New paper: Clouds blown by the solar wind

This paper suggests a terrestrial impact on cloud cover from the interplanetary electric field (IEF) via the global electric circuit. A primer video on the GEC is below.

Clouds blown by the solar wind M Voiculescu et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032

Abstract

In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.

Introduction

There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change. Despite the progress in understanding the processes driving the Earth’s climate, quantifying the natural sources of climate variability, especially regarding solar effects, remains elusive (Solomon et al 2007, Gray et al 2010).

Although climate models are highly sophisticated and include many effects, they are not perfect and observational evidences are modest and ambiguous. Empirical evidences suggest a causal relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly in the pre-industrial epoch (Bond et al 2011), but possible mechanisms are unclear and qualitative. The balance between reflected radiation from space and Earth at different wavelengths contributes to temperature variation in a significant manner (Hartmann et al 1992), thus cloud cover play a major role in the terrestrial radiation budget. Modeling cloud contribution to climate at different spatial and temporal scales is probably the most challenging area of climate studies (Vieira and da Silva 2006). Despite increasing number of solar-cloud studies, there is no clear understanding of solar effect on cloud cover. Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input and could explain solar-related variability observed at different time scales (from days to decades) in various cloud parameters, as for instance cloud cover (Udelhofen and Cess 2001, Marsh and Svensmark 2000, Voiculescu and Usoskin 2012) or cloud base height (Harrison et al 2011, Harrison and Ambaum 2013).

One indirect mechanism relates to the fact that the solar spectral irradiance varies significantly in the UV band, whose effect is limited to the stratosphere, thus a stratosphere–troposphere–ocean coupling, ‘top-down’ effect, is required (Gray et al 2010, Meehl et al 2009, Haigh et al 2010). Another mechanism relies on possible variations of atmospheric aerosol/cloud properties, affecting the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and, consequently, the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Two possible physical links have been proposed: one via the ion-induced/mediated nucleation by cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) (Dickinson 1975, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Carslaw et al 2002, Kazil and Lovejoy 2004, Yu and Turco 2001) and the other via the global electric circuit (GEC) effects on cloud/aerosol properties (Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010). The former mechanism might be hardly distinguishable from noise, especially at short-term scale, as demonstrated using in situ/laboratory experiments (e.g., Carslaw 2009, Kulmala et al 2010, Enghoff et al 2011, Kirkby et al 2011) and statistical studies (e.g., Calogovic et al 2010, Dunne et al 2012). Opposing, studies of Svensmark et al (2009), Enghoff et al (2011), Svensmark et al (2013), Yu et al (2008) have shown that an impact of ionization on new particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) exists. Thus it is possible that the CRII-nucleation mechanism operates at longer time scales, but it might be spatially limited to the polar stratosphere (Mironova et al 2012). On the other hand, the GEC-related mechanism may be important (e.g., Tinsley 2000, Harrison and Usoskin 2010, Rycroft et al 2012), particularly for low-clouds and some links have been shown to exist between atmospheric electricity properties and cloud evolution/formation (Harrison et al 2013).

Since all solar drivers correlate to some extent, it may be difficult to evaluate which driver or combination of drivers is the best candidate for cloud cover modulation. An attempt to differentiate between solar irradiation (total or UV) and CRII effects on cloud cover has been made by Kristjánsson et al (2004), Voiculescu et al (20062007), Erlykin et al (2010), who showed that various mechanisms might act differently at different altitudes and geographical locations. However, the GEC is affected by the solar activity in a different way, via the interplanetary electric field (IEF), so that only positive IEF plays a role, while negative IEF does not. Positive IEF corresponds to a interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with a southward component, or negative z-component, which favors a direct energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere and to ionosphere. For negative IEF (positive z-component of the IMF) the transfer is much less efficient and only a very small percentage of the solar wind energy is transferred to the magnetosphere (e.g. Dungey 1961, Papitashvili and Rich 2002, Siingh et al 2005). Thus, in contrast to other potential solar drivers which are expected to exert a monotonic influence, IEF is expected to affect clouds only when IEF is positive. This feature has a potential of separating the IEF effect from other drivers. Here we present results of correlation studies between the interplanetary electric field (IEF) and cloud cover, which might indicate the most probable mechanism that might affect cloud cover. We discuss here mainly results obtained for low cloud cover (LCC), but we also refer to middle- (MCC) and high-clouds (HCC).

Figure 5. Variation of average mid–high latitude (30°–75° N and S) low cloud cover (green continuous line), interplanetary electric field (black dots) and cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) at 700 hPa (red dash). CRII is calculated using the atmospheric ionization model of Usoskin et al (2010).

Conclusion

Here we present a result of an empirical study showing that there is a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field, that favors a particular mechanism of indirect solar activity influence on climate: global electric circuit affecting cloud formation. We show that all characteristics of the relationship are in line with what is expected if the interplanetary electric field affects cloud cover via the global electric circuit:

(1) the low cloud cover shows a systematic correlation, at interannual time scale, with positive interplanetary electric field, at mid- and high-latitude regions in both hemispheres;

(2) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and interplanetary electric field in tropical regions;

(3) there is no correlation between low cloud cover and negative interplanetary electric field over the entire globe.

As an additional factor, cosmic ray flux may also affect cloud cover in the presence of positive interplanetary electric field. No clear effect of cosmic ray flux during periods of negative IEF was found.

Similar, but less statistically significant results were found also for middle and high cloud cover, suggesting that the primary effect is on low-clouds. The fact that the found statistical relation exists only for the periods of positive IEF and not for negative IEF disfavors other potential mechanisms of sun–cloud relations at mid–high latitudes, such as via ion-induced/mediated nucleation or UVI influence. However, the latter might work at low–mid latitudes. Although this empirical study does not give a clue for an exact physical mechanism affecting the clouds, as discussed above, it favors a particular solar driver, solar wind with the frozen-in interplanetary magnetic field, that affects the global electric current system at Earth. The result suggest that further research of solar-terrestrial influence ought to focus more also on this direction.

=============================================================

The paper is open source, see it here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/article

Related: No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926  (Sager and Svalgaard 2004)

About these ads

213 thoughts on “New paper: Clouds blown by the solar wind

  1. In recent years, number of articles published suggesting influence of solar wind on cosmic rays (cloud formation), SW magnetic pressure effect the Earth’s atmosphere (Mansurov effect) and now:
    “a weak but statistically significant relation between low cloud cover at middle–high latitudes in both Earth’s hemispheres and the interplanetary electric field.”
    .
    It may be obvious that such an effect would vary in step with the sunspot cycle, but that is not the case for a simple but a lesser known reason.
    The Earth’s field is not constant either, it shows similar decadal variability, as shown in the data from and used by number of distinguished geo-magnetic scientists and researchers (Jault Gire, LeMouel, J. Bloxham, D. Gubbins, A.Jackson, R. Hide, D. Boggs, J. Dickey etc,)
    Since changes in either of two fields affect strength of our ‘local’ interplanetary electric and magnetic field, it would be expected that the magnetic variability time function produced by combining two sets of available data, may show if there is any effect on the Earth’s climate change. .
    I did calculations just over a year ago introducing terms ‘Geo-Solar Oscillation’ and ‘Geo-Solar Cycle’.
    Comparing the GSC to two well known climatic sets of data opens a way into an unexpected and fascinating direction for climatologists’ research

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

    PS.
    UK MetOffice announced it will provide daily ‘space weather’ forecasts from April 2014.

  2. Would be interesting to see what correlation, if any, may be evident with the combining of the CRII and IEF anomalies.

  3. I think there are many parameters in the solar “system”. The solar wind is actually a carpet of flux tubes, more dense at the current sheet. Flux tubes could be considered electrical wires back to the source. Voyager has found signs of such structures all the way out to the heliosphere boundary. The Earth has a large one connecting it to the sun.

