thoughts may be found here:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.3106v1.pdf

    and here

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2156v1.pdf

  163. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: radun (04:14:10)

    http://translate.google.com/#

    rbateman (05:30:52) “The trajedy here is that too much time & resource went into bad science.”

    Agree.

  164. radun says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:30:58) :
    Tank you

    Carsten Arnholm, Norway (09:41:30) :
    Tanks for translating the article

    Paul Vaughan (11:49:54) :
    Thanks

    Have traced a video of the event

    REPLY: Probably the “bat signal” sent up by alarmists in trouble – Anthony

  165. David says:

    REPLY: Probably the “bat signal” sent up by alarmists in trouble – Anthony

    Hehe. I could have sworn, though, that ‘the sign’ was a tree ring with Antarctica in the middle.

  166. Geoff Sharp says:

    The amount of Ozone in our atmosphere in part is a result of the amount of UV produced from the Sun. TSI may vary by a small amount, but the UV variance can be much higher across different spectrums of the UV band during the 11 year solar cycle.

    There have been reports on WUWT that this UV variance can influence the amount of low level cloud cover.

  167. seven says:

    Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

    Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.

    Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.

    CERN is no fringe laboratory pursuing crackpot theories at some remote backwater. CERN, based in Geneva, is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, a 50-yearold institution, originally founded by 12 countries and now counting 20 country-members. It services 6,500 particle physicists — half of the world’s total — in 500 institutes and universities around the world. It is building the $2.4-billion Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. And it is home to Jasper Kirkby’s long-languished CLOUD project, among the most significant scientific experiments to be proposed in our time. Finally, almost a decade after Dr. Kirkby’s proposal first saw the light of day, the funding is in place and the work has begun in earnest. more…. http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

  168. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard (23:04:06) :

    The reconnected field is swept back into the magnetic tail where a second reconnection can accelerate particles onto the nightside of the Earth. The particles do not reach the surface, but the currents induced means that scores of Gigawatt are dumped into the high-altitude atmosphere. But even that is negligible compared to the amount of energy we get from ordinary sunlight on the dayside. Try to multiply 500 W/m2 by the area of the Earth’s dayside.

    Hi Leif, I was struck by this quote:

    “Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically, and nearly the entire voltage associated with this process appears in the polar cap region, which extends typically less than 20° in latitude from the magnetic pole. The total voltage across the polar cap can be as large as 100,000 volts, rivaling that of thunderstorm electrification of the planet in magnitude. ”

    http://www.arcus.org/logistics/svalbard/Svalbard.pdf

    Is the thunderstorm electrification of the planet negligible too?

  169. tallbloke (12:24:56) :
    Is the thunderstorm electrification of the planet negligible too?
    The polar cap electric field is horizontal and is really created by E = V x B, that is: plasma moving across a magnetic field, and is typically 50kV [varies].
    There is a vertical electric field caused by thunderstorms. This field is about 300kV between the ground and the lower ionosphere.

  170. tallbloke says:

    Leif, many thanks for the clarification. Is this the stuff Brian Tinsley is working on?
    I take it there is more energy required to create the vertical voltage across the atmospheric dielectric than across the ice cap?

    Wibble. :-)

  171. tallbloke (13:09:40) :
    Leif, many thanks for the clarification. Is this the stuff Brian Tinsley is working on?
    Yes, this is Tinsley’s specialty, although the vertical ‘fair-weather’ electric field has been known for a long time [century?].

  172. Pressed Rat says:

    Leif,
    Magnetic reversals have left a geologic record. I have read articles and books that offer differing opinions regarding the net effect of reversals on climate and geological processes. These opinions range from negligible to catastrophic. Could you share your ideas regarding this? I also remember that prior to a reversal the Earth’s magnetic field weakens and “wanders” to a large degree. Currently, magnetic North is situated above Canada, quite a way from the rotational pole. If you were a betting man, what are the odds of a reversal occurring near term?

  173. Pressed Rat (14:39:15) :
    If you were a betting man, what are the odds of a reversal occurring near term?
    Magnetic reversals have happened tens of thousands of times and we are still here. The dipole moment has been declining lately [15% in the last couple of centuries] ans there may be a reversal in another, say, thousand year. Whether that is ‘near term’, is a matter of debate, perhaps. I don’t expect any significant change in climate or living conditions. A reversal could put some of our ideas on how things work to the test.

