David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
For those who agree that the IPCC and Al Gore have gone too far, signing the online petition “Al Gore and The UN IPCC Should Give Back Their Nobel Prize!” seems like a reasonable option. The link is http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nomorenobel/
Ecotretas
http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/765519–hamilton-spin-is-in-but-climate-change-still-there
Apparently it’s still being shoveled..
Just to help the discussion along back in 28 July 2009 it was reported by David Archibald (guest post on WUWT):
“NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years.
The notion that the last half of the 20th century was the most active the past many millennia is less and less likely. There is mounting evidence that solar activity 1950-2000 was on par with [or possibly even slightly less than] during 1725-1800. Figure 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf shows this well. See also http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
Whether we’ll have a Dalton Minimum remains to be seen. And any cooling may depend [as it did back then] on suitable volcanic eruptions: 2009GL040882.pdf 🙂
Stock tip: Buy! LL Bean, North Face….
Leif Svalgaard (12:23:52) :
And any cooling may depend [as it did back then] on suitable volcanic eruptions: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040882.pdf 🙂
Dalton Minimum most likely!
If we don’t stop the AGW scare, our sun will!
Unless more snow and cold is sold to the public as warming!
When the sunspots leave the visible spectrum, the question will be; to chill or not to chill.
=============================
Note to self: SELL carbon credits ASAP!
What do you think is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere?(surveys)
Interesting that MWP does not feature any grand maximum, but rather longer period of medium activity, albeit not interrupted by any solar minimum. It is bettr visible also here:
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/solanki2.jpg
Al Gore extends his powers to the sun, saves humanity.
Not to point out the obvious, but given that the Oughts were the warmest decade on record, and corresponded with an unusually long and deep solar minimum, doesn’t that suggest the presence of a large non-solar forcing which is warming the planet in spite of the slight fall in irradiance?
If solar forcing had caused the anomalous temps of the 20th century, wouldn’t we have expected a long and deep solar minimum to stop the warming trend?
I’m glad he made sure to say that it is his personal opinion. This non-scientist thinks it is *way* too early to be speculating about minima, whether Dalton-style, Maunder-style, or otherwise. I think it is way too early to be speculating about human-caused GW, too.
Back in school, they taught us to let the data take us where it wanted. What happened to that concept?
Look forward to viewing the video. When is the CERN “Cloud” experiment expected?
The current trajectory of SC24 has a target of 50-70 SSN by 2015.
Roughly. There is an uncertainty here complicated by the L&P effect that is, at present, eating away at the contrast of Sunspots.
The N. Hemisphere of the Sun is progressing in # of spots, but is lagging in Sunspot area. see – http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/quar_DSD.txt
A Modern Maximum progression would have produced daily Sunspot Areas into the > 1000 x 10E6 by now.
There is a disconnect between the flux and Sunspot Area.
This is on the face of things.
You can see the Mt. Wilson data here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots
and the San Fernando Obs. data here:
http://www.csun.edu/sfo/spotarea.gif
And all that gives a nice heads-up on what this Solar Cycle is panning out to be.
It surely is not an SC19 blowout in progress.
Thanks, David, for the reminder of what is going on 93 million miles away.
The point is that a length that exceeds 12 years has always led to prolonged grand minimum (1798 Dalton minimum, 1856 Damon minimum). It is not known exactly how long the cycles before Maunder minimum were, but there seems to have been a minimum in 1620. This leads to 25 years for the two cycles 1620-1645 just before Maunder.
This means a cooling for decades, at least for 30 years, but we cannot be sure we are on a course to a new LIA (Little Ice Age). A low Dalton is probable, but one can’t be sure, there are too many indications of the solar magnetic field having a deep dive.
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#alert
We expect that the next relatively deep minimum of the solar activity, radius, and radiation flux in the 200-year quasi-cycle will be close to the Maunder minimum level and will occur in the year 2040 ±10.
Kh. I. Abdusamatov
The Sun’s orbit in the years 1985±2035 is of disordered (nontrefoil) type and similar to that of the second half of the nineteenth century. By analogy,
mostly weaker and longer solar cycles should occur.
Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused
by solar inertial motion?
I. Charvatova:Geophysical Institute AS CR, BocÏnõÂ II, 141 31 Praha 4, Czech Republic
Though barycentric movements influence have been rejected by “settled” science, only based on gravitational influence (“flintstones universe”), as it is becoming every day more evident the electrical nature of the universe (plasma universe) then, it is possible the mutual influence between planets and the sun.
This ramp up reminds me of cycle 20, looking at the numbers of NH spots produced to date, compared to the SH. But who really knows…
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl20.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
*Crossing my optimistic fingers*
The rest is simple: LOW SOLAR ACTIVITY= HIGH COSMIC RADIATION= MORE CLOUDS = COOLING OF THE EARTH.
In the mean time: CO2 grows higher and higher…………
Well that can’t be good, noticed the solar nagnetic field seems to be stuttering a bit. I hope these gentlemen are wrong in this instance. If it turns out they are correct it will be a very interesting ( decade or decades? ) time ahead.
The sun during the second half of the 20th Century was more active than in the last 8000 years?
…and yet solar irradiance accounts for less than 10% of warming according to NOAA. Interesting
Apolgogies to all for the shocking state of my post above! still getting to grips with a new phone. I think my fingers need some shrinking.
This is a Northern Hemisphere view.
In the next few weeks farmers are going to be making decisions about what crops to plant for the year. It is looking possible, or even likely that the ground may not be workable until later than usual this spring, and if the arctic oscillation index keeps diving down and staying low for prolonged periods like has been for the past few months, there could be some very late and hard frosts.
Farmers in North America, Europe and Asia really need some honest guidance about the real expected length of the coming growing season.
If the season is going to be short farmers need to be ordering and preparing to plant short season crops and food for food and not food for ethanol. Since the food to ethanol is a government sponsored or in some cases a legislated initiative; governments must speak up, loud and clear.
If farmers get bad information, they may well bring in a short or damaged crop. If they do, based on the current world grain reserves, about 250 million people could be starving to death come the summer of next year (2011).
If elected leaders continue to insist that the planet is getting warmer, and it does not; then people, lots and lots of people will starve to death during the summer of 2011, not some time in 2035 or 2050, but next year; and there will be nothing anyone will be able to do about it. The food will not be in the bins and humans can not survive by eating money.
rbateman (12:45:11) :
You can see the Mt. Wilson data here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots
But be aware that the Mt Wilson data is marred by a change of calibration in 1982:
http://www.leif.org/research/MWO%20MPSI%20-%20F107.pdf
Someone remind me why we believe we know sunspot records in detail further than a few hundred years back?
I would tend to go for non-event. The Sun’s activity is ramping up nicely and radio propagation is beginning to improve.
JonesII (12:49:43) :
it is becoming every day more evident the electrical nature of the universe (plasma universe) then, it is possible the mutual influence between planets and the sun.
AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.
NickB. (12:56:56) :
The sun during the second half of the 20th Century was more active than in the last 8000 years?
Except that it most likely was not.
“For those who agree that the IPCC and Al Gore have gone too far, signing the online petition “Al Gore and The UN IPCC Should Give Back Their Nobel Prize!” seems like a reasonable option. The link is http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nomorenobel/”
Would you be so kind as to point to where either Al Gore or the IPCC said that we would never see an event similar to the Dalton Minimum?
Solar irradiance is increasing at the moment; it shows up in the sunspot numbers. It remains to be seen whether this unusually long and deep solar minimum, which coincided with the warmest decade on record, is anything other than a blip. Even if it persists, there’s no reason to think it will be remotely as powerful a forcing as GHGs: last month was the warmest January ever according to the sat data, and that’s at the nadir of solar irradiance.
“Not to point out the obvious, but given that the Oughts were the warmest decade on record, and corresponded with an unusually long and deep solar minimum, doesn’t that suggest the presence of a large non-solar forcing which is warming the planet in spite of the slight fall in irradiance?
If solar forcing had caused the anomalous temps of the 20th century, wouldn’t we have expected a long and deep solar minimum to stop the warming trend?” – Robert
Robert, during the Solar maximum we had enjoyed the oceans warmed up, so how long to do think it takes the oceans to release all the heat they built up during that maximum? And just because a few sunspots occured doesn’t mean this minumim is over. In fact it still just began. (By the way – the oceans are cooling off, so the net effect will be a cooling trend.)
Maybe of note: http://solarimg.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=246
OT but BBCs Roger Harribin is calling for a “climate armistice”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8516905.stm
This sentence gave me the creeps though, esp as Harribin has been in touch with Anthony on this issue.
Although it is near impossible to find UK academic scientists professing to be “climate sceptic” (more on this in a future column) plenty of them agree there is much uncertainty about climates past and future.
I wonder what Mr Harribin has got up his sleeve next?
“Our resident lake-effect expert, Tom Moore, noticed Lake Erie is frozen over completely for the first time in 14 years!”
http://twitter.com/TWCi/status/9150581623
http://twitter.com/TWCi
O/T?
Robert (12:35:12) :
Or maybe a long Solar Minimum drives Global temperatures absolutely stark raving wild.
Hey, if Global Warming can cause Global Cooling, then certainly a Solar Minimum can cause massive Polar Ice Cap melting.
This is what the Mayans were so worried about for 2012: The world isn’t coming to an end, reason is coming to an end.
AGW is dead. Now we have a real problem.
BTW,
Donald Trump also defends the idea of taking the Nobel away from IPCC & Al Gore: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/global_cooling_7njz5ZtpFblMuF5Vf7LJmN
Ecotretas
Milwaukee Bob (12:32:02) :
Note to self: SELL carbon credits ASAP!
Buy puts instead. Even though it is morally questionable to take money from weak minded individuals.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/investools-options-ge-in_wh_0823investools_inl.html
Mike Ramsey
Does anyone measure 10Be production in “real time”?
geo (13:08:57) :
Someone remind me why we believe we know sunspot records in detail further than a few hundred years back?
Solar activity influences the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth. The cosmic rays produce radioactive nuclei that we can measure the concentration of in old trees and in deep ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica.
Robert !2:35:12 You are no more pointing out the obvious than the man in the moon. We don’t know how the sun modifies the climate let alone whether it even does or not.
==============================
Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
“AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.”
The CLOUD experiment is designed to test the theory that a decrease in solar magnetic activity causes an increase in clouds cover on the Earth. The idea is that the magnetic field from the Sun shields the Earth from interstellar cosmic rays and that these cosmic rays are a critical part of accumulation of free water molecules into water vapor micro-droplets (clouds).
An increase in cloud cover increases the amount light from the Sun that is reflected back into space. This increased reflection slowly cools the Earth. In the inverse situation when there are a lot of sunspots (increased magnetic activity) there are less clouds and the Earth slowly warms up.
There is substantial correlation between sun spots and cosmic rays and cosmic rays and global temperature in the current, historical and geologic record (cosmic rays leave a distinct atomic signature on some of the materials they strike); but in science, correlation is not causation. The CLOUD experiment seeks to prove at the sub-atomic level that these cosmic rays are in fact a required catalyst in the formation of water vapor micro-droplets and thus, clouds.
It is a simple idea; that makes a definite prediction; requires no proxy data, no adjustments and no interpretation of data. It is basic physics that anyone with a particle accelerator could reproduce. All of the data, methods and procedures will be available as soon as the experiment has been completed; later this year or early next year.
It is a Theory that explains climate change.
More Sun spots = Warmer Earth
Less Sun spots = Cooler Earth
It is not a popular Theory because people would have to accept that the ability for humans to affect the climate is the same as their ability to affect the Sun.
Dr. S you always make my day when you contribute. patience of job.
Thank you, Leif Svaalgard, for reasoned comments from careful research.
This link is to an excellent speech on the topic of solar minimums, sunspots and climate given at CERN by Dr. Jasper Kirkby of CERN at a colloquium on June 4, 2009.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Title is “Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability”. A must see!
I just attended the Fermilab colloquium on climate change given by Dr. Richard Lindzen, it was great! I’ll post the video when they put it up, please see the link below – his abstract is shown for 10 Feb 2010. It was a rather contentious crowd!
See: http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/colloq.html
Jean Parisot (13:38:16) :
Does anyone measure 10Be production in “real time”?
Yes, 10Be is used to study land-use and erosion processes [and some of that 10Be comes from the soil]. The issue is not so much the real-time production, but how that corresponds to the deposition in ice.
I agree that “stretched” cycles with low sun spot numbers is “very likely” for this cycle and the next. I predicted these long cycles years ago based on pattern recognition: http://graystonelabs.com/SolarCycle.html.
Leif Svalgaard (13:40:17) :
Leif, are the sun activity proxies created by the formation of radioactive nuclei from cosmic rays corrected by the state of then environment into which our solar system was in? Wouldn’t the amount of cosmic rays be also influenced not only by the sun’s activity but also, for example, if our solar system was passing through a cosmic dust cloud? In that case, less cosmic rays could get to the solar system.
Comparing annualized temperatures may be misleading. Seasonal anomaly may give a different impression. Here is a graph of CET summer temperatures anomaly normalized to the sunspot number
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
It is matter of interpretation if Dalton minimum has any apparent correlation to the SSN.
More temp graphs on: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
Dr. Svalgaard
Any recent measurements (or results) from Livingston & Penn ?
Leif Svalgaard (12:27:39) :
Leif Svalgaard (12:23:52) :
And any cooling may depend [as it did back then] on suitable volcanic eruptions: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040882.pdf 🙂
Thanks Leif, interesting paper in it’s own right, even if a bit light on location of the tree ring and coral proxies mentioned, and magnitudes of temperature drops.
There does seem to be more volcanic activity when the sun goes quiet. More big earthquakes too. Any ideas why?
The top 12 Earthquakes of the last century and the associated sunspot numbers:
http://www.jupitersdance.com/Top12.jpg
Well over at solarcycle24.com Bob K6tr believes that all this talk of Dalton etc. is poppycock while Solanki’s position has been public for awhile. It remains to be seen if Livingston and Penn’s assertion continues to hold. Very interesting time for science.
This topic brings tears to my eyes. The public has been kept in the dark as to the status of their sun. A great public service is done every time this subject comes up.
The current stretch of sun specks does not impress me. It’s just slight venting. Solar minimum continues.
There have been lots of sunspots lately. Anyone know when can we expect an analysis of their contrast? i.e. an update to Livingston and Penn. Are they still fading?
Andrew30 (13:48:21) :
The CLOUD experiment is designed to test the theory that a decrease in solar magnetic activity causes an increase in clouds cover on the Earth.
The first results from a pilot test of CLOUD was inconclusive:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/18235/2009/acpd-9-18235-2009.html
I know exactly what Harriban has got up his sleeve, as do we all. His side, the warmists, are losing badly and they know it! They see it all slipping away and they are desperately trying to negotiate a way out of their final political defeat!
NO ARMISTICE WHEN VICTORY IS AT HAND!!!
What would skeptics have to gain from an “armistice”, anyways? It would just be “you shut up while we stay in power and do whatever we want.” The warmists, after having been proved to be liars and frauds, are now going to promise to talk a little more nicely and cheat a little bit less and that is supposed to make everything hunky dory???
NO!
The IPCC must be DISBANDED it cannot be reformed!!! How about that for an “armistice”???
See:http://sites.google.com/site/earthquakepredictionbyjac/Home/greenhouse-effect/SUN-EARTH.Energy.Greenhouseeffect-fiction3.Greenland.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
and
http://sites.google.com/site/earthquakepredictionbyjac/Home/greenhouse-effect
“The sun, stupid”
You have only to balance it.
Hey Kim; I vote that it does.
tallbloke (14:16:18) :
The top 12 Earthquakes of the last century and the associated sunspot numbers
Of course, it is well known that earthquakes cause sunspots, even make Jupiter dance around. You can learn more here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/2008/01/more-on-sunspot-cycles.html
DirkH —
Just pray a volcano doesn’t decide to cook off this Spring.
Ray (14:10:41) :
if our solar system was passing through a cosmic dust cloud? In that case, less cosmic rays could get to the solar system.
Dust wouldn’t do much, but it is possible that there are variations of cosmic rays in interstellar space: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf
radun (14:14:57) :
Any recent measurements (or results) from Livingston & Penn ?
Livingston only has limited access to the telescope, so we’ll have to wait. He sends me data as soon as he has them.
Leif Svalgaard (14:23:22) :
“The first results from a pilot test of CLOUD was inconclusive:”
Yes, this has been attributes to the small size of the chamber used in the pilot experiment and the materials used to construct the chamber and the variability to a ground state that existed in the pilot chamber.
If you check you will notice that the pilot experiment was to determine how to run the actual experiment. Note also that the pressures and densities used in the pilot were beyond the limits of natural atmosphere.
The pilot was a test of the requirements needed for construction of the experiment more than a test of the Theory.
The new chamber is much, much larger, is stainless steel (except for small beam and detector windows) and is entirely at ground. These factors should reduce the interior surface condensation problems of the pilot experiment; surface condensation needed to be eliminated to best reproduce actual atmospheric conditions.
The Prometheus Award-winning 1991 novel Fallen Angels by Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, and Michael Flynn discussed this minimum. See Chapter 7, “Black Powder and Alcohol…” from which I quote:
The people in the science fiction community had picked up on the AGW fraud very early.
Dr. Svalgaard,
I have read that the suns’ energy output was higher pre-1950, since then has been lower. I have also read that the suns’ energy output has been higher post-1950 then pre 1950.
Could you please let me know which, if any version is correct?
Thanx.
Leif Svalgaard,
It is always a good day when I see you posting on solar topics.
Were you at the AGU Fall meeting? Wondering if there are hints of any upcoming new theories in the pipeline that are focusing on the solar variability versus our climate variability?
By new I mean not the several theories sometimes mentioned here. I mean new as in the pre-embryonic stage of thought about new theories. Sort of like thinking of creating a new baby, but just thinking at this stage.
John
Maybe as the Earth cools it shrinks a little causing the earthquakes 🙂
An interesting read about how the indigenous people here in Australia predict the weather:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/03/18/offbeat.weather.aborigines.reut/index.html
“…local Aborigines lived according to an annual six-season calendar.
For longer-range weather forecasting they used an 11-12 year cycle and a massive 8,000-10,000-year cycle…”
“The 11-year cycle started in 2001 with the appearance of the Aurora Australis, the luminous pale green and pink phenomenon that occurs in the upper atmosphere above the South Pole…”
steven mosher (13:52:51) :
Dr. S you always make my day when you contribute.
patience of job.
Only matched by the tenacity of the voodoo-peddlers not to knuckle under to the forces of reason:
rbateman (13:28:55) :
“This is what the Mayans were so worried about for 2012: The world isn’t coming to an end, reason is coming to an end.”
Robert has a point there.
On the subject of paleoclimatology, in an interview with NatureNature , our expert at CRU again draws into question the up and down swings in temp in the last milleniuum:
Thankfully, Nature had asked the pressing question that was absent from the BBC interview, that is: if you have found (without knowning the cause) the unreliability of tree ring data to show the post-1960 warming (the famous ‘decline’), could this not also suggest that historic warming is also be understated?
Now, I really want to understand how these guys were thinking…What I dont get is why the Hockey Team would not use this ice core data in their reconstruction. I mean, why did they not use ice cores that confirm the tree rings? Surely they could find some.
What I also dont get is why Jones would repeat this call for more collecting and collating of data:
I cant believe that a paleoclimatologist cannot know about the studies suggesting global MWP – or are they dismissed for some reason?
I dunno about everyone else but the view from the blogosphere of the Hockey Team all seems just too incredible to be true. Maybe I should not try to understand them and just take Jones’ advice:
Ohio Man Builds Four-Room Igloo, With TV, Cable (with video)
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/unemployed-ohio-man-jimmy-grey-builds-extreme-igloo/19359175
” Leif Svalgaard (12:27:39) : ”
Well, in particular the comment at the end about the volcanic activity, the more I read, the more I am swayed toward the notion that it is not exactly one thing … orbital mechanics, solar activity, volcanic activity, weather patterns, etc. … that cause great climatic changes. It seems most likely to me that it is some combination of these events happening when conditions tend to favor the outcome leaning more likely in one direction than the other.
So if you have a period of declining insolation at the North Pole, a period of weak solar magnetic activity, a fairly significant volcanic event, and maybe some change in persistent weather patterns that causes a tip in a direction that is unrecoverable, one slides rather quickly into glacial conditions.
Or maybe you don’t if, say, solar insolation is enough to recover from such an event (Krakatoa AD 535?). Would a similar eruption today be enough to tip the balance? I don’t know but I don’t believe it is any one single cause, I believe it is a combination of different factors.
Is there any way we can test the hypothesis that if Mount Svalgaard erupts this blog will go cold? ;?)
With all these sunspots not a word from L&P. I heard they where on vacation until end of January . I guess they still having a good time there. Or unless these sunspots theory are not working out so good on chart. mmmmm
Way O/T, but can’t resist:-
Snow became a rare event! Now it is the Golden Gate Fog!
Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change
The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html
I must go to bed before they produce any more scary stories I don’t want to have nightmares!
The above reference to Harrabin and ‘climate armistice’ is more blowing smoke. This is nothing so trivial as a matter between bloggers and anyone else. This is a multi-trillion dollar vicious economic and social fraud centered around carbon trading. The article doesn’t mention carbon trading nor the money behind it, the crime in it, just tries to trivialize the whole thing by saying it’s between bloggers and others. It makes brief mention of ‘politicians’ who counted on AGW for economic reasons. As previously noted in a Guardian article 1/25/10, Gordon Brown expressed that London is the carbon trading center of the world and he ties CO2 trading’s success to that of London. One green fund alone, INCR, owned by ceres.org, has $8 trillion in investments. Al Gore has already mounted forces to attack 22 swing senators for AGW legislation. If bloggers are an issue at all, it is that the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in 2007 based on corrupt data probably would not have happened were bloggers well into the issue back then. That was followed by the EPA ruling made on the same false grounds. And this says nothing about the cancer of regional and state CO2 groups already well entrenched and shaking down some poor slob every minute of the day. They would like to make it a little tiff, but it is the biggest battle of our lifetime. It has had a 25 year head start, trillions of dollars and careers are invested. Naturally, they will do everything in their power to make it succeed.
Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.
Well said. It is not reasonable to play around with opposite universe theories when there is more than enough uncertainty to deal with in this one.
Robert: “but given that the Oughts were the warmest decade on record”
At airports and in cities … maybe.
After all, GISS and CRU have been removing true rural stations from the record and “in-filling” data from airports to former rural sites.
Christopher (15:27:19) :
A cheap 70mm refractor, used on a clear day, is enough to project the current crop of sunspots onto a plain piece of white paper and observe the lowered contrast.
Strong contrast spots are nearly black in the glare.
Greytoned spots are indicative of weakened contrast.
Compare with L&P reports to calibrate your seat-of-the pants judgement.
Last I looked (last week) the spots were of low contrast.
crosspatch (15:21:30) :
It seems most likely to me that it is some combination of these events happening when conditions tend to favor the outcome leaning more likely in one direction than the other.
several things can work together. most people seem to prefer a single pet idea, so you’ll always find peddlers of just about anything.
green sand: how odd it is that warmists claim it’s only rightwing newspapers in UK who are ‘deniers’ blah blah, when the UK Tele always finds space in its print edition for alarmist rubbish such as your link and Lean below, but keeps delingpole in a blog. same can be said up for murdoch’s press in australia, which runs pro-AGW stuff non-stop while keeping andrew bolt’s climategate stuff on a blog. this is the biggest challenge cos salivating over a “carbon economy” is a bipartisan thing.
12 feb; UK Tele: Geoffrey Lean: Do we want to ignore climate change and risk losing all this?
So if the sceptics’ main standard-bearers effectively agree with environmentalists over the basic science, what on earth is all the fuss about? What is the basis for all the over-excited claims that global warming is a “hoax”, a “scam”, or the greatest scientific scandal ever?..
Yet there is still plenty to debate, and here I must make a confession – I only quoted part of Dr Peiser’s sentence above. He went on: “What is uncertain is the magnitude and timescale of the effect.”…
There is a growing conviction that the cost of ignoring climate change will be far greater than of tackling it now, that many of the measures to be taken would be beneficial in other ways, and even that developing low-carbon economies may be the key to future growth. Indeed, that’s probably the most productive debate we could now be having.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/7223753/Do-we-want-to-ignore-climate-change-and-risk-losing-all-this.html
Leo G (14:52:37) :
Could you please let me know which, if any version is correct?
The sun’s output varies very little. Solar activity seems to have an ~100 year ‘cycle’ [the past 300 years], so what little variation there has been has gone up and down a little bit:
My best guess of the output looks like this [red curve]:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
The ups and downs are on the order of 1/1000 of the whole.
John Whitman (14:53:12) :
Were you at the AGU Fall meeting? Wondering if there are hints of any upcoming new theories in the pipeline that are focusing on the solar variability versus our climate variability?
I was there. We are blundering about in the dark.
Craig Moore (15:22:42) :
Is there any way we can test the hypothesis that if Mount Svalgaard erupts this blog will go cold? ;?)
The posting here often generate more heat than light…
agreed chili – no armistice, not now, not ever. That is the cry of a partisan who knows his side is losing badly and who is making a last ditch effort to forestall ultimate defeat. Not to mention that to him, armistice means “you guys keep quiet and we do whatever we want.”
It’s about time the Dalton Minimum Repeat gets some attention, this is very much old news for many…
Depending on what I read, a solar minimum coincides with lower than average temperatures or higher than average temperatures. Which is it?
It seems that some have equated, or possibly just confused, sunspot numbers with Earth surface temperatures.
As haywire as the world is (and always has been as far as I know) it is a relief that Copenhagen ended the way it did and that we “seem” to regaining some composure about the weather and climate. While the floodgates have not opened very far, more and more “reasonableness” appears to be entering the debate.
The one thing that humans have been fighting since even way before we climbed down out of the trees has been the weather. Lions, tigers, bears, and other predators, were always momentary dangers.
If the AGW mob is correct, humanity will face a warmer world and higher sea levels. Being creatures of the Ice Ages, we’ll no doubt encounter some difficulties, maybe a drop in population, maybe a drop in prosperity for the “First World” economies. And maybe Not.
If the Ice Age mob is correct, humanity will very likely encounter a severe drop in worldwide population, and “prosperity” for the “First Worlders” who just happen to be in the way of the ice.
If the No Change mob is right, they will live out their lives as they have lived all the days before. But then some day, their children or great-great-great grandchildren, will face Global Warming or the Ice. No doubt about it. (Maybe when they do they’ll be a lot calmer that we are:-)
PS: Is it true Al Gore is buying all the US Coal Mine stock he can get his hands on? (-:Joke:-)
Dr. Svalgaard, like many here, I appreciate you taking the time to put on the gloves and take a swing at the issues and some of the commenters…while maintaining a sense of humor. Thank you!
Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
Dear professor, with due respect: What is it more vodooistic or esoteric than: Dark Matter, Strings, Black Holes, other dimensions, etc. This is witchcraft, as far as nothing of these have been proved at a lab, that is precisely the difference with the plasma universe, from Birkeland´s “Terrela” experiment to Hans Alfven.
Leif Svalgaard (12:23:52) : (And Others)
While I do not study this stuff in great detail as you seem to, I have found myself of late looking at volcanic activity. The Tambora eruption in 1813? had really nasty effects during the Dalton. Do you, at present, consider the occurrences to be completely coincidental? I personally can’t imagine where continental drift over hots spots could in any way correlate to sunspots or solar minimums, but I still entertain the idea, I think because of the dire consequences.
On Roger Harrabin
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/04/more-on-the-great-bbc-website-swindle/
I would hardly call the man’s independence an attribute.