    “Flux tube texture of the solar wind: Strands of the magnetic carpet at 1 AU?”
    Borovsky, Joseph E.
    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Volume 113, Issue A8, CiteID A08110
    It is argued here that the inner heliosphere is filled with a network of entangled magnetic flux tubes and that the flux tubes are fossil structures that originate at the solar surface. 65,860 flux tubes are collected from seven years of measurements with the ACE spacecraft at 1 AU by spotting the flux tube walls with large changes in the magnetic field direction and the vector flow velocity

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..113.8110B

    This would lead to planetary position modulating electrical activity on the solar surface which would modulate solar wind speed…. Which interacts with the IMF.
    “Orbital resonance and Solar cycles”
    by P.A.Semi
    Abstract
    We show resonance cycles between most planets in Solar System, of differing quality. The most precise
    resonance – between Earth and Venus, which not only stabilizes orbits of both planets, locks planet Venus rotation in tidal locking, but also affects the Sun:
    This resonance group (E+V) also influences Sunspot cycles – the position of syzygy between Earth and
    Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of “severe winters”. ”

    http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf

  4. Introduction: ‘There is high interest today in quantifying the solar contribution to climate change’

    Presumably, if they had left the last word out they wouldn’t have got any funding. Sad.

  5. from the video: “..it wouldn’t be called basic research if we knew what the outcome would be”
    So real science is back? – nice!

  6. And how many other forces are there, that affect the climate? I suggest that we still are not even close to figuring that question out, about such a complex system as our planet’s climate. Surely this is another nail into the simplistic theory of AGW.

  7. It is worth googling for ‘ electric universe’

    electric stuff (plasma etc.) are an important part of our universe and may make a large, as yet not understood, contribution to the climate.

  8. Could IEF mean a kind of lightning going up? This could result in cause and effect being reversed, i.e. clouds affecting IEF. There is a much higher concentration of electrons in the earth’s atmosphere than in surrounding space. In general my thoughts on EU follow those of Leif Svalgaard.

  9. If only the IPCC had been set up to investigate all potential causes of climate change rather than just the one they knew was the right one, we might have been reading papers like this twenty years ago.

  10. To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.

    The difference between principles and principals should be obvious to anyone who finished year 10, and surely shouldn’t be a mystery to someone (author? editor?) at the University level.

    I am sure sound princiPLEs were used to choose the princiPAL investigator, and he, in turn, will apply time proven scientific princiPLEs in his research – he will surely be princiLED princiPAL. One day we may indeed have “Forbes PrinciPLE” of something or other, but at this point in time, this is just bad English that makes me think: how are these people going to master those as yet unknown, enormously complex rules of nature, when well known and relatively simple rules of English grammar are beyond them? And this piece is “freely reproducible for *education* purposes” ?!

    The language of Science was, is, and always will be precise and exact. And so it should. Scientists, the real ones, are very careful with the words and language they use, as they should be. Any “Close enough is good enough” attitude towards it, would inevitably spell the end of Science.

  11. Thank YOU Mr. Watts for posting this today. Progress is being made here by people turning their attention to our local star’s many influences. For years I have called this action ‘electric weather’, as the protons and electrons that primarily constitute the solar wind behave in ways that can be considered electrical and magnetic in nature. We live in a universe that is governed by electromagnetic, electrical, and magnetic laws: it’s photons, protons, and electrons that deliver solar/cosmic power and govern terrestrial weather and climate.

    Quoting from Sager/Svalgaard: “Magnetic field observations are the sum of the main
    field of internal origin and the field resulting from electric currents flowing in space”

    We can’t say there’s electric currents flowing in space and then turn around and say the universe and the solar system is not electrical in nature. We can’t have it both ways. Sager/Svalgaard’s conclusion tells me that the sun is in a fairly stable galactic electrical environment. It’s a damn good thing too, because I believe we wouldn’t be here to talk about it if it wasn’t stable.

    In Jan 2014 The Electric Weather Channel is going online with a YT channel and website of the same name. Such articles and videos as this one, tons of science papers, new developments, along with solar wind and earth weather analysis will be featured, and I am hoping to make electric and magnetic weather effects easily and widely understood.

  12. Is there a particular type of light radiated when clouds form at particular altitudes/latitudes? A particular absorption when they evaporate?

    Would it be observable, or would it be lost in other processes as it moves through the atmosphere?

    Could we look at particular wavelengths at particular altitudes to estimate changes in the formation of low cloud cover?

  13. Brant Ra says:
    December 26, 2013 at 1:06 am

    “Orbital resonance and Solar cycles”
    by P.A.Semi
    Abstract
    ” …
    Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of “severe winters”. ”

    Not only that but

    The damping arround 1650 (little ice age) and unexpectedly large values arround 1990 are due to another influences (matches cycle of overall angular momentum change, see relevant chapter)

    Ever since Herschel it has been evident that there was some kind of relationship between sunspots and climate. Attempts to use this to predict the climate have proved futile. Both the Voiculescu paper and the Semi paper point us to a better understanding of this. We have cosmic rays, IEF and orbital dynamics all of which have some correlation with sunspots and all of which appear to have some correlation with the climate. It’s complicated folks. LOL
    (can we say that they all correlate better than CO2?)

  14. commieBob: “Attempts to use this to predict the climate have proved futile. Both the Voiculescu paper and the Semi paper point us to a better understanding of this. We have cosmic rays, IEF and orbital dynamics all of which have some correlation with sunspots and all of which appear to have some correlation with the climate. It’s complicated folks.”

    I suspect that there is an effect, but the heat change is primarily in the ocean and in latent heat in the atmosphere. We don’t see 11yr changes in temp because of the chaotic ocean heat processes. Also, I suspect that the polarity of solar cycle phase plays a role (perhaps there is a slight directionality to the particular CR affecting cloud cover in our solar system– some cosmological body outside our solar system may shield or focus these CR in our region of space).

    Then there are other possible affects, eg. changes in UV may enhance or offset CRF effects in various conditions.

  15. Should it even be called “electricity”? It would be better referred to as, say, cosmic energy, to distinguish it from electricity, which is manmade.

  16. “Indirect mechanisms are proposed that would amplify the relatively small solar input”

    With this as a premise, no good theory can be achieved. Not even a hypothesis. Perhaps it should say “relatively small change in solar input”, that could be more believable. As with others, I am sick of the the sloppy communication skills demonstrated by scientists (and engineers).

  17. Bob K. says:
    December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am

    To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.

    The difference between principles and principals should be obvious to anyone who finished year 10, and surely shouldn’t be a mystery to someone (author? editor?) at the University level.
    ———————————————————————————————————

    While I broadly agree with your comments about precision in language, the fact is that usage changes all the time and at all levels. In the year that the OED has decided to include knobhead, smeg and hand shandy, dismissing something because of a possible spelling mistake seems a little inflexible.

    You may wonder why I say a “possible” mistake, in which case I’d ask you to read the caption again. It’s entirely possible that the intent was to identify Mr Forbes as an “investigator of the principles involved”, in which case the caption is correct ;)

  18. Bruce Cobb says:
    December 26, 2013 at 5:50 am
    “Should it even be called “electricity”? It would be better referred to as, say, cosmic energy, to distinguish it from electricity, which is manmade.”

    Electric forces are electric forces. Physicists don’t subscribe to Newspeak.

  19. Good evidence for the nature and extent of cloud effects. Also may bear on the 20 year cycle in river flows seen in some regions.

  20. This is fascinating! It will be important to distinguish between initial driver and feedback loops. Some folks key into the process and declare DRIVER! when in fact they have been caught in a feedback loop in the data. The initial driver can be an unexciting well-known driver that fails to tickle the fancy.

  21. Bob K. says:
    December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am

    To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.

    The difference between principles and principals should be obvious to anyone who finished year 10, and surely shouldn’t be a mystery to someone (author? editor?) at the University level.

    I am sure sound princiPLEs were used to choose the princiPAL investigator, and he, in turn, will apply time proven scientific princiPLEs in his research …

    How do you know that the “pal” ending has the intended meaning? Either meaning is logical in context.

  22. http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf

    No increase in interplanetary electric field from 1926. WOW! Must have been some DAMNED good “scientists” to make that measurement in 1926. Let’s see..era of the “Atwood Kent” for a radio reciever. I’ve got a U of MN Physics lab manual, hardbound…from the era. Funny, no vacuum tubes at all. First “radiosone” ballons about 1934, as I recall. Can we say, IMPOSSIBLE to have data to make that claim???? Something is fishy about this article.