  174. Pressed Rat says:

    Leif –
    “A reversal could put some of our ideas on how things work to the test.”
    Things like, say, human civilization?

  175. Pressed Rat (19:37:27) :
    “A reversal could put some of our ideas on how things work to the test.”
    Things like, say, human civilization?

    No, nothing of that kind. I was referring to ideas about how geomagnetic activity, the size of the magnetosphere, the conductivity of the ionosphere, etc. Things that all depend on the strength of the Earth’s field. Also, reversals take a long time to happen – centuries or more – so there will be enough time to adapt.

  176. Leif,

    Many, many measurements since 1960 indicate that:

    a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;

    b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and

    c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons [1-4].

    Have you considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in the surface appearances of activity from a solar dynamo – actually a neutron star ?

    1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, J. Fusion Energy 19,(2001) 93-98.

    http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

    2. “€œNeutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.

    http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

    3. “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107-114.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

    4. ” The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 847-1856.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  177. Oliver K. Manuel (07:26:14) :
    a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;
    As Hydrogen makes up some 75% of all baryonic matter in the universe it is hard for the Sun, NOT to be a ball of Hydrogen [with some 24% Helium and 1% 'metals' thrown in]

    b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and
    And was THAT star not a Hydrogen ball either?

    c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons
    Nonsense, we have a very good idea of the actual energy generation in great detail, and the neutrino production, and density/temperature profile are extremely well explained.

    Have you considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in the surface appearances of activity from a solar dynamo
    The Sun does, indeed, have a compact, energetic core, but there is no dynamo in the radiatively stable interior well below the convection zone.

    I’m afraid your ideas are ‘not even wrong’ and have no support whatsoever. and therefore really do not belong on a ‘science blog’. We have been over this discussion before and nothing new has been added, except, perhaps that the neutrino data have become even firmer in support of the standard solar model.

    REPLY: Baryonic matter?! How very barycentric of you. Three quarks for Mister Mark! I agree with Leif, take this stuff elsewhere.- Anthony

  178. Wow!

    Sorry that I intruded.

    Thought that you might have considered the possibility of interactions between orbiting planets and a dense solar core energized by repulsive interactions between neutrons.

    You probably doubt neutron repulsion?

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  179. Leif Svalgaard (19:18:03) :

    “As Hydrogen makes up some 75% of all baryonic matter in the universe . . .”

    You speak with great authority. [snip] measurements shown in overheads in Dubna, Russia at the FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS on 20 June 2005:

    “The Sun Is A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Sorts Atoms By Mass”

    http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  180. Oliver K. Manuel (04:21:27) :
    “You speak with great authority. Indeed.

    b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun

    How did the precursor star form?

  181. Leif Svalgaard (04:48:40) :

    1. Yes, indeed, “The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun”. That statement of fact is based on experimental data summarized in the overheads.

    “The Sun Is A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Sorts Atoms By Mass”

    http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    No other explanation has been offered for the empirical link of primordial He with excess Xe-136 in diverse classes of meteorites and in Jupiter. AGW Cameron simply ignored the data in his model of a nearby supernova trigger for formation of the solar system.

    2. “How did the precursor star form?”

    I do not know. [A simple four word sentence - almost always truthful but unusually difficult for most of us to admit.]

    I suspect (from the following observations) that the precursor star had a compact neutron core like the Sun and sorted atoms by mass because a “carrier” gas of H (a neutron decay product) moved upward from the core:

    a.) The precursor star sorted atoms by mass, as the Sun does.

    That was one of the observational puzzles of the 1970s: Why were isotopes mass fractionated in the elements inside meteorites that retained products of stellar nucleosynthesis reactions?

    Nucleogenetic isotopic anomalies were first discovered in the nine stable isotopes of xenon [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101].