“Robert, during the Solar maximum we had enjoyed the oceans warmed up, so how long to do think it takes the oceans to release all the heat they built up during that maximum? And just because a few sunspots occured doesn’t mean this minimum is over. In fact it still just began. (By the way – the oceans are cooling off, so the net effect will be a cooling trend.)”
Except both the oceans and the land continued to warm during the solar minimum which is now ending. (You’ll find no support for the idea that the solar minimum has “just begun.” That’s pure wishful thinking on your part.)
“AGW is dead. Now we have a real problem.”
Leaving aside the fact that this assertion makes no sense scientifically, I’d like to draw attention to the irony of a “skeptic” embracing a single unpublished, un-peer-reviewed paper as the final word on what the climate will do for the next thirty years.
” Ecotretas (13:37:02) :
BTW,
Donald Trump also defends the idea of taking the Nobel away from IPCC & Al Gore: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/global_cooling_7njz5ZtpFblMuF5Vf7LJmN
Ecotretas”
My God! Do you know what this means? Your credibility just shot up to unprecedented levels. Donald Trump is the most intellectually imposing figure in the history of anti-AGW agitprop. Take a hike, Sarah Palin. You’ve found your leader.
Leif Svalgaard (16:07:15) :
Wrote: “The posting here often generate more heat than light…”
So is that why you are here?
Add your heat to the sum of heat in an effort to warm the planet?
robr (16:53:04) :
The Tambora eruption in 1813? had really nasty effects during the Dalton. Do you, at present, consider the occurrences to be completely coincidental?
At this point, the Tambora 1815, Mayon 1814, and Unnamed 1809 together were likely responsible for perhaps the coldest decade of the past several centuries. I consider it to be a coincidence that solar activity was also low 1795-1820.
Andrew30 (16:55:57) :
Add your heat to the sum of heat in an effort to warm the planet?
Warm is better than cold, no?
“Depending on what I read, a solar minimum coincides with lower than average temperatures or higher than average temperatures. Which is it?”
It’s an extremely weak forcing, and it doesn’t last long (the typical cycle in 11 years or so.) So usually you won’t be able to find a strong correlation.
I guess the Sun is gonna do whatever He thinks will upset the most peoples’ predictions. Piers Corbyn seems to be able to forecast Arctic stratospheric warming by some solar method, or he’s a really good guesser.
OT, Greenpeace director John Sauven hoists a not quite green flag at the Guardian. He says “we” a lot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/climate-change-global-solution-greenpeace
Leo G (14:52:37) :
I have read that the suns’ energy output was higher pre-1950, since then has been lower. I have also read that the suns’ energy output has been higher post-1950 then pre 1950.
Could you please let me know which, if any version is correct?
Thanx.
Sunspot numbers are a reasonably good proxy. If you average the numbers over a long enough period, you can see what the change was like over the last 250 years
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:132/plot/sidc-ssn/trend
Leif will tell you that the numbers were under-counted in earlier years and is working on magnetic data to try to improve the record.
How’s it going Leif?
It’s fortunate that Dr. Svalgaard frequently comments here at WUWT and explains the current status of our understanding of the sun. Note that the main explanation for global warming before AGW is the sun. But this is not supported by Svalgaard I think.
One could then ask – if the sun is not the origin of the initial temperature increase after the little ice age, what could it be?
And, whatever caused this temperature increase, can we be certain that this “something” is not contributing to global warming (in addition to AGW)?
Is this a valid question? What do you think?
Andrew30-
I was pulling Dr. Svalgaard’s leg and he responded with humor. I guess you failed to grasp the obvious.
It’s fortunate that Dr. Svalgaard frequently comments here at WUWT and explains the current status of our understanding of the sun. Note that the main explanation for global warming before AGW is the sun. But this is not supported by Svalgaard I think.
One could then ask – if the sun is not the origin of the initial temperature increase after the little ice age, what could it be?
And, whatever caused this temperature increase, can we be certain that this “something” is not still contributing to global warming (in addition to AGW)?
Is this a valid question? What do you think?
The “snide” remarks are so belittleing and unworthy.
Fortune Cookie say:
“The wise person learns early that scarcasm gains nothing of value.”
Ross M (15:04:05) : “ Maybe as the Earth cools it shrinks a little causing the earthquakes 🙂 ”
How about the land getting very deeply saturated and heavy with precipitation. The added weight pushing down on the plates causing pressures to go up leading to more quakes/volcanoes?
The climate widget says the sunspot number is 64. Does anyone here actually believe it is a like for like comparison with historical sunspot numbers from previous cycles?
And Andrew30-
Given Dr. Svalgaard’s response he ducked you pointless jab like Ingemar Johansson in his younger years.
Leif,
Thanks for your reply. To me it is wonderful to get the earliest “ah ha” that starts a sequence generating new scientific knowledge. Hope to see some come out about solar influences in this interesting time we live in.
Please keep up your sense of humor! You’ve a lot of supporters.
John
tallbloke (17:05:37) :
Leif will tell you that the numbers were under-counted in earlier years and is working on magnetic data to try to improve the record.
How’s it going Leif?
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf
are ‘progress reports’.
Invariant (17:07:27) :
And, whatever caused this temperature increase, can we be certain that this “something” is not contributing to global warming (in addition to AGW)?
The sun makes a contribution to GW, but is is a small fraction of a degree.
Ref – tallbloke (17:16:52) :
“The climate widget says the sunspot number is 64. Does anyone here actually believe it is a like for like comparison with historical sunspot numbers from previous cycles?”
_____________________
Nope! I can barely see three. These astronomy folks must nip a little white lightin’ to stay warm on these cold nights. Aren’t most of their telescopes up on top of mountains?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/
OT
It appears Trenberth’s conduct during AR4 is coming back to haunt him
Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
tallbloke (17:16:52) :
The climate widget says the sunspot number is 64. Does anyone here actually believe it is a like for like comparison with historical sunspot numbers from previous cycles?
The widget is not updating correctly or timely. This plot is always up to date:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
The sunspot number today was 27. Brussels will report that as 27*0.6 = 16. I think the sunspot number the past cycle [and today] has been under-reported. See: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Can anyone explain this NOAA graph of ocean rise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_sea_level_trend_1993_2010.png
I heard on NPR how some islands off Bangledash were going under water because of Global Warming and sea level rise. I see the chart from above and it has some parts of the same ocean rising much faster than neighboring areas. How does this work? I thought water will be shaped by the type of container it is in. If a lake receives an influx of water it does not just rise at the source but the whole lake rises. I can pour water in a pot and it will not pile up anywhere. How does ocean water pile up in certain locations as shown in the graph? Are they sure the islands are not sinking as a result of the plate they are on going down?
I would sure like to know the science on how one part of the same ocean is rising at a rate almost 10 times more than water a few hundred miles north in the same ocean basin. Help!
“Day of the Jackal” author Frederick Forsyth:
UK Express: Frederick Forsyth: CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRY IS NOW IN DEEP TROUBLE
ONE tries to be forbearing but honestly, the science behind the “global warming” campaign is beginning to look like roadkill.
If you are going to start and mastermind a science-based global campaign urging governments to require their
exhausted taxpayers to fork out not billions but trillions to prevent a catastrophe that may be 50 to 90 years away, you had better be sure your science is impeccable.
First we are told via leaked e-mails that the leading “scientists” have been cherry- picking only the convenient data
that suit their case. That is not science: that is propaganda.
Then we learn the fanatics have tried to airbrush from history chronicled facts such as the Medieval Warm Period (still unexplained).
Next the scare story about the melting Himalayan glaciers is revealed as having been made up, and now we learn that the linkage between droughts and floods with global warming is also bunkum.
Would it not be smart to get the facts right first and then spend the trillions?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/154858/Climate-change-industry-is-now-in-deep-trouble
Leif Svalgaard (17:01:47) :
Thanks, last question, is there a scientific understanding as to why the continents drift, the forces, and where those forces come from?
Rather then look at historical records of visible sunspots, would it be possible to look at recent 10Be records (I have no idea of their frequency, spatial distribution, or methodology) and directly compare today’s data with the ice core record?
geo (13:08:57) :
Someone remind me why we believe we know sunspot records in detail further than a few hundred years back?
Galileo started the process of counting sunspots.
I find the concept of climate armistice to be quite amusing. For the majority of skeptical bloggers it has always been about finding the truth. Sure a little jab here and there when the facts refuted AGW theocracy. However, the side that has been shooting all the heavy artillery is now the one that wants an armistice. How interesting.
“1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering…. ”
~Geologic Science Committee – Polish Academy of Sciences
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm
(h/t Benny Peiser, and Lubos Motl)
“…….a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades…. It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”
–Boris Komitov
-Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
&
–Vladimir Kaftan
-Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Aerial Surveying and Cartography, Federal Agency of Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow, Russia
http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf
&
http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/abstract.htm
Ahhhhh…so it wasn’t just Anthropogenic Global Earthquakes (AGE) resulting from too many people on one side of the planet jumping up and down in glee over the consensus in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) at the same time? Global Warming causes man-made Global Earthquakes…who’d a thunk it?
Robert (16:55:44),
Responding to the statement: “AGW is dead,” said:
“Leaving aside the fact that this assertion makes no sense scientifically, I’d like to draw attention to the irony of a ‘skeptic’ embracing a single unpublished, un-peer-reviewed paper as the final word on what the climate will do for the next thirty years.”
How can so many mis-statements be packed into one sentence?
According to the scientific method, it is the CO2=Catastrophic AGW hypothesis that fails to produce any empirical evidence showing that a quantified rise in CO2 will cause a specific rise in the global temperature. No one has the final word in science. But that scary hypothesis is swirling the drain.
The AGW hypothesis specifically refers to the dead Catastrophic AGW hypothesis – because where’s the grant money in a few tenths of a degree warming? It’s dead, Jim.
At this stage of the game AGW doesn’t mean some tiny, theoretical, mild warming. No. Rather, it is the scary CO2=CAGW hypothesis, which states that the planet is nearing a “tipping point,” which will cause runaway global warming, which will in turn bring about climate catastrophe – and the mediator of the global disaster is asserted to be a tiny, beneficial, harmless trace gas, comprising only 0.00038 of the atmosphere – one molecule in 2,600. That incredible hypothesis is what the alarmist crowd still insists will happen. But that particular hypothesis is deader than bin Laden.
Next, putting quotation marks around the term skeptic is an ad-hom attempt to play the skeptic card. All honest scientists are skeptics – while the average true blue AGW believer wouldn’t know the scientific method of skepticism if it bit ’em on the ankle. Psychological projection is the hallmark of alarmists, who often preposterously try to pass themselves off as skeptics. They’re not, of course. They have no skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. None.
And demanding peer review to attain legitimacy ignores the fact that the climate peer review system is thoroughly corrupt, as can be seen in the excellent essay, Caspar and the Jesus Paper; and in the Climategate emails, and in the Wegman Report to Congress, and in the tens of $billions already granted to almost anyone with a pulse who mentions global warming in their submission – while scientists skeptical of AGW hardly get even the crumbs. $50 billion buys a lot of AGW.
The peer review system has been gamed, as can be seen in this account of an outsider trying to make a simple correction in a journal. And he’s not even in the climate game! If he was a CAGW skeptic, he would probably not even get the courtesy of a response.
Finally, criticizing someone for predicting the planet’s cycle over the next 30 years, without criticizing the wild-eyed AGW purveyors who are predicting temperatures to a tenth of a degree and glacier movements in 2100 and beyond is hypocritical, no?
There are a lot of scientists writing articles for WUWT and posting here from both sides of the AGW fence. But I’m guessing Robert has no degree in the hard sciences, because I’ve repeatedly asked him about it when he’s been similarly critical of others here, who do have science backgrounds. He always ducks the question. So how ’bout it, Bobby boy, what’s your official expertise? If you have a degree, I’m still betting it’s something like English Lit. Am I right?
robr (17:40:44) :
is there a scientific understanding as to why the continents drift, the forces, and where those forces come from?
Basically: yes. But there are many details that are still debated.
Convection in the mantle is the main process.
Jean Parisot (17:46:27) :
Rather then look at historical records of visible sunspots, would it be possible to look at recent 10Be records (I have no idea of their frequency, spatial distribution, or methodology) and directly compare today’s data with the ice core record?
People are doing this [with some limited success]. There are several problems: 10Be is mostly generated at lower latitudes [simply because there is more surface there] and must be transported to the polar regions for deposition on ice [cores] and the precipitated out. These deposition processes themselves depend a bit on the climate. So the record is not perfect. In addition, large volcanic eruptions put sulfuric acid in the stratosphere, polluting the 10Be record.
Norman (17:36:11) :
“Can anyone explain this NOAA graph of ocean rise? ”
nope, only the NOAA can explain that one.
It’s obviously robust water.
The climate widget seems to be stuck. I’ve been noticing that for a few days now. The current number is really around 27 and the Flux in the high 80’s. The sunspot group numbers on the widget are also no longer correct.
Ross M (15:04:05) : Maybe as the Earth cools it shrinks a little causing the earthquakes 🙂
I like that, Ross!
However, when I look at this quote from the article you linked to I feel despair:
“Present-day scientists do their studies by measurements and experiments. [Australian] Aboriginal people are just as good scientists, but they use observation and experience,” Bodkin, a botanist at Sydney’s Mount Annan Botanical gardens, told Reuters.
OT – but interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece
February 16, 2010
How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong
John Graham-Cumming
How much will the recently launched NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory improve the observation of sunspots, magnetic fields and radiance over what is available today?
Will there be enough of an overlap with existing systems to tie the past records to the new records and place a note on the past records as to their ‘possible actuals’?
Milwaukee Bob (12:25:25) : Stock tip: Buy! LL Bean, North Face….
L.L. Bean is privately held (though very large):
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_06privates_LL-Bean_J18E.html
North Face is a brand of VF Corp (ticker VFC ) who’s chart shows a nice uprun that has stopped, but held up well in our recent downturn. It’s a fairly broad line clothing maker so not much of a cold ‘pure play’ but well positioned for “change” in either direction with brands like:
“V.F. Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and sourcing of branded apparel and related products for men, women, and children in the United States. It offers jeanswear under the Lee, Lee Europe, Wrangler, Wrangler Hero, Genuine Wrangler, Wrangler 47, Wrangler Jeans Co, Wrangler Europe, Rigs, Aura, 20X, Rustler, Riders, and Maverick brands; imagewear under the Majestic, Red Kap, Bulwark, Chef Designs, and The Force brands; and outdoor products under the Vans, The North Face, JanSport, Kipling, Reef, Napapijri, Eagle Creek, and Lucy brands. The company also provides sports wear under the Nautica and Kepling brands; and other contemporary brands, including 7 For All Mankind, John Varvatos, Ella Moss, and Splendid. ”
The above from:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=VFC
In cold weather all sorts of clothing would be needed so they would probably do well.
Were I ‘looking for a cold play’ (no, no Jazz pun 😉 I’d probably look to Polaris Industries (ticker PII ) who started in Snowmobiles, but branched out into Victory Motorcycles (that I’ve drooled over… my Honda 500 V twin water cooled shaft drive is nice 😉 but I like the Victory better… ) so you have some protection against a warm turn, but still get the snowmobile “lift” in a cold turn. Oh, and they have riding clothing for both seasons as well
Chart:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/charts/big.chart?symb=pii&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=4&maval=25&uf=7168&lf=2&lf2=4&lf3=1024&type=4&size=3&state=15&sid=3839&style=320&time=8&freq=1&comp=NO%5FSYMBOL%5FCHOSEN&nosettings=1&rand=1201&mocktick=1
Description from:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=PII
“Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, and manufactures off-road vehicles. It offers all terrain vehicles and side-by-side vehicles for recreational and utility use, snowmobiles, and motorcycles. The company also provides replacement parts and accessories, including winches, bumper/brushguards, plows, racks, mowers, tires, pull-behinds, cabs, cargo box accessories, tracks, and oil for ATVs; covers, traction products, reverse kits, electric starters, tracks, bags, windshields, oil, and lubricants for snowmobiles; and saddle bags, handlebars, backrests, exhaust, windshields, seats, oil, and various chrome accessories for motorcycles. In addition, it markets a line of recreational apparel, including helmets, jackets, bibs and pants, leathers, and hats. Polaris Industries sells its products through dealers and distributors under the name RANGER, RANGER RZR, RANGER Crew, Victory Vision Street, and Victory Vision Tour principally in the United States, Canada, and Europe. ”
But realistically, if you want a good “cold play” (and don’t mean a really good CD…) it would probably be best to get one of the the oil and gas trusts (such as PWE ) (9%+ dividend, and I own some) or a gas company like Chesapeake CHK (presently a ‘flat roller” sideways; good for trades) or an exploration and production like APA Apache ( a great company that looks a bit ‘toppy’ to me right now).
Oh, you were just kidding? Nevermind … 😉
I see a 2000 year hockey stick on the sunspot graph.
Could Mann and his trees be recording sunspots?
the ‘carbon cowboys’ know which way the wind is blowing. NYT puts it down to “lack of direction”:
NYT: Special Report: Beth Gardiner: Lack of Direction on Climate Change Hobbles Carbon Trading
Investors are steering clear of energy-saving projects meant to generate carbon credits, and traders in Europe are hunkering down through a period of consolidation that is disappointing to those who had hoped carbon markets would grow quickly into a $2 trillion-a-year business…
“That bold vision, clearly, that hit a brick wall at Copenhagen,” said Dieter Helm, a professor of energy policy at the University of Oxford who argues that taxing carbon is a more effective way of ensuring emissions cuts. People will go on trading carbon, he said, “but it’s not where the future lies.” ..
That may mean that carbon trading loses the primacy its advocates had hoped it would have in the fight against global warming…
Abyd Karmali, the global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch and president of the Carbon Markets & Investors Association trade group in London, estimated that new investments in such projects fell 30 percent to 40 percent in 2009 and will probably slide another 40 percent to 50 percent this year…
Worldwide, carbon trading markets were worth $125 billion in 2009, Mr. Turner said. In Europe, which accounts for 70 percent to 80 percent of the total, the market is likely to contract this year, he added. ..
Richard Gledhill, head of climate change and carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said he had been contacted by European traders and others working on international projects who were looking for jobs…
In Europe, Dr. Helm said, policy makers should set a floor for the carbon price, to keep it stable and high enough to push big emitters to make cuts.
Taxes are better than permits,” he said. “But we’re stuck with the permits, so we end up in a world where we have to say: ‘Given we’ve got that system, how can we make it work better?”’
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/energy-environment/15rentrade.html
chili palmer (15:40:24) :
References?
Al Gore going after 22 Senators?
Green groups with trillions?
wws (16:10:54) :
Q: Why did the terrorist call for an armistice?
A: He was out of ammunition.
OT, but, seemingly valid criticism of the IPCCs reporting on hurricanes etc:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
Scandinavia Gate?
http://www.climategate.com/scandinavia-gate-climate-cooling-but-scientists-hide-the-decline
Hottest temperature ever heads science to Big Bang
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox, Health And Science Editor – Mon Feb 15, 11:23 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Scientists have created the hottest temperature ever in the lab — 4 trillion degrees Celsius — hot enough to break matter down into the kind of soup that existed microseconds after the birth of the universe.
more at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100215/sc_nm/us_physics_temperature
Robert (12:35:12) : Not to point out the obvious, but given that the Oughts were the warmest decade on record, and corresponded with an unusually long and deep solar minimum, doesn’t that suggest the presence of a large non-solar forcing which is warming the planet in spite of the slight fall in irradiance?
No, it implies really really bad temperature data collection, archiving, processing, and very dodgy assumptions. Look out the window. See the snow. Think. Snow cold….
If solar forcing had caused the anomalous temps of the 20th century, wouldn’t we have expected a long and deep solar minimum to stop the warming trend?
Only in a simplistic world.
First one has to accept the premise ( “The Sun Did It” ) that is not shown to be true, but accept it for argument we will…
Then you must allow for Time Lags. Big things move very slowly.
Even in temperature movements. So, I’m even going to postulate that the “noughties” were hot (something that I do not agree with generally – they remind me of what my Dad and other “old folks at home” described the ’20s and ’30s as being, though milder and less hot than then.) But lets assume it WAS hot. And lets assume it IS solar driven. And lets assume the sun has reduced it’s output in such a manner as to change heat at the earth (also not shown, though widely surmised).
Now you get to wait a decade or two to suck all the heat stored in the ocean over the last 50 years into the air and radiate it off into space.
You get to do this while taking 2 phase changes in water (water vapor from the ocean condensing to water and freezing to snow) that change the HEAT budget without a TEMPERATURE change at those phase change points. So you really ought to be counting the heat, not the temperature. (Having 2 coins is nice, having two “Dollar Coins” is better than two pennies… but lost if you count the coins not the value in each one…)
So I’d expect to see a long lag time as the “heat in the pipeline” (still looking for that mythical pipeline, BTW) drained through to the oceans (maybe that was the 1996-1999 period?) then a period of flat temperatures as the HEAT redistributed with no temperature change, then after about a decade or so, a drop of temperatures as heat flow finally could pull temperatures down some.
Oh, and I’d expect to see a hot ocean for about 10 to 20 years dumping lots of warmth and moisture into the air that would then move to the poles and flush that heat into space as IR (probably through the Ozone window that opens when UV drops from a sleepy sun at about 9 or 10 micrometers IIRC) and then that FRIGID air would rush south and make a boat load of snow further south than anyone would expect (it having been roughly a lifetime since this happened last if a PDO flip driven or a couple of hundred years if solar minimum driven) as that very cold arctic air hits still warm and moist ocean driven air.
Then all the “warmers” would holler that it was due to WARMTH, completely missing that the warm oceans need a decade to start catching up with the frozen land while everyone else figured out that it was 1950 again and they ought to be ready for cold for the next 30 years or so (more if solar minimum driven). You know, like about 1958? or so when 18 feet of snow buried a train near Donner Pass California and they had to be rescued… (I’ve never seen so much snow in my life as then, and my Dad said it had never snowed that much before in his life… you really need a multi-lifetime view to see these things…) But we’re talking a “hypothetical”…
So in a world with a gazillion tons of ocean, it does not cool off in a year, or two, or three, or 8, or… and the “Lava Lamp” that is our planetary weather would have a ‘hot blob’ off the oceans heading to the poles (leading to all sorts of histrionics about the poles ‘warming’ and ‘melting’ and a ‘loopy jet stream’ as that heat heads to the poles to vent to space) while that air, once suitably cooled to Frigid, would head back south over land (it being the place left cold and cold stuff sinking over prior cold tracks) and freezing the dingles off of places like Siberia, China, Canada, Central USA, … but with the ‘global average temperature’ not showing much from the satellites (as temperature is the wrong measure – we’re looking at how many coins are in our pocket without looking at the denominations… temperature rather than heat… so all that snow “is a warm snow” 😉 in a very real sense. It released a gazillion BTU as the moist air condensed to water then froze. So you took 2 phase changes and not much temperature change) yet the land is frozen and the sea is “hot” so naive folks could continue to fret over the ‘global warmth’… look at all the pennies they have, they MUST be rich…
And in only a couple of decades we would know for sure.
Maybe.
but until you can show me the ‘pipeline’ that all your supposed global warming trend is being stored up inside, I’ll stick with snow in 49 states and it being so cold that it’s Raining Iguanas in Florida as meaning that it’s cold.
Even if it is ‘a warm snow’… 😉
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:47) :
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thanks for all your comments.
Special thanks for putting me on “The Sun from Space” by Lang. Learning a lot from that fine book.
I’d like to know Bobby’s credentials, too. Not that he’d ever misrepresent himself, but it would be interesting to know.
Bobby? Are you there? Are you willing to divulge the basis of your “expertise” as it supports your critiques?
JonesII (12:49:43) wrote: “…it is becoming every day more evident the electrical nature of the universe (plasma universe) then, it is possible the mutual influence between planets and the sun.”
Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) responded: “AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.”
I appreciate Dr. Svalgaard thinks AGW is voodoo.
Is it possible there is “mutual influence between planets and the sun”?
I don’t know.
But I do know the Sun influences the Earth.
And I do know the Sun is electrical in nature. The Sun is a plasmoid: Plasma – Magnetic – Enity.
And, yes, the Universe is dominated by plasma (99.9% of the observable Universe is plasma) and accordingly the observable Universe is dominated by plasma’s electromagnetic phyiscal relationships.
Nothing “voodoo” about that.
Just the facts.
DirkH (13:34:36) wrote: “AGW is dead. Now we have a real problem.”
I know Dirk is being sarcastic, but in reality with the death of AGW, we have a promising opportunity to better understand what controls & influences the Earth’s climate.
And likely that understanding will partly come by observation & measurement of the Sun – Earth phyiscal relationship:
A plasma physical relationship.
How does ocean water pile up in certain locations as shown in the graph? Are they sure the islands are not sinking as a result of the plate they are on going down?
Land rises and shrinks quite quickly, and certainly faster than the water level at the moment. When judging water rises, no one particular spot can be relied upon.
The Indian plate is sliding northeastwards at about 5 cm a year. That is pushing the Himalayas up, and much of India down. It would seem very likely that islands off Bangladesh are also sinking as a result of this action.
Of course the Dalton minimum is made more profound by the Tambora erruption… and the fact that it followed the maunder minimum (think thermal inertia of the oceans)
James F. Evans (20:15:44) :
And I do know the Sun is electrical in nature.
The dangerous things are the ones you know, but ain’t.
The Sun and the Universe are not electrical in nature. You can, of course, pretend they are and be happy with that. But spare us your pseudo-science.
UK Times: John Graham-Cumming: How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece
Well let me add to your troubles. The city I lived in and now live near, Toowoomba Australia, used to get (20 years ago) lots of fog, real thick peasoupers -not pollution, all water cloud at ground level. It was so characteristic that you knew the city limits by when you suddenly emerged from fog into clear air. Then the last 20 years, it simply disappeared. And the last year or so it has returned, but you can no longer tell the city limits, the fog overflows many miles into the country all around. Hey, if less fog in SF proves GW, then more fog in Toowoomba must prove GC, surely?
E.M.Smith wrote:
“No, it implies really really bad temperature data collection, archiving, processing, and very dodgy assumptions. Look out the window. See the snow. Think. Snow cold….”
Can’t help you. It’s balmy as hell here (Oregon). So you’re saying that all of the temperature measurements are wrong? Because you see snow outside?
” Now you get to wait a decade or two to suck all the heat stored in the ocean over the last 50 years into the air and radiate it off into space.”
If that were why the world is warming, then we should see a consistent pattern of the sea cooling during solar minimums and warming during solar maximums. As far as I know, there’s no data to support that.
“but until you can show me the ‘pipeline’ that all your supposed global warming trend is being stored up inside, I’ll stick with snow in 49 states and it being so cold that it’s Raining Iguanas in Florida as meaning that it’s cold.”
Warmest January on record. February on pace to be the warmest ever (http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/). It’s not AGW that has a problem explaining the observed data. But go ahead and keep muttering about snow. Delay, obfuscate . . . it’s what you do best.
MikeC (20:29:29) :
Of course the Dalton minimum is made more profound by the Tambora erruption… and the fact that it followed the maunder minimum (think thermal inertia of the oceans)
It also followed the period 1725-1795 where solar activity has even higher than it is today [1950-2000], so the thermal inertia from the maunder minimum must have ‘skipped over’ 1725-1795…
Two topics of discussion that came up on this thread are the carbon trading market and the shorter growing season and crop failures.
As far as the carbon market is concerned, many people have based their carriers and invested much in the trade of carbon credits world wide. These people will not go quietly int the good night. I feel sorry for them but they will go.