  23. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am
    We can’t say there’s electric currents flowing in space and then turn around and say the universe and the solar system is not electrical in nature. We can’t have it both ways.
    Yes we can. The paper gives the misleading impression that there is an intrinsic electric field in the solar wind, pointing in a certain direction. This is not the case. There is no such field. The so-called ‘interplanetary electric field [IEF]‘ is generated by the interaction between the magnetised, neutral, fast moving, strongly conducting solar wind plasma streaming past the [nearly] stationary magnetic field of the earth. A short description of the process can be found here: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf If the Earth’s magnetic field were to point in the opposite direction [it does as times], the IEF would also point in the opposite direction. The IEF seen in the reference frame of the Earth is different from the IEF that would be seen in another frame, it is not a property of the solar wind and is not present in a frame moving with the solar wind.

  24. Max Hugoson says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:48 am
    No increase in interplanetary electric field from 1926. WOW! Must have been some DAMNED good “scientists” to make that measurement in 1926. Let’s see..era of the “Atwood Kent” for a radio reciever. I’ve got a U of MN Physics lab manual, hardbound…from the era. Funny, no vacuum tubes at all. First “radiosonde” ballons about 1934, as I recall. Can we say, IMPOSSIBLE to have data to make that claim???? Something is fishy about this article.
    How about you actually read the article?
    It is VERY possible to have such data. We have been able to carry the data even further back [to the 1830s].

  25. At least more people are now looking at the solar / cloud cover relationship.

    I still think that my suggestion of bottom up oceanic (from the equator) and top down solar induced UV effects (from the poles) interacting to alter the degree of zonality or merifdonality of the jet stream tracks is the best solution.

    More meridionality gives longer lines of air mass mixing and thus more clouds than a zonal arrangement.

    The net effect is to alter the amount of solar radiation able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system.

  26. Old’un noted ‘cmimate change’ at the beginning, I note the ending.

    “The result suggest that further research of solar-terrestrial influence ought to focus more also on this direction.” –Send money.

  27. Old’ un’ “climate change”, and Luke Warmist’s typo, “cmimate change” led me to a new
    portmanteau word to describe deliberate, unethical manipulation of date to get the climate change results you want” “crimate change”

  28. vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 12:36 am
    It may be obvious that such an effect would vary in step with the sunspot cycle, but that is not the case for a simple but a lesser known reason.
    The ‘IEF’ varies very nicely with the sunspot cycle [see Figure 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf ]

    The Earth’s field is not constant either, it shows similar decadal variability
    No, it does not show such variability. Here is the secular variation of the two force components of the Earth’s magnetic field measured in central Europe the past 100 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Secular-Variation-SED-NGK.png

  29. Leif I appreciate your point. When the solar wind charge particles (mostly protons and electrons) interact with the magnetosphere, do they not behave according to electric and magnetic laws?

  30. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:35 am
    Leif I appreciate your point. When the solar wind charge particles (mostly protons and electrons) interact with the magnetosphere, do they not behave according to electric and magnetic laws?
    Of course they do, but those laws dictate that the IEF is generated locally of a result of that interaction. The solar wind [and the Universe in general] do not support intrinsic electric fields according to those same laws.

  31. Leif, further, if the solar wind were electrically neutral, what forces are at play that guide them into the poles?

  32. The electric weather I’m talking about happens here on earth as result of that interaction. Why do we call it the global electric circuit in the first place? Just so I’m clear on this, please explain if you haven’t already, how those solar particles accelerate from the sun to the edge of heliosphere and beyond. What forces are at play there? Why don’t they slow down and stop somewhere sooner?

  33. Bob K. says:
    December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am

    To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.

    Perhaps a Principle Investigator is one who investigates principles.

  34. To quote from the paper:

    ISCCP remains the only provider of continuous database for the last almost 30 years

    This paper used ISCCP cloud cover data. Headquartered at Hansen’s GISS, which not once but repeatedly rewrote 20th century temperature history away from a double peak and towards a hockey stick (illustrated with references in subsequent link), ISCCP-reported data has issues if cross-checked. Without naively auto-trusting activist Hansen’s guys and with usage of combining other data, correlations (including global) are better between cloud cover and solar activity, as illustrated in http://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg

  35. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:40 am
    Leif, further, if the solar wind were electrically neutral, what forces are at play that guide them into the poles?
    It is electrically neutral. If it were not it could never leave the Sun. Suppose the solar wind was positively charged, then as it continuously leave the Sun, the Sun would be left with an increasing negative charge [as the positive ones depart]. The electrical attraction between the negative sun and the positive wind would in short order attract the solar wind back to the Sun.

    Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:56 am
    how those solar particles accelerate from the sun to the edge of heliosphere and beyond. What forces are at play there? Why don’t they slow down and stop somewhere sooner?
    The solar wind is accelerated to supersonic speed because of gravity weakening with distance. Same principle as in a deLaval rocket nozzle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

  36. Off topic, but this is one of the funniest climate science incidents in a while

    Climate science research ship stuck in the ice around Antarctica, with a warmist Guardian journalist on board, who thought it was a good idea to write a piece about it

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/26/trapped-in-antarctic-ice-scientists-use-unexpected-pause-for-extra-research

    And the moderator thought police are taking no comments apart from the “we wish the crew all the best type”

    Obviously I wish them a speedy safe escape, but this is pretty funny!

  37. One indirect mechanism relates to the fact that the solar spectral irradiance varies significantly in the UV band, whose effect is limited to the stratosphere, thus a stratosphere–troposphere–ocean coupling, ‘top-down’ effect, is required

    If UV’s effect is limited to the stratosphere, why the need for “UV protection sunscreen” and how does anyone get a sunburn? Someone please clarify this sentence.

  38. Open source publication of scientific research is one of mankind’s greatest innovations in recent memory.

  39. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:35 am
    @ vukcevic
    No, it does not show such variability. Here is the secular variation of the two force components of the Earth’s magnetic field measured in central Europe the past 100 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Secular-Variation-SED-NGK.png

    Hi dr Svalgaard
    Hope you had good Xmas.
    Your graph of Z field, sadly is not what I am talking about. Central Europe is not source of the Earth magnetic field, it is the Earth’s liquid core, some 3000km down. You need to look at magnetic variability closer to the magnetic pole which is shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Gmf.htm

    You may not, but most of the readers may be able notice degree of correlation to the global temperature. Further more if one looks at the bi-decadal variability the correlation extends all the way back to Maunder minimum:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LLa.htm

    As you know from our numerous previous exchanges (data I quoted in my previous post’s link are from Jault Gire, LeMouel, J. Bloxham & A.Jackson) also show distinct decadal variability.

  40. DD MOre;
    If UV’s effect is limited to the stratosphere, why the need for “UV protection sunscreen” and how does anyone get a sunburn? Someone please clarify this sentence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    The effect being spoken of is claimed to be limited to the stratosphere. The claim is not that UV doesn’t penetrate to earth surface.

  41. The weather on the moon is purely solar and galactic. As atmosphere is added, the object’s weather becomes a blend of solar and atmospheric influence. At some point, where does the solar input not influence the object’s surface or weather or climate? We have an array of planets to look at the differences in atmosphere and how sun affects each. Ionization is but one influence.

  42. vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 8:50 am
    Your graph of Z field, sadly is not what I am talking about. Central Europe is not source of the Earth magnetic field, it is the Earth’s liquid core, some 3000km down.
    Any effect of such changes have to be measured at the surface or above, where there is no decadal variation. Here is the secular variation in india the past 167 years http://www.leif.org/research/Secualr-Variation-CLA-ABG.png

    You need to look at magnetic variability closer to the magnetic pole which is shown here:
    No, I don’t. Your graph does not show any decadal variation either. Actually looks very much like the two graphs I have just linked. So, it is time for you to stop spreading misleading statements about non-existing things, they are not bringing anything to the table, except showing your capacity for self-delusion.

  43. “..Two possible physical links have been proposed: one via the ion-induced/mediated nucleation by cosmic ray induced ionization (CRII) (Dickinson 1975, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997..”