    The measurements showed a combination of
    a.) Fractionation by mass,
    b.) Excess Xe-136 from rapid neutron capture (r-process of B2FH), and
    c.) Excess Xe-124 from the p-process of B2FH – as shown in this figure:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm

    Measurements at the University of Chicago and Cal Tech confirmed the linkage of Fractionation and Unknown Nuclear (“FUN”) effects in the isotopes of other elements in meteorites in 1977 [Clayton R. N. and Mayeda T. (1977) "Correlated oxygen and magnesium isotopic anomalies in Allende inclusions: I. Oxygen", Geophys. Res. Lett. 4, 295-298; Wasserburg, G. J., Lee, T., and Papanastassiou, D. A. (1977) "Correlated oxygen and magnesium isotopic anomalies in Allende inclusions: II. Magnesium", Geophys. Res. Lett. 4, 299-302].

    Many other measurements by many other investigators have confirmed the presence of combined “FUN” (Fraction and Unknown Nucleogenetic) isotopic anomalies in other elements that were initially trapped in meteorites as the Solar System formed directly from supernova debris:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  182. Oliver K. Manuel (07:03:54) :
    2. “How did the precursor star form?”
    I do not know. [A simple four word sentence - almost always truthful but unusually difficult for most of us to admit.]

    I suspect (from the following observations) that the precursor star had a compact neutron core like the Sun

    This seems an infinite regress.

    The newborn universe was 75% H and 25% He [with insignificant amounts of Li, b and Be]. All heavier elements [O, Si, Fe, U, etc] are built by well-understood nuclear synthesis. The heaviest stars explode as supernovae and so ‘enrich’ the interstellar medium by increasing amounts of ‘metals’. The increasing metal-content with age is directly measured in stars of different ages. The processes by which stars shine and explode and by which elements are formed are well-understood and there are no puzzles. As I said, your ideas are pseudo-science and nonsense and it does seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.

  183. Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32) :
    it does NOT seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.

  184. jbrodhead says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32) :

    “As I said, your ideas are pseudo-science and nonsense and it does seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.”

    Should we understand the science is settled?

  185. jbrodhead (08:33:21) :
    Should we understand the science is settled?
    On this issue, it is ‘settled’. This does not mean that there is not more to learn, but the science is settled the same way as it is settled on whether the Earth is flat or round, 6000 years or 4.6 Billions years old, whether atoms exists, etc.

  186. jbrodhead says:

    Leif Svalgaard (08:38:24) :

    “On this issue, it is ’settled’. This does not mean that there is not more to learn, but the science is settled the same way as it is settled on whether the Earth is flat or round, 6000 years or 4.6 Billions years old, whether atoms exists, etc.”

    4.6B… determined by tree rings, sediment, or personal experience?

    You believe there is order (as opposed to absolute chaos) to the laws of the physical universe – correct?
    And the science is settled, provable – correct?
    At what point has science been capable of proving that everything in the universe (energy, matter, time, etc…) became from nothing (absolute void)?
    Are you not amazed by the the existance of life?
    What about the existance of the environments on earth, which have held so many forms within a relatively tiny window of temperature, humidity, O2, CO2, all the minerals and nutrients necessary to support life, in virtually all ‘corners’ of the globe.
    The immense number of coincedences required for one robust lifeform to have survived, let alone the millions of fragile lifeforms, make the odds of your (implied) Godless origin of the universe an insanely impossible prospect.
    So we disagree. I believe my proof trumps yours, because I have, by faith, an answer to the existance of life, the universe and everything AND it’s not “42”.

  187. jbrodhead (10:11:56) :
    because I have, by faith, an answer to the existance of life, the universe and everything
    Since FAITH is not science. faith-based religious views hardly belong in a ‘science blog’. I’ll just point out that other Faiths provide different answers to the faithful.

  188. 1. Quoting Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32) :

    “The newborn universe was 75% H and 25% He [with insignificant amounts of Li, B and Be]. All heavier elements [O, Si, Fe, U, etc] are built by well-understood nuclear synthesis. The heaviest stars explode as supernovae and so ‘enrich’ the interstellar medium by increasing amounts of ‘metals’. The increasing metal-content with age is directly measured in stars of different ages. The processes by which stars shine and explode and by which elements are formed are well-understood and there are no puzzles. As I said, your ideas are pseudo-science and nonsense and it does seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.”

    2. Quoting Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32):

    “it does NOT seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.”

    Two of many sets of experimental data directly falsify Leif’s obsolete ideas from B2FH [Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957) 547-650]:

    At the birth of the solar system, MEASUREMENTS show that:

    1. Excess Xe-136 accompanied the primordial He in diverse meteorites and in Jupiter:

    1a.) Meteorites: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
    1b.) Jupiter ["Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97 (1998) abstract 5011]

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

    2. Molybdenum isotopes in iron meteorites display nucleogenetic isotopic anomalies because the iron came directly from the iron-rich region of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system.