“In a sign of the uncertainty over emissions action and ebbed confidence in carbon markets following the Copenhagen climate conference, two firms in the sector have made gloomy stock exchange disclosures in recent days.
Listed carbon offset project developer Tricorona has revised down the valuation of its 2012 Kyoto carbon credit portfolio by 19 per cent, citing uncertainty over the future of the market and ongoing credits approval delays at the UN. The Swedish company, subject of a takeover bid, develops carbon offset projects under Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to generate CER credits that developed countries and their emitters can use to comply with emissions caps.”
Carbon assets hit in post-Copenhagen malaise
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1892
“SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)–Days after Arizona pulled out of a western cap-and-trade market, Utah lawmakers were considering a proposal Friday to follow suit, potentially weakening the fledgling regional carbon market.
In an executive order signed last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, rescinded the state's agreement to participate in the Western Climate Initiative cap-and-trade market, scheduled to start Jan. 1, 2012, citing concerns about the economy and the program's costs. On Friday, a Utah House panel passed a resolution asking the state's governor to do the same thing.
Carbon market participants said Arizona's departure could weaken the WCI's nascent regional cap-and-trade market, though it hasn't had any impact on the existing carbon market.”
Arizona Quits Western Cap-And-Trade Mkt; Utah Mulls Similar Move
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100212-715151.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesAmericas
The end is near for the carbon(CO2) market. Many useless jobs will be lost.
As far as the coming crop failures we may do a little better but food shortages are predicted for this summer. This may trigger a run on food stocks in combination with an economic failure exacerbating the situation with people hording.
A lively discussion can be found on this recent blog post.
Food Shortage(s) Thread
http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-439295.html
Others have had good information posted on this topic in the past.
What I am getting at by bringing these topics to the surface is we need to stop playing games. People’s livelihoods are being lost and great disruptions in food supplies have not been anticipated.
We need to quantify with boldness as best we can the effects of the solar cycles with the knowledge we have at hand. It is not a question of a quantitative effect of solar minimum on the climate, it is how much. Lives and livelihoods depend on some group of scientists getting it right and giving decent predictions. The predictions have been politicized to a point of insanity. This has to stop.
My best guess of the output looks like this [red curve]:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
The ups and downs are on the order of 1/1000 of the whole.
Dr.Svalgaard, how do we know that your graph isn’t an attempt to “hide the decline” in TSI during the little ice age?
On a more serious note, I’m not doubting your data or methodology, but it is interesting that your measurements of TSI for the LIA period are significantly higher than Lean’s and Wang’s. People who are hoping to account for observed long-term variations in earth’s temperature by recourse to changes in TSI will be rather disheartened by your findings.
I get it. Whenever Leif Svalgaard says it ain’t science it’s voodoo.
[snip]
The Sun and the Universe are not electrical in nature, Great Leif mouthed.
How are we to respond to that? [snip]
Reply: Please maintain a respectful tone. And Leif, please try and phrase things in a manner not to illicit reactions of said tone. ~ ctm
wws (14:24:29) :
I know exactly what Harriban has got up his sleeve, as do we all. His side, the warmists, are losing badly and they know it! They see it all slipping away and they are desperately trying to negotiate a way out of their final political defeat!
NO ARMISTICE WHEN VICTORY IS AT HAND!!!
What would skeptics have to gain from an “armistice”, anyways? It would just be “you shut up while we stay in power and do whatever we want.” The warmists, after having been proved to be liars and frauds, are now going to promise to talk a little more nicely and cheat a little bit less and that is supposed to make everything hunky dory???
NO!
The IPCC must be DISBANDED it cannot be reformed!!! How about that for an “armistice”???
So you have a viper in a choke hold and it hisses “Just let me go – I promise to play fair from now on…”
Reminds me of the old parable of the scorpion and the frog REF: http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
The AGW movement is a suicidal movement that will take us all with it – best to keep the pressure up.
Thanx to Dr. Svalgaard and Tallbloke for their graphs and time.
Both point to a bit more energy from the sun from the 50’s to the noughties.
Though it looks like not very much. The journey continues….
TIm Groves (20:50:50) :
your measurements of TSI for the LIA period are significantly higher than Lean’s and Wang’s.
In the last 20 years the various reconstructions have slowly moved towards a common result, namely that the large variation from the Maunder Minimum to now did not take place. Although there are still some details that are being debated, the variation is now recognized to be less than 1 W/m2 [and I think much less, but will give other people the benefit of uncertainty].
People who are hoping to account for observed long-term variations in earth’s temperature by recourse to changes in TSI will be rather disheartened by your findings.
Indeed, and therefore [predictably] there is some resistance to be overcome. Solar physics has its own Hockey Stick [just look at the Figure at the top of this topic].
Leif Svalgaard (15:05:41) :
rbateman (13:28:55) :
“This is what the Mayans were so worried about for 2012: The world isn’t coming to an end, reason is coming to an end.”
Robert has a point there.
But I’d like to dispute it:
To be coming to an end, must not it have begun? Facts not in evidence… 😉
E.M.Smith (21:13:27) :
To be coming to an end, must not it have begun?
Seriously, I think the 18th and 19th centuries to have been ages of reason. This has now been lost.
Alexander Feht (21:05:56) :
[snip]
[snip]
Reply: Please maintain a respectful tone. And Leif, please try and phrase things in a manner not to illicit reactions of said tone. ~ ctm
I think people are themselves responsible for their tone.
“I heard on NPR how some islands off Bangledash were going under water because of Global Warming and sea level rise.”
Islands associated with river deltas have many different forces working on them. It may be overly simplistic to claim that they are disappearing due to a rise/change in sea level.
“How about the land getting very deeply saturated and heavy with precipitation. The added weight pushing down on the plates causing pressures to go up leading to more quakes/volcanoes?”
On the coast of Ecuador they have relatively mild earthquakes associated with the transition from dry to wet to dry seasons. The locals feel it is simple cause and effect, but I haven’t found “expert” confirmation.
Michael (20:48:06) :
“As far as the coming crop failures we may do a little better but food shortages are predicted for this summer”
This summer looks ok for India and China; sub-Saharan Africa looks touch and go as do some of the Pacific Rim Eastern countries, Europe and Western Asia looks ok too. Next summer, 201,1 may be a different story altogether, North America may be trading loaves of bread for EU carbon credits 1:1. Brazil may be asking for 2 credits per bag of sugar and India may no be exporting any rice. Yes, it could be really bad, depending on the weather, not the climate.
The famers need real honest information from their governments, and they need it now.
While the TSI has changed very little (only ~0.01% between the SC22-SC23 minimum to the current SC23-SC24 minimum) the effect on cosmic ray flux has been much more dramatic, with a 4% increase noted between the two minimums. Assuming the “Svensmark theory” is correct & data showing ~linear relationships between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover, and ~inverse linear relationship between global cloud cover and global temperature, seems that there is potentially compelling evidence that small changes in TSI can be “amplified” to much larger changes in radiative forcing.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/cosmic-rays-v-inverse-solar-magnetic.html
I am not disheartened. so let’s assume Leif’s 1 w/m2 is right. Pretty small. OK, the earth is round and it spins, so effective is even smaller, say 0.25 watts.
Now IPCC is claiming CO2 doubling = +3.7 watts/m2. But SO FAR it has only gone up 38%. Now its not a linear relationship, but for easy figuring let’s say that it’s about 1.4 watts. But we didnt just jump up from zero straight to 38%, we grew there. Again, not linear, but for rough figuring let’s say the average over time has been a contribution from CO2 since about 1920 to now of 0.7 watts.
Now I have a certain amount of faith in Leif’s conclusions about TSI variance, and a lot less (ok almost none) in the IPCC’s conclusions about CO2 contribution, but the point is that both numbers are in the same order of magnitude. But Leif’s Sun can penetreate up to 300 meters of ocean while the IPCC’s longwave from CO2 gets only two or three millimeters in and most likely gets picked up right away by evaporation into the atmosphere. So we’re talking about two very different energy transports with very different time constants that we don’t know for certain how to correlate. But don’t for a second believe that “only 1 watt” variance from TSI is insignificant in the long term.
Peter of Sydney (16:24:52) : Depending on what I read, a solar minimum coincides with lower than average temperatures or higher than average temperatures. Which is it?
I can answer that. The answer is “Yes”.
(It depends on what assumptions you make about things like time delays, solar / volcanic coupling, etc. In other words: “Given these conclusions what assumptions can we draw?” )
Robert (17:03:34) : It’s an extremely weak forcing, and it doesn’t last long (the typical cycle in 11 years or so.)
Robert, please tell me: What are the S.I. units for “Forcing”?
I keep trying to find out what physical units a “forcing” is in, but have failed horridly. If it’s not S.I., I’m ok with Imperial or even American Traditional units. (I just find it easier to understand the physics if I can figure out if the units are ‘degree-seconds/ton’ or ‘watt-newtons/cm’ or even ‘furlongs / fortnight’ … but lacking any units for “forcing” I can’t figure out what it is or what physics it represents or if it’s just a made up farcical unit… )
Thanks!
Mark Sawusch (21:35:02) :
the effect on cosmic ray flux has been much more dramatic, with a 4% increase noted between the two minimums.
For well-understood reasons [drift of cosmic rays in opposite polarity magnetic fields] there is a systematic difference between minima, with every second minimum being a bit lower than the ones on either side. In the long run, there has been no trend in cosmic ray intensity as far back as we have good direct measurements [to ~1950]. See slides 7 and 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
davidmhoffer (21:41:57) :
But don’t for a second believe that “only 1 watt” variance from TSI is insignificant in the long term.
A 1 Watt difference in TSI would indeed raise the temperature a very significant 0.05K.
E.M.Smith (20:08:02) :
“…I’ll stick with snow in 49 states and it being so cold that it’s Raining Iguanas in Florida as meaning that it’s cold…”
I remember that. Too funny. BTW, your write up made a lot more sense to me that the AGU Fall 2009 video.
Thanks.
Robert (20:38:10) : (To E. M. Smith) … Delay, obfuscate . . . it’s what you do best.
Whereas your particular skill seems to be sophistry, Robert; and well honed, too. As I read your comments my conscious mind is nodding “Yes, yes!” whilst my subconscious mind is flagging, in red, “Caution! Caution! You’re being had.“
Roger Carr (19:17:26) : However, when I look at this quote from the article you linked to I feel despair:
“Present-day scientists do their studies by measurements and experiments. [Australian] Aboriginal people are just as good scientists, but they use observation and experience,” Bodkin, a botanist at Sydney’s Mount Annan Botanical gardens, told Reuters.
Why on earth would that cause you despair?
“Experience” is just observation of experiments done by the planet all around you all the time. Like Darwin observing the different birds et. al. of the Galapagos or the drug industry looking at native wisdom that chewing willow bark relieved pain (aspirin) or that a South American tree relieved malaria symptoms (quinine) or that foxglove was useful for heart problems (digitalis). ( or a few thousand others…)
ANYONE can know more than you do about the thing they observe most.
Sidebar: I once observed “The Law of Mutual Superiority” up close and personal one day at Armadillo Willies BBQ shop. Buddy and I order the same thing, but he drinks diet coke and I drink full sugar. Order is called. We walk up. Harried minimum wage guy behind the counter points at food for pickup. I ask “Which is the DIET coke?”. He gets the “Oh God a Question” look. Looks at glasses. Fingers one. “That One”. Not believing it, I ask “How do you know?”. He says: “Foam is gone. Foam lasts longer on regular coke.”
So here was someone who was an Expert at serving Coke. He had observed a (reasonable in retrospect) property to which I had been oblivious. He was my Master when it came to Coke foam. We are all superior to each other in something…
So take a people with a 50,000 year oral tradition (and a language and culture that lends itself well to preservation of oral tradition in a place where if you don’t know what frog is full of water 2 feet under the desert you die when the once every lifetime drouth hits…) and I’m quite comfortable with the notion that they just might know more than I do about that thing they have spent several thousand years observing very very closely…
Just like a several hundred year (at least) oral tradition was passed on to me by my Dad when he showed me how to judge tempering of iron / steel by color temperature after a quench… That Smith thing… and the other Smiths who figured out that a quench in urine gave a very hard edge (nitriding the surface) or the Jungle Smiths from somewhere (Papua?) who had an edge hardening technique from sinking a blade into a melon. The edge quenches fast and hard (stays sharp) while the spine stays softer from a slow quench thanks to the mellon being far away giving a blade that does not break easily.
Science is NOT about lab coats and Ph.D. exams, nor even Mr. Popper. It is about open eyes, open minds, keen observation, and never letting your prejudice prevent you from seeing what the data (observations) have to say. Then not forgetting it.
The first Smith to pee on a blade and observe that the hardness and temper was better than anything he had made before is just as good and just as valid a scientist as any other. And an Aboriginal observer of flower patterns as weather predictors is a better scientist than the folks doing climate computer fantasy games, IMHO.
They are certainly more accurate and make better predictions of future outcomes. And their theories are falsifiable …
E.M.Smith (21:53:36) : “What are the S.I. units for “Forcing”?
Watts per meter squared
Leif Svalgaard (20:47:20) :
MikeC (20:29:29) :
Of course the Dalton minimum is made more profound by the Tambora erruption… and the fact that it followed the maunder minimum (think thermal inertia of the oceans)
Leif Svalgaard (20:47:20) :
It also followed the period 1725-1795 where solar activity has even higher than it is today [1950-2000], so the thermal inertia from the maunder minimum must have ’skipped over’ 1725-1795…
Hi Leif
I looked at the solar activity for this period of time and it appears that you exagerrated your point because only one or two of the cycles may have reached that strength for 70 year period you suggested, so I certainly would wonder about thermal inertia of the oceans. Given the small change in TSI between minimum and maximum I’m not sure if the oceans would warm up that much in such a short period of time… over several cycles, yes, possibly.
Have you or anyone you know calculated how much heat the oceans absorb or release (or what the equalibrium would be) at different points in the solar cycle or its phases? I recall Foukal left this open in 2006.
wws: “What would skeptics have to gain from an “armistice”, anyways?”
A place at the table, perhaps.
Interestingly, Harribin ends his article by mentioning uncertainty and risk in relation to calculations about climate. These considerations could also apply to his armistice offer.
Keeping with the war metaphor, if the AGW fortress is corrupt and rotten to the core, and the inhabitants demoralised by an acute sense of guilt and wrongdoing, the strategy would be to keep pushing at the breach until there’s a decisive breakthrough followed by a satisfying slaughter.
On the other hand, if the edifice is basically sound and battle-proof, and the inhabitants, although somewhat shaken, are steeled by a consciousness of injured virtue, a breakthrough would be much less likely, and the besiegers would face a war of attrition.
These uncertainties and risks would be magnified by the attitude of supporters. An armistice might be viewed as a betrayal by some, an opportunity by others.
Whichever way it goes, we are living through what historians call a “watershed” moment. It won’t last for long, though, or at least not at this intensity.
Watts per square meter.
Oh, I’m sorry, did you think that question didn’t have an answer? How embarrassing.
Leif Svalgaard (20:31:49) presented Evans statement (20:15:44): “And I do know the Sun is electrical in nature.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “The dangerous things are the ones you know, but ain’t. The Sun and the Universe are not electrical in nature. You can, of course, pretend they are and be happy with that. But spare us your pseudo-science.”
The scientific evidence of the Sun’s electrical nature is significant based on the scientifically observed & measured plasma dynamics of the Sun. What causes that electrical nature of the Sun is subject to discussion & debate.
Of course, Dr. Svalgaard offers no scientific evidence or rational. All Dr. Svalgaard offers is personal characterization which readers are supposed to accept based on his presumed authority.
That kind of response has no scientific merit.
This answer does have scientific merit because it relies on observation & measurement as reported in scientific papers.
Here are some papers that suggest at least part of the “community” understand that the Sun is a plasmoid — Plasma-Magnetic-Enity:
“Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits”
Submission August 6, 2009
“A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
To highlight:
“This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents.”
And another scientific paper:
“Driving Currents for Flux Rope Coronal Mass Ejections”
Submitted on 23 Oct 2008
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Such currents are responsible for providing the Lorentz self-force that propels CMEs. Our estimates for the driving current are based on measurements of the propelling force obtained using data from the LASCO coronagraphs aboard the SOHO satellite. We find that upper limits on the currents enclosed by CMEs are typically around $10^{10}$ Amperes. We estimate that the magnetic flux enclosed by the CMEs in the LASCO field of view is a few $\times 10^{21}$ Mx.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4210
To highlight:
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs).”
And further, as reported in this NOAA press release:
“NOAA Scientist Finds Clue to Predicting Solar Flares
January 19, 2010”
“The long-sought clue to prediction lies in changes in twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun in the days leading up to a flare, according to the authors. The findings will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters next month.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100119_solarflare.html
“…twisting magnetic fields…” is consistent with the filamentation and flow of electrical currents as discussed in the two previous scientific papers reporting observations & measurements of coronal mass ejections (CME’s).
And is consistent with this report of the shape of CME’s:
As reported by NASA: The Surprising Shape of Solar Storms:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14apr_3dcme.htm
“April 14, 2009: This just in: The Sun is blasting the solar system with croissants.”
“Researchers studying data from NASA’s twin STEREO probes have found that ferocious solar storms called CMEs (coronal mass ejections) are shaped like a French pastry. The elegance and simplicity of the new ‘croissant model’ is expected to dramatically improve forecasts of severe space weather.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14apr_3dcme.htm
NASA goes on:
“Vourlidas says he is not surprised that CMEs resemble French pastries. ‘I have suspected this all along. The croissant shape is a natural result of twisted magnetic fields on the sun…'”
The same magnetic fields as was identified as electrical current in the two above linked scientific paper abstracts.
And NASA goes further:
“That’s how CMEs get started—as twisted ropes of solar magnetism. When the energy in the twist reaches some threshold, there is an explosion which expels the CME away from the sun. It looks like a croissant because the twisted ropes are fat in the middle and thin on the ends.”
“Twisted magnetic flux ropes” is how Birkeland currents are described and Birkeland currents are electrical currents.
Charles Bruce, an electrical engineer and astronomer, identified cosmic jets, solar flares, magnetic fields and high temperatures in space as electrical discharge phenomena.
“And even if one regards the electric fields as merely another postulate, it has the great advantage that it is the one postulate which, in my view, renders all the others unnecessary.” — C. E. R Bruce, Electric Fields in Space, Penguin Science, 1968
Now, read what NASA has to say:
“The sun,” explains Guhathakurta, “is a variable star.”
And:
“SDO is going to revolutionize our view of the sun.” — Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm
And NASA goes on to state:
“‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
“At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.”
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,” says Lean. “How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate.”
Yes, indeed.
There is plenty of scientific evidence which suggests the Sun is a plasmoid: Plasma – Magnetic – Enity.
And, the Sun is electrical in nature.
Re Leif Svalgaard (13:40:17)
:geo (13:08:57) :
Someone remind me why we believe we know sunspot records in detail further than a few hundred years back?
Leif :”Solar activity influences the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth. The cosmic rays produce radioactive nuclei that we can measure the concentration of in old trees and in deep ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica”
I know pathetically little about cosmic rays, but have a few questions I hope are not over silly. What else affects the cosmic rays on earth, the earth’s variable magnetism? : releatively more and less dense flows of background cosmic rays due to our galatic location?, etc, and do we know the relative strgenth and timing of the ebb and flow of these other factors that may influence the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth accurately, so that we may quantify the relatively short solar cycle against these other factors?
Thanks in advance, PS, asking Leif a question is like talking to Dr Laura, probably masochistic. (-:
Robert (20:38:10) :
E.M.Smith wrote:
“No, it implies really really bad temperature data collection, archiving, processing, and very dodgy assumptions. Look out the window. See the snow. Think. Snow cold….”
Can’t help you. It’s balmy as hell here (Oregon).
Ah, near the big Pacific Ocean, so near the warm blob headed north in our Lava Lamp world. So you expect the world to be Oregon. Fine. I don’t expect it to be California… WE are near the warm headed north. Lucky us.
So you’re saying that all of the temperature measurements are wrong? Because you see snow outside?
Well, no. I’m in the warm bubble too. But I can see a bigger world than the warm bubble on the west coast of north America.
Yet still, two things you conflate.
1) The hypothetical world; where I to your question responded.
2) The real world where our temperature recording stations are very poorly sited and a bad environment exists http://www.surfacestations.org documents nicely this effect. Further, the NCDC GHCN is badly run and the models made from it such as GIStemp and CRUT are poor in the extreme.
” Now you get to wait a decade or two to suck all the heat stored in the ocean over the last 50 years into the air and radiate it off into space.”
If that were why the world is warming, then we should see a consistent pattern of the sea cooling during solar minimums and warming during solar maximums. As far as I know, there’s no data to support that.
Patience grasshopper. Did you not the “decades” word see? In 2020 a cooling sea will you see in our hypothetical world. And our sea has warmed, per the warmers, during our now past 50 year warming sun. So wait you must, for decades to pass. In fact, the model presented would suggest that, though the world stopped warming in 1998, it will take longer for the ocean to ‘catch up’ to the land (the now cold and snow covered land…) So lag times you must consider, and boats in 1500 did not so many thermometers carry…
“but until you can show me the ‘pipeline’ that all your supposed global warming trend is being stored up inside, I’ll stick with snow in 49 states and it being so cold that it’s Raining Iguanas in Florida as meaning that it’s cold.”
Warmest January on record. February on pace to be the warmest ever
Clearly you did not understand words I have spoken… It is the “warmest ever” yet raining Iguanas in Florida, freezing children in Peru, trains buried in snow in China, snow in the mountains of Australia in the summer, snow on the coast – the Mediterranean coast – of France, ALL 49 continental states of the USA with snowfall, UK covered in snow, Russia frozen, Canada Frozen, China FROZEN, snow in Southern Brazil… Let me say it again for your clarity to grasp:
“No, it implies really really bad temperature data collection, archiving, processing, and very dodgy assumptions. ”
Perhaps even to thinking that warm ocean might cover more AREA yet still have net HEAT loss to space since TEMPERATURE is the WRONG measure. You are counting your pennies yet not seeing the dollars…
Delay, obfuscate . . . it’s what you do best.
I delay nothing. I obfuscate nothing.
I open my eyes and see.
I ask “What is?”
AGW is not.
Cold is.
E.M.Smith (22:37:54) : (to me) Why on earth would that cause you despair?
Because, Michael, they are not scientists, they are everyday man observing “chewing willow bark relieved pain (aspirin)“. To claim they are just as good scientists is to demean them, and, by extension, demean scientists.
That sentence I quoted is simply the noble savage myth of PC. Once we were all savages. As many of us today observe and wonder as we did in the past.
It is the promotion of noble savage man as the true fountain of knowledge still today which causes my despair; and much of the considerable damage to civilisation inflicted by the green religion.
Leif,
I think you will agree with this quote:
See article of James Marusek (14 February 2010) on website ICECAP:
This solar minimum is rather unusual. If we define a period of quiet sun as those months that produced an Ap index of 6 or less and compare the total number of quiet months within each solar minimum, then the results would be:
Minimum Preceding Solar Cycle Number of Months with Ap Index of 6 or less
SC17 11 months
SC18 2 months
SC19 2 months
SC20 5 months
SC21 0 months
SC22 0 months
SC23 3 months
SC24 25 months and counting
His statement is that when the sun gets extremely quiet, the world experiences great cold periods referred to as the Little Ice Ages. I should only answer: “Wait and see!”
“Ah, near the big Pacific Ocean, so near the warm blob headed north in our Lava Lamp world. So you expect the world to be Oregon. Fine. I don’t expect it to be California… WE are near the warm headed north. Lucky us.”
That is what the psychologists call “projection.” You are elevating anecdote above thousands and thousands of standardized temperature measures and two sets of satellite data. You asked me what the weather was here, and I told you. Sorry it doesn’t fit your fantasy of a cold world.
You continue on with your patronizing nonsense, managing only to convey that you really don’t understand the science, but believe in the power of your blind faith over objective reality (“AGW is not.”) Sorry, the data says otherwise. There’s not really that much more to say. Let me know when you get a church and a pastor for your religion; I’ll light a candle and say a prayer for your neglected critical thinking skills.
Michael (20:48:06) : As far as the carbon market is concerned, many people have based their carriers and invested much in the trade of carbon credits world wide. These people will not go quietly int the good night. I feel sorry for them but they will go.
“Carbon Trading” is toast. It isn’t even a mention on trader show, boards, etc. It was (briefly) a ‘maybe future thing’ topic, now it’s not even ‘dead air’.
At this point I’d short carbon futures, except they are already so close to zero that even a short trade is pointless. Not only has it been shorted into oblivion, but the shorts have covered and gone home!
At this point it is rather like a bankrupt company trading for $0.0001 / share. The folks buying are the bond holders who want to assure enough votes at the bankruptcy hearing for “liquidate to the bond holders”…
The end is near for the carbon(CO2) market. Many useless jobs will be lost.
It’s already dead, Jim…
As far as the coming crop failures we may do a little better but food shortages are predicted for this summer. This may trigger a run on food stocks in combination with an economic failure exacerbating the situation with people hording.
As I’ve pointed out before…
We live in incredibly affluent times. NOT eating a pound of beef means you have 10 pounds of corn and soybeans to eat. The beef is “wet” and the grain is “dry”, so that 10 pounds of grain becomes about 30 pounds after you hydrate it in cooking (conservative estimate… really it’s 1 cup to 2 cups ratio but the 1 cup is whole grains so about 1/2 the density of the 2 cups of water liquid… in reality there is a 1:60 mass ratio but even that is a bit conservative…)
So the losers will be the cows and pigs and chickens in any natural disaster. We will eat them and then we will eat their feed…
It isn’t a production problem, it’s a distribution problem. I will not skip the 1/4 pounder with cheese at lunch so that somebody in Sudan can have 2.5 pounds of grain and live for a week. (Nor would their government let the food reach them if I did skip the burger…) So I’m not particularly worried about ‘food shortage’ globally.
But with that said, it is also prudent to have food set aside. I grew up in a Mormon town and they had a cultural experience with famine. They also remembered the Biblical admonition to prepare for 7 years of famine. It is still good advice. (I’ve used my ‘food storage system’ several times. From job loss to earthquakes to just being too lazy to go to the store. It is a Very Good Idea. No matter who you are and no matter what you believe.) If you want to know a trivial way to “be prepared” see here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/food-storage-systems/
And even if you are a “warmer” please be prepared. I’d like someone to argue with after The Bad Thing happens 😉 be it too hot or too cold…
I’ve put far more attention on that topic than it deserves. So you can know that when I say things like “this survived a 7.2 quake” or “lentils will store for 16 years but peas are too hard to eat after 2 years” I’ve actually done it.
Oh, and if there is any interest in ‘recipes for stored food’ just drop a comment on my blog and I’ll start a thread. I’m something of a ‘foodie” and I’ve got several good recipes for ‘storage food’. Just because it’s a disaster, that doesn’t mean you can’t eat well 😉
Sidebar: After the Loma Prieta 7.2 quake in California I was running a cheese and wine ‘affair’ at my place with 2 generators on standby and satellite TV coverage from out of the area (local stations were down). I guess it’s a California Thing… but it just didn’t seem right to call it “survival” when we could do “Brie, Cheddar and Zinfandel” instead 😉
Yes, we had a “Quake Party!!”.. Friends from several miles away came over until we could figure out what was going to happen next and who would have power. (Though power came back before we could start the BBQ… talk about your buzz kill..)
Hey, I did have the day off after I sent everyone home and said don’t come back for 3 days minimum, wait until aftershocks are done. No kidding.