    “nihil novi sub sole” (nothing new under the sun). Has CTR Wilson, he of the Wilson Cloud Chamber even been mentioned in all this for the very a propos work he did in 1911 showing that ionized particles nucleated a trail of clouds in their paths through the saturated atmosphere of the cloud chamber.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

    It is not just a “proposition” it is a fact demonstrated 102 years ago. Wilson got the Nobel Prize for this, before the prize became ho-hum. In the 101st year after the cloud chamber experiment, we apparently “discovered” (re-demonstrated) the effect in CERN, the multibillion dollar apparatus which is an upgrade of Wilson’s $5.00 apparatus. Does anyone in all this recent fuss about cloud formation ever cite the work of Wilson? This kind of wiping the historical slate clean is not just a thing of warmists, it seems to be pretty much across science. Will we see in a hundred more years someone “discover” general relativity and set off an argument that this is just one explanation for observed phenomena and offer three more by post modern political scientists.

  44. vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 8:50 am
    You need to look at magnetic variability closer to the magnetic pole which is shown here
    No, I don’t. Your graph does not show any decadal variation either [nor bidecadal]. Actually looks very much like the two graphs I have just linked. So, it is time for you to stop spreading misleading statements about non-existing things, they are not bringing anything to the table, except showing your capacity for self-delusion.

  45. DirkH says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:19 am

    Electric forces are electric forces. Physicists don’t subscribe to Newspeak.

    Circular logic is always so refreshing. They are some kind of force, perhaps similar to electricity, but that is all.

  46. Leif what solar structure(s) comprise the deLaval rocket nozzle analog you mentioned? Is the sun positively or negatively charged wrt the heliosphere?

  47. Bob K. says:
    December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am
    To be honest, I almost didn’t watch the rest of the clip, once I spotted those three “Jeff Forbes Principle Investigator” bastardisations of English.

    Whilst you are right, it is important to use correctly the language, some people even if knowing correctly the right words may accidentaly use these wrongly, as same/simmilar words have a bit different meaning in different languages.
    So for one person who speaks only english principle and principal is very simple to discern.

    Once you have more languages in your head and the thoughts are being processed in one language, however the output is in a different one it may lead to a bit of confusion, even if you know the right words, that otherwise would not happen:
    I tried google translate for the 2 languages of the authors and searched for “principal” in romanian which gives an answer, so the word exist in romanian too but with a bit of different meaning, an adjectiv: main, whereas in english is a substantiv and adjectiv and in the exemple above is used as substantiv.
    I tried the same in finish and google translate shows a lot of words in finish pääasiallinen as adjectiv and päämies as chieftain etc.
    If you take principle in english you get “principiu” in romanian and periaate in finish.

    Using spell check may confuse people even more, ussually spell check stupidly proposes the wrong word for a minor spell error, so, when the author is foreign I would suggest to take such errors with a grain of salt…

  48. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 9:33 am

    _________________
    Link fails, used in two posts… inquiring minds want to know.

    [Use

    instead, it was just misspelled.

    w.]

  49. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 9:50 am
    Leif what solar structure(s) comprise the deLaval rocket nozzle analog you mentioned? Is the sun positively or negatively charged wrt the heliosphere?
    The solar wind escapes because it is HOT [the combustion chamber of the rocket engine]. Gravity, of course, impedes the escape [try to throw a ball upwards], that is the narrowing of the throat. As gravity weakens the altitude, the throat expands [as in the rocket engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Viking_5C_rocketengine.jpg and the escaping gases speed up to supersonic speeds.
    The sun is not significantly charged with respect to the heliosphere.

  50. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:06 am
    __________________
    Many thanks.
    I should have spotted that…

  51. Thank you Leif for that, I’ll be thinking about that. My main focus is what the authors of this article featured today are saying about here on “home world”, where we live and are on the receiving end of that solar activity. Until someone disproves the existence of the GEC, for all practical purposes its still electric weather to me, and from what I see from extreme weather events that follow earth-directed solar storms, its a major overlooked factor in climate science.

    At this time in history, we are faced with being forced to pay through the nose with carbon taxes that won’t change the weather or the climate ever, in my opinion. I think no one person has all the answers, and in time, a lot of scientists today are going to be proven wrong about one thing or another, just like its always been, so its silly to say the science is settled in such topics as climate science and cosmology. Appreciate your answers. I’m not convinced yet that gravity is as all-powerful as many have said, and that’s no knock on you.

  52. It is interesting that Earth and Venus have such different magnetic field strengths, when accordingly to the belief that Earth’s magnetic field is internally generated, Venus should also have a similar magnetic field to earth.

    When one considers however that earth’s magnetic field is not internally generated, but rather induced by the rotation of the earth within the sun’s EM field, then there is no problem. Venus with its much slower rotational rate is consistent with a weaker magnetic field.

    An externally generated magnetic field is also consistent with the core temperature of the earth. Iron when heated loses its ferromagnetism above the Curie point, which precludes a molten iron core from self-generating a magnetic field through convection.

  53. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:21 am
    I’m not convinced yet that gravity is as all-powerful as many have said, and that’s no knock on you.
    In the end, gravity is the root cause of everything, even electric and magnetic fields. To get an electric field you need to separate positive and negative charges. Since the negative charges [electrons] are much lighter that the heavier protons, gravity can separate the two and create a [weak] electric field, which if the charges are free to move in turn creates an electrical current which has an magnetic field. This process actually does work weakly on the Sun [the Pannekoek-Rosseland polarization electric field] but is not enough to create the solar wind acceleration we observe. Gravity nicely does that via the deLaval mechanism. The IEF is purely a local effect created when the solar wind hits the Earth’s magnetic field: positive charges are deflected one way around the Earth, and negative charges are deflected the other way. The resulting electric current neutralizes/closes by flowing through the ionosphere giving rise to aurorae and associated magnetic disturbances. Reality is a lot more complicated than this, but the gross features are well described by this simplified view.

  54. Nikola Tesla knew (in 1891) that air is an insulator at high pressure (troposphere) and a conductor at low pressure (ionosphere) from his work on lamps. Combined with the conductive ‘earth’ these three comprise a huge spherical capacitor (‘electrical condensor’ for all you old-timers like me).
    The plasma the sun continually(!) sends our way gets separated into streams of penetrating electrons and non-so-penetrating protons by the earth’s magnetic field, which deflects the differently charged particles in different directions. A CME is simply a surge in the stream of plasma.
    The more penetrating electrons follow the magnetic field to the earth’s lower atmopsphere and ground, while the protons are stopped at the mesosphere (~85 km) producing auroras. The earth becomes a capacitor charged to about 600 volts per meter.
    A rising column of wet (and highly conductive!) air has a chance of shorting out that capacitor: 600 V/m x 85 km = 51 million volts.

  55. ferdberple says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:32 am
    When one considers however that earth’s magnetic field is not internally generated
    There is no need to ‘consider’ such a scenario [for many reasons] as already Gauss showed us [in the 1830s] that observations demonstrate that the field is internally generated. His conclusions have been verified many times since.

  56. tadchem says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:33 am
    The more penetrating electrons follow the magnetic field to the earth’s lower atmosphere and ground, while the protons are stopped at the mesosphere
    No, none of those particles penetrate to the ground Aurorae result from emissions of photons in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, above 80 km (50 mi), from ionized nitrogen atoms regaining an electron and then returning from an excited state to ground state.

  57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

    =============================
    In the past, electrically charged objects were thought to produce two different, unrelated types of field associated with their charge property. An electric field is produced when the charge is stationary with respect to an observer measuring the properties of the charge, and a magnetic field (as well as an electric field) is produced when the charge moves (creating an electric current) with respect to this observer. Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field.
    ……
    Once this electromagnetic field has been produced from a given charge distribution, other charged objects in this field will experience a force (in a similar way that planets experience a force in the gravitational field of the Sun). If these other charges and currents are comparable in size to the sources producing the above electromagnetic field, then a new net electromagnetic field will be produced. Thus, the electromagnetic field may be viewed as a dynamic entity that causes other charges and currents to move, and which is also affected by them.

  58. Svalgaard @ vukcevic
    Any effect of such changes have to be measured at the surface or above…. Actually looks very much like the two graphs I have just linked.

    Yes indeed they are measured at the surface, and for ‘look very much like’ let show all three together:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Gmf.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LLa.htm

    (last graph is bi-decadal delta Bz, magnetic units scale should be also a good clue).
    If my graphs look ‘very much as graphs you have just linked’, you then appear to agree with my assertion that there is a (causal or not, future science may show which one) correlation between magnetic field and global temperature variabilities.