    2a.) University of Tokyo: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm
    [Qi-Lu, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tokyo, 1991]
    2b.) Harvard [Nature 415 (2002) 881-883] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6874/abs/415881a.html

    It is time to address the data, Leif.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  189. jbrodhead says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:40:51) :

    “Since FAITH is not science. faith-based religious views hardly belong in a ’science blog’. I’ll just point out that other Faiths provide different answers to the faithful.”

    Your settled opinion is that faith has no place in science, or at least in a ‘science’ blog, but many of those in HIStorical science, were so, because of their faith. Also, this is not only a ‘science’ blog, but a political blog… Unless Al Gore is a scientist and the Copenhagen fiasco is not about science, but global politics.
    Science is not my religion, but I know through my faith that there is order in the universe, because it is the creation of God. Without an ordered universe, your science would be chaos (assuming the universe could or would exist.)

    I do not dismiss the structure of the universe, but the theory of origin.

    We are “discussing” your religion (science) and my beliefs of a created universe. You avoided the subject of the absolute improbability of existance, in a way which was as dismissive as when you responded to Oliver K. Manuel (07:03:54) :

    As you demand science to be a stand-alone entity and you cannot show cause for the existance of the universe, you are showing the same creating a wall around science, an elitist society, to which we, the peons, may be exposed at your will/whim. Isn’t that what Climategate is all about?

    I am not trying to muddy the waters (speaking of which, are you aware of the miraculous characteristics of H2O?), anyway… I believe you might be missing ‘data’, which is far more important than ice melting, or not…

    My beliefs are not shrouded, except to the extent you so choose to accept.

    If your purpose is to find the proof of fraud, go for it. I am fully convinced that political forces gave motivation to pollute, destroy, fabricate the data. My interests are for the preservation of the good things in this world. The true opposition is intent upon destruction of freedom and life.

  190. Oliver K. Manuel (12:36:41) :
    It is time to address the data, Leif.
    There is no doubt that the Iron and all the other stuff [except the light elements] that make us up was formed in supernovae. It is just that that [those] explosions didn’t happen in the solar system. Ii is even likely that a supernova relatively close to the solar system [a few tens of light-years away, say], triggered the formation of the interstellar cloud that eventually became the Hydrogen/Helium sun with a sprinkling of ‘metals’ from that and previous explosions mixed in. Any anomalies [as compared to what, BTW] could easily be produced that way.

  191. jbrodhead (10:11:56) : because I have, by faith,
    Oliver K. Manuel (12:36:41) :

    Perhaps a discussion by Manuel how the good Lord arranged for the supernova that sustains jbrodhead’s faith would be a interest…

    Or rather: both of you, you might find more sympathetic ears for your opinions elsewhere.

  192. jbrodhead says:

    Leif Svalgaard (13:05:30) :

    No supernova sustains my faith.

    As a father, whose child just recovered from a significant case of pneumonia, in about three days(!), I am grateful to God, for creating the persons who are drawn to science and develop medications such as antibiotics.

    Having participated in the birth of our children and been interactive with their innately power ‘little’ minds, from birth to date… I find creation amazing.

    I believe our little planet is a dynamic system with a purpose. The data which science craves and processes, continues to show the non-accidental nature of nature.

    My hope for you, is that a question, such as “How did NOTHING create EVERYTHING?” will take root in your heart and hold you until you look UP in a different way.

    [OK, can everyone stick to what can be proven? ~dbs, mod.]

  193. Quoting Leif Svalgaard (12:57:38) :

    “There is no doubt that the Iron and all the other stuff [except the light elements] that make us up was formed in supernovae. It is just that that [those] explosions didn’t happen in the solar system. Ii is even likely that a supernova relatively close to the solar system [a few tens of light-years away, say], triggered the formation of the interstellar cloud that eventually became the Hydrogen/Helium sun with a sprinkling of ‘metals’ from that and previous explosions mixed in. Any anomalies [as compared to what, BTW] could easily be produced that way.”