Really. Look, we just don’t “DO” disaster in California. Yah know? No, honest. Really. I was most worried because I couldn’t keep the whites chilled unless I started up the big generator and it made too much noise…
I’m not making this any better, am I?…
People’s livelihoods are being lost and great disruptions in food supplies have not been anticipated.
OK, back to “buzz kill” land. Yes, the biggest issue I see is that we’ve gone to “just in time” inventory for grains world wide. This means that we have about 3 months of food “in the pipeline” and then nothing. We have NO preparation for a ‘bad year”. The implicit assumption is that a ‘crop failure’ is a local weather event in Australia or Ukraine. And that’s fine, unless we have a global weather driven event.
EXACTLY the same thing that did in the Maya and the Romans and the …
So it really really is a good thing to go buy $10 of rice and $20 of lentils and put it in jars. And do that again next month. And the month after that.
You will get good at making “Lentil Chili” and “Fried Rice with Spam” over the years. (don’t laugh! fried rice made with Spam is actually quite good… ask the Hawaiians!)
And if what happened a dozen times before happens, you will not perish. And if it does not happen, you will eat well and comfortably and have “no worries” during some local regional “Aw Shit” that happens… even if it is just a job loss.
Graeme From Melbourne (21:06:10) : The warmists, after having been proved to be liars and frauds, are now going to promise to talk a little more nicely and cheat a little bit less and that is supposed to make everything hunky dory?
Oddly enough, there is a parallel with the Profit Mohammed and a ‘truce’. He called a truce when losing, so that his side could regroup, restock, and re-arm. Remember this lesson. A “truce” is so that the loser can regroup… so they can win later…
The AGW movement is a suicidal movement that will take us all with it – best to keep the pressure up.
I prefer to be an Aikido stylist if possible. If your opponent is suicidal, do not oppose them. Ask how you can help?… Join with their flow, then you can direct it. At that moment, step aside and let them go as they wish…
The “problem” is that they have determined to hold us all by the throat as they leap off the cliff… so we must break that grasp while offering encouragement to their end…
Could someone explain to me & anyone else who may feel likewise, why is there a tendency for some to think that if something happens on the Sun, there is an instantaneous reaction down here on Earth? (Flares excepted). I would suspect there is a delay of months & even years before anything happened on Earth, & direct effects even impossible to detect as yet.
Re: Ron House (Feb 15 20:35),
Careful Ron, you and Toowoomba could end up getting reparation demands from San Fransico – you got their fog!
Leif Svalgaard (21:20:34) : edit
E.M.Smith (21:13:27) :
To be coming to an end, must not it have begun?
Seriously, I think the 18th and 19th centuries to have been ages of reason. This has now been lost.
Oh, OK, if you must be ‘serious’ then yes, I too believe that the 18th and 19th centuries beat us all to (self snip!) as ages of reason. But I don’t know how to fix it other than banning TV (that will not happen). So, we are all doomed to ignorance… or at least bound to it… (no, no smiley… on this Leif and I unfortunately agree… ) as time progresses and we ‘evolve’ into mediocrity…
There must be a better answer..
I see that Leif Svalgaard has appointed himself as the sheep-dog whose job it is to ride herd over intellectual debate, making sure that no-one strays too far from his picture of the universe.
In Leif’s Universe, TSI is the only significant way for the Sun, or any other body or process that is external to the Earth, can significantly influence the Earth’s temperature. Leifs belief that the TSI has only varied slightly between the Maunder minimum and the present then allows him to claim that (sustained) reduced solar activity will not lead to decreased world temperatures.
The spanner in the works of Leif’s picture of the Universe, is the
possibility that there may [and I stress may] be other processes that Leif
has not considered which could indirectly link the level of solar activity and
the Earth’s climate.
However, as a sophist, Leif Svalgaard will spend little time admitting that he might (just possibly) be wrong, and most of his time trying to obscure the essence of the debate by pointing to some subtle interpretation of one or possibly two words of the post of the person who holds him to account.
Mark Sawusch (22:45:52) : edit
E.M.Smith (21:53:36) : “What are the S.I. units for “Forcing”?
Watts per meter square
Great!
So when someone says “0.04 % CO2 increase has lead to a 2000 percent increase in the forcing” I can somehow translate that into 2000% increase in W/M^2 ?
OK, I’ll keep that in mind and apply it to every time “forcing” is used.
For example:
Robert (12:35:12) : doesn’t that suggest the presence of a large non-solar forcing [watts / M^2 ] which is warming the planet in spite of the slight fall in irradiance?
Oh, drat. Perhaps you can explain where these watts/M^2 came from as the solar W/M^2 of solar irradiance were dropping? I seem to have misplaced where they came from.. IFF the solar watts/M^2 are dropping where are these non-solar watts/M^2 coming from?
Or:
Robert (13:20:48) : It remains to be seen whether this unusually long and deep solar minimum, which coincided with the warmest decade on record, is anything other than a blip. Even if it persists, there’s no reason to think it will be remotely as powerful a forcing as GHGs
So ‘remotely as powerful a watts/ m^2 as GHG” … Pardon? Do GHG have a measured “watts/m^2” ?? What is the w/m^2 of, oh, Argon or freon? I didn’t see that in my CRC Handbook…
Perhaps you could elaborate?
I’d really like to be able to put a 1 mm blanket of Argon, freon, methane or CO2 on my ceiling and have some “watts/M^2” from them so can stop paying my heating bill.
This is just such an exciting prospect, I can hardly contain myself. Just think, a few mm blanket of CO2 with it’s “Watts/M^2” and we can all sleep comfortably for generations!
Surely our saviour is at hand!
Mark Sawusch (21:35:02) : While the TSI has changed very little (only ~0.01% between the SC22-SC23 minimum to the current SC23-SC24 minimum) the effect on cosmic ray flux has been much more dramatic,
…, seems that there is potentially compelling evidence that small changes in TSI can be “amplified” to much larger changes in radiative forcing.
Ok, so while the TSI in W/M^2 is dropping, the radiative “W/M^2” is somehow increasing?!
WoW! Please elaborate! WHERE do these added W/M^2 come from?
Re E.M.Smith (02:06:57) :
I am concerned to agree with both of you, perhaps our politics, journalism, and spin technologies grew a little faster then our science,
Robert (23:04:00) : Watts per square meter.
Oh, I’m sorry, did you think that question didn’t have an answer? How embarrassing.
Oh, I’m sorry, did you think that the question did have an answer without consequences? how embarrassing…
“And any cooling may depend [as it did back then] on suitable volcanic eruptions:”
Which volcanic activity will be more proof, in itself, of a grand minimum. First barrage should be following aa, ap upturn.
Regarding 20th century solar activity, this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
suggests from Be10 that the activity was higher than the preceding centuries.
What’s wrong with this?
MikeC (22:54:19) :
I looked at the solar activity for this period of time and it appears that you exagerrated your point because only one or two of the cycles may have reached that strength for 70 year period you suggested
‘solar activity’: there are several sunspot numbers floating around. Figure 11 in http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf shows several reconstructions of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field since 1700. We take that as a better representation of solar activity than the raw sunspot numbers [which were under-counted early on]. The purple dashed curve shows Steinhilber et al.’s values. Compare 1725-1800 with 1950-2000.
James F. Evans (23:06:34) :
1361 W/m2 … And, the Sun is electrical in nature.
I see, the light bulb in my office lamb says ‘120 Watt’ on it and must be ‘electrical’ in nature. The Sun also radiates ‘Watts’, so is clearly also electrical in nature.
Material flowing across solar magnetic field lines generates electrical currents that quickly dissipates in various explosive ways. Same thing happens near the Earth. The presence of such events does not make anything ‘electrical in nature’ as they are just short-lived consequences, rather than fundamental constituents. You something mentioned that 99.9% of the Universe is electrically neutral plasma. This is incorrect, only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma.
David (23:45:29) :
What else affects the cosmic rays on earth, the earth’s variable magnetism? […] so that we may quantify the relatively short solar cycle against these other factors?
The primary factor is the Earth’s main dipole field that changes slowly over thousands of years. The solar modulation is but a small fraction of that. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg shows how the cosmic ray intensity has varied over the past 10,000 years. The little wiggles on the curve are due to solar activity.
E.M.Smith (02:06:57) :
So, we are all doomed to ignorance… or at least bound to it… (no, no smiley… on this Leif and I unfortunately agree… ) as time progresses and we ‘evolve’ into mediocrity…
There must be a better answer..
I don’t know the answer. We must combat unreason and pseudo-science whenever they raise their heads.
Ninderthana (02:44:43) :
Leif Svalgaard will spend little time admitting that he might (just possibly) be wrong
Almost anything will turn out to be wrong eventually. The problem is when we act on things that are wrong already.
E. M. Smith @ 22:37:54
‘We are all superior to each other in something’. You said a mouthful, there. I’ve yet to meet the person who can’t teach me anything.
=====================================
E.M. Smith,
“WoW! Please elaborate! WHERE do these added W/M^2 come from?”
Willis Eschenbach wrote an excellent article called “The Steel Greenhouse,” which I think holds the key to the question of where this extra flux comes from. He uses the idea of a steel shell surrounding a hypothetical planet to model the way greenhouse gases work. In this thought experiment, the planet is warmed not by the sun, but by some internal heat source. For arguments sake, imagine that the planet reaches equilibrium, without the steel shell, where it radiates 235 w/m^2 into space.
Next, he imagines the steel shell is added around the planet at an altitude of several thousand metres. To maintain equilibrium, the whole system must sill radiate at 235 W/m^2. To do this, the steel shell must warm until it radiates at 235 W/m^2. Because the shell has an inside and outside, it must also radiate at 235 W/m^2 downwards towards the planetary surface. The surface is now being heated by 235 W/m^2 from the interior and 235 W/m^2 from the shell, giving a total of 470 W/m^2.
This elegant model caused some confusion among readers, including myself, because of the “problem” of accounting for this extra radiation flux. After all, the internal energy from the interior, the only heat source, hasn’t changed, so this seemed like energy being created out of nothing. But as Willis explained, this is not the case, since the system as a whole, is still radiating at the same 235 W/m^2 into space. The radiating surface has simply moved to a point above the surface, while the “surface” is now “inside” this new system.
My own way of trying to come to terms with this apparant sleight of hand is to imagine the energy as quantas flowing second by second from a m^2. In 1 second, a 235 packet radiates outwards and 235 Joules radiates back down into that area. In the next second this combines with another 235 Joules from the interior making 470 Joules. This extra 235 Joules has not come out of nowhere. It was the 235 realeased in the previous second from the interior but has radiated back downwards.
The same logic applies to greenhouse gases. The extra watt comes from energy that was radiated from the ground in the first place, and is combined with it to make what some people are pleased to call by the misleading term “forcing”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Jim Cross (04:02:43) :
suggests from Be10 that the activity was higher than the preceding centuries.
What’s wrong with this?
Different ice cores give different results and climate itself influences the deposition. A very recent reconstruction is likely better. Look at Figure 7 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
Robert (00:38:24) : You are elevating anecdote above thousands and thousands of standardized temperature measures and two sets of satellite data.
If you only had a clue how poor those “standardized measures” are…
http://www.surfacestations.org
But it is your “hypothetical world” we are discussing, not mine. In my world we have a terrible poverty of well proven and well vetted data. In my wold we ‘have no clue’ what the global average temperature is… and even less clue if it means anything.
It was not me who asked (with a non proven predicate): “doesn’t that suggest the presence of a large non-solar forcing” (watts/m^2) “which is warming the planet in spite of the slight fall in irradiance?”
Said W/M^2 being no where to be found as the world cools… and as the only source of W/M^2 being shown to become lower.
You asked me what the weather was here, and I told you. Sorry it doesn’t fit your fantasy of a cold world.
Um, I don’t remember (nor did a check of my comments up thread show any evidence of) my ever asking “what the weather was here”. Sorry. I really do not care. And what it is where you, or I, live is of little relevance. You have leapt off a cliff of conclusion here where I will not follow.
That we are both under the “hot blob of ‘near the ocean warmed’ air headed north” does confirm my description of how I would expect the “fantasy world” to work, but you also seem to have missed my many disclaimers that this was a ‘hypothetical world’. And while it may have strong similarities to The Real World, it lacks a causal mechanism, so must remain “hypothetical world”.
But since you missed them, let me repeat them here:
“First one has to accept the premise ( “The Sun Did It” ) that is not shown to be true, but accept it for argument we will…”
“Even in temperature movements. So, I’m even going to postulate that the “noughties” were hot (something that I do not agree with generally – they remind me of what my Dad and other “old folks at home” described the ’20s and ’30s as being, though milder and less hot than then.) But lets assume it WAS hot. And lets assume it IS solar driven. And lets assume the sun has reduced it’s output in such a manner as to change heat at the earth (also not shown, though widely surmised). ”
So as much as you want to assert I’ve embraced those premises, I’ve only said that while they are not in evidence, they are needed for your argument, so we can accept them for your point to be debated.
So please, when I’ve specifically disclaimed a belief in the model world that is the underpinning of your argument, do not assert that I BELIEVE in it.
Sorry, the data says otherwise.
The “data” are horridly distorted, cooked, and flat out unavailable for any rational statement about what is or is not happening. That is why all the disclaimers about “Hypothetical World” had to be said. We simply do not, and can not, know if we are warming. THE best evidence (long lived unadjusted thermometers) says we are not, that it is a normal cyclical pattern and we are about as warm now as we were during the 1720’s (but not as warm as we were 5300 year ago when green plants grew under what are now glaciers in the Peru mountain peaks (carbon 14 dated) or when The Ice Man culture walked passes in the Swiss Alps (also carbon 14 dated) that have been iced over ever since) but there is not enough data to say for certain.
So you may wish to leap off a cliff of conclusion. I do not.
All we really know is that it has been both warmer and cooler than now in the past, and that in a “few thousand years” it will be a new ice age. Beyond that is speculation. And the AGW meme is speculation of an extreme sort.
There’s not really that much more to say.
Yet the warmers keep saying it, no matter how poorly supported, over and over again.
Let me know when you get a church and a pastor for your religion
I have no religion. A fact that causes my very religious spouse much distress. (I do have a Doctor of Divinity degree so I can put DD after my name. It cost me $20 … and I do ponder such things as the meaning of truth and of life) but no, I have no “church” and do not expect to ever find one. I have one goal in life. Truth. My only Church is the Church of Truth. Nothing else matters to me. Not money, and not even life itself. We all die, so life is only a process to an end. In the end, all that matters is how you got there. For me, learning what truth there is, is the only process that matters. The only “sin” in my personal “church” is to not be true to truth.
And the very blatant truth is that in the 1800 era we had no satellites so we have no way of knowing if the seas were warm when the land was frozen (though there are some interesting proxies). In 1600 even less so and in 400 not at all. We are but fleas on the planet.
So the Roman Warm Period was very warm On Land. And the Greek period was cold On Land. And 5200 years ago it was very hot On Land when Utze fell in a Swiss pass to be covered by newly fallen snow for 5200 years and when the Maya wrote of a great deluge to come in 5200 years and as the Peruvian Ice Cap formed over green plants that are only now being exposed as the glacier melts back too a point not as far melted as it was then. And the Iron Age cold period was colder while the Medieval Warm Period was warmer.
And so the cycle of life has turned.
Yet some folks want to assert that all of that history does not exist. That the sun did it, or that the sun did not do it. That CO2 did it. That people did it.
To all of them I say: “Nice theory, but you have no clue what really happened”.
So please, do not assert I have a religion. You have no clue… Just like the rest of us… (But some of us know that we have no clue…)
“Norman (17:36:11) :
Can anyone explain this NOAA graph of ocean rise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_sea_level_trend_1993_2010.png
I heard on NPR how some islands off Bangledash were going under water because of Global Warming and sea level rise. I see the chart from above and it has some parts of the same ocean rising much faster than neighboring areas. How does this work? I thought water will be shaped by the type of container it is in. If a lake receives an influx of water it does not just rise at the source but the whole lake rises. I can pour water in a pot and it will not pile up anywhere. How does ocean water pile up in certain locations as shown in the graph? Are they sure the islands are not sinking as a result of the plate they are on going down?
I would sure like to know the science on how one part of the same ocean is rising at a rate almost 10 times more than water a few hundred miles north in the same ocean basin. Help!”
Whew!
First, the Spectator (UK print edition, 6/2/10) had an article by Richard Orange about the Sunderban Islands. The gist of it is they are deltaic islands which are essentially mobile as the Ganges distributaries shift their course, as all such rivers do. It has nothing to do with any putative sea level rise.
Second, as the Ganges, the Indus and the Brahmaputra are enthusiastically eroding the Himalaya range they are depositing vast tonnages in their deltas every year which are, as a result, sinking under the weight, in addition the the fact that the tectonic plate is subducting under the Asian plate. So the ‘relative’ sea levels are of course rising relative to the land.
Lastly, what you mean by sea level is an absolute nightmare. The average sea surface (i.e. that undisturbed by tides etc.) will take up a shape known as the geoid, which is an ‘orrible lumpy object that cannot reasonably be used for calculations. So we use a spheroid, a nice regular geometrical shape. Now, no self-respecting geodesist could leave it at that, so there are literally dozens of speroids in use. Therefore the opportunities for mistakenly using two or more spheroids are plentiful, but even if you get that right the heights of sea level, i.e. the geoid above the spheroid, will vary considerably.
As an example of the differences, the geoid shows a 100m hole just south of India and a bulge of about the same height in Western Australia.
The lumpiness of the geoid is due to variations in the density of the Earth affecting the local gravitaional forces.
E.M.Smith (22:37:54) :
Science is NOT about lab coats and Ph.D. exams, nor even Mr. Popper. It is about open eyes, open minds, keen observation, and never letting your prejudice prevent you from seeing what the data (observations) have to say. Then not forgetting it.
—————————————————————-
As “Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here” was inscribed above the door to Plato’s academy, so that should be writ large at the entrance to every science faculty.
I saw both Solanki and McCracken, this last one referred to cycles of about 100 years and 200 years and also mentioned the 2,200 years of a greater oscillation. Ivanka Charvatova has found both, after the work of Paul D.Jose.
I Charvatova speaks of the possibility of The results indicate that
`solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar interior, operates more likely from the outside, by means of the varying planetary configurations.
And, recent findings:
NASA’s IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
So, we are approaching an unexpected explanation of solar actiity.
Green Sand (01:48:54) : edit
Re: Ron House (Feb 15 20:35),
Careful Ron, you and Toowoomba could end up getting reparation demands from San Fransico – you got their fog!
Surely liability runs the other way! THEY can sue SFO for being afflicted with the accursed fog that SFO has let wander away due to depravity!!! 8-o
Ref – E.M.Smith (19:23:14) :
Milwaukee Bob (12:25:25) : Stock tip: Buy! LL Bean, North Face….
_________________________
Curious – Did/Has anyone made a pile of moola off AGW and, since Coppenhagen, its demise? It was buy “Green” for a long time and it may now be buy “Blue” –not a Wall Street Geek. Have thought for sometime that this was more and more a Bernie Madoff kind of trick by folks like Soros and his friends (Big Al, etc.) just taking advantange of the “Chicken Little” in all of us. (Maybe it was much bigger, China trumping the West at our own game?) Any thoughts?
FWIW it seems most likely that virtually all the climate variability we have directly observed is system driven internally with the sun only providing a very long background trend which has yet to be quantified.
We are nowhere near sorting out the relative sizes of the separate internal and external natural forcings (the only real external forcing being solar). However I think oceanic variability trumps just about everything else.
It is even possible that the transitions between glacial and interglacial periods are substantially affected by internal system variability.
Furthermore it likely all boils down to varying RATES of energy transfer from one part of the Earth system to another with the troposphere just being the filling in the sandwich being pushed and pulled first one way and another by the varying rates of energy transfer within the layers of the oceans and from the stratosphere upwards through the different layers of the upper atmosphere.
In the end it may be almost a zero sum game but a great deal happens during the game on a multitude of different interlinked and overlapping time scales.
Ref – Leif Svalgaard (04:33:39) :
Jim Cross (04:02:43) : suggests from Be10…
______________________
Dr Svalgaard
The Sun has such minor variation that it appears to be something else driving the glacial/interglacial cycles. What is the latest theory (or combination of) that seems to be the most interesting one from your perspective?
Brendan H (22:59:22) :
wws: “What would skeptics have to gain from an “armistice”, anyways?”
A place at the table, perhaps.
I think we already have many, many places at the table. The internet has become the table. The MSM are just starting to understand it and are hoping they have a place.
E.M.Smith (04:38:07),
Well said. What I find typical of warmers is they never question their sources and repeat exactly what they have read, and/or they have no clue what the word “uncertainty” means.
Most of them simply do not understand the complexity of climate. This goes for several that have PHDs as well. I still blame it on the education system.
E.M Smith, on watts/m^2:
It is a unit of projected energy that has a confusing meaning and has been invented by the climatologists to obfuscate the issue
a) In a parallel ray radiative system geometrically, to get the energy, and it is energy that can be budgeted because energy is conserved, one can go from these funny units to energy inputted ( joules/second) by integrating the area. By the time the sun’s rays reach us it is in parallel geometry, but it hits a sphere at various angles, so these watts/m^2 to be turned into energy need the geometrical factors which also depend on the seasons. One fudge factor.
b) when talking of the earth radiating as a black body watts/m^2 the distinction of where one is measuring this radiation ( radius) changes the meter square corresponding to the same energy cone .
If one assumes that the 1300watts/m^2 that fall on a solar panel have finally to be radiated back to space somehow if the earth is not to heat up as a pressure cooker, the difference in the radius of the earth gives something like 8watts/m^2 between the different radii(6357 km , to 6378km). If we take the hand waved geometrical average value of 1300/4 that makes an uncertainty from geometry of 2Watts/m^2. Similar uncertainties come from calculating in meter squares for the troposphere .
And I have not included the seasonal changes . I have not included the fractal nature of oceans and mountains ( the area changes) either.
In conclusion I think this watts/m^2 is a very opaque idea that does not allow for easy uncertainty calculations, but what the heck, the whole AR4 has no error propagation, it leaves it to the creative devices of the climatologists.
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:47) :
tallbloke (17:05:37) :
Leif will tell you that the numbers were under-counted in earlier years and is working on magnetic data to try to improve the record.
How’s it going Leif?
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf
are ‘progress reports’.
Thanks Leif. Very interesting documents both.
On a rough estimate, the first half of the C20th had 11 year cycles of lower amplitude and the second half of the C20th had 10 year cycles of higher amplitude.
I think this accounts for the extra energy which went into the oceans to cause ocean heat content to rise from the ’40’s onwards to the ’90’s. Shorter minima, higher amplitudes.
Disputin (04:46:45) :Surely it has happened because of the lots of shampoo used during the Gloibal Warmers jamborees usually held in those south pacific paradise islands. Nothing to worry about, except for the contamination to GAIA these warmers/millionaires originate.
Disputin (04:46:45) :
“Norman (17:36:11) :
Can anyone explain this NOAA graph of ocean rise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_sea_level_trend_1993_2010.png
the heights of sea level, i.e. the geoid above the spheroid, will vary considerably.
As an example of the differences, the geoid shows a 100m hole just south of India and a bulge of about the same height in Western Australia.
The lumpiness of the geoid is due to variations in the density of the Earth affecting the local gravitaional forces.
And these change over time. I think this has to be partly to do with changes under the Earth’s crust. These are linked to changes in length of day, as heavier matter flows further out nearer to the crust slowing Earth down and vise versa. This tends to occur over ~60 year cycles and is coincident with the changing relationships of the distribution of mass in the solar system.
Magnetic variations follow the same timescales.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/
Leif Svalgaard (22:01:22) :
davidmhoffer (21:41:57) :
But don’t for a second believe that “only 1 watt” variance from TSI is insignificant in the long term.
A 1 Watt difference in TSI would indeed raise the temperature a very significant 0.05K.>
My point being Leif, that if 1 watt from TSI is pretty much insignificant than 1.4 watts from CO2 is pretty much insignificant. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m saying that they are in the same order of magnitude. If one attributes major effects to one, then so to the other. If the effects of one are minor, so too are the other. The only way this isnt true is if the measurements and estimates are wrong and in reality they are different orders of magnitude.
By far the best (interesting, educational, entertaining) thread I’ve read in a great while. Thank you all (even Robert 😉 ).
View from the Solent (05:06:07) : So it is not surprising that knowledge has never been hidden but rejected. Men of old, perhaps from thousand of years ago, knew the universal laws and this knowledge is open to everyone, but we stubbornly prefer to complicate things up. Remember Pitagoras ask for a slave prisoner to be release so to demonstrate he also could demonstrate his theorem, and he did it?
The precondition to learning is NOT knowing. If one already “knows” everything then one is filled to the rim. The eternal play of forces:Remembering is only possible after one forgets, in order to get a result forces should be separated by a gap, call it a lever, a potential difference or love, it´s the same.
>>>Leif Svalgaard (12:23:52) :
>>>Whether we’ll have a Dalton Minimum remains to be
>>seen. And any cooling may depend [as it did back then]
>>on suitable volcanic eruptions: 2009GL040882.pdf 🙂
So Solar minimums and their low temperatures are always coincident with volcanic eruptions – eh. Leif?
Convenient…
.
Pascvaks 5:28:52. Well, Maurice Strong is now in China. Beyond that small fact, I’ve difficulty following the Great Game. But for sure it is being played without the interests of the mass of humanity at the fore.
=====================================
>>>rbateman (13:28:55) :
>>“This is what the Mayans were so worried about
>>for 2012: The world isn’t coming to an end, reason
>>is coming to an end.”
.
The Mayans and Egyptians were all believers in astrological epochs, driven by the precession of the equinox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
In the classical 12-month zodiac, the constellations change every 2,160 years or so, which is known as the Great Month. Twelve of these months made a full 25,700 revolution of the precessional equinox, and was known as the Great Year.
Momentous events were always supposed to happen on the change of the Great Month. The last change happened in about AD10, when Aries changed into Pisces (when viewed at the dawn Vernal Equinox). That is why the great king of this era was born as a Lamb of God but became a Fisher of Men.
This is also why Alexander the Great always wore the horns of the ram, because he was a King of Aries.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l4cIVPitpyo/ShnQxMwFFZI/AAAAAAAAA2c/_6RM5zQqxFY/s400/alexander+the+great.jpg
Most of these traditions are astrological, as are the Mayan Prophesies.
.
Leif Svalgaard (04:11:42) :
Thank you for the link. How is the earth’s Earth’s main dipole strgenth determined over the time period in the link you kindly provided, As to the background cosmic ray strgenth and how it varies relatve to our position in the galaxy, how is this history quantified, and can the future of it be predicted?
Thanks in advance.
JonesII (05:14:00) :
However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly. […]
So, we are approaching an unexpected explanation of solar activity.
If it fits perfectly, you shouldn’t have a problem.
Pascvaks (06:04:39) :
The Sun has such minor variation that it appears to be something else driving the glacial/interglacial cycles.
Variations of the orbital elements of the Earth explains those cycles even with a constant Sun.
tallbloke (06:33:25) :
I think this accounts for the extra energy which went into the oceans to cause ocean heat content to rise from the ’40’s onwards to the ’90’s. Shorter minima, higher amplitudes.
Except does not account for the increase from 1900 to 1950 which was equally strong, or the cold 18th century when solar activity was as great as it has been recently.
davidmhoffer (06:59:08) :
If the effects of one are minor, so too are the other.
and so they both are.
JonesII (07:09:13) :
Men of old, perhaps from thousand of years ago, knew the universal laws
So your knowledge is on the level of science reached thousands of years ago…
Ralph (07:55:47) :
So Solar minimums and their low temperatures are always coincident with volcanic eruptions – eh. Leif?