  59. Bruce Cobb says:
    December 26, 2013 at 9:47 am
    “”DirkH says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:19 am
    Electric forces are electric forces. Physicists don’t subscribe to Newspeak.”
    Circular logic is always so refreshing. They are some kind of force, perhaps similar to electricity, but that is all.”

    So you claim there is an as yet undiscovered force that you call the cosmic force? Well, I put that in the same bin I put Dark Matter and Dark Energy in – conjecture. I didn’t use any kind of circular logic; I told you what it’s called.

    By L. Svalgaards argument BTW there cannot be charge separation in space. That’s funny; Earth must be a very special place then because we observe charge separation all the time.

  60. What might be useful is to have Leif read the history for Hannes Alfven and MHD which has been written by David Talbott for Edge Magazine, and ask him where within this broader historical context, either Talbott or Alfven should have determined that there is no question to be asked here? The real problem, it seems to some of us, is that the university system continues to present this apparent half-century controversy as a series of conclusive claims rather than a set of assumptions with a question mark at its end. Why would students be primed to think they know the answer on such a fundamental set of questions? The risk inherent to assuming the wrong answer here seems too great to just accept the assumption, for many of us …

    From http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_09.pdf

    The underlying idea was that space could have been magnetized in primordial times or in early stages of stellar and galactic evolution, all under the control of higher-order kinetics and gravitational dynamics. All large scale events in space could still be explained in terms of disconnected islands, and it would only be necessary to look inside the “islands” to discover localized electromagnetic events—no larger electric currents or circuitry required. In this view, popularly held today, we live in a “magnetic universe” (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, “…No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference
    of the moving plasma.”

    But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically—and to his credit—Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said.

    In accord with Alvén’s observations, American physicist, professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, notes that he himself had originally fallen in with an academic crowd that believed electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. “My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described.”

    In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake, a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén’s magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too “complicated and awkward” for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject “not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.” It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became “the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong.”

    Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today “are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’ how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.”

    Also, people might want to check out the paper titled “Possible reasons for underestimating Joule heating in global models: E-field variability, spatial resolution and vertical velocity”.

    But, if I can make a suggestion as an outsider looking in, maybe Leif would consider releasing the Electric Universe hostage so that people can have permission to question cosmological assumptions here … ? I recall running him shutting the same conversation down a couple of years ago. We are all entitled to our own worldviews and assumptions, but does science permit us to impose those assumptions upon each other?

  61. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:33 am
    “In the end, gravity is the root cause of everything, even electric and magnetic fields. ”

    Gravity even causes the protective hypothesis of Dark Matter, because it needs it to keep the Gravity-only cosmology alive for the time being.

  62. DirkH says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
    By L. Svalgaards argument BTW there cannot be charge separation in space. That’s funny; Earth must be a very special place then because we observe charge separation all the time.
    Earth is, indeed, a very special place, namely one where the air where we live and breathe is not ionized to any significant degree. In such environments [insulators] charge separation can and do occur. 99.99..% of the baryon Universe is not like that, so we are very special. Of course, that is not funny at all, we could not live if that was not so, so we are ‘victims’ of a selection effect.

  63. DirkH says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:06 am
    Gravity even causes the protective hypothesis of Dark Matter, because it needs it to keep the Gravity-only cosmology alive for the time being.
    Gravitational effects are observational evidence for their existence. Dark Matter is an observational fact, not yet understood theoretical, but observations trump theory, don’t you think?

  64. Nice summary of the various proposed possible mechanisms of solar amplification. Contrast with the IPCC, which in the Second Order Draft of AR5 acknowledged the extensive historic and paleo evidence that SOME mechanism of solar amplification seems to be at work, then only mentioned one of the possible mechanisms (page 7-43, lines 1-5):

    Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.

    They found the evidence for the GCR-cloud mechanism unconvincing and used this as their excuse for leaving it out of their models. Nowhere else in the report are any of the other possible mechanisms of amplification considered, with the result that this acknowledged evidence is never taken into account.

    The only change in the final report was to edit out the SOD’s acknowledgment that the empirical evidence points to SOME mechanism of solar amplification being at work. I’ve got a post on this subject on the back burner. Will try to get to it soon.

  65. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:33 am
    In the end, gravity is the root cause of everything, even electric and magnetic fields. To get an electric field you need to separate positive and negative charges. Since the negative charges [electrons] are much lighter that the heavier protons, gravity can separate the two and create a [weak] electric field, which if the charges are free to move in turn creates an electrical current which has an magnetic field.
    Leif, stupid question: as the particles get kinetic energy in the sun and the electrons are 1000+ easier then heavy ions, does this cause more electrons to escape the suns’ gravity in comparison to ions and thus creating a local electrical charge at the suns surface?

  66. Lars P. says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:26 am
    as the particles get kinetic energy in the sun and the electrons are 1000+ easier then heavy ions, does this cause more electrons to escape the suns’ gravity in comparison to ions and thus creating a local electrical charge at the suns surface?
    It does [initially], it is called the Pannekoek-Rosseland Polarization Electric Field, but it is very small and doesn’t really play a significant role in anything and carries in it its own limiting factor: if electrons escape, the Sun is left a little more positive, but then that extra positive charge attracts electrons trying to escape, so the imbalance soon comes to a halt and does not build up any further.

  67. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:32 am
    It does [initially], it is called the Pannekoek-Rosseland Polarization Electric Field, but it is very small and doesn’t really play a significant role in anything and carries in it its own limiting factor: if electrons escape, the Sun is left a little more positive, but then that extra positive charge attracts electrons trying to escape, so the imbalance soon comes to a halt and does not build up any further.
    Thanks for the fast answer! Are there any existing measurement as to what the field and what the charge would be?

  68. I am baffled. This stuff seems complex and hard to reduce to a simple graph –like a hockey stick, say. None of this appears to be built into The Models that form The Consensus and I do not understand how this relates to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon so how can it be climate science and get published? I thought clouds were an effect not a cause: AGW is reducing cloud cover at the same time flood-causing rainfall increases. Everybody knows that so what has the sun got to do with it?

  69. vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:49 am
    you then appear to agree with my assertion that there is a (causal or not, future science may show which one) correlation between magnetic field and global temperature variabilities.
    At the same level of importance as the correlation (causal or not, future science may show which one) between global temperature and the price of a US postal stamp.

    Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:04 am
    What might be useful is to have Leif read the history for Hannes Alfven
    Hannes was a personal friend of mine and I know very well his views on things, thank you much.

    we live in a “magnetic universe” (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, “…No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference
    of the moving plasma.”

    You got that one right. Hannes Alfven stressed that very same point.

    Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became “the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory.”
    Indeed, that is true, simply because we cannot recreate the conditions of a cosmic plasma [especially its low density and large dimensions] in the laboratory. Luckily, we can observe such plasmas in space.

    But, if I can make a suggestion as an outsider looking in, maybe Leif would consider releasing the Electric Universe hostage so that people can have permission to question cosmological assumptions here … ?
    To question assumptions you need to know something about the conditions, situations, observations, and physics involved. Without that, such questioning is vacuous and you better retreat to a learning mode.

    Lars P. says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:40 am
    Are there any existing measurement as to what the field and what the charge would be?
    No, as we cannot get close enough to the Sun for that [without burning up]. Calculations suggest a value of a few hundred Volt for the potential.

  70. Piers Corbyn, Weather Action, London,
    said this years ago, and expounded his
    method in 2011, in Germany, at the 4th
    EIKE meeting of scientists.

    A link to the 27 mins video is attached to
    the name above. Note that although this is
    a recent video, Corbyn has been saying
    these things for decades.

  71. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:56 am

    vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:49 am
    you then appear to agree with my assertion that there is a (causal or not, future science may show which one) correlation between magnetic field and global temperature variabilities.
    —————————-
    At the same level of importance as the correlation (causal or not, future science may show which one) between global temperature [as derived only by climate models] and the price of a US postal stamp.
    _________________
    fixed

  72. Svalgaard @ vukcevic
    At the same level of importance as the correlation (causal or not, future science may show which one) between global temperature and the price of a US postal stamp.

    Causes of the rise in the US and for that matter UK stamps’ cost is a well known known To the contrary, here is my short illustrated list of known unknowns ; the AGW sedated academia is reluctant to step out of its comfort zone and is scared even of an unknown’s shadow. May the Anno Domini 2014 grant them valour of the scientists from the decades and centuries past.