    Address the data, Leif! A nearby supernova does not explain why:

    1. Excess Xe-136 from rapid neutron capture accompanied ALL primordial Helium in meteorites and in giant gaseous planets like Jupiter !

    “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics, Planet Sci 33, A97, 5011 (1998).

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

    2. Molybdenum isotopes made by different nuclear reactions were never mixed together and ejected into the interstellar medium before forming huge boulders of iron !

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm

    3. The top of the solar atmosphere is covered with the lightest elements – Hydrogen and Helium – but the Sun itself is mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si, and S, just like Earth and ordinary meteorites.

    “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, 1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0412502v1

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1033.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  194. Oliver K. Manuel (14:45:20) :
    A nearby supernova does not explain why
    And why not? sounds very reasonable to me, combined with fractionation in the solar nebula [which took place - e.g. explains the decrease in density from Mercury to the out gas planets].

    More to the point: we are usually loath to say that the Sun and the solar system are unique [hundreds of systems have already been observed]. So, you are suggesting [unless the sun is special somehow] that all systems form by a supernova and have [as you stated] a neutron core and contain very little hydrogen.

    Your examples are proofs of nothing of the kind you claim.

  195. jbrodhead (12:46:15) :
    You avoided the subject of the absolute improbability of existence

    I don’t think it is improbable, rather that it is inevitable, e.g. http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm or http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

    The total energy of the existing Universe is probably zero, and getting nothing from nothing is not such an improbability. And proper understanding of the Universe and physics in general is not elitist at all, anybody can obtain such knowledge [and cheaply].

    That this blog is political and that politics and religion are bedfellows in this are probably gross misrepresentations, but I’ll let Anthony correct me here if I’m wrong. I don’t think this blog is a place to spout religion, no matter how strong the Faith is.

  196. a jones says:

    A nearby supernova? I hope not.

    Hoyle, after he had chucked me off his team for being a big bang heretic, wrote a book about that which was probably fairly accurate in it’s descriptions of the effects.

    Well at least as accurate as we can imagine. I forget the details.

    Still at the time when the USSR threatened us in the UK with their SS20’s to deter the deployment of cruise missiles some left wing councils put up notices declaring they were nuclear free zones. The joke being that one had a nice fission reactor right in the middle of the zone.

    However since the SS20’s were never launched I think we may learn a lesson.

    What we really need is a very large notice saying ‘NO SUPERNOVAS PERMITTED HEREABOUTS.’ English readers of my age would add ‘PENALTY FIVE POUNDS’

    Should do the trick I reckon.

    Kindest Regards.

  197. a jones (15:37:01) :
    A nearby supernova? I hope not.
    Long ago :-)

  198. a jones says:

    Dr. Svalgaard

    I missed your previous post perhaps because I was posting myself.

    I could not disagree with you more strongly that total energy in this Universe approximates to zero. This is an argument which I have fought against all my life.

    From a classical viewpoint this Universe is a naked singularity and therefore to exist must possess a unique identity in terms of energy, entropy and handedness. It is not and cannot be symmetrical.

    The Elsewhere from which perhaps it came and of which we know nothing might well be symmetrical. But we could speculate that this universe is the result of some imbalance in that Elsewhere which produced the big bang: or indeed possibly and more likely two or any other even number of them. We simply don’t know: but I have hopes we may find out in time. If there is time enough.

    I do not disagree, despite it’s arbitary nature, with Professor Hawkin’s Cosmic Law of Censorship: that is that Nature Abhors A Naked Singularity, at least as far as it applies inside this Universe. And indeed it has allowed us to show that black holes obey the second law of thermodynamics. We have other ways of showing that today.

    No Sir. This Universe has energy, entropy and handedness.

    Kindest Regards

  199. a jones says:

    Whoops lost a G there. Finger trouble.

    Kindest Regards.

  200. jbrodhead says:

    Leif Svalgaard (13:05:30) :

    The total energy of the existing Universe is probably zero, and getting nothing from nothing is not such an improbability. And proper understanding of the Universe and physics in general is not elitist at all, anybody can obtain such knowledge [and cheaply].

    In US banking, creating a bubble (something out of nothing) is a sure way to create an implosion (nothing out of something.) They call it theft. But in the case of banks, the banks have something to be stolen and eventually the theives are caught and the something is returned.