Convenient…
There is a but of circular reasoning in this. The record that we use to gauge solar activity in the past is contaminated by volcanic eruptions, so some of the coincidence has a natural explanation.
David (08:27:04) :
Thank you for the link. How is the earth’s Earth’s main dipole strgenth determined over the time period in the link you kindly provided, As to the background cosmic ray strgenth and how it varies relatve to our position in the galaxy, how is this history quantified, and can the future of it be predicted?
We can measure the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field by measuring the magnetism of pottery shards and lava streams. You have probably heard about the proof of plate tectonics being the magnetized strips of lava found on either sides of mid-ocean ridges.
We cannot predict the change of the Earth’s field. It is now decreasing [15% the past 200 years] and there are some speculation that it may decline to near zero and reverse in about a thousand years, but that is still speculation at this point.
Stephen Wilde (05:39:22) :The interaction mechanism seems to be the one presented by Earl Happ:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/
Manifestly, the engine of climate change is in the tropics. Here, energy gain from solar radiation exceeds emission via radiation. The energy gain, more at some times than others, is transferred to high latitudes by the ocean and the atmosphere. To understand climate change we have to understand the Southern Oscillation that governs the warming and cooling of the tropics and also how that oscillation changes over time. The suns total irradiance varies by 0.1% over the solar cycle and is out of step with the observed change in surface temperature. At the height of the sunspot cycle a La Nina cooling event is frequently experienced. Plainly, the temperature of the Earth is unrelated to the sunspot cycle. However, there is a second mode of variation in solar activity that is deterministic. This is the Quasi Biennial Oscillation.
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:06) :
Pascvaks (06:04:39) :
Q=The Sun has such minor variation that it appears to be something else driving the glacial/interglacial cycles.(?)
A=Variations of the orbital elements of the Earth explains those cycles even with a constant Sun.
_________________________
Follow up please: Where are we vis-a-vis the cycles? All the talk of sunspots and AGW has thrown me off (if I ever really knew). Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period? Or is there still time (say another millenium) for humanity to get in a little more fun and games in the far north and far south of the planet before we head back to the caves around the Equator?
Pascvaks (09:01:25) :
Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period?
Yes we are, but it will take 100,000 years to hit the bottom, so lots of time for fun and games.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
E.M.Smith (02:58:36) : “Ok, so while the TSI in W/M^2 is dropping, the radiative “W/M^2″ is somehow increasing?! WoW! Please elaborate! WHERE do these added W/M^2 come from?”
This is not what I said…I said changes (up or down) in radiative forcing can be amplified given the Svensmark theory, i.e. small changes in solar activity up or down can amplify cosmic ray flux up or down [solar geomagnetic activity up -> cosmic ray flux down & vice-versa], via the mechanism of cloud cover nucleation [cosmic rays up -> cloud cover up -> temperature down & vice versa].
Coincident with the current longest & quietest solar magnetic minimum over the past 8 solar cycles, cosmic ray counts at Oulu Finland are 4-5% higher than ever recorded since the station began monitoring April 1964:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3pELn4kTqI/AAAAAAAAAyU/Tn4vbpRgpYY/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+2152010+110423+PM.jpg
Also meant to mention that during a typical solar cycle, cosmic ray counts increase by ~25% at solar magnetic minimums, cosmic ray counts are ~linearly related to cloud cover, and global cloud cover is inversely ~linearly related to global temperature. Thus, although TSI only changes 0.1% during a solar cycle, solar magnetic activity changes produce an amplified effect on cosmic ray counts.
Ninderthana (02:44:43) :
I agree, the term “sophist” is apropos:
Sophist: Any of a class of later Greek teachers of rhetoric and philosophy known for their over subtle and often misleading arguments.
Leif Svalgaard (04:11:42) presents a TSI value, “1361 W/m2”, Evans (23:06:34) quoted from a NASA press release for increased TSI between solar minimum and solar maximum.
Let’s put the TSI value given by NASA in its proper context by supplying the full NASA quote:
“At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.”
“Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm
Dr. Svalgaard, after presenting the NASA TSI value, then juxtaposed Evans’ statement: “And, the Sun is electrical in nature.”
Then Dr. Svalgaard responded: “I see, the light bulb in my office lamb says ‘120 Watt’ on it and must be ‘electrical’ in nature. The Sun also radiates ‘Watts’, so is clearly also electrical in nature.”
This is an example of sophism:
Of course, the TSI value given by NASA is a reference to increased energy as expressed in Watts per square meter. This is not “electrical in nature” and I never claimed it as such, I presented the NASA quote for the information it contained therein:
“Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
What I did present to demonstrate the electrical nature of the Sun was two Scientific papers:
Partial abstract:
“This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
Partial abstract:
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs).”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4210
And two NASA press releases:
One on twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the Sun:
“The long-sought clue to prediction lies in changes in twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun in the days leading up to a flare, according to the authors. The findings will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters next month.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100119_solarflare.html
And, one on twisting magnetic fields that give shape to CME’s:
“Vourlidas says he is not surprised that CMEs resemble French pastries. ‘I have suspected this all along. The croissant shape is a natural result of twisted magnetic fields on the sun…’”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14apr_3dcme.htm
So, it’s misleading to imply I relied the NASA value for increased TSI to justify my statement that the “Sun is electrical in nature.”
Dr. Svalgaard then responds: “Material flowing across solar magnetic field lines generates electrical currents that quickly dissipates in various explosive ways. Same thing happens near the Earth. The presence of such events does not make anything ‘electrical in nature’ as they are just short-lived consequences, rather than fundamental constituents. You something mentioned that 99.9% of the Universe is electrically neutral plasma. This is incorrect, only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma.”
The above quote has several misleading statements:
“Material flowing across solar magnetic field lines generates electrical currents that quickly dissipates in various explosive ways.”
Yes, I agree that “electrical currents” are generated at the Sun (and so do the two papers I cited) and, indeed, electrical discharges do dissipate, but not without significant effect: Coronal mass ejections have a significant impact on Earth and Man’s technologies — that’s why CME’s are being studied — and CME’s are a significant aspect and physical phenomenon of the Sun’s dynamics.
And, as the both papers suggest, CME’s are an electromagnetic phenomenon.
“Same thing happens near the Earth.”
Yes, electric currents called Birkeland currents flow down to the Earth’s magnetic poles and cause the auoras at regular intervals which, again, can impact Man’s technologies — it’s why NASA is studying the process, beyond the purely scientific desire to understand the physical process for its own sake.
“The presence of such events does not make anything ‘electrical in nature’ as they are just short-lived consequences, rather than fundamental constituents.”
The electrical currents are consequences of fundamental physical processes of the Sun and it’s interaction with the Earth. Electromagnetism is a fundamental component of the Sun’s plasma physical relationships.
“You something mentioned that 99.9% of the Universe is electrically neutral plasma. This is incorrect, only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma.”
Actually, this is what Evans (20:15:44) stated: “…the Universe is dominated by plasma (99.9% of the observable Universe is plasma) and accordingly the observable Universe is dominated by plasma’s electromagnetic phyiscal relationships.”
And, Indeed, the observable Universe is 99.9% plasma.
Dr. Svalgaard’s statement, “only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma,” assumes the presence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” which neither have been observed & measured. In Dr. Svalgaard’s Universe 95.6% of the Universe has never been observed & measured.
But that isn’t the real Universe: It only exists in Dr. Svalgaard’s imagnination.
Richard M: “The internet has become the table.”
Colour me sceptical on that one. The internet has certainly changed the discourse, and is a wonderful source of information at our fingertips.
Unfortunately, it is also a woeful source of misinformation, and often, sheer noise. The MSM has its faults, but its gatekeeping structures and accountability to the wider community serve to keep it honest in a way that is not possible on the internet.
Interestingly, the MSM is also morphing, both reflecting and critically examining what happens on the internet. So I don’t think the future is either internet or MSM, but rather a combination of the two.
Mark Sawusch (09:20:17) :
Coincident with the current longest & quietest solar magnetic minimum over the past 8 solar cycles, cosmic ray counts at Oulu Finland are 4-5% higher than ever recorded since the station began monitoring April 1964
It is very hard to maintain a constant calibration of a neutron monitor over such a long time. And Oulu is not doing such a good job at it. Cosmic rays are measured at many other stations and they don’t see any such high counts. E.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
or Thule: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Neutron-Monitor.png
or Moscow: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux-Moscow.png
The following will be an astounding “Litmus paper test” for the current minimum:
A salt lake in Argentina will fill again with water if in a solar minimum. There are historical records and geological/palentological records that it happened so before:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m11m129238u61484/
Here you can see this lake:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=salinas+del+bebedero&hl=es&ei=b9N6S6WNHYTmiAO48b3_BA&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=10411604023318932519&iwloc=A&ved=0CBQQpQY&sa=X
Any time soon: A lake confirming a Dalton Minimum.
James F. Evans (10:11:37) :
The electrical currents are consequences of fundamental physical processes of the Sun
Indeed, as I have said repeatedly. Just like the electrical current from a wall outlet is a consequence of a fundamental physical process [at your local power station], namely moving a conductor in a magnetic field.
And, Indeed, the observable Universe is 99.9% plasma.
[…] assumes the presence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” which neither have been observed & measured.
Dark Matter is very much observed by its gravitational effect. Here http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011007.html you can observe it yourself.
James F. Evans 10:11:37
Hyperbole does not become you. Surely that universe exists in other minds besides Leif’s.
=========================================
James F. Evans (10:11:37) :
Add to all you said the connection to earth’s climate:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/
James F. Evans (10:11:37) :
When kids we were told Comets were made of Icecream and the Moon made of Cheese. As time passed and we grew up we discovered that it was not like that…
Those were the days, when following an old italian tradition we pledged to the moon, raising a silver coin before our eyes and saying: “Luna, Luna, porta fortuna” (Moon, Moon, bring us fortune)
Dr S offers proof of dark matter by showing gravitational lensing in Abell 2218:
”
However, when we look at the APOD for Abell 1689, we find this statement:
You see the visible matter is hardly sufficient and only accounts for 1% of the mass needed to give a lensing effect. The gravitational mass is introduced in the form of dark matter. “Still mysterious dark matter.” Dr S offers as evidence lensing, which requires dark matter as proof that the lensing has occured.
Mark wrote:
“cosmic ray counts are ~linearly related to cloud cover,”
Most scientists don’t think so. The papers that purported to show such a connection are characterized by “dubious manipulation of data in order to suit [the author’s] hypothesis.” See an extensive discussion of the issue here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays.html
David (08:27:04) :
“As to the background cosmic ray strength and how it varies relatve to our position in the galaxy, how is this history quantified, and can the future of it be predicted?”
I have a link here; Shaviv and Veizer;
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:06) :
tallbloke (06:33:25) :
I think this accounts for the extra energy which went into the oceans to cause ocean heat content to rise from the ’40’s onwards to the ’90’s. Shorter minima, higher amplitudes.
Except does not account for the increase from 1900 to 1950 which was equally strong, or the cold 18th century when solar activity was as great as it has been recently.
Hi Leif. I don’t think there is any data for OHC for the earlier part of the century is there?. Although your rejigged amplitudes for the C19th are higher then the group sunspot numbers said, they are not that much higher than Wolff, and the minima were longer, and we are still waiting (impatiently :-)) for you to push the magnetic data back further. What my sunspot count model is showing is that there is a background rise in OHC (with a lift and dip in the later 1800’s) since the Maunder minimum, with the ~60 year ocean cycles riding on top. Thus we get the strong rise from 1910-1943 followed by the weak fall from 1943-1975, followed by the strong rise from 1975 to 2003.
There is often more than one thing going on at once in climate. It’s complcated like that.
Zeke the Sneak (11:59:45) : Still in the realm of Vodoo science. That lensing effect could be the humble diffraction, as also in the so called Einstein’s theory proof in a sun eclipse: space it is not vacuum and difracts light too.
One such person, who believed in the wave theory was Augustin Fresnel, who in 1819, handed a paper to the French Academy of Sciences, about the phenomenon of diffraction. However, the Academy mainly consisting of Newton’s supporters, tried to challenge Fresnel’s point of view by saying that if light was indeed a wave, these waves, which were diffracted from the edges of a sphere, would cause a bright area to occur within the shadow of the sphere. This was indeed oberved later, and the area is today known as the Fresnel Bright Spot
NASA Deep Impact probe couldn’t break Tempel 1 Icecream comet:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/main/index.html
“Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.”
I think you are being a bit harsh on the electric universe theorists. They are devising tests, testing their hypothesis and not hiding any data (unless you know something we don’t? care to share?). Just by that standard alone they don’t deserve the association with AGW any more than the AGW-skeptics deserve being associated with holocaust deniers.
“Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum..”
“McCracken gave a paper.. that comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely.”
________________
It appears that we need to be looking for changes in the Thermohaline Circulation (aka The Great Ocean Conveyor).
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:24) :
The primary point I was trying to make is that “during a typical solar cycle, cosmic ray counts increase by ~25% at solar magnetic minimums, cosmic ray counts are ~linearly related to cloud cover, and global cloud cover is inversely ~linearly related to global temperature. Thus, although TSI only changes 0.1% during a solar cycle, solar magnetic activity changes produce an amplified effect on cosmic ray counts.” That cosmic ray counts change by ~25% during a typical solar magnetic cycle is shown in all of the links you provided.
Robert (12:04:05) : Thanks for the New Scientist reference, which essentially cites “satellite scientist” Gavin Schmidt on Realclimate.org blog (need I say more) and a single peer reviewed paper:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
as evidence of your statement “most scientists don’t think so.” I will spend some time looking over the Laut paper though before commenting. On the other hand, here are graphs showing the relationship from four different papers (and there are others as well):
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/207_17.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/Sz_eNInqneI/AAAAAAAAAiE/OvB7dZocTFA/s1600-h/cloud.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/Sz5LXmkEznI/AAAAAAAAAfc/iic5jWKYNkQ/s1600-h/neutronsunspot.jpg
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpg
Wow!, all this made me remember “The Twilight Zone” TV Show of the 1950’s.
Why do these science guys insist in telling us scary tales of multiple dimensions, dark matter, entangled strings, sucking black holes (which surprisingly, some times, tired from sucking begin blowing out!!), dark energy…Oh! how fearsome!, we are surrounded by ghosts!.
But the scare tactits doesn’t stop there: We are doomed to die in an armageddon of gigantic proportions…kind of a big and dark mattered Katrina.
However we do not believe in ghosts and, since we were born we knew we were going to die some day, knowing that life it’s just nature’s trick for overcoming entropy.
Andrew Parker (21:24:41) :
D. Patterson (18:08:03) : Ed Murphy (17:14:40) :
“How about the land getting very deeply saturated and heavy with precipitation. The added weight pushing down on the plates causing pressures to go up leading to more quakes/volcanoes?”
On the coast of Ecuador they have relatively mild earthquakes associated with the transition from dry to wet to dry seasons. The locals feel it is simple cause and effect, but I haven’t found “expert” confirmation.
Reply: Hi Andrew, I’d go so far as to say the earthquake in Haiti was caused by this relationship. From before about 2008 the N. American continent was suffering from lack of clouds and a large amount of drought and the drying up of aquifers. Now its been extra cloudy for a few years and the bulk of the continent is fully saturated, refilling the aquifers, overly so in many areas except parts of the west. That’s a big weight transfer on the N. American plate which from what I understand has a boundary to Haiti.
I don’t know if Svensmark’s cosmic ray flux link to cloud formation will hold, but from observation, either that theory or a combination of that and the slight cooling from less solar and the pronounced cooling and particulate from the May’08 eruption in Chile, Redoubt and Sarychev really kicked the addition of moisture weight into high gear. Cloud formation and precipitation intensified adding to the cloudiness that was already on the upswing.
Volcanoes emit a large volume of steam, moisture gets to the outer mantle/crust boundary from being dragged in at subduction zones. The large amounts of moisture that saturated the land and refilled the aquifers adding all this weight and downward pressure to the land would eventually seep down to the outer mantle boundary and create even more pressure with time. No need to wait for significant glacier buildup of weight pressure, there is plenty already. Poof, then you have the pressure buildup needed for a series of eruptions like happened around the time of Tambora and the ‘year without a summer’. Then when does increased solar eventually come to the rescue, that is the big question.
Before I get flamed, sorry the neutronspot.jpg graph link above was not related to cloud cover
I have been lurking on this site for a few years and thank you for a lot of information. I have always been interested by what Dr Svalgaard has to say. I know this is going OT but would like to ask Dr Svalgaard if “dark matter ” is now observable. What is the latest thinking of what it might be?
Winters of the Dalton minimum period were not colder than those of the 1940-1970 period, while summers were cooler than in any period since 1700.
This graph shows both summer and winter CET anomalies for 1700-2010 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
This is in a way consistent with large amount of micro-particles in the atmosphere from volcanic activity increasing cloud formation, condensation and rainfall giving cool summer and not so cold winters.
Brendan H (10:20:31) :
I’m sorry, what planet are you from? The media keeps itself honest?
Pulease!!!
The internet is the only thing that keeps the media honest. The media does not check itself. The internet is what busted Dan Rather. And the internet is what’s busting global warming.
The misinformation on the internet is coming from people like you Brenden. You folks already have a grip on most of mainstream media. Now you are trying to do the same with the internet.
Take your song and dance to the clones and trolls. The internet is the only free press around. Your schtick don’t stick in it!!
vukcevic (14:07:55) :Don´t tell me that there will be enough room for the Global warming church to keep preaching 🙂
davidmhoffer (06:59:08) :
My point being Leif, that if 1 watt from TSI is pretty much insignificant than 1.4 watts from CO2 is pretty much insignificant. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m saying that they are in the same order of magnitude.
No – they are not the same order of magnitude. The extra 1 w/m2 from TSI is only operating ~25% of the time (due to day, night, dawn & dusk etc). Also a proportion of TSI (~30%) is reflected by snow ice and clouds. A 0.1% increase in TSI is 1.3 w/m2 but this corresponds to an average of only about 0.24 w/m2 over the earth’s surface.
“Thanks for the New Scientist reference, which essentially cites “satellite scientist” Gavin Schmidt on Realclimate.org blog (need I say more)”
This is part of the weird reality distortion field in the anti-AGW discussion. You clearly are a group of passionate activists for your point of view, most of the papers presented on this site are the product of people and organizations with a long history of (and in many cases a financial interest in) arguing against AGW. Yet anyone on the OTHER side with the slightest hint of a point of view is assumed to be automatically discredited, even if their only sin is responding to the distortions of the anti-AGW noise machine.
If you applied the same standards for scientific objectivity to supporters of your own cause, how many allies do you think you’d be left with?
“I don’t know if Svensmark’s cosmic ray flux link to cloud formation will hold,”
It hasn’t. It’s been completely discredited:
But after 1995, the beguiling fit of Svensmark’s graph depends on a “correction” of satellite data, and the satellite scientists say this is not justified. “It’s dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis,” says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK.
This is an opportunity for the real skeptics to demonstrate their integrity. A research has been caught fudging the data. How do we feel about that?
Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover
T Sloan1 and A W Wolfendale2
Received 31 January 2008
Accepted 14 March 2008
Published 3 April 2008
“Abstract. A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. ”
A rather thorough debunking can be found here:
Peter Laut, “Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 801– 812
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (04:11:42) :
MikeC (22:54:19) :
I looked at the solar activity for this period of time and it appears that you exagerrated your point because only one or two of the cycles may have reached that strength for 70 year period you suggested
’solar activity’: there are several sunspot numbers floating around. Figure 11 in http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf shows several reconstructions of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field since 1700. We take that as a better representation of solar activity than the raw sunspot numbers [which were under-counted early on]. The purple dashed curve shows Steinhilber et al.’s values. Compare 1725-1800 with 1950-2000.
Hi Lief, In order for you to come to that conclusion you would have to make a lot of assumptions, butit really does not matter. We are pretty certain through emprical observatilons that ocean heat content is affected by the sunspot cycle. The question still remains as Foukal stated in 2006 that thermal inertia of the oceans is still an possible way in which the sun drives climate. The question I asked you remains unanswered, has anyone calculated the point of equalibrium where solar activity either warms the ocean or a lack of it cools the oceans. Do we really have a clue as to how long that would take… what the feedbacks would be… enhancements (simillar to the enhancement claimed by AGW advocates)… do you even consult an oceanographer?
Robert (17:11:18),
By quoting Steven Schneider, you are quoting someone who admits that lying to push the AGW agenda is perfectly acceptable, and he encourages other AGW believers to decide for themselves how much to lie in order to push the AGW agenda:
Looks like “both” means being somewhat to completely dishonest. It certainly can’t be read as being completely honest, or ethical.
That’s some hero you link to. Where do you draw your personal dishonesty line? 40%? 50%? 60%?
Steven Schneider says that’s A-OK.
Irony.
So, thinking about the irony of the “Great Early 21st Century” renaming. Please advise if I understand the gist of this electric argument.
My gasoline powered SUV has some negatively charged particles involved in moving me around the roads. It also has other components. Therefore it is electric.
The Sun has some negatively charged particles flowing around. It also has a very lot of other stuff doing various things. Therefore it is electric.
The Universe has a very lot of stars and some negatively charged stuff floating between. Therefore it is electric.
Soooooo. Because there are electrons, electric.
My alternate suggestion: I suggest because there are subatomic particles involved in a whole lot of stuff then we should call everything Subatomic. It is more inclusive that electrons.
Even better yet, just keep the old terminology before the electric. All that Pre-electric terminology.
The end of irony.
John
E.M.Smith (01:10:58) :
(whoops…) Not all my words in your response… my part (the 2nd part) was not italicised in the original comment that I put up at “Graeme From Melbourne (21:06:10) :”
The “Hunky Dory” part is attributed to “wws (14:24:29) : ”
Clarification only. No drama.
G.
Iain.H (13:30:41) :
if “dark matter ” is now observable. What is the latest thinking of what it might be?
Dark matter has been observed by its gravitational effects since the 1920s. There are basically four lines of evidence:
1) existence of galaxy clusters with the observed dispersion of velocities
2) the flat rotation curve of all spiral galaxies
3) gravitational lensing
4) temperature fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background
All four methods yield the same result: visible matter is only about a fifth of the total matter content, which in turn is only about a quarter of the total energy content. ‘Dark’ matter means that the material is not electrically charged [does not react to electromagnetism] and therefore is not a plasma.
MikeC (17:29:12) :
We are pretty certain through empirical observatilons that ocean heat content is affected by the sunspot cycle.
I know of no such convincing observations.
Do we really have a clue..
In order to make statements about how important the solar influence is we must actually have a clue, or even more than that.
Now, it is certain [in my mind at least] that the Sun has an influence on climate and on ocean heat content and on SST and on air temperature and on crop yields and all the rest. The only issue is “how much?”. And we are discussing this because it doesn’t seem to be much [otherwise we would not be debating it], so I can live with any small, undetectable amount you would like to postulate.
tallbloke (12:19:41) :
Hi Leif. I don’t think there is any data for OHC for the earlier part of the century is there?. […] there is a background rise in OHC (with a lift and dip in the later 1800’s) since the Maunder minimum
no OHC from the Maunder either, so your claim is without foundation.
It is not a “renaming.” The Electric Universe simply says that the sun is not a thermonuclear reactor, but is externally powered by electrical current. “It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.” C E R Bruce
I will not discuss this with you further. It is too remote from the Dalton Min., the subject of this thread.
MIkeC: You wrote, “We are pretty certain through emprical observatilons that ocean heat content is affected by the sunspot cycle.”
I beg to differ. Here’s a graph of tropical Pacific OHC vs scaled sunspot number vs scaled Sato Index vs scaled NINO 3.4 SST anomalies
http://i50.tinypic.com/2vl41fa.png
I like that graph because it contradicts claims that OHC is impacted by the solar cycle and contradicts claims that ENSO is driven by solar cycles.
If you didn’t like my choice of the tropical Pacific OHC dataset for comparison, please feel free to pick one out of this batch…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/ohc-linear-trends-and-recent-update-of.html
…but I really shouldn’t need to create a comparison. There’s no correlation.
OHC is driven by ENSO for most ocean basins…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
…and by the AMO, NAO and ENSO for the North Atlantic…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
and the NPI for the North Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
Leif and tallbloke: Just a confirmation. Most OHC datasets start in 1955. With the sparseness of the data, even that’s pushing it.
Regards
Robert (17:11:18) :
I see you left off the last part of the abstract you cited which states: “From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
“less than 23%” is not equivalent to “none”
please backup your claim “A research has been caught fudging the data” with respect to deliberate deception/”fudging” rather than a difference of interpretation or “adjustments to data” which have been done on essentially every record still in existence by climatologists.
and from the Wikipedia article on Svensmark:
Galactic Cosmic Rays vs Cloud Cover
In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled “Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover”,[17] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years. Svensmark responded by saying “Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds”.[18] Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important “as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data”. Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[19] He states: “Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out”. Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p 3 months)and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[20]
Appears the jury is still out
Mark Sawusch (19:26:38) :
Appears the jury is still out
The jury will have to labor hard:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041327.pdf
“[1] Currently a cosmic ray cloud connection (CRC) hypothesis is subject of an intense controversial debate. It postulates that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) intruding the Earth’s atmosphere influence cloud cover. If correct it would have important consequences for our understanding of climate driving processes. Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”
More for the jury to consider:
Svensmark’s reply to Laut’s Critique:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/Comments%20on%20Peter%20Lauts%20paper.pdf
Svensmark’s paper re the loss of correlation after 1994 is due to long term calibration drift with the ISCCP satellites:
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/GCR_ENSO_v4_preprint.pdf
Robert,
Most of those w/m^2 are from a presumed positve feedback. Most of that presumption comes from the team at the center of the climate-gate scandal and temperature series with gross under-estimation of urban heat island effect combined with what appears to be a deliberate elimination of stations that don’t have warm bias. After finding as much warm bias as they can to pad the numbers, they still have to continually ratchet down past recorded temperatures to maintain their needed w/m^2.
Leif Svalgaard (19:42:37) : paper you cite looks only at “Forbush decreases” in cosmic rays, which “lasts only about a week.”
Jury needs to consider Brown’s & Harrison’s longer term perspectives as well, which do find significance.
“Zeke the Sneak (18:44:50)” wrote in response to “John Whitman (18:14:19) ”
””””’I will not discuss this with you further. It is too remote from the Dalton Min., the subject of this thread.””””
Zeke,
Yes the nightshift mods here (thanks mods) have been extremely tolerant of the electric diversion from all of Leif’s comments on great solar dialog here.
A parting electric shot. Look at the output of a commercial electrical generating nuclear power plant. Sure it is electric coming out. But it is a thermonuclear device deep down inside that primary containment structure.
Enjoy the life.
John
During the Maunder Minimum I note that a number of distinct sunspot cycles have been inferred from sparse data taken during this period. I was wondering if anyone knows if all these cycles exhibited the usual alternating magnetic polarity or not?
I know that I’m late to this party but everyone should watch the AGU minutes, http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html , its amazing what can be inferred from all the papers. We are in for a fun couple of decades considering the house of cards that is AGW will not come down cleanly considering the vaste personal investment many have in it.
Well thank you John, I will “enjoy the life.”
You’re welcome for explaining the electrical model of stars.
I will now return you to your reading of Dr. S’s comments. He is rather an institution around here, but so are many others.
It’s always Marcia, Marcia (16:08:08) : “I’m sorry, what planet are you from?”
Climate change is a contentious issue and raises strong emotions on both sides, Marcia. I can understand why people feel strongly, and sometimes overheat, but in my view allowing emotion to cloud judgement is unwise as well as unproductive.