  73. vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    the AGW sedated academia is reluctant to step out of its comfort zone and is scared even of an unknown’s shadow.
    AGW has absolutely nothing to do with the science of the Sun and Geomagnetism. Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.

  74. Old Hoya says: @ December 26, 2013 at 11:43 am
    ………..? I thought clouds were an effect not a cause: AGW is reducing cloud cover at the same time flood-causing rainfall increases. Everybody knows that so what has the sun got to do with it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No sun ====> no evaporation of water =====> no clouds. Actually no sun ===> no atmosphere and no life on earth.

    (That is for those who didn’t understand the sarcasm. After the troll invasion recently I thought a simple explanation best. )

  75. Leif – what causes gravity? How does it work mechanically? Do you think solar activity is the driver for weather and climate changes? If it isn’t, do you know what drives the weather/climate, because if it’s not the sun, what is it? I know there’s a lot of opinions on the matter of matter, gravity, electricity and magnetism discussed in places like the General Science Journal, where opinions run the gamut, so what do think?

  76. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    Leif – what causes gravity? How does it work mechanically?
    Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is the best explanation we have at this moment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

    Do you think solar activity is the driver for weather and climate changes?
    Only of a very small part of that, perhaps 0.1 degree.

    If it isn’t, do you know what drives the weather/climate, because if it’s not the sun, what is it?
    Every complex system [such as climate] has internal, natural variations about a mean, so it is no surprise to me that we observe such.

  77. Re: “To question assumptions you need to know something about the conditions, situations, observations, and physics involved.”

    It seems that Alfven spent a good part of his lifetime trying to walk back a mistake he claims to have made early on in his career. His life story looks to actually be an incredibly introspective and thought-provoking story of an expert who had to muster the courage to publicly question his own prior expertise, and admit on the most public stage possible that he had made a mistake which others then copied. The lesson is not only deeply profound, but also seems to have been lost on today’s scientific culture — and it seems we don’t have to guess why, for the story is not even told to physics students today.

    In marketing terms, this is called “priming” the customer. The physics students are simply being primed to accept MHD through selective recounting of Alfven’s story. But, in truth, this is less about science and more about humans playing games with one another. For, once the story is told, then one has to imagine that it VERY MUCH impacts a typical person’s views of MHD.

    If he was truly a close friend of yours, then can you not see that he might be just a little bit upset — if he was here to comment — that his life story and repeated efforts over many years to correct the record are consistently left out of the modern “scientific journalism” on the subject of cosmic plasmas? Is it not incomprehensible to anybody else that David Talbott seems to be one of the few people who today recounts Alfven’s life story, as if it actually matters? Why do modern scientists treat the story of MHD’s inception as though it is irrelevant to our beliefs about MHD? Once the story is actually told, it becomes self-evidently important — and even vital context for those who might be having doubts about a universe that we are told is only 5% baryonic matter.

  78. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.

    Well Dr. Svalgaard
    In my illustrated list of known unknowns , I used data from sources such as NOAA, NASA, ETHZ, Potsdam, Dr. Svalgaard’s files etc, all highly respected sources.
    I show and emphasise existence of correlations between various data sets, which any scientist including yourself can always duplicate if inclined to do so.
    Even you said yourself:
    Actually looks very much like the two graphs I have just linked. referring to:

    Where is pseudo-science in there and why do you think that is scary?
    I have no idea why it would be so, unless you see in those correlations something more than just simple coincidence or at best (or worst) numerology, neither of which should unduly concern, even less scare or corrupt anyone.
    As a sign or respect I shall for now, retreat from the further ‘contest’.

  79. Looking at the atmosphere and its processes its not hard to see that its not just a process of electromagnatisum or chemical reactions, rather its a electrochemical process.Couloumbs Law

  80. Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    Why do modern scientists treat the story of MHD’s inception as though it is irrelevant to our beliefs about MHD?
    What Alfven was railing about was the belief that MHD was universally applicable. Today we know it is not. If it were, nothing interesting would ever happen. Almost all interesting phenomena are caused by electric currents which result from a breakdown of MHD when you press plasmas with oppositely directed magnetic fields together. This is universally accepted by modern scientists [so Alfven is vindicated on that detail]. You are barking up a non-existing tree.

    those who might be having doubts about a universe that we are told is only 5% baryonic matter.
    You can only really doubt something you know something about because you have to base the doubt on something other than belief and agenda. What do you actually know about that great discovery of modern science?

  81. Re: “Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.”

    People generally fear anything which is different — and this applies to scientific models too — but be aware that this fear originates within your subconscious. It’s not the product of rational thought; it’s the result of a simplistic process of pre-conscious pattern-matching — the sort of thought that keeps lizards alive for long enough to procreate.

    In fact, scientists do not “fear” theories. And you know this, actually, for if I first engaged your rational mind by directly asking you which you fear the most — the threat you can see or the one you cannot — you would definitively answer the one you cannot see. So, when you tell us all that pseudoscience is the threat which we should be paying attention to, realize that you’re not giving your rational mind the opportunity to assert that, in fact, dogma is the far more serious threat to science, of the two, for the obvious reason that it is invisible and asserted by authority.

  82. vukcevic says:
    December 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    Where is pseudo-science in there and why do you think that is scary?
    Pseudo-science comes in when one dresses up unfounded speculation as fact and is scary because in this day and age it is important that the populace at large is educated about real science and not be fed a never-ending stream of nonsense.

  83. Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    In fact, scientists do not “fear” theories. And you know this, actually, for if I first engaged your rational mind by directly asking you which you fear the most — the threat you can see or the one you cannot — you would definitively answer the one you cannot see.
    Quite the contrary. Scientists welcome what we cannot see. We call them ‘discoveries’ and all scientists dream of making such. The more, the better. The worst fear is that we stagnate and no new trails into the unknown are blazed. The difference between science and pseudo-science is how you blaze a trail into the unknown. About the skepticism and caution with which you proceed and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.

  84. Re: “The difference between science and pseudo-science is how you blaze a trail into the unknown. About the skepticism and caution with which you proceed and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.”

    Okay, but the problem for this argument is that IEEE never stopped publishing peer review on this topic of electrical cosmology.

    Even the discipline of physics education research (like Eric Mazur of Harvard) has for a couple of decades now struggled to get through to university physics professors sufficient to explain to them that their teaching techniques are failing to have much impact upon students’ Aristotelian preconceptions. If the academic physicists won’t even listen to THAT, then I think it’s safe to say that they are simply not in the business of listening at all to anybody they’d prefer to ignore.

    And on this point … “and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.” …

    From Don Scott’s The Electric Sky, page 12:

    “When mathematicians (and geometry students) `derive a proof,’ they are developing a sequence of logical steps that leads to a final statement that is consistent with the first statement in the derivation. As an example, if we accept the basic definitions, axioms and postulates of Euclid’s geometry, we can `prove’ that `lines parallel with another line are parallel to each other.’ But this is not a proof of the existence of any real-world physical mechanism — it is an exercise in the logical manipulation of a set of basic mathematical axioms. Such manipulations are completely internal to mathematics and remain disassociated from the real world unless and until such an association is demonstrated by observation and experiment.

    “In the deductive method, one starts with a presumed law of nature — an obviously correct (accepted) generalization about the way things work — and deduces (works out, derives) its logical consequences.

    “A hypothesis arrived at via this deductive method is promoted to the status of being a theory when and if a large enough body of experts accepts it. This is an application of the Socratic method, also sometimes called the `dialectic method.’ Socrates (469-399 B.C.) believed that truth was discovered through intense conversations with other informed people. In this method, a vote of the experts determines when and if a theory is correct. Once such a theory has been accepted, it is not easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence. It is, however, often modified — made more complicated. When over time a theory becomes officially accepted, the essence of the matter has been settled and fixed. Modifications to the fine points of the theory can then be proposed and debated, but the backbone structure of the theory is set. That framework has already been firmly established.

    “An inherent flaw lurking in this method is: What if your `obviously correct,’ basic, starting-point presumption is wrong?”

  85. Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
    “An inherent flaw lurking in this method is: What if your `obviously correct,’ basic, starting-point presumption is wrong?”
    In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects. EU has never done a single one, so does not qualify as science. Simple as that. Most people should be able to fathom that.