    I know a vacuum bubble can be created out of something (i.e. cavitation in fluid stream.) Now you propose creating energy and matter and dimensions out of nothing and that it is a simple matter (not such an improbability.) Are there not laws of thermodynamics at play? I know biologists attempt to step around those laws, but physists?

    If, for argument sake, we live in a bubble, sucked, no blown, no… something’ed out of nothing, then our existence is futile; the eventuality is nothingness. Based on this: “why?” Why breathe, breed, work, think, try? What is your purpose?

    Leif, I do not see where I indicated politics and religion are bedfellows. I believe I referred to science and politics. Climategate seems to be settled science… :)

    I am not out to SAVE people. I am powerless to do so. I am studying, as best I can in short order, politics and enough science, to become better at defending my family and Nation from enemies domestic and foreign. I appreciate those things I am learning in both areas, here (thanks WUWT and all contributors). I am telling as many people as I can find, about this site. And, if occation allows, I attempt to bring my found tidbits, in hopes to contribute, news, humor, myself as best I can… If that is not of value here, so be it. I will attempt to quietly watch the chatter and discoveries, but will still send others to this site.

    Let’s call off this ‘debate’, because of cold. Ok…

  201. Quoting Leif Svalgaard (15:06:14) :

    “More to the point: we are usually loath to say that the Sun and the solar system are unique [hundreds of systems have already been observed].”

    The Sun is not unique, Leif.

    The Sun is powered by repulsive interactions between neutrons in its core. The Sun discards Hydrogen as a waste product.

    You have confused “smoke” with fuel for the solar engine.

    Experimental DATA show that the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H), but Hydrogen covers the the visible top of the atmospheres of most stars.

    The surface of the Sun is 91% H. H is the lightest of all elements.

    The surface of the Sun is 9% He. He is the next lightest element.

    Measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind and abundances of s-products in the photosphere independently show why:

    The Sun sorts atoms by mass and selectively moves lightweight ones to the top of the Sun’s atmosphere [ http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0412502v1 ].

    That’s not rocket science, Leif! That’s an experimental fact.

    Each year the Sun produces and discards 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind. That too is an experimental fact.

    Hydrogen is a waste product (neutron decay product) from the solar engine, not its primary fuel.

    I invite you and others to join and participate in a discussion on evidence for repulsive interactions between neutrons.

    Kirt Griffin formed and moderates a Yahoo Group on this subject, “Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,”

    neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com

    To subscribe, send an e-mail to
    neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  202. jbrodhead (16:35:12) :
    Based on this: “why?” Why breathe, breed, work, think, try? What is your purpose?
    You can create the purpose of your own existence by living it to the fullest.

    Oliver K. Manuel (17:46:49) :
    Each year the Sun [...] discards 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind. That too is an experimental fact.
    A characteristic of pseudo-science is the mixture of fact and fantasy .

    The Sun is not unique
    Let us hang on to this statement. So, are all other stars then like the Sun, in the sense that they are balls of Iron surrounding a neutron core [which by the way is not made of Iron] formed by a supernova in situ?

  203. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (18:06:46) :

    “A characteristic of pseudo-science is the mixture of fact and fantasy.”

    On that point, you are clearly the authority

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  204. Oliver K. Manuel (17:46:49) :
    The Sun is not unique
    Let us hang on to this statement. So, are all other stars then like the Sun, in the sense that they are balls of Iron surrounding a neutron core [which by the way is not made of Iron] formed by a supernova in situ?

  205. Oliver K. Manuel (20:01:04) :
    “A characteristic of pseudo-science is the mixture of fact and fantasy.”
    On that point, you are clearly the authority

    Yes, in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

  206. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (20:25:14)

    “So, are all other stars then like the Sun, in the sense that they are balls of Iron surrounding a neutron core [which by the way is not made of Iron] formed by a supernova in situ?”

    Probably so. But the measurements cited above were made on the Sun

    However, this manuscript ["Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201] shows that :

    a.) Nuclear energy from neutron repulsion is greater than that from fusion.
    b.) Nuclear energy from fusion is greater than that from fission.

    http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

    All stars appear to have moved lightweight elements to the surface and to have discharged waste hydrogen (“smoke”) to interstellar space, but the Sun is the only star close enough for detailed measurements.

    Why ask about other stars?