And that’s a shame, especially when the internet holds such promise for constructive dialogue.
What a weird cycle this is. North fades out and South fades in.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the Sun just passed through a lamination of Solar Activity dampening properties.
Re Dark Matter
.
No , the Dark Matter has never been observed per se . The particles that constitute it are unknown and not (yet) observed .
What has been observed is the gravitational effect of what is supposed to be the Dark Matter .
That means that f.ex the galaxies rotation velocity curve can’t be explained by the visible (ordinary baryonic) matter only .
So there are only 2 alternatives :
.
1) You postulate the existence of unknown particles that have mass and interact with ordinary matter almost exclusively via gravitation so that you can’t “see” them . This missing mass explains then the anomaly and you say that you have an indirect “proof” of Dark Matter’s existence .
.
2) You postulate that general relativity is only an approximation for great distances . Indeed as the “anomaly” is in fact a discrepancy between observation and the general relativity prediction , you can always say that the theory is incorrect in this particular case . Of course in this case you don’t need any Dark Matter and it doesn’t exist .
.
Most scientists trust the general relativity so choose the altenative 1 and for them the Dark Matter exists . A small number chooses the alternative 2 and tries to adapt/modify the general relativity . Sofar with no big success .
TomVonk (02:27:05) :
No , the Dark Matter has never been observed per se
I think that is a misunderstanding of what ‘observed’ means. We ‘observe’ things by their interactions with our measuring devices. Here is the topography of the ocean floor observed by measuring its gravitational effects: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/global_topo_large.gif
The same way we observe dark matter and can map it by its gravitational effect: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/166622main_p0701ay.jpg
Pascvaks (05:28:52) :
Ref – E.M.Smith (19:23:14) : Curious – Did/Has anyone made a pile of moola off AGW and, since Coppenhagen, its demise?
I’m sure someone has made money off of it, just not a lot. There is someone trading just about ever possible vehicle and direction at all times, so someone wins and someone looses.
Heck, I’ve sporadically made a bit off of various trades in solar panel companies and alternative energy companies (“alternative energy” is something of a passion for me, but the truth is that I’ve never made much money on it. Oil and coal are better trades and I’ve made much more from them. Oil is an easier short, too.)
The problem with “AGW” as a trade is that it is news and media driven. There are no ‘fundamentals’ for many or most companies in the area. A very hard trade. Oil and gas are more seasonal / cyclical and with a weekly inventory report for a fairly reliable trade schedule (you just have to get the direction right 😉
Pascvaks (09:01:25) : Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period? Or is there still time (say another millenium) for humanity to get in a little more fun and games in the far north and far south of the planet before we head back to the caves around the Equator?
We are already in the entry to the next ice epoch. There is a spike of max temperature as an interglacial forms, then it’s all downhill from there. In this interglacial, we’ve had an ‘odd stability shelf’ on the side of that temperature mountain (just a little below the peak) and folks interpret that 10,000 years as being the nature of the interglacial, but it isn’t. So we had a peak, and are already dropping (but with a pause / ripple for a few thousand years).
The good news is that while it can get cold rapidly, the ice buildup is mass rate limited. So take the distance from Greenland (the residual ice sheet) to where it ended during the last glacial epoch (about New York City) and divide the miles by 100,000 years to form… You can outrun the advancing ice sheet if you can walk about 800 FEET a year. So 300 meters / year of “migration” would be overkill…
You may now commence ‘fun and games’ for generations to come…
For graphs of ice and cold onset, see here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
where you can also see that our ‘shelf’ has a slight downward drift in the very long term views. So “welcome to the ice age”!
Just remember that there are 60, 178 – 200, 400, 1500, and perhaps 2600 and 5200 year cyclical events that add ‘wiggle’ all the time, so any given person may live in a warming or cooling time. But overall we’re headed down. Just very very slowly…
In fact, we have time to evolve into a different variety of people by the time we’re at the bottom of the cold glacial… you can get significant responses to ‘selection pressure’ in a species in 30 generations. For people, that works out to about 900 years. By 20,000 years you can turn white skin into black and black into white just from the skin cancer in the sun and rickets in the cold-cloudy pressures, respectively.
So by the time we’re strongly into the glacial phase, we could easily have changed what we look like and what variety of hominid we are.
Ice ages… these things take time…
Here’s a climate reconstruction of the last 1,000,000 years:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/holmes-1myears.png?w=504&h=237
From “Holmes’ Principles of Physical Geology” 4th Ed. 1993 And a focus on the last 150,000 years from the same work:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/holmes-eemian.png
Here’s a comment from this reference work (Holmes) in respect of these reconstructions:
The recent past has known dramatic and fundamental changes of climate and environment which have affected the whole Earth, from the top of the highest mountains to the bottom of the deepest oceans. Morever, many of these changes have occurred at surprising speeds.
Care to comment on this one? I don’t have much confidence with anyones ability to predict how fast or slow ice age returneth.
rbateman (01:41:04) :
What a weird cycle this is. North fades out and South fades in.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the Sun just passed through a lamination of Solar Activity dampening properties.
~~~
lol lol lol
Got to admit was getting bored with the GCR discussion and that was just the little laugh I needed.
RE: Oceans Warming?
In the past few years we have discovered 1000’s of black smokers or thermal vents on the oceans floors. In late 99 early 2000? there was a volcanic eruption compared to Vesuvius at the North Pole (Gakkel Ridge) discovered thermal vents which lead to the discovery of the eruption. What role does this play in ocean warming? Is it negligible.
When things are heating you get a nice smooth flow of particles and fluids. When things cool they cool unevenly and contractions occur. Could get bumpy if it keeps chillin’.
Zeke the Sneak (18:44:50) :
It is too remote from the Dalton Min., the subject of this thread
Not at all, cyclic behaviour of the sun it is because, if you are right, to changes in the main galaxy currents.
The interesting times we are living in, which among other things are “illuminating” things, throwing light on dark/hidden issues as “Climate Gate”, it is doing precisely that “illuminating”(“apocalypsis” in greek). This applies also for the next “Gates” coming…
Buy more popcorn! WUWT is ON!
BTW, a good link to clarify some issues:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com
Carla @ 5:11:42 I swear I can see the effect of the Gakkel Ridge eruptions on Arctic Ice in time lapse reconstructions of ice distribution in the Arctic. Apparently, photos exist of the area at the time, but they show clouds obscuring the surface. Well, I’d like a meteorologist to look at those clouds and tell me if they are ordinary Arctic clouds, or the cloud which would form over open water or warmed ice at that time of year, when everything surrounding it were colder.
============================
rbateman (01:41:04) :
What a weird cycle this is. North fades out and South fades in.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the Sun just passed through a lamination of Solar Activity dampening properties.
But the north continues to show a distinct bias. The south will need to catch up if this cycle is going to get going.
kim (05:25:31) :
Carla @ 5:11:42 I swear I can see the effect of the Gakkel Ridge eruptions on Arctic Ice in time lapse reconstructions of ice distribution in the Arctic.
~~~
Thanks Kim that’s something I didn’t know about this.
So does the planet heat from the outside in or the inside out or both? So when it contracts does it contract from the outside in or the inside out or both? Is the Earth’s magnetic field an indicator of inside expansion and or contractions?
There we go off topic.
The two hour video was informative on the current solar status. They quite extensively covered GCR as well as ACR for this cycle and recent cycles. oohh space age high for GCR with an accompanying low solar cycle and squashed IMF all mag values low. Now let’s fit it into the Dalton, it’ll look good there?
The same way we observe dark matter and can map it by its gravitational effect: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/166622main_p0701ay.jpg
No Leif you misunderstood my post .
The map you linked is only valid if you consider that the general relativity is right at these scales .
After all that is how it was drawn .
There are scientists who are trying to correct/adapt the GR at large scales because they consider that it doesn’t apply in its usual form there .
I think that they will fail but that’s irrelevant .
In any case if the GR had to be corrected at large scales then it would appear that this “observation” was only an artefact due to a wrong use of the gravitation law .
If they succeeded , it would mean that after all Dark Matter does NOT exist and that the “anomalies” disappear when one uses the correct law .
And are you really so sure that the classical GR applies exactly at MLY and GLY scales ?
It’s almost like the AGW 🙂
Are the people really so sure that they can use equilibrium physics on a chaotic system ?
.
That’s why it is ALWAYS necessary to remind that the very existence of this kind of “observation” completely depends on the validity of some theory in the considered circumstances .
It is different from , f.ex an “observation” of a proton where you can measure its energy , spin , charge , momentum etc in a lab .
By the way, I am so enjoying the sunspot “belt” evolution this go around. Everything is happening in slow motion, thus I am learning a GREAT deal about where the data comes from to create the “butterfly” graph often used to show sunspot evolution. The southern hemisphere plage area with odd polarity is still visible on the magnetogram in the same belt as the new Cycle 24 area is located, now showing its spots. Very cool.
E.M. Smith, my hunch is that wind power repair and re-conditioning companies are making enough to create jobs. I know. I know. It’s the kind of jobs that has one company creating a pile of dirt just to create a pile of dirt, so that another company gets to move it back where it came from. Wind power set ups are just like that. But someone is making money off it. I think that is what Obummer meant when he said that the guv’mnt can create jobs if they focus on renewables like wind. Which is true. There is a lot of wind coming out of the guv’mnt.
TomVonk (07:17:54) :
It is different from , f.ex an “observation” of a proton where you can measure its energy , spin , charge , momentum etc in a lab.
When you do this, you find that the observation depends on various laws of Nature holding, e.g. that Force = Mass x Accel, or Reaction = – Action, and so on. I can modify those laws to make any ‘observation’ go away, so there is no difference in principle. The real observation is the observed arcs resulting from the bending of light. This observation is real and cannot be made to go away. We can map the ‘bending’ and the result is real. We interpret the bending as due to mass, because that is consistent with the three other observations: internal velocity dispersion of clusters, flat rotation curves for spiral galaxies, and the ratio between the amplitudes of even and odd numbered bumps in the power spectrum of the CMB. None of these other ones rely on GR, so modifying GR to get rid of the mass from bending will not work for the other observations. Astronomers have long ago [ca. 1978] grudgingly accepted this, which is why Dark Matter is no longer in doubt. The science now is to map it and to find out what it is.
Dr. Svalgaard: “…Dark Matter is no longer in doubt.”
Many astrophysicists disagree with your opinion.
But typical for Dr. Svalgaard to make his personal opinion sound like it speaks for astropysicists in general.
How was the hypothesis of so-called “dark” matter thought up?
But for the failure of gravity to account for the rotational curves of galaxies, “dark” matter would have never been thought of.
So, the theory was falsified, but instead of discarding the theory, astronomers made up a fudge factor, literally a pixie dust (can’t be observed), that can be sprinkled liberally wherever needed to make the theory still hold true in the face of falsifying evidence.
In contrast, the plasma model does not need invocation of “dark” matter because the electromagnetic physical properties (electromagnetic attaraction is 39 orders of magnitude stronger that gravity) account for observation & measurement of galaxy behavior including flat rotational curves — the very observation that falsified the gravity model in the first place.
In other words, the plasma model describes & explains the observations & measurements, while the gravity model doesn’t.
Leif, please explain simply, as I know you can, why those two other phenomena are markers for mass, the profile of the background microwaves, the shape of the spirals. I’ve a small clue how velocity dispersion might.
=================================
Just waiting for ASTRO-GATE (as a part of the NASA Gate)…
Buy more popcorn!
All these Gates seem just the consequence of the system for getting grants. It is a matter of struggle for survival, that’s bad.
James F. Evans (09:17:17) :
In contrast, the plasma model does not need invocation of “dark” matter because the electromagnetic physical properties (electromagnetic attaraction is 39 orders of magnitude stronger that gravity) account for observation & measurement of galaxy behavior including flat rotational curves — the very observation that falsified the gravity model in the first place.
And a link to that, please
kim (09:20:41) :
markers for mass, the profile of the background microwaves, the shape of the spirals. I’ve a small clue how velocity dispersion might.
It is not the shape of the spiral galaxies as such, but the rotational profile that is involved. Let’s take that one first.
If, as observations show, most of the mass of a spiral galaxy is concentrated near its center, then the stars [and the dust] would orbit with speeds decreasing with distance [once you are a little away] from the center, just like our planets orbit with decreasing speed [Earth: 30 km/s, Pluto: 4.7 km/s]. Observations of Doppler signals from stars and from radio observations of gas far beyond the outer edge show that in contrast the rotational speed is constant. This would be predicted if the mass of the galaxy [including our own] was much larger than the visible matter indicates and was spread much more evenly in a spherical ‘halo’ around the galaxy. Note that this is a rather local effect and cannot be blamed on General Relativity being invalid on a scale of billions of light-years.
Now the harder one: The early universe was radiation dominated and matter didn’t matter [ 🙂 ]. As the universe expanded and cooled, the density of matter becomes more important, eventually dominating over radiation after a few hundred thousand years. At that stage, perturbations and fluctuations can begin to grow under the influence of gravity and on scales determined by the relative density of baryons [stuff we can see], oscillations in the baryon-photon soup can [and will] develop. When, at a redshift of about 1100 [when the universe has cooled enough, to under 2967K], the electrons and protons combine to form neutral hydrogen [i.e. no longer a plasma], the CMB photons are free to roam through the universe. These photons preserve a record of the baryon-photon oscillations. The relative heights of the odd and even peaks depend on the baryon density in a rather complicated way. You can see more at http://www.physics.oregonstate.edu/~stetza/COURSES/ph407h/CMB.pdf
The baryon density matches what we see, so the remaining mass up to a quarter of the total mass-energy [dark matter], cannot consist of baryons.
kim (09:20:41) :
markers for mass, the profile of the background microwaves,
Kim, here is another good article at an appropriate level:
http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
Leif Svalgaard,
“The baryon density matches what we see, so the remaining mass up to a quarter of the total mass-energy [dark matter], cannot consist of baryons.”
Silly question perhaps, but could this “dark” matter be dark simply because it’s non luminous – ie gas clouds? Why the need to hypothesise WIMPS and other such wierdness?
Although I personally hope (not knowing any better) that fringe theories like EU are true, and think that fringe theorists should be encouraged, I also believe that Leif is too valuable to irritate, and so the topic should be off-limits, like evolution, chemtrails, etc.
In the sidebar, click on Categories, then Sea Level.
Vincent (10:55:44) :
Silly question perhaps, but could this “dark” matter be dark simply because it’s non luminous – ie gas clouds? Why the need to hypothesise WIMPS and other such wierdness?
All matter we can see are made up of baryons [protons, neutrons, etc] and leptons [electrons, neutrinos, etc]. This includes all of YOU. Gas clouds are also baryons, except when composed of ‘weird’ matter. It was once thought that neutrinos with mass [they are leptons, not baryons] might be a candidate for dark matter, but that does not seem to work: neutrinos are ‘fermions’ and obey the Fermi Exclusion Principle where [roughly] two fermions cannot occupy the same space. The size of that ‘space’ is a function of the mass, and at the mass neutrinos were needed to have to make up the dark matter, there would not be enough space in the universe to contain the neutrinos.
Roger Knights (11:28:03) :
Although I personally hope (not knowing any better) that fringe theories like EU are true, and think that fringe theorists should be encouraged, I also believe that Leif is too valuable to irritate, and so the topic should be off-limits, like evolution, chemtrails, etc.
I disagree [as I’m not irritated – in fact, at time amused]. What should be off-limits are personal attacks of the caliber of Evans’ and Oliver’s. I’m always [perhaps, too] willing to explain where the errors and weaknesses are in fringe theories. I would be nice, now and then, to have that sink in, but it is like telling your daughters “don’t go with the bad boys”.
Ooh, excellent explanations and references, Leif. I warm my wandering feet and brain at your fireside.
========================
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:23) requested: “And a link to that, please.”
Advances In Numerical modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas
Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
Anthony L. Peratt
United States Department of Energy, Washington DC, U.S.A.; and Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf
Published 1998, peer-reviewed journal, Astrophysic and Space Science
Anthony L. Peratt’s professional biography:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
Page 65, Section 3.3 Rotational Velecities
From Section 3.3 Rotational Velocities
“The flat rotation curves of galaxies has been cited as the strongest physical evidence for the existence of dark matter. In this scenario a massive halo of dark matter has been evoked to produce the flat rotation curves. However, the rotation curves are not really flat; they show appreciable structure representative of an instability mechanism within the arms. This instabiltiy precludes the existence of any external halo of matter around galaxies that, while making the rotation curves flat, would also dampen any instability growth.”
Dr. Peratt goes on to provide the electromagnetic physical explanation for why the observed “flat” rotation curves are consistent with electromagnetic force laws at large scale.
So, “In other words, the plasma model describes & explains the observations & measurements, while the gravity model doesn’t.”
Dr. Svalgaard thank you for your reply. I think I should take my toe out of the water, I’m just a layman with an interest. But going along with Vincent’s question
can dark matter be just non luminous. For example Failed stars, brown dwarf stars, debris from billions of years of star formation and black holes?
This link is to an excellent talk on solar minima, sunspots & climate by Dr. Kirkby, presented to CERN.
The presentation title is “Cosmic rays and climate – Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability.” Fascinating stuff!
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
James F. Evans (12:34:17) :
Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
The simulation is invalid because of the invalid assumption of large-scale electric fields across a galaxy [remember: highly conducting plasmas cannot sustain electric fields – as we have discussed so often]. Simple as that. Now find me another one.
Iain.H (12:39:44) :
can dark matter be just non luminous. For example Failed stars, brown dwarf stars, debris from billions of years of star formation and black holes?
Same answer as to Vincent. The debris would also be baryonic. And the CMB data shows that the baryonic density is too low. Look at page 3 of http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf where it explains:
“The relative heights of the acoustic peaks yield precision of the baryon density and of the density of the cold dark matter. Higher baryon density enhances the odd-numbered acoustic peaks relative to the even-numbered ones, while lower dark-matter density enhances all of the peaks”. We can thus determine both densities.
Iain.H (12:39:44) :
Perhaps, you should consider that so-called “dark” matter doesn’t exist at all.
See Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s peer-reviewed paper above.
Dr S brought up galaxy cluster Abell 2218. Why are astronomers saying that a very distant objects are being “lensed” by enormous amounts of dark matter in the first place?
It is because of the discordant redshifts:
img Abell 2218:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~rse/firstlight/a2218_arcs.gif
Things that are supposed to be far away according to their redshifts are found together with much nearer galaxies. The Abell 2218 I linked to does not even show some objects with much higher redshifts, including one z=5.58.
It happens like this all over the Universe. One simple example is Arp 220. The picture speaks for itself:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origins_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters/illustrations/figure_7.jpg
If forces act on our sun and solar system, and cause a reduction in sunspots, don’t the same forces cause an increase in volcanic SO2 at the same time!… and can SO2 changes be plotted along side sunspot records to compare….based upon eruption volumes? Thanks!
Leif Svalgaard (13:20:06) :
Evans (12:34:17) : “Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale”
Dr. Svalgaard (13:20:06) responded: “The simulation is invalid because of the invalid assumption of large-scale electric fields across a galaxy [remember: highly conducting plasmas cannot sustain electric fields – as we have discussed so often]. Simple as that. Now find me another one.”
“[remember: highly conducting plasmas cannot sustain electric fields – as we have discussed so often]”
You have made that assertion a number of times (its your standard refrain), but you have never been able to support your assertion with any observable & measurable scientific evidence.
Never. It’s always been a naked assertion on your part.
So, please provide a link.
In fact, the observable & measurable scientific evidence is just the opposite:
Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma.
Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this, as Dr. Peratt discussed in the above linked paper. Perhaps, you should read the entire paper and then ask meaningful follow up questions, instead of offering empty, knee-jerk reactions.
As Langmuir noted in his pioneering and foundational work, seperate bodies of plasma with different charge potentials will insulate from each, rather than cancel out, by way of the double layer mechanism.
As stated, sustained electric fields have been observed & measured right here in the solar system:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews105.html
“Magnetic reconnection [actually Electric Double Layer] is commonly invoked to explain a variety of space, solar, astrophysical and laboratory plasma phenomena. It has long been debated whether reconnection is fundamentally patchy in space and time or if, instead, it can occur in a quasi-stationary manner over an extended region in space. Direct evidence that reconnection commonly occurs in the solar wind is found in ACE observations of jetting Alfvnic plasma flows confined to magnetic field reversal regions.”
See Wikipedia entry for double layer (plasma):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
And, the “magnetic reconnection” versus Electric Double Layer debate we have had, now, several times, and each time I provided documentation (peer-reviewed published scientific papers) to support the assessment that so-called “magnetic reconnection” is a fallacy, an artifact of pre-space age (1946) speculation unsupported by present in situ observation & measurement and the proper and scientifically supported process is an Electric Double Layer.
And, per the linked ACE press release, Electric Double Layers have been observed & measured to stand for an extended time in a stationary manner in one location of space.
So, no, the paper I provided is valid.
And, of course, your unsupported dismissal completely ignores the physical explanation offered by Dr. Peratt for why so-called “dark matter” can’t be used to explain the “flat” rotational curves of spiral galaxies.
If you can’t discuss and “grasp the nettle” of the specifics in the paper, let me suggest it is because you can’t refute the specifics, so, instead, you attempt to rely on content-empty general dismissals.
It just doesn’t wash anymore.
James F. Evans (13:30:03) :
Perhaps, you should consider that so-called “dark” matter doesn’t exist at all.
See Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s peer-reviewed paper above.
Peratt’s paper does not show anything. It presupposes ‘galactic currents’. If these existed they might flatten the rotation curves [but not explain the clusters nor the lensing], but since there are no large-scale sustained electric fields in plasmas, the paper is on its phase not valid as showing that these non-existing currents have any effect.
Find another reference.
The article http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf concludes that today “is a marvelous moment in the investigation of the cosmos”. The Electric Universe is an impoverished, outmoded, and untenable piece of pseudo-science.
James F. Evans (13:30:03) :
Perhaps, you should consider that so-called “dark” matter doesn’t exist at all.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself a bit with modern astrophysics. The following [unfortunately somewhat technical] paper summarizes the precision measurements of several cosmological parameters [with error bars]. See table 7 on page 54 of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0803/0803.0732v2.pdf
In particular, the baryon density [in units of the critical density] is 0.0441, the dark matter density is 0.214 and the dark energy density is 0.742. You can multiply by 100 to get percentages.
These results comes from analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background and are independent of rotation curves, cluster velocity dispersion, and General Relativity [although these other effects fully supports the CMB data]. They involve only simple freshman-level physics.
Brendan H (10:20:31) :
Actually, whenever something where I have some knowledge is covered in the MSM, they always get it wrong. So wrong, that one might easily suspect some intentional "gatekeeping" is at work.
No, you cannot and should not believe everything you see online, but neither should you believe everything you read in your paper or hear over the radio or television.
Everything you hear or read should face “the Missouri test”: don’t just tell me something; show me how you came to that conclusion, and why you chose that conclusion over its reasonable alternatives.
Look fellows, we have just spent twenty years trying to prove that AGW was the biggest hoax (voodoo Leif calls it) since PT Barnham. They failed to prove their science. The proving of the science is the MOST important fact!!!!! We are all very suspicious that cooling (of some level) is coming….I believe it is coming!…and I am preparing for it…I am a farmer (with a 40 year background in science and meteorology)….but that DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!! I know part of science is observation but wishing and hoping does not prove the data. We must not be characterized as being like the AGW’s. I have been hard on Leif at times….because he corrected me for my BAD SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS…and he was right. Opinions don’t prove anything….correct science does. We must be correct and we must LEARN what is really going on. We have got to get it right….so this can be explained.
I will say this….if we are heading into a Dalton-like minimum, what may make it GRAND is the fact that the the PDO (Pacific decadel oscillation) and the AO (Atlantic decadel oscillation) are headed into their cold phases….the Pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean are turning colder for twenty to thirty years…this is a regular event….if it overlays a deep solar minimum…it makes it worse!….colder….it makes it hard to grow food!!!!!!!!!!
I have an Apple Orchard….we have had 140% crop damage over the last three years….and in the surrounding six states (I live in TN)….the normal is 10-15 % every five years. The first event was in 2007…..it was 16 degrees F. for four nights in mid- April….that hasn’t happened before in meteo. records (back to 1890)….last year we were 40% down because the Sun didn’t shine for almost the entire month of April (during bloom)…..and fruit won’t set on the tree without sunlight…….but I know……”I’ve never seen it so cloudy before for so long”….isn’t very scientific……but you can’t eat ‘cloudy’…..We’ve got to figure this out!….and we’ve got to quit arguing! We have had some unusual crop losses and I fear this may get worse. The Little Ice Age was dotted with cold, cloudy, rainy weather….and crop loss….and with 8 billion people on the planet…..we can’t stand ANY crop losses.
That’s subjective….but rooted in truth.
Thanks
Jack Bailey
“Most of those w/m^2 are from a presumed positve feedback. Most of that presumption comes from the team at the center of the climate-gate scandal and temperature series with gross under-estimation of urban heat island effect combined with what appears to be a deliberate elimination of stations that don’t have warm bias. After finding as much warm bias as they can to pad the numbers, they still have to continually ratchet down past recorded temperatures to maintain their needed w/m^2.”
I respectfully decline to participate in your hallucination.
James F. Evans (14:49:37) :
Never. It’s always been a naked assertion on your part.
So, please provide a link.
http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffjrk/vasyliunas.2.html.pdf
Vasyliunas has said it clearly enough [Parker too, as you know; even I have (just looking through my old lecture notes from when I taught plasma physics at Stanford)].
Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this
Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.
plasma with different charge potentials will insulate from each, rather than cancel out, by way of the double layer mechanism
The electric field across the double layer will cause the potential to be shorted out if the plasma is free to move. If you artificially maintain the potential by external means, the double layer will stay, but in space plasmas there is no experimenter maintaining the potential and the particles are indeed free to move.
So, no, the paper I provided is valid.
You do not understand that whenever you move plasma across a magnetic field you create an electric field. To maintain the field you either need an insulator between the two charge separations [in which case no current can flow] or a mechanical mechanism to keep the plasma moving across the magnetic field [which BTW it cannot do because it moves with the plasma]. We have had this discussion so many times in the past that it seems to be evidence of an unwillingness to learn on your part.
And, of course, your unsupported dismissal completely ignores the physical explanation offered by Dr. Peratt for why so-called “dark matter” can’t be used to explain the “flat” rotational curves of spiral galaxies.
I told you that his explanation is not valid because he does not specify the mechanism by which his postulated electric field is maintained.
It just doesn’t wash anymore.
You are so good at dredging the internet. So find me another paper by somebody else that validates Peratt’s approach. It would be a miracle that such an important issue has been completely ignored by astrophysicists in general, and you claimed there were some that agreed with Peratt. Find me some. There should be many. Google has 48,500 hits for ‘flat galaxy rotation curve’. Happy hunting.
Jack Bailey (16:33:24) :
I have been hard on Leif at times….because he corrected me for my BAD SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS…and he was right. […]
I have an Apple Orchard….we have had 140% crop damage over the last three years…
how can damage be more than 100%?
To Leif
Guess you have to be an apple grower……you would usually expect one year in five to have 10% to 15% damage……we have had a five year period where one years loss was 100% (2007), a second years loss was 40% (2009), and three previously normal years (2008, 2006, and 2005)…..that is a VERY large loss over five years….and what if we have damage in any of the upcoming two years (2010 or 2011)?