  86. There are other things to add to this post to help create a clearer picture. Things like the Fair weather electric field (high pressure system) and the foul weather electric field(low pressure system) The fair weather electric field is driven by the sun and the foul weather electric field is driven by point charges created by earths 6000k core. There’s a good example of how point charge words, look up Atlant Australia.
    Temperature = Electric potential at work

  87. Re: “In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects.”

    It’s not clear which part of 5% baryonic you’re not understanding. You’re putting salad dressing on a turd, and inviting us over for dinner.

  88. Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    _______________
    Oh, please- if you can’t make a valid point, at least mind our delicate sensibilities.

  89. That would indeed be wrong to conceal a lot of bizarre beliefs and c*nspiracies under scientific language, wouldn’t it, Chris Reeve?

  90. R. de Haan says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:00 am

    “We need models to establish credibility”, that’s sick.
    —————————————————————————————————
    Only if you take “model” in the IPCC sense of “something that matters more than reality”

    In a strict sense, every equation in science is a “model” and science consists of finding models to fit observations. Observations on their own aren’t science – they become science when we find a consistent and reliable model to explain them.

    The sick part is that climate science appears to put the models ahead of the observations they’re supposed to explain, to the point where observations that don’t fit the models are “wrong”.

  91. Leif – what causes gravity? How does it work mechanically?
    Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is the best explanation we have at this moment…
    In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects.
    ================
    agreed. we have no mechanism to explain gravity. we don’t know how or why it affects time. we are not even sure of gravity’s propagation speed. or for that matter, if gravity is even a force. we have many beliefs but they remain beliefs.

    yet we are able to make quite precise predictions about the effects of gravity. not because we understand how it works, but rather through careful observation and painstakingly accurate record keeping. so it seem altogether strange that modern science insists on a mechanism, when throughout history successful prediction almost always came long before we understood the mechanism.

    In reality, in an infinite universe one can never be sure of the mechanism, the “why” behind cause and effect. each new discovery holds forth the possibility of falsifying that which we hold to be the “true cause” and ushering in an entirely new series of scientific beliefs. The Higgs Boson may be responsible for mass, but what is responsible for the Higgs Boson? Isn’t that the true source of mass? But if that is the case, doesn’t this process extend on to infinity?

  92. lsvalgaard wrote:
    “Dark Matter is an observational fact, not yet understood theoretical, but observations trump theory, don’t you think?”

    ???

    Certain measured interactions in the cosmos are observational facts. “Dark Matter” is a theoretical explanation of those observations.

    Goodness me. I have observed an unusual event and I theorise a “seasonal / festive” explanation with volatile liquid indicators.
    .

  93. OK Leif, a nap after hours of snow shoveling helped triggered this question for you: provided your explanation is correct that solar wind blows outward from the sun because it’s HOT, is it known at what minimum temperature this ability to overcome gravity occurs if there is one and if so how do we know that?

  94. jmorpuss says:
    December 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    The fair weather electric field is driven by the sun
    no, by thunderstorms.

    ferdberple says:
    December 26, 2013 at 5:05 pm
    when throughout history successful prediction almost always came long before we understood the mechanism.
    No, generally not. It takes the mechanism to make successful prediction. We can predict planetary positions, because we know how Newtonian physics works. We can predict fine deviations from that because we have General Relativity. We can predict the wiggles in the Cosmic Microwave Background because we have a good understanding of the physics of sound waves in the early Universe [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf ], etc.

    one can never be sure of the mechanism, the “why” behind cause and effect.
    Mechanisms are about ‘how’, not ‘why’.

    But if that is the case, doesn’t this process extend on to infinity?
    Of course, “it is turtles all the way down”. Nothing wrong with that.

    Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    is it known at what minimum temperature this ability to overcome gravity occurs if there is one and if so how do we know that?
    About a million degrees will do it. We know that because the escape velocity for a body at the sun is 617 km/sec and we know the temperature at which atoms move at that speed.

  95. Leif, thank you. Another question. Right now the momentary solar wind speed as reported by spaceweather.com is 269.8 km/sec. Have these solar particles then slowed down from 617 km/sec by the time they are measured at the satellite? If they are slowing down, wouldn’t they slow down eventually to 0 km/sec? If so, does that happen at the heliosphere boundary? Since the electrons are so much “lighter” than the protons, would the escape velocity temperature be different for electrons vs protons, and would the electrons then travel farther & faster than the protons? If that were to happen, wouldn’t that create a somewhat variable yet fairly permanent charge seperation in the heliosphere?

  96. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:31 pm
    Leif, thank you. Another question. Right now the momentary solar wind speed as reported by spaceweather.com is 269.8 km/sec. Have these solar particles then slowed down from 617 km/sec by the time they are measured at the satellite?
    If you throw a ball in the air it will slow down as it ascends until some point where its upwards speed will be zero and it begins to fall back. On the Sun, gravity decreases as you go up and at the point where the solar wind takes up, the escape speed has decreased to 250 km/sec, so that will be the minimum speed of the solar wind.

    If they are slowing down, wouldn’t they slow down eventually to 0 km/sec? If so, does that happen at the heliosphere boundary?
    Once the solar wind has escaped it doesn’t really slow down until it meets the interstellar medium [some 110 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth] at which point the velocity indeed will slow to 0 km/sec.

    would the escape velocity temperature be different for electrons vs protons,
    It will, the electron escape temperature for electrons is 1.5 million K and for protons 1.0 million K.

    wouldn’t that create a somewhat variable yet fairly permanent charge separation in the heliosphere?
    No, because the electrons and protons attract each other strongly so effectively move together. The electric force is very strong. As an illustration: imagine a box on the Earth containing 3 million toms of electrons and a similar box on the Sun containing protons with the same electric charge as the electrons in the box on the Earth, then the electric force between the two boxes would exceed the total gravitational force that holds the whole Earth in its orbit.

  97. Leif, one more thought: perhaps the Van Allen belts around Earth and similar energetic plasma structures around the other planets are just more examples of Hannes Alfvens’ “double layer” that he insisted be recognized as a celestial object like stars because of their prevalence throughout space. What’s your take on that? Can the “flux tubes” NASA found linking the sun to earth be considered “double layers”?

  98. Ok Leif, if we could fill boxes with just electrons or protons, how big would the boxes be at 3 million tons?

  99. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:47 pm
    Leif, one more thought: perhaps the Van Allen belts around Earth and similar energetic plasma structures around the other planets are just more examples of Hannes Alfvens’ “double layer” that he insisted be recognized as a celestial object like stars because of their prevalence throughout space. What’s your take on that? Can the “flux tubes” NASA found linking the sun to earth be considered “double layers”?
    No, on both counts. But all plasma structures can contain transient double layers that help accelerate electrons across them. And the ‘flux tubes’ are just one manifestations of magnetic fields that extend from the sun throughout the solar system at all times. Any magnetic body [like the Earth] will link to that solar magnetic field essentially all the time. BTW, NASA didn’t find that, I did back in 1967.

  100. vukcevic says
    “As a sign of respect I shall for now, retreat from the further ‘contest’.”

    Very gentlemanly and, if I may say, humble of you to so do.

    Well, while I cannot remotely pretend to understand the subtleties of the ongoing debate you have with Professor Doctor PhD Svalgaard in these pages, I feel I learn a little from you about the subject with every posting you make.

    Unlike, I must say, from the Good Doctor, whose postings make me feel completely inadequate to penetrate, on any level of lay understandings, the scientific realm wherein he has long since established his worldwide reputation.
    I cannot fathom his didactic method, but perhaps it is not that, in that perhaps he does not come here to teach, but rather as …. a Gatekeeper, so-to-speak.
    Given the often evidenced vicious evisceration (effective or otherwise) of those he deigns to engage in debate or whom ask what I perceive (to the degree one can parse written language for underlying intent) genuinely sincere, however naive, questions, I’m certainly not inclined to directly pose queries to him to develop my understandings.
    Rather, I explore writings and sites online that seem to be ‘fair and balanced’, presenting comparative interpretations with forthright and transparent admission of bias. I suppose that would make me easy victim of those he presents as being “purveyors of….a deplorable shadowy disservice”

    All that said, kudos also to PJF, who writes “Goodness me. I have observed an unusual event and I theorise a “seasonal / festive” explanation with volatile liquid indicators.”