    That may be a clever debate technique, but it is obviously a ploy to avoid addressing experimental data that show the Sun sorts atoms by mass [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856].

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  207. Oliver K. Manuel (21:19:03) :
    Why ask about other stars?
    Because the current theory encompasses all stars, with the Sun fitting in nicely. [and there are no MEASUREMENTS of anything on the Sun other than its atmosphere. ]

    So, all other stars must also have a neutron star at their center so every star must be born in a supernova explosion of a previous star that also had a neutron star left over from a supernova explosion from its previous star, which in turn had a neutron star created by a supernova explosion of its previous star that then also had a neutron star, etc … ad infinitum.

  208. Quote Leif Svalgaard (21:27:40) :

    “So, all other stars must also have a neutron star at their center . . .etc. … ad infinitum.”

    Enough evasion! We don’t have data from “all other stars”, Leif, so . . .

    Please, Leif, just address the experimental data that show the Sun sorts atoms by mass [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856].

    http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    With kind regards,
    OLiver K. Manuel

  209. Oliver K. Manuel (08:56:21) :
    Enough evasion! We don’t have data from “all other stars”, Leif, so Please, Leif, just address the experimental data that show the Sun sorts atoms by mass
    The ‘sorting’ has nothing to do with whether there was a supernova or is a neutron star. So, you are the one that are evading
    1) explaining how the ‘sorting’ implies a neutron star or/and supernova, and
    2) explaining why the sun is different from 99.9% of all other stars.

    Just citing the URL once more is, of course, not enough.
    In your scheme, every star must have a neutron star at the center, since that is the source of stellar energy. Thus every star must have been a supernova. There is one supernova every 50 years in our Galaxy, so over the 10 billion years of the life of the Galaxy, there have been 200 million supernovas and thus 200 million neutron stars which is 1000 times smaller than the number of stars [200 billion], so 99.9% of stars have no neutron core and must be shining by the ordinary standard way of converting H to He. Right?

  210. [snip]

    Just address these two observation, Leif, one at a time:

    1. Why are lightweight isotopes enriched in the solar wind?

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

    2. Why are lightweight s-products enriched in the photosphere?

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2005Data.htm

    Here is additional evidence that the Sun sorts atoms by mass and selectively moves lightweight ones like H and He to its surface:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  211. Oliver K. Manuel (17:58:00) :
    Just address these two observation, Leif, one at a time
    You probably know why already or at least have some hypotheses about why. But how does it follow from these that
    1) the sun is a remnant of a supernova in the solar system
    2) there is a neutron star at the core?

    gravitational fractionation is a universal process that occurs everywhere: just try to pour some nails into a glass of water and watch the nails sink. So, the question is why that requires a supernova leaving a neutron star?

  212. Stop avoiding experimental data, Leif.

    Measurements show that:

    1. Lightweight isotopes are enriched in the solar wind.

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

    2. Lightweight s-products are enriched in the photosphere.

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2005Data.htm

    Two totally independent measurements reveal mass fractionation in the Sun. Both measurements indicate that the bulk Sun is composed mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni and S – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets.

    http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    How do these data fit the standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun?

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  213. Oliver K. Manuel (20:19:55) :
    Two totally independent measurements reveal mass fractionation in the Sun.
    The measurements relate to the outer atmosphere of the Sun and say nothing about the interior. If you think otherwise, explain how. Here.

  214. The measurements were made on the SAME material commonly used to represent “solar” abundances of elements.

    The measurements show that lightweight elements (like H and He) and the lightweight isotopes of each element (like Ne-20 and Xe-124) are enriched “the outer atmosphere of the Sun.”

    See: “Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and xenon,”
    Nature 227, 1113-1116 (1970); doi:10.1038/2271113a0

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what those measurements mean for the material left inside the Sun!

    As noted above, both measurements show that the bulk Sun, prior to mass fractionation, was composed mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni and S – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets.

    http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  215. Oliver K. Manuel (23:03:20) :
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what those measurements mean for the material left inside the Sun!

    If so, then you should have an easy job explaining why it follows that the bulk of the Sun is the not Hydrogen and Helium. So, explain here, why.

    BTW, we have measurements of the sound speed inside the Sun [from helioseismology] and thus of the molecular weight showing that it is consistent with the standard H-He model.