Jack Bailey
Jack Bailey (20:56:32) :
100% (2007), a second years loss was 40% (2009), and three previously normal years (2008, 2006, and 2005)
You cannot add percentages. You can only add actual losses [baskets, pounds, dollars, etc]. Let us assume that the number of dollars you would have realized without any losses were constant in each year, say $100. Then the first year you lost 100%, or $100, 5-year sum gained so far = $0. 2nd year you lost 40% or $40, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60. 3rd year you lost 0%, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60+$100. 4th year you lost 0%, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60+$100+$100. and 5th year you lost 0%, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60+$100+$100+$100 = $360. With no loss you would have gained $500, so your loss over 5 years was (500-360)/500*100=28%. Agree?
16 02 2010 vukcevic (14:07:55) : “Winters of the Dalton minimum period were not colder than those of the 1940-1970 period, while summers were cooler than in any period since 1700.This graph shows both summer and winter CET anomalies for 1700-2010
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
This is in a way consistent with large amount of micro-particles in the atmosphere from volcanic activity increasing cloud formation, condensation and rainfall giving cool summer and not so cold winters.”
Yes, notice the lack of VEI 5 eruptions up to 1931 and then poof look at all the 4-5 eruptions close together 1931 through 1933 and you’ve got the same thing happening again. This probably eventually flipped the OHC into the cool phase for 1940-1970.
Name – Location – Date – Volcano Explosivity Index
GRIGAN Mariana Islands 1917 Apr 9 4
TUNGURAHUA Ecuador 1918 Apr 5 4
KATLA Southern Iceland 1918 Oct 12 4+
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1919 May 19 4
MANAM Northeast of New Guinea 1919 Aug 11 4
RAIKOKE Kuril Islands 1924 Feb 15 4
IRIOMOTE-JIMA Ryukyu Islands (Japan) 1924 Oct 31 4?
AVACHINSKY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1926 Apr 5 4
KOMAGA-TAKE Hokkaido (Japan) 1929 Jun 17 4
KLIUCHEVSKOI Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1931 Mar 25 4
ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931 May 1 4
ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931 May 11 4?
FUEGO Guatemala 1932 Jan 21 4
AZUL, CERRO Central Chile 1932 Apr 10 5+
KHARIMKOTAN Kuril Islands 1933 Jan 8 5
SUOH Sumatra (Indonesia) 1933 Jul 10 4
KUCHINOERABU-JIMA Ryukyu Islands (Japan) 1933 Dec 24 4?
RABAUL New Britain 1937 May 29 4?
MICHOACAN-GUANAJUATO México 1943 Feb 20 4
AVACHINSKY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1945 Feb 25 4
SARYCHEV PEAK Kuril Islands 1946 Nov 9 4
HEKLA Southern Iceland 1947 Mar 29 4
AMBRYM Vanuatu 1951 4+
LAMINGTON New Guinea 1951 Jan 21 4
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1951 Aug 31 4
BAGANA Bougainville Island 1952 Feb 29 4
SPURR Southwestern Alaska 1953 Jul 9 4
CARRAN-LOS VENADOS Central Chile 1955 Jul 27 4
BEZYMIANNY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1956 Mar 30 5
AGUNG Lesser Sunda Islands (Indonesia) 1963 Mar 17 5
AGUNG Lesser Sunda Islands (Indonesia) 1963 May 16 4
SHIVELUCH Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1964 Nov 12 4+
TAAL Luzon (Philippines) 1965 Sep 28 4
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1966 Apr 26 4
AWU Sangihe Islands (Indonesia) 1966 Aug 12 4
FERNANDINA Galápagos Islands 1968 Jun 11 4
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
Be cool to somehow have the volcano list added to sunspot cycles and temperatures on graph.
We interpret the bending as due to mass, because that is consistent with the three other observations: internal velocity dispersion of clusters, flat rotation curves for spiral galaxies, and the ratio between the amplitudes of even and odd numbered bumps in the power spectrum of the CMB. None of these other ones rely on GR, so modifying GR to get rid of the mass from bending will not work for the other observations.
.
This is not correct .
The interpretation of all 3 observations mentionned depends CRITICALLY on GR .
This is obvious for clusters and galaxy rotation curves .
As for the gravitational lensing of CMB (and its power spectrum) , as the name already suggests the interpretation uses GR too .
F.ex here : http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/557/2/L79/015391.web.pdf?request-id=bb52b403-e6fa-42fe-b058-f3e4c771c5c4 – already equation 2 uses a GR result .
So clearly any interpretation of these observations in terms of Dark Matter needs to suppose that the GR is EXACTLY correct at all scales .
What I have been saying in my posts is that this assumption is a matter of BELIEF .
A reasonable belief but a belief all the same .
Personnaly I share this belief too .
But I won’t try to sell it for an experimental or theoretical result because it is not the case .
It is still perfectly possible that the GR does NOT apply exactly at all scales .
After all it is rationnaly not less reasonable to suppose that the GR equations depend on scale than to suppose the existence of exotic non baryonic particles that have never been observed directly .
To avoid confusion : when I say “observed directly” , I mean the local measure of their mass , energy , momentum and spin .
It is possible that the LHC will see SUSY . It is also possible that a dark matter anihilation signal will be seen in the cosmic rays . Or not .
.
But untill then the existence of dark matter is just a believable working hypothesis .
Re: TomVonk (Feb 18 02:04),
Well Tom, though I agree with you that a different theory might come up that would explain the same data without GR, I would stop short of calling GR a belief.
Take plane geometry. It starts with two axioms, if I remember right, and all the rest hangs up from them. An axiom is an assumption, does not have to be believed in, it has to be assumed, and then the rest fall into place as proofs of theorems and consistent solutions.
If you take different axioms, you end up with different geometries, again hanging down from them are the theorems and the problem solutions.
Why pick that set of axioms? Plane geometry is good in a flat earth, as people thought for centuries and is even now good for two dimensional and euclidean problems.
Spherical geometry is good on a sphere, as we have found when circumnavigating the earth and contemplating the heavenly sphere.
Good in the sense of minimum and elegant solutions.
In the same way we have found general relativity is an axiomatic set of equations to work well with the data of the cosmos we have up to now, if we assume dark matter.
I am prejudiced about dark matter, as it comes out of most of current particle theories, and even hope to see string theories in the game. I have seen theoretical physics going from Reggi poles, through the eightfold way ,the parton model, the standard model of su3xsu2xu1, and expect to see these last embedded in a more global theory that will include a quantized gravity, before senility sets in :).
If you have followed the progress of gauge theories, it seems inevitable that gravity will also be quantized and if it is with strings, there will be lots of dark matter. Maybe LHC will come up with mini black holes to clinch string theories. Already they are seeing a larger than expected number of hadrons, and it is one of the signatures, since they will decay thermodynamically.
What should be clear though is that for theories to be alternate axiomatics to GR they should have the same stature, i.e. be able to explain the same data and in addition be more elegant and predictive. Hand waving and partial solutions wont do it.
Don’t forget that if you plot the solar system in a geocentric coordinate system the epicycles will come out beautifully. The heliocentric wins not because it is “true”, since all coordinate systems are true, but because it is more elegant and predictive. The competing proposal for GR should clarify and integrate existing data and not fragment it into various hypothetical disparate propositions, as is the case with “theories” appearing on these boards.
Leif,
Yes, that is one way to put it….the point is….that these were major losses for the given time period and very unusual. I live in a major apple growing area.
Jack Bailey
TomVonk (02:04:34) :
The interpretation of all 3 observations mentionned depends CRITICALLY on GR .
This is obvious for clusters and galaxy rotation curves .
No, they depend on Newtonian Gravity being correct. The difference between NG and GR sets in for high gravitational accelerations. Now, it is possible to modify NG to posit a deviation at extremely LOW acceleration, the MOND-hypothesis to explain the rotational profiles. This would be very difficult to test experimentally, because we are close to a star [our Sun]. By combining the accelerations from the Sun, the Earth, and the center of the Milky Way, it turns out that at two points on the Earth [~80 N and S, 56 W] within a volume of 0.1 cubic meter for about 1 second each equinox that the combined acceleration is small enough to allow direct measurements of the proposed deviation. Nobody has done this difficult experiment.
Of course, if GR is correct, NG would also be correct at low acceleration. All experiments show that GR come through with flying colors, e.g. this recent one http://www.physorg.com/news185632345.html
As to belief and proof: everything is belief at one level. One could posit that the world came into existence last Tuesday with everything in it just set up to look like it is billions of years old, starlight already on its way, etc. We believe this is not the case, but that is just a belief [and not falsifiable to boot]. But it is a very STRONG belief so we elevate GR to be ‘truth’ [as we see it – as Richard Nixon would have said] and refute the notion that it is ‘just’ a belief as forcefully as Johnson: http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Jack Bailey (05:45:32) :
that these were major losses for the given time period and very unusual. I live in a major apple growing area.
Every growing thing has a line that marks the boundary of where it can grow. If you are close to that boundary you’ll be hit with occasional losses. We usually [sometimes with hardship] accept this as long as in the long-run we come out ahead. That said, the movement of those boundaries are, of course, strong climate indicators.
Wondering aloud after looking again at the conclusions image from the original article above.
1500 BC to 2000 AD appears to be a zone indicating the solar systems approach to a cloud, cloud interaction which precedes the turbulent zone which gave us that 60 plus years of higher solar activity. If what preceded the turbulent region is any indication of what is on the other side it might could stay cooler for an extended period of time.
Ah this WUWT thread is awry …. so the spiderwoman sings. Rolling Stones, off the “Stripped” cd, Let it Bleed, and Spider and the Fly.
Carla (07:15:06) :
Wondering aloud after looking again at the conclusions image from the original article above.
That is just the solar physics version of the Hockey Stick, and is not representative of real solar activity. A somewhat better reconstruction [although still with problems – the sharp deep dips might be dubious] can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
“Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters
during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years
5300, 3400, 1100, and +1500 A.D.
The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer minima. We predict that the next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years.”
I’d like to reference something in the original post:
“While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely”
Even his co-authors are not on board with this prediction. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does, for the moment, seem to be one guy.
Leif Svalgaard (07:53:18) :
Carla (07:15:06) :
Wondering aloud after looking again at the conclusions image from the original article above.
That is just the solar physics version of the Hockey Stick, and is not representative of real solar activity. A somewhat better reconstruction [although still with problems – the sharp deep dips might be dubious] can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
~
Thanks Leif
I don’t expect the distribution of filamentary (turbulent) regions to be even.
If peaks in the graph are indicators of more highly charged regions (and they must be huge) then consequently more enegetic solar cycles..
In the slide with the graph, I don’t see the MWP. Looks like the sun was not active at that time.
Interesting links, but I’m not sure what to make of the fact that the recent solar activity obviously peaked in the early 1980s (from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots); and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm plots are really not that impressive – what’s going on in 1800, 1830, 1840s,1900, 1960s, and other times – all seem poorly correlated temp vs. SS #.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Cosmic Microwave Background as a theoretical basis for the so-called “big bang” has been falsified many times and many ways.
But “modern” astronomy refuses to face up to the falsifications that have been demonstrated. Demonstration of “dark” matter by way of CMB is taking one a priori assumption and using it to demonstrate another assumption, the existence of “dark” matter.
This approach is not empirical science nor does it follow the scientific method. Rather, it is the stacking of theoretical assumptions — it’s a perfect example of why “modern” astronomy is in crisis.
In that sense, “modern” astronomy and AGW “science” have much in common.
And, since Dr. Svalgaard states AGW science is “voodoo” science, he should also state that “modern” astronomy is also “voodoo” science.
Of course, Dr. Svalgaard won’t do that because he has no objectivity when it comes to his own field’s shortcomings, in fact Dr. Svalgaard promotes this flawed outlook.
The Vasyliunas paper is not empirical science, but is explicitly a “thought experiment”.
From the paper: “The question in the title of this Letter can thus be answered by means of two thought experiments: at the initial instant assume, in one case an electric field but no plasma bulk flow, in the other a flow but no electric field, and use the equations to determine the subsequent evolution of field and flow in both cases (needless to say, the exact equations must be used and not the MHD approximation).”
Please, if all Dr. Svalgaard can offer is “thought experiments” for his assertion that electric fields and, therefore, electric currents are insignificant, then he has no empirical evidence.
Don’t readers of this website demand empirical observation & measurement for AGW — if so, that should be the same standard for astronomy, too.
Evans (14:49:37) wrote: “You have made that assertion a number of times (its your standard refrain), but you have never been able to support your assertion with any observable & measurable scientific evidence.”
“So, please provide a link.”
So, when challenged to provide a link, Dr. Svalgaard dredges up a “thought experiment” paper devoid of ANY observable & measurable scientific evidence — in other words, Dr. Svalgaard fails to provide any empirical science — which is all too typical of today’s astronomy.
Also, MHD is an approximation. but cutting edge plasma physics acknowledges the MHD approximation is inadequate to explain real world space plasmas.
Perhaps, Dr. Svalgaard needs to present a scientific paper that relies on EMPIRICAL observations & measurements for his assertions, or in the absence of such, should discontinue making unsupported assertions.
Evans (14:49:37) wrote: “Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
False.
“[Synchrotron radiation] occur[s] when you force a relativistic particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
How do you “force” an electron to achieve a velocity near the speed of light?
Answer: Accelerate the electron by channelling the electron through a powerful electric field.
An electric field causes the acceleration of the electron, the magnetic field causes the electron to spiral within the magnetic field.
That’s why synchrotron radiation is evidence of electric fields in space plasma.
Too bad Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t know that — or does he?
To emphasize: The magnetic field causes the relativistic electron to spiral within the magnetic field, but it is an electric field that first causes the electron to accelerate to near speed of light velocity.
Dr. Svalgaard requested: ” So find me another paper [discussing electric fields in space plasma] by somebody else that validates Peratt’s approach.”
Title: Filamentary Structures in Planetary Nebula
Authors: Hanna Dahlgren , Per Carlqvist and Gösta F. Gahm
Peer-reviewed journal: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/848216831k7p4887
Partial abstract: “We propose that the structures are confined by magnetic fields, and derive magnetic field strengths of about 10−8 T, in line with earlier estimates. We also estimate the magnitude of the electric currents that we expect are generated in these dynamic systems.”
Another paper:
Title: Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions as a key to the plasma Universe.
Authors: Fälthammar, C.-G.; Brenning, N.
Perr-reviewed journal: IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 2 – 9
Publication Date: 02/1995
Abstract:
“Almost all known matter in the Universe is in a state, the plasma state, that is rare on Earth, and whose physical properties are still incompletely understood. Its complexity is such that a reliable understanding must build on empirical knowledge. While laboratory experiments are still an important source of such knowledge, the Earth’s magnetosphere-ionosphere system, made accessible by space technology, vastly widens the parameter ranges in which plasma phenomena can be studied. This system contains all three main categories of plasma present in the Universe. Furthermore, the interaction between the magnetosphere and the ionosphere excites a wealth of plasma physical phenomena of fundamental importance. These include, among others, formation of magnetic-field aligned electric fields, acceleration of charged particles, release of magnetically stored energy, formation of filamentary and cellular structures, as well as unexpected chemical separation processes. What has been learned, and what still remains to be learned, from study of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system should therefore provide a much improved basis for understanding of our Universe.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ITPS…23….2F
Of course, Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry also subscribed to this view.
Dr. Svalgaard’s approach is lacking empirical substance and rigor.
And, Dr. Svalgaard’s approach and opinion is emblematic of the crisis of “modern” astronomy, today:
Theoretical instead of empirical — just like AGW proponents.
Hold Dr. Svalgaard and his associates to the same standards you hold AGW proponents.
James F. Evans (11:59:40) :
And, Dr. Svalgaard’s approach and opinion is emblematic of the crisis of “modern” astronomy, today:
I think your ramblings speak for themselves. I pity you your impoverished view of this marvelous universe we live in and the enormous strides we have made the past 20 years.
James F. Evans (11:59:40) This is why Astronomy literally means: “The naming of stars”. Here, inevitably, there is a confrontation between two opposite views of the universe: One of an accountant the second one of a philosopher (ethym: Lover of knowledge).
Correction: Hannes Alfven won the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics not chemistry, my apology.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Hardly “ramblings”.
But when somebody drops down to personal characterizations you know they have lost the argument.
The person who has an “improverished” world-view is one who dismisses empirical observation & measurement and insists in pre-space age theoretical assumptions when the “past 20 years” has seen the plasma model of astrophysical relationships confirmed by in situ satellite and remote full electromagnetic wave spectrum (telescope) observations & measurements, again, and, again.
James F. Evans (13:12:34) :
you know they have lost the argument.
No argument, just a [failed] attempt of education.
No, just a failed attempt at general dismissals.
re: “NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
I really like this graph. Is there an updated version of it somewhere?
James F. Evans (13:31:48) :
No, just a failed attempt at general dismissals.
That too. Pseudo-scientific nonsense has to be dismissed whenever it rears its head. But dismissal without subsequent education is barren, hence my attempts to teach you about our modern view of astronomy, the sun, and the universe.
John Finn:
My point being Leif, that if 1 watt from TSI is pretty much insignificant than 1.4 watts from CO2 is pretty much insignificant. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m saying that they are in the same order of magnitude.
No – they are not the same order of magnitude. The extra 1 w/m2 from TSI is only operating ~25% of the time (due to day, night, dawn & dusk etc). Also a proportion of TSI (~30%) is reflected by snow ice and clouds. A 0.1% increase in TSI is 1.3 w/m2 but this corresponds to an average of only about 0.24 w/m2 over the earth’s surface.>
As per mu orgiginal post, about 0,25 w/m2 in crease over 0.7 w/m2 averaged over tine. Same order of magitude. If you wan to take the spinning rond thing fuirther, the 0.35 watts is as high a 1 watt at the eqautor at mid day, as lows a zero at the poles. The putative peak of 1.4 watts from CO2 would also not exist common across the board as the absence of water vapour and ozone in the polar regions makes for a much deduded GHG effect, so they wou;d be smaller numbers too.,,,and in rhe same order of magnitide.
Leif Svalgaard (18:13:10) wrote: “Pseudo-scientific nonsense has to be dismissed whenever it rears its head. But dismissal without subsequent education is barren, hence my attempts to teach you about our modern view of astronomy, the sun, and the universe.”
That’s why much of “modern” astronomy has to be dismissed because it’s pseudo-science — it’s not based on empirical observation & measurement, but, rather, it’s based on pre-space age theoretical constructs with mathematical equations unhinged from empirical observation & measurement, and fudge factors (pixie dust) employed to prop up the pre-space age theoretical constructs.
In regards to this discussion, I’ve provided peer-reviewed published scientific papers reporting empirical observations & measurements and scientifically accepted phyiscal relationships (physical “laws”) to back up my assertions.
All produced & provided by scientists working in goodfaith to increase Man’s knowledge & understanding.
All this is part of the empirical scientific method.
In response, Dr. Svalgaard has either stated in essence, “yes, but” and minimized as much as possible, or ignored the provided scientific evidence, or responded with general dismissals, or engaged in “put down” characterizations about the empirical scientific evidence or “put down” personal characterizations.
Most of the above is not part of the empirical scientific method nor an attempt at “education”, rather, it’s an attempt to protect the status quo in “modern” astronomy at all costs.
Frankly, if this course of conduct is necessary to defend the status quo in “modern” astronomy, it doesn’t speak well for the present state of “modern” astronomy and its status as an empirical science.
At this point, astronomy certainly isn’t the “queen” of the sciences.
In fact, it sets a bad example for Science in general and I suggest this type of conduct has been seen most publically in AGW “science” with the methodologies, tactics, and strategy its proponents have employed.
The results have been disasterous for AGW “science” and rightly so.
Such a continued course of conduct is disasterous for astronomy as well.
Because it will become obvious that astronomy is not interested in knowledge & understanding which is the quest of Science, but, rather, in protecting failed status quo ideas for reasons that have nothing to do with the purpose of Science.
James F. Evans (09:09:40) :
That’s why much of “modern” astronomy has to be dismissed because it’s pseudo-science — it’s not based on empirical observation & measurement, but, rather, it’s based on pre-space age theoretical constructs with mathematical equations unhinged from empirical observation & measurement, and fudge factors (pixie dust) employed to prop up the pre-space age theoretical constructs.
Read this carefully:
http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
Wow!, more phantoms!
Mr. Evans, you say:
This approach is not empirical science nor does it follow the scientific method. Rather, it is the stacking of theoretical assumptions — it’s a perfect example of why “modern” astronomy is in crisis.
In that sense, “modern” astronomy and AGW “science” have much in common.
And, since Dr. Svalgaard states AGW science is “voodoo” science, he should also state that “modern” astronomy is also “voodoo” science.
—–
Both climatology (not AGW) and astronomy are largely observational and theoretical in nature, dependent upon accurate measurement, sound application of theory and logic.
However, unlike climatology, astronomy has not been hijacked by scientists who have a clear social agenda and motives that are only now becoming known.
The astronomy is a very large field, and the subset of scientists who study astrophysics (especially solar astrophysics) is now starting to contribute to this argument.
My astronomy professor at the University of Illinois, Dr. James Kaler (emeritus) wrote this to me in a recent email:
“The sun has been extremely quiet since the end of the last cycle,
unusually so, so one cannot rule out a new extended minimum, yet the
cycle could just be delyaed — it’s too early to tell. The people who
thought they could predict this one seem to have failed, but all we can do
for now is to wait it out. I do not think climate models know quite what
to do with solar activity, but that’s just an opinion. One problem is how
this all factors into the politics of global warming.”
Compared to the emotional bleating coming from the alarmist climatology scientists, I’m on the side of the astronomers and astrophysicists. The sun is a highly variable star, and its effect upon climate has largely been discounted by Dr. Jones and others.
JonesII (11:16:02) :
Wow!, more phantoms!
Perhaps you are too harsh on Evans. Perhaps he didn’t mean ‘pixie dust’ in a literal sense [although one never knows…]
Dr. Svalgaard:
I did review the cosmic sound wave paper when you provided it earlier in this discussion thread. I will read it in total and study it.
But there are several issues: Attempting to demonstrate that there was a “beginning” to the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago and offering a physical description & explanation of how the “beginning” came about by way of observation & measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is problematic. Therefore, reliance on that as a predicate for demonstration of “dark” matter is also problematic.
Perhaps, there is some other reason why resorting to CMB for evidence of “dark” matter is scientifically fruitful and I missed that.
On another subject that was raised in this discussion thread:
Synchrotron radiation is emitted by astrophysical objects, most famously and where first observed, galaxy M87, the “jet” galaxy, where a “jet” emanates in a beam for 5000 light years distance from the M 87’s active galactic nucleus:
“[Synchrotron radiation] was first detected, in a jet emitted by Galaxy M87, in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge, who saw it as confirmation of a prediction by Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953, but it had been predicted several years earlier by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson in 1950.”
(Interesting how Hannes Alfven pops up in terms of successful predictions about astrophysical phenomenon.)
Numerous other celestial objects subsequently have been observed & measured to emit synchrotron radiation, so the physical description & explanation for the cause of synchrotron radiation is critical for analysis & interpretation of astromonical objects.
I stated that synchrotron radiation is evidence for electric fields in space.
Dr. Svalgaard disagreed.
Evans: “Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
And Evans elaborated: “How do you “force” an electron to achieve a velocity near the speed of light? Answer: Accelerate the electron by channelling the electron through a powerful electric field. An electric field causes the acceleration of the electron, the magnetic field causes the electron to spiral within the magnetic field. That’s why synchrotron radiation is evidence of electric fields in space plasma.”
I was not satisfied with that elaboration, so have researched the issue further.
My elaboration was simplistic if not wrong. It is more complicated than that.
I located a peer-reviewed published scientific paper that reported the construction of an apparatus and the resulting physical processes of electron acceleration by magnetic induction, which I suspect, but not sure, is a forerunner of the synchrotron machine where synchrotron radiation was first observed & measured in 1947 by Elder, Gurewitsch, Langmuir, and Pollock.
The Acceleration of Electrons by Magnetic Induction, author, D. W. Kerst, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, peer reviewed journal, Phys. Rev. 60, 47
(1941):
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/kerst41/eng.pdf
Taking Dr. Svalgaard at his word that he wants to educate, I have several questions:
One, is the above paper a report on an apparatus that is a forerunner, in principle if not power and sophistication, of the synchrotron machine developed by General Electric which produced the first observed & measured synchrotron radiation?
If not, what is the difference?
From the above linked paper:
Partial abstract: “Apparatus with which electrons have been accelerated to an energy of 2.3 Mev by means of the electric field accompanying a changing magnetic field is described.”
“Several investigators have considered the possibility of using the
electric field associated with a time-varying magnetic field as an accelerating
force.”
Reading through the paper, most of it is devoted to magnetic fields.
It seems there is a complicated interaction and relationship between magnetic fields and electric fields that is used (however, most ot the paper is devoted to the discussion of magnetic fields) to accelerate electrons to high voltage and high velocity.
It would seem intellectually fruitful to have a detailed knowledge & understanding of the physical description & explanation of the process of synchrotron radiation generation by way of Man’s technology in the laboratory and apply that knowledge & understanding to astrophysical objects.
Can you help me out in this regard, Dr. Svalgaard?
James F. Evans (12:23:59) :
way of observation & measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is problematic.
Why is that problematic?
It would seem intellectually fruitful to have a detailed knowledge & understanding of the physical description & explanation of the process of synchrotron radiation generation by way of Man’s technology in the laboratory and apply that knowledge & understanding to astrophysical objects.
Can you help me out in this regard, Dr. Svalgaard?
Certainly. In the lab we use electric fields to accelerate particles to high speeds. But when the particle has achieved its high speed, we can ‘let the cat out of the bag’ and let the particle fly free. If during its flight it encounters a magnetic field it will be deflected and will hence radiate. If we could [e.g. by a violent explosion] push a particle to relativistic speeds we could generate the radiation without any electric fields. In the Lab the electricity we use often comes out of copper wires, but that does mean that copper per se is needed to make synchrotron radiation. How Man happens to generate synchrotron radiation has little bearing on how Mother Nature does it. We do it our way, because we can’t do it her way. Anyway, synchrotron radiation follows from our theoretical understanding of the equations. No apparatus is needed [just like we can calculate the orbit of a new planet without needing a planet to be there].
A tutorial [with simple math] can be found here: http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l4.html
No electric field enters into the equations as electric fields have nothing to do with synchrotron emission. It is enough that ultra-high-speed particles traverse a magnetic field. There is a good description of a foremost example: ‘the Crab Nebula’.
It is better to read the newer literature on this instead of papers from the 1940s.
If you are serious about the education bit, here is a ‘once-in-lifetime-deal’: To work our way through the CosmicSound paper paragraph by paragraph. There is some marvelous science described in that popular account. Other readers may also benefit from such an exercise.
The same lecture series also has a simple exposition of cosmology worth reading: http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l12.html
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:49:09) :
You indicate that Dr. Svalgaard and his associates should be given the benefit of the doubt or, perhaps, there is no doubt in your mind at all.
But consider this:
Evans: “Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
“I located a peer-reviewed published scientific paper that reported the construction of an apparatus and the resulting physical processes of electron acceleration by magnetic induction, which I suspect, but not sure, is a forerunner of the synchrotron machine where synchrotron radiation was first observed & measured in 1947 by Elder, Gurewitsch, Langmuir, and Pollock:
The Acceleration of Electrons by Magnetic Induction, author, D. W. Kerst, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, peer reviewed journal, Phys. Rev. 60, 47
(1941):”
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/kerst41/eng.pdf
Partial abstract: “Apparatus with which electrons have been accelerated to an energy of 2.3 Mev by means of the electric field accompanying a changing magnetic field is described.”
“Several investigators have considered the possibility of using the
electric field associated with a time-varying magnetic field as an accelerating force.”
Well, it turns out my suspicion was right: Kerst’s betatron accelerator provided the foundation principles for the Synchrotron machine:
“It was in D.W. Kerst’s betatron, which he had invented in 1940 at the University of Illinois, that the theory leaped inevitably toward fact. Building on E.O. Lawrence’s idea of the proton-accelerating cyclotron, Kerst introduced the idea of accelerating electrons in circular orbits by using a changing magnetic field to produce an accelerating electric field, which served to achieve electron energies of 2.3 MeV.” — ALSNews Vol. 75 April 16, 1997
Futher, from the ALSNews article:
“Shortly after the letter was published, General Electric had under construction a 100-MeV betatron in Schenectady, New York, which was a large induction accelerator for x ray and nuclear research.”
“In the meantime, accelerator development was taking another tack on the West Coast and in Europe. In a letter to Physical Review in 1945, E.M. McMillan at UC Berkeley, and, independently, V.I. Veksler in the Soviet Union, proposed a new type of accelerator, now known as the synchrotron (Phys. Rev. 68:144, 1945). GE physicists in Schenectady were ready to run with the idea and design the prototype, since during the war they had worked with Lawrence and the Berkeley community of physicists on the Manhattan Project and were poised in 1946 to construct a new 70-MeV machine to test Vecksler and McMillan’s synchrotron principle… This first synchrotron had been designed with a transparent glass vacuum tube, and it is for this reason that the light that would be named synchrotron radiation was discovered on April 24, 1947.”
Read the entire article on the history of synchrotron radiation:
http://www.als.lbl.gov/als/als_news/news_archive/vol.75_041697.html
Knowledge of history is important: The real history of astronomy and its ideas reveals how the ideas were falsified many times, but instead of discarding the ideas or at least admitting the consideration of other ideas, some fudge factor or other device or change was come up with to keep the ideas “standard theory” and justify continued refusal to consider alternative ideas.
Getting back to synchrotron radiation, it’s clear that electric fields and magnetic fields in combination are central in causing synchrotron radiation.
“Kerst introduced the idea of accelerating electrons in circular orbits by using a changing magnetic field to produce an accelerating electric field, which served to achieve electron energies of 2.3 MeV.”
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
Nothing to do with electric fields?
CRS, Dr.P.H., do you still think Dr. Svalgaard should be given the benefit of the doubt or there is no doubt at all?
Only if you think Dr. Svalgaard didn’t know what he was talking about.
Can you see why I and others don’t give Dr. Svalgaard and his associates the benefit of the doubt?
Dr. Svagaard:
Science is taking what Man does know by empirical observation & measurement and attempting to gain knowledge & understanding of physical relationships, processes, and objects Man doesn’t understand by applying what Man already knows.
Man does know what causes synchrotron radiation in the laboratory.
Astronomy in general (there are important exceptions) doesn’t want to accept that electric fields and electric currents are central to astrophysical processes because it has staked its reputation (and grant money stream) on the gravity model.
There is no empirical observations & measurements, not withstanding Dr. Svalgaard’s lecture link, that mechanical explosions can cause electrons (charged particles) to gain relativistic velocity.
So what does Science have?
A theoretical construct that machanical explosions cause charged particles to accelerate to relativistic velocity.
Or,
Empirical observation & measurement that electric fields and magnetic fields in combination cause electrons to accelerate to relativistic velocity.
See what I mean when I stated earlier in this thread that “modern” astronomy when faced with a choice, puts theoretical constructs above empirical observation & measurement?
Because that is exactly what Dr. Svalgaard and others with similar view points have done.
And when a discipline places theoretical constructs above empirical observation & measurement to come to its conclusions, it is not a discipline based on the empirical scientific method.
Re: James F. Evans (Feb 19 15:23),
Once more, the patience Leif has with all these ramblings is amazing. We gain though from the links he provides :).
You seem to have no inkling of how electromagnetism works, have stuck obsessively on the idea of electric fields and take off into fantasy land drunk by vocabulary.
It would be funny if it were not sad.
You need to take a college level course in electricity and magnetism, if you are really serious , in order to discuss electromagnetism rationally .
In a nutshell, if you have the mathematics you know that what we call electricity and what we call magnetism changes with the coordinate system.Electric fields create magnetic fields and vice verso depending on the motion and the observer. Everything comes out beautifully from the solutions of the Maxwell equations. When I took the course, I thought the theory was so beautiful I felt like Snoopy, dancing around for joy.
You sound like somebody trying to solve a complicated algebra problem knowing only arithmetic. With only arithmetic one gets tied up in knots with problems that algebra solves in a second.
If you are serious about the education bit,
Perhaps naive of me to think for a minute that you were….
Dr T G Watkins (12:39:35) :
When is the CERN “Cloud” experiment expected?”
See: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_addendum_3.pdf
That paper contains the scheduling. It seems that year 1 was in 2006 when funded began. It should be already receiving beam time if on schedule. The way I understand it from way back, it is to use one of the step-up accelerators for its beam, not the LHC itself.
More: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
anna v (20:39:31) wrote: “Electric fields create magnetic fields and vice verso depending on the motion and the observer.”
Yes, electric fields and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
And, magnetic fields are observed to be ubiquitous in the Universe.
That’s why it’s so ridiculous for Dr. Svalgaard to cling to the idea that electric fields and electric currents in space plasma are de minimis, so minor as to not be worth regarding.
Read Dr. Svalgaard’s comments on this thread, read his comments on past threads: This de minimis attitude drips from his comments.
It’s a contemptuous attitude. Dr. Svalgaard comes across with an arrogance that’s astounding considering the empirical observations & measurements available.
It certainly isn’t indicative of maintaining reasonable scepticism, yet keeping an open-mind, which is also part of the Empirical Scientific Method.
No, it’s the calcified attitude and face of dogma.
James F. Evans (08:36:59)
This says it all:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/427020main_pia12832-c.jpg
a Birkeland current inside Andromeda conecting stars with its Center.
Real knowledge, my dear James, it is not hidden, occult or whatever, it has always beeen there but it is always rejected by those who do not see it.
When Pitagoras made his experiments with the Monochord, showing the law of the octave, he was really striking a SIMILAR CORD.
Let me give it another try if you did not understand my analogy between algebra and arithmetic.
The modern scientific method is far advanced on what was the empirical alchemical method of the ancients . The Pythagorian world of the harmony of the spheres and the monochord are very far removed , and ironically very close to present scientific theories. Very far because there is a new scientific method now, and very close to the monochord because the modern theory of strings is really solutions of a chord in many dimensions.
The alchemical scientific method relied on observations and came up with the dictum as above so below. All these proposed “theories” of electrical universes are saying as below so above.
And herein lies the misunderstanding of people with limited mathematical and physics background who want to contemplate the universe with outdated methods. In the twentieth century it was realized that all physical observations can be stated in the language of mathematics in the following order: minimization of Action, leading to Lagrangians, leading to kinematic equations.
There is a limited number of classes of solutions of these kinematic equations, leading in similarities to the solutions, without meaning that the basic physics is the same. Example: there are waves in water, there are electromagnetic waves, there are acoustic waves, there are probability waves. All these are similar because they follow the solutions of similar differential equations but the physical origin is different.
Leif has been clarifying again and again that there is a plethora of data that supports the theory of General Relativity. One cannot refute it by throwing on the table an “electric universe”. In the same way that GR includes Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case, any new theory would have to include GR as a limiting case. A new theory would have to start from scratch and demonstrate mathematically that this is the case.
To be looking at similarities in the heavens of solutions of electromagnetic equations in the lab means nothing, since the differential equations are similar, similar solutions apply.
A competing theory would need to include all the observations that GR fits so well and predict new observations in a mathematical formulation appropriate for 21st century science.
anna v (22:21:09) :
~
Can’t believe yoU said that?
~
James F. Evans, Have you checked this out?
New 3D gas density maps of NaI and CaII interstellar absorption
within 300 pc,
B. Y. Welsh1, R. Lallement2, J.-L. Vergely3, and S. Raimond2
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/200913202
PDF available at link.
An earlier laymans version, available:
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/chimney.htm
anna v:
I’m not surprised, your response places you with Dr. Svalgaard’s associates:
Placing theoretical constructs above empirical observation & measurement.
But you prior comment was more germane:
anna v (20:39:31) wrote: “Electric fields create magnetic fields and vice versa depending on the motion and the observer.”
Although, it doesn’t depend on the observer, only the motion of the bodies of plasma relative to each other.
Maxwell’s equations have been demonstrated (and how the equations were formulated) by empirical observation & measurement.
As a matter of operational compulsion, electric fields and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
Maxwell’s equations were formulated without reference to General Relativity.
It’s well known and accepted that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are not compatible, particularly at the micro-level.
I have to say, I don’t put a lot of stock in anna v’s ideas as she has previously commented favorably on String Theory and the existence multiple dimensions. String Theory is the classic example of mathematics unhinged from empirical observation & measurement: There are no empirical observations & measurements to support it.
Actually, and, again, typical of astronomers and some physicists is anna v’s statement: “…there is a plethora of data that supports the theory of General Relativity.”
Every supposed observational support for General Relativity has an alternative empirically validated physical relationship that explains the observation & measurement, but General Relativity proponents almost never acknowledge such is the case.
And, there are important falsifications of General Relativity as well: The presence of so-called “gravitational waves” are a central prediction of GR, but have never been observed & measured even though two generations of detection apparatus have been deployed in the quest to confirm this central prediction of GR.
This is an example of a falsification that invalidates the theory, but General Relativity proponents ignore the falsification and continuly promise the next generation of apparatus will detect the elusive “gravitational wave”.
How many generations of increasing sensitivity apparatus will have to be deployed with negative results before GR proponents will acknowledge the failure of this prediction and, thus, the theory? As Albert Einstein stated: “It only takes one falsification to invalidate a theory.
Sorry, that doesn’t wash: General Relativity has been falsified, unless or until “gravitational waves” are empirically observed & measured.
But discussion of General Relativity is a distraction: Science doesn’t need GR to know Maxwell’s equations describe electric fields and magnetic fields as being reciprical.
anna v exposes her point of view when she attempts to invalidate the empirical scientific method by smearing it with comparison with “alchemy”:
anna v wrote: “The modern scientific method is far advanced on what was the empirical alchemical method of the ancients .”
The empirical scientific method of observation & measurement is the Science of the 21st century.
Mathematics is the servant which quantifies the physical relationships that have been empirically observed & measured and is indispensible in that role.
Assumed a priori abstract constructs unsupported by empirical observation & measurement is the retrograde “science” of the 20th century.
I say, “Good riddance.”
To the extent that scientists wonder off into theoretical constructs unhinged from empirical observation & measurement and attempt to justify these theoretical “flights of fancy” by abstract mathematical relationships removed from the actual physical relationships (think computer models) Science will be in a new Dark Age.
anna v is one of many inside the cave determined to keep looking at shadows on the cave wall. Others refuse and insist on leaving the cave and directly observing & measuring the Sun light.
Here comes the Sun and I say…”it’s all right…”
Re: James F. Evans (Feb 21 08:50),
Me thinks, you are the one measuring shadows with compass and ruler, two dimensional constructs and calling them theory . While modern theoretical physics is trying to integrate back to the original source of the shadows, using calculus and functional integrals. For we are destined to live in the cave until we die, and the better mathematical tools we find the more we learn.
James F. Evans (08:50:02) :
Maxwell’s equations were formulated without reference to General Relativity.
It’s well known and accepted that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are not compatible, particularly at the micro-level.
Maxwell’s equations [19th century science] are also not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. Even the notion of an electric field is not what goes on at the microlevel. According to Maxwell’s equations two electrons repel each other because of the interaction of their electric fields. This is not how it works. A modern description of the repulsion goes more like this: an electron continuously emits [and absorbs] a cloud of virtual photons. A nearby electron does the same and will absorb any virtual photons hitting it from the other electron. Let us focus on a virtual photon emitted by the first electron and then absorbed by the second electron. Since a photon has momentum, the first electron recoils in the opposite direction of propagation of the photon [because momentum is conserved]. When the second electron absorbs the virtual photon it is given a kick in the direction of the propagation of the photon [because momentum is conserved and the electron takes up the momentum of the photon]. thus the two electrons will move in opposite directions, seemingly repelling each other. At the macro-level we don’t want to know about these details, so invent the notion of an electric field instead.
I have commented on this before: what we see here is not even pseudo-science, but anti-science, fueled by willful ignorance.
cosmology is very much an empirical and [precision] observational endeavor, and we have growing theoretical understanding of we we observe. Here is a good summary [does require some background]:
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/QU/Tennessee07.pdf
Dr Svalgaard:
By your definition the same holds true for magnetic fields and then Maxwell’s equations.
Which would be to say Science doesn’t know much about anything.
And, at a certain level that holds true.
What you and anna v offer is little in substitution.
But go back to the theoretical development in the 19th century of radion decaying out of an electron orbit, then with development in the 20th century of apparatus to test the hypothesis (Kerst 1941) and further refinement and addition of power to the apparatus and further refinement of theoretical understanding, this theoretical radiation was empirically observed & measured (1947) and, now, Science’s understanding and knowledge of Synchrotron radiation and its physical relationships and dynamics is to a high level of precision.
This is the type of advance that is a credit to Science, Mathematics, and Human enterprise.
James F. Evans (14:34:38) :
This is the type of advance that is a credit to Science, Mathematics, and Human enterprise.
Indeed, synchrotron radiation is well understood. Sad to say, your anti-science, however, is a blot on human enterprise…
One may hope that such eventually will be forgotten, although my often voiced fear is that will not.
[just stop it ~ ctm]
James F. Evans (01:51:58) :
[just stop it ~ ctm]
~
Well James we are now viewing magnetic fields in the growth of a protostar.
They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. crunch crunch crunch
Massive stars’ magnetically controlled diets
ScienceDaily (Feb. 21, 2010)
..
However, the question of how massive stars are formed has proved extremely difficult to answer. The role of magnetic fields in particular has been a topic of great debate. Many scientists thought that radiation and turbulence would be the more dominant factors, and hence their formation process would be significantly different from that of less massive stars such as our Sun.
“While magnetic fields have been observed in the clouds of molecular hydrogen from which stars form, observations close to massive stars have up to now been in short supply,” says Vlemmings. “If the formation of massive stars is similar to their lighter counterparts, we should be able to detect the strong magnetic fields needed to both produce the jets and stabilize the disks associated with them.”
For the first time, Wouter Vlemmings and his collaborators have managed to observe the 3-dimensional magnetic field structure around the disk of the massive newly forming star (or protostar) Cepheus A HW2. At a distance of 2300 light years from the Sun, Cepheus A is one of the nearest regions where massive stars form and earlier observations of this region revealed the presence of a disk from which the gas falls on to HW2. In their new observations, the astronomers have found that the magnetic field is surprisingly regular and strong, implying that it is controlling how the matter is transferred through the disk to feed the growing embryonic star.
“Our new technique allows us for the first time to measure the 3D structure of the magnetic field around a massive protostar. We can see that its structure is surprisingly similar to how we think the field looks when much smaller stars form,” adds co-author Huib Jan van Langevelde, director of the Joint Institute for Very Long BaseIine Interferometry in Europe (JIVE).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100218092850.htm
Carla (17:08:30) :
They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. […]
“While magnetic fields have been observed in the clouds of molecular hydrogen from which stars form…
Magnetic fields, as expected, are important on the large scale in the Galaxy and in the non-plasma molecular clouds as they also are in the solar system. In the Sun and the heliosphere we see that the larger the scale, the more organized the magnetic field is. This is also not a surprise as fields can close in on themselves better, the smaller the scale is.
Electric fields and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
As Maxwell’s equations state mathematically, electric fields and magnetic fields have a reciprical physical relationship.
Carla, notice something about the ScienceDaily article? Something missing?
No mention of electric fields. No mention of plasma, no mention of charged particles — magnetic fields have no impact on neutral matter.
Literally, less than half the story is being reported in ScienceDaily and, perhaps, in the peer-reviewed paper as well.
Stars are the result of Z-pinches, also called Bennett pinches, in honor of the plasma physicist who observed & measured them in the laboratory.
The magnetic field constricts around an electric current as current density increases.
See Wikipedia entry for pinch (plasma physics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
“A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces. The conductor is usually a plasma, but could also be a solid or liquid metal.”
“Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts, the aurora, current sheets, and solar flares. They are also produced in the laboratory, primarily for research into fusion power, but also by hobbyists in crushing aluminum cans.”
Dr. Anthony L. Peratt discusses Z-pinches in the peer-reviewed published paper I linked above: Interesting, Dr. Peratt also cites Z-pinches as being a source of synchrotron radiation. Z-pinches are an electromagnetic phenomenon.
James F. Evans (10:17:24) :
Stars are the result of Z-pinches, also called Bennett pinches
No, stars form as gravity compacts a neutral [non-plasma] molecular cloud. Once a protostar is formed it becomes hot enough to iononize the inner portion of the collapsing cloud and then can magnetic forces begin to interact with the further development of the star.
Dr. Svalgaard (10:45:00) responded: “No…”
In your opinion. Others disagree.
Theoretical difficulties have been identified with the “gravitational collapse” model of star formation which have yet to be answered or explained.
It is notable that the shape of these protostars take the shape of an “hourglass” which is consistent with the shape of a Z-pinch.
A quote from this Physorg.com article: ‘Hourglass Figure’ Points to Magnetic Field’s Role in Star Formation, August 11, 2006
http://www.physorg.com/news74524033.html
“We selected this system because previous work had offered tantalizing hints of an hourglass-shaped magnetic field,” explained Marrone. “The Submillimeter Array offered the resolution and sensitivity we needed to confirm it.”
“They reported their findings in the August 11 issue of the journal Science.”
And more recently from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory: SMA Research: Toroidal Magnetic Field Revealed in the Protostellar Disk of NGC1333 IRAS 4A, February 23, 2010
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sma/press/2009/ImageContest/lai/
“The magnetic field in the low-mass protostellar core NGC1333 IRAS4A (hereafter IRAS4A) have an hourglass morphology in the scale of few thousands AU (Girart et al. 2006, SMA data).”
And:
“Here we further explore the magnetic field structure within the central 1000 AU region of IRAS4A with the sub-arcsecond resolution dust polarization SMA data at 345 GHz. Our results reveal that except for the regions perpendicular to the center of IRAS4A1, the magnetic field appears to be parallel to the disk that contains the protostellar binary, IRAS4A1 and IRAS4A2, and perpendicular to the large scale hourglass structure. This field geometry is in agreement with the expectation of star formation models with ideal MHD condition; that is, if the magnetic field were frozen in the accreting material, it would be dragged into the direction parallel to the disk around the protostar by the rotation of the disk.”
Of course, “ideal MHD condition” is a theoretical construct. Science knows that MHD is an approximation and real-world physical conditions are not necessarily the same.
The “toroidal” magnetic field is consistent with a toroidal plasmoid, Plasma-Magnetic-Enity. The toroidal (donut) shape of a plasmoid has been observed & measured in the plasma physics laboratory.
Also, Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Once a protostar is formed it becomes hot enough to iononize the inner portion of the collapsing cloud and then can magnetic forces begin to interact with the further development of the star”
Dr. Svalgaard’s explanation seems slightly different from the ScienceDaily article: “A team of astronomers, led by Dr. Wouter Vlemmings at Bonn University, has used the MERLIN radio telescope network centred on the Jodrell Bank Observatory to show that magnetic fields play an important role during the birth of massive stars. Magnetic fields are already known to strongly influence the formation of lower-mass stars like our Sun. This new study reveals that the way in which high-mass and low-mass stars form may be more similar than previously suspected.”
From the ScienceDaily article: “In their new observations, the astronomers have found that the magnetic field is surprisingly regular and strong, implying that it is controlling how the matter is transferred through the disk to feed the growing embryonic star.”
How much of a role does magnetic fields (and their reciprical electric fields and attendant electric currents) have to play before the “gravitational collapse” model is invalidated?
It’s a serious question.
I suspect that future observations & measurements will show magnetic fields central to protostar formation from the very start of their formation. Then where will the “gravitational collapse” model be?
Carla (17:08:30) wrote: “They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. crunch crunch crunch”
From the ScienceDaily article Carla cited:
“The role of magnetic fields in particular has been a topic of great debate. Many scientists thought that radiation and turbulence would be the more dominant factors, and hence their formation process would be significantly different from that of less massive stars such as our Sun.”
“However, the question of how massive stars are formed has proved extremely difficult to answer.”
“This new study reveals that the way in which high-mass and low-mass stars form may be more similar than previously suspected.”
That doesn’t sound like, “They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. crunch crunch crunch”
I suggest your “crunch” might be premature and with the milk of observation & measurement might end up a little soggy.
James F. Evans (13:49:51) :
Dr. Svalgaard (10:45:00) responded: “No…”
In your opinion. Others disagree.
Who?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
James F. Evans (13:49:51) :
Dr. Svalgaard (10:45:00) responded: “No…”
From the paper:
“massive stars form through gravitational collapse, which involves disc-assisted accretion to overcome radiation pressure. This scenario is similar to the favored picture of low-mass star-formation (Shu et al. 1995), in which magnetic fields are thought to play an important role by removing excess angular momentum, thereby allowing accretion to continue onto the star [..] if such magnetized discs exist around massive protostars, outflows will arise as a natural consequence (Banerjee & Pudritz 2007).”
and that is just what they observed. “Artist’s impression of the young massive star Cepheus A HW2. The narrow collimated jet originates from the embryonic star which lies at the centre of the image,”
As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
Dalton Minimum Repeat goes mainstream
I would like to ask James Evans his opinion on something that is related to the title of this thread.
You can answer yes or no or elaborate if you like.
In your opinion, does the interstellar magnetic field and ambient interstellar background have any effect on the sunspot cycle?
Now Leif don’t get all uptight, it’s just a question.
Carla asked: “In your opinion, does the interstellar magnetic field and ambient interstellar background have any effect on the sunspot cycle?”
I don’t know. I try to balance reasonable scepticism and an open-mind toward the scientific evidence as presently known. I want additional and more detailed observation & measurement with no pre-determined conclusions — I’ll follow the evidence wherever it leads me.
The Standard Solar Model (nuclear fusion furnace within the Sun) if valid would suggest the interstellar magnetic field does not impact the sunspot cycle.
But there are a number of anomalies (inconsistent observations & measurements) that contradict the Standard Solar Model, to wit:
First, off, the Standard Solar Model (SSM) does a poor job of explaining solar minimums and maximums, particularly, the longer term ones like the Dalton Minimum or the Maunder Minimum. In fact, the SSM doesn’t explain very well why the Sun and all stars are variable stars.
In terms of direct observation & measurement, the SSM does not explain why the Sun’s surface, the photosphere, is approximately 5,800 degrees Kelvin and the corona is upwards of three million degrees Kelvin.
Nor why sunspots are dark (and correspondingly cool) compared to surrounding photosphere if the sunspot allows imaging deeper into the Sun — which according to the SSM, the internal regions of the Sun should be the hottest part of the Sun.
And, in terms of laboratory science, the failure to produce continuously the entire hydrogen/helium fusion reaction. Yes, each stage or part has been verified seperately, but the overall process has not been obtained and sustained.
(Hence, the failure to come up with fusion energy production even after decades time, energy, and billions of dollars invested into the quest.)
This is only a partial list of observations & measurements that contradict the Standard Solar Model.
The ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, but with interesting possibilities, and a number of observations & measurements of the Sun are consistent with this hypothesis.
Althought, there are unanswered questions as well, to wit:
So far, there has been an inadequate amount of energy/electrons observed & measured coming into the Sun from beyond the heliosheath (to fulfill the hypothesis’s requirements). Yes, there has been observation & measurement of electrons going into the Sun’s polar regions, but it’s far from clear the amounts observed & measured are enough to fulfill the hypothesis’s requirements and it’s quite possible the electrons actually detected are simply “returning” electrons which were previously emitted by the Sun through the solar wind and are observed returning as part of a circuit.
There is a strong body of scientific evidence, Dr. Svalgaard and others, not withstanding, that the Sun is electrical in nature. The dispute is what causes the electrical nature of the Sun, whether internal dynamics, external dynamics, or some combination of both.
My own assessment of the scientific evidence suggest it is possible both internal dynamics and external dynamics play a role — what the specifics are I don’t know, but I have an open-mind to additional empirical observation & measurement (one reason I’m excited about NASA’s SDO mission to gather more detailed and higher resolution observation & measurement of the Sun).
An additional problem for the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis is that the sun emanates a large amount of matter and energy, way more than the possible amount of matter and energy received from beyond the heliosheath. This evidence suggests the Sun is its own matter and energy source which contradicts the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis, at least as I understand it.
I’ll brainstorm and think out loud. Now, here is where Dr. Svalgaard will club me, I’m sure (oh, he’s clubbed me numerous times already, I’m used to it), but I suspect that the Sun is a ball of plasma, possibly with a semi-rigid framework of some kind, possibly an iron lattice or matrix (like a sea sponge) impregnated with hydrogen plasma filling the sacs or cells of the matrix, because plasma does not want to stand still (the law of entropy) a kind of Biermann battery mechanism is effected, yes, a type of internal dynamo where the plasma wants to unwind, this causes the motion of plama and resulting magnetic fields and possibly the rotation of the Sun. These flows of plasma and their self-sustaining magnetic fields collide with other magnetic fields and charge-seperated electric currents result.
In this hypothetical scenario, there is no nuclear fusion furnace within the Sun, but internal dynamics do play an important role.
The impinging of electrons/energy from outside the Sun from beyond the heliosheath is not the energy that causes the Sun to shine, rather, the analogy I would use is that of a thermostat: The thermostat sets the level of energy emitted (heat emitted by the furnace), but the thermostat is not the source of the energy, that comes from the fuel tank (the plasma in the Sun).
Another analogy is that the energy/electrons and ions (cosmic rays) is a “fuse” that acts to release the potential plasma energy contained within the Sun.
Anyhow, the above brainstroming is just a possible hypothesis, but, at the minimum, one must account for the corona being several million degrees Kelvin and the surface being around 6000 degrees Kelvin.
An external mechanism to explain this set of physical conditions is one possible explanation.
Again, I don’t know, but not exploring the possibilities because one has already settled on a dogma is anti-science and a type of willful ignorance.
That is not compatible to the empirical scientific method.
Perhaps, there are other explanations, but the SSM does leave many unanswered questions, which are not inconsequential questions, in fact, if left unanswered, these questions rise to primary falsifications of the theory.
Man needs additional empirical observations & measurements, if he hopes to resolve all these questions, and potentially there are questions that will never be answered (but that does not stop Man from questing).
Man does the best he can and continues the never-ending quest to understand the world around him and the best way to do that is thorugh the empirical scientific method.
Provide additional and higher resolution observation & measurement.
The science is “settled” arguments are as wrong in astronomy & astrophysics as they are in climate science.
Thanks James Evans for your opinion.
Re: James F. Evans (Feb 24 11:39),
This is wrong physics:
And, in terms of laboratory science, the failure to produce continuously the entire hydrogen/helium fusion reaction. Yes, each stage or part has been verified seperately, but the overall process has not been obtained and sustained.
(Hence, the failure to come up with fusion energy production even after decades time, energy, and billions of dollars invested into the quest.)
A Molotov bomb demonstrates admirably the exothermic properties of gasoline . It took years to create the car combustion engine and harness this energy.
Correspondingly the hydrogen bomb demonstrated beyond a doubt the exothermic properties of fusion . The delays and failure up to now are engineering problems in trying to create the analogue combustion engine, and mainly due to lack of political intent and enough funding . More money goes into building an army airplane carrier than in controlled fusion research.