  216. Quote Leif Svalgaard (21:30:01) :

    [i]The measurements relate to the outer atmosphere of the Sun and say nothing about the interior. If you think otherwise, explain how. Here.[/i]

    That is explained in detail in the overheads and papers cited above:

    1) http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm

    2) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    Again, the composition of the interior of the Sun is defined quantitatively by:

    a.) The composition of the solar atmosphere (photosphere):

    http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm

    b.) The mass fractionation measured across abundances of:

    _1.) Isotopes in the solar wind (Measured from 3 to 136 atomic mass units), and

    _2.) S-products in the photosphere (Measured 27 to 207 amu)

    http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig2.htm

    Conclusions on the composition of the solar interior from:

    _1.) Isotopes in the solar wind:

    http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm

    _2.) S-products in the photosphere

    http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig4.htm

    Both sets of INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENTS agree: The interior of the Sun is mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si and S – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets.

    The probability (P) that this agreement is fortuitous is essentially zero,

    P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002

    See: O. Manuel and Stig Friberg, "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology, Big Bear Lake, CA USA (Editor: Huguette Lacoste, ESA SP-517, Feb 2003) pp. 345-348

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor
    Nuclear & Space Science

  217. My reply – with a paper that Professor Stig Friberg and I presented at a SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology and published in the ESA Proceedings- is pending moderation.

    The fact that “the sound speed inside the Sun” . . . “is consistent with the standard H-He model”, or strawberry jello, or chocolate pudding, etc., is useless verbiage.

    My good friend and mentor, an astrophysicist named Dr. Carl Rouse, published several papers showing that helioseismology measurements support the concept of an iron-rich solar interior

    http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Carl_Rouse_desc.htm

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  218. Oliver K. Manuel (19:40:03) :
    “The measurements relate to the outer atmosphere of the Sun and say nothing about the interior. If you think otherwise, explain how. Here.”
    That is explained in detail in the overheads and papers cited above

    Those contain no explanation whatsoever, just unsubstantiated statements. It is a measure of your understanding of something that you can EXPLAIN in simple language how a process works. You references contain no such explanations. E.g. to state that “magnetic fields brings H to the surface” is no explanation at all.
    So, show your understanding of the process and provide an explanation. Here in this blog.

  219. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (02:01:01) :

    “Those contain no explanation whatsoever, just unsubstantiated statements.”

    Nonsense! Those experimental data were collected over the past five decades (1960-2010).

    E.g., these Ne isotope data that I collected in the laboratory of the late Professor John H. Reynolds in the Physics Department at UC-Berkeley in 1964:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1964Data.htm

    The data were presented before large audiences of nuclear, space, and solar scientists at international gatherings in the United States, the old USSR, Canada, (Dubna) Russia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Japan, India, Finland, Ireland, etc.

    The data were submitted together with explanations that you foolishly call “unsubstantiated statements” for publication after review by PhD scientists in chemistry, physics, geology, nuclear and space studies.

    By 1980, experimental measurements on Ne isotopes in planets, the Moon, and various classes of meteorites had shown, for example, values of

    Ne-20/Ne-22 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc.=

    Simple mass-dependent fractionation explained ALL of these observations [O.K. Manuel and D.D. Sabu , "The Neon Alphabet Game", Proceedings of the 11th Lunar Planet Sci. Conf, Vol. 15, Number 2 (1980) pages 879-899]

    http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Neon_alphabet_game.pdf

    Go ahead, Leif, its your turn to address the data!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  220. Oliver K. Manuel (04:34:42) :
    Those experimental data were collected over the past five decades (1960-2010).
    There is nothing wrong with the data. It is just your interpretation and conclusions drawn from them that are completely off the mark and make no sense whatsoever. You consistently evade explaining anything.

  221. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (06:27:26) :

    “There is nothing wrong with the data. It is just your interpretation and conclusions drawn from them that are completely off the mark and make no sense whatsoever.”

    Great evasion trick there, Leif. You “forgot” to tell us how you would explain the data.

    Ignore experimental data and pretend that the interior of the Sun is 91% H and 9% He like its surface, Leif, but the Sun will not change to match the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

    What is, is.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  222. Sean Peake says:

    “fight-fight-fight” … I expect this schoolyard cry will be snipped

Comments are closed.