    I’m certainly no scientist, but reckon myself average in ability to detect intellectual ‘sleight-of-hand’, and the deft transmutation of observations of phenomena into (“not yet understood theoretical”!!!!!!!! :-O) fact (exemplia gratia – “Dark Matter”), did not pass my notice, either.

    And since I’m in a chatty mood, I’ll add my own ‘nonsense’ and a toast to all this Festive Season, in best of spirits (to make a little play-on-words), and posit that, since our cerebrums are certainly generating electric fields (yes! measured! goodness!), it will eventually be discovered that Our Thoughts, individually and collectively, are ‘influencing the weather’, both terrestrial and extra-so {leastways in terms of what we can, in ever-expanding macro and microscopic dimensions, See…and so, with which, interact).

    Of course this puts me somewhat out of the realm of ‘science-as-we-know-it’ (save, perhaps, cosmology), and definitely beyond Deism, and well into Theism (as I do so choose to ‘go there’).

    Been reading earlier (online, that hotbed of pseudo-science) this evening, yet again, about the wondrous (sorry. “IMHO”, that is) E-Coli flagellum, which with stator, rotor and all 42 neatly constructed proteins uncannily analogous to an electric motor, emerged from Deep Time, by Chance.
    :-D

    I like the EU Stuff. It appeals to my limbic love of patterns in things.

  101. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm
    Ok Leif, if we could fill boxes with just electrons or protons, how big would the boxes be at 3 million tons?
    Since an electron has zero size [as far as we know] the electron box would also have zero size. The proton box would have a finite size, about a tea spoon full, if the protons are packed as closely as they can be.

  102. Sorry Leif, but all this is food for thought, and the thoughts keep coming… once the electrons and protons, which travel together, reach the interstellar medium, what becomes of them?

  103. Somehow I have a hard time visualizing a box of zero size. But anyway, if the electric force between your box of electrons and teaspoon of protons could be harnessed, couldn’t that be a basis for an interstellar space drive?

  104. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    Sorry Leif, but all this is food for thought, and the thoughts keep coming… once the electrons and protons, which travel together, reach the interstellar medium, what becomes of them?
    They join the medium together with all the other electrons and protons that have escaped from the sun and other stars over billions of years. Sometimes they find each other and form a neutral Hydrogen atom, sometimes not.

  105. Delayed congratulations on that discovery Leif! I didn’t know… I was seven years old then, and didn’t take an interest in these topics until six years ago. Thanks for answering my questions.

  106. Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 8:01 pm
    Somehow I have a hard time visualizing a box of zero size. But anyway, if the electric force between your box of electrons and teaspoon of protons could be harnessed, couldn’t that be a basis for an interstellar space drive?
    It would be hard to keep the stuff in their boxes [and to put them in the boxes], so I don’t think so.

  107. Tiburon says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:54 pm
    I suppose that would make me easy victim of those he presents as being “purveyors of….a deplorable shadowy disservice”
    And that is precisely why that pseudo-science is so dangerous. It is important that the public at large get scientifically correct and well-founded information.

  108. Bob Weber says:
    “…couldn’t that be a basis for an interstellar space drive?”
    I suggest that practically speaking, Dr Eric Lerner’s work with Focus Fusion folks might be the faster way to achieve, at least, interplanetary space drives, if not an “interstellar” drive per se.

    Mars in 4 weeks, and that’s only because you have to, y’know, slow down, too. ;-)

  109. lsvalgaard says: –
    “And that is precisely why that pseudo-science is so dangerous. It is important that the public at large get scientifically correct and well-founded information.”
    Dr Svalgaard – I absolutely and sincerely respect your well-founded concern regards this important matter. There is an unbelievable (well, not-so as I’ve plowed through so much of it already) amount of unmitigated b.s. online. Rigorous fact checking before accepting ‘what feels good’ to the mind and ear (and personal prejudice) has become mandatory, and we (as a species?) are being asked to do this in a time period ridiculously short even with the metric of human time. How long have we had the encyclopedic internet? A couple of decades?
    I perceive that the challenge is that science itself is still bound to the patterns of discovery/elucidation-of-discovery that Thomas Kuhn spoke of, so long ago now in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Were I an expert in a particular field (well, some say I am, though unfortunately to this discussion not in the ‘hard sciences’), I would be reluctant to re-evaluate a lifetime of effort and learning simply to accommodate some upstart ‘wild speculation’, and would likely have to fight off resentment on a personal level to have patience to illustrate basic facts.
    But what choice would I have?
    Were I to dismiss the confrontations as beneath ‘my dignity’, I would appear as elitist and ‘hide-bound’ in my thinking. “Courts” of opinion would be even more fraught with potential evil; – we’ve seen this in fields as far a-flung as Cancer Therapy and, of course CAGW.
    I believe the only responsible path, if one can find the time without irreparably damaging one’s own pursuit of advances in one’s field of research, is to step-by-step lead people who are genuinely curious step-by-step through the basic assumptions, admitting when said assumptions truly are just that, but strongly defending them when the weight of evidence exceeds reasonable doubt. Given open-minded students, at minimum a certain baseline of facts can be established, and to me it is at that point that exciting interchanges can begin, and ‘from the mouths of babes’ if you will, new insights and directions can be explored, not least by those who teach.

    12 years ago now, I discovered John Daly’s site Still Waiting for the Greenhouse. I was a doctrinaire lay acolyte of the Global Warming meme at that time, but following several hundred hours reading his archives, with dictionary and Wiki close at hand, my understandings of what drives weather and hence climate, expanded until I found myself alone among my peers in my now ‘denier’ opinions. They’ve all mostly ‘come around’ by now, I’m pleased to say – though I certainly don’t judge – interest in these areas is not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’.

    And I see or sense a similar opportunity in certain aspects (by no means all!) of what I see in the growing EU ‘movement’ – and what appears to me to be the ability of the still-developing model to explain a host of anomalous observations that are largely dismissed as mere aberrations by the status quo in the respective fields. That always makes me Suspicious, when I see such dismissal.

    I would ask you to explain certain phenomena that I’ve seen described, like CME’s that are able to arrive an AU from the chromosphere in hours, rather than days, and the absurd heat gradient at the solar surface, and bizarre geometric cloud formations at the poles of Saturn, and something extremely weird at the heliopause per Voyager, and highly redshifted objects IN FRONT of ‘less-distant’ stars, and dendritic formations in the sands of Mars, and oh-so-not-dirty-snowball comets, and the list goes on and on, long; all of which have seemingly plausible (though by no means “proven”) explanations being generated by the EU Model….
    …and I would sit with rapt attention, would you be able to offer a layperson the Established View and interpretation (when available, of course – as I understand it there’s a lot of “surprise”, and “unexpected”, and “mysterious” coming out of NASA et. al. these days, as our reach of observation logarithmically expands in our present age) of these phenomena –
    but
    1) it is not your job, and I know you are actively pushing the boundaries of understanding within your own specialized field
    and
    2) I would not appreciate being ‘shut down’ as being “too ignorant of basic science” to appreciate The Truth, as, to be candid, I’ve seen you do frequently to those who question the basics you consider unassailable.
    I do read everything you write and post here (your scientific work is well beyond my ken) and gain some insight, but it always seems to me when there’s something that ‘doesn’t fit’ to you, you throw it aside out of hand, or resort to (to me) arcane extrapolations impenetrable to the layperson by way of attack or explanation.
    Shouldn’t, ultimately, the things we “know” be apparent to all? EVEN when they are counter-intuitive (with a bit of further explanation?) We all live in this world, and experience it together.
    I know intellectually that ultimately the colour blue is not “really there”, but is rather an interplay between my human eyes and the frequency of spectral light. But largely without exception, we can all agree what ‘blue’ is, n’est ce pas? And we can at that point speculate about what it Means,….”blue”. On many levels. And we should be open to that Beautiful Blue Day in all it’s rich mystery, in ourselves and in what we perceive as ‘out’….
    That gives me hope that our understanding will advance, for all.

  110. Oh…just a small additional comment. I was a bit of a ‘smarty-pants’ among my classmates in the small prairie town of my youth. And by 11 years old I was drawn to the RAS here in Canada, drinking in all I could about the Main Sequence.
    I’m pushing 60 now, and opening my mind when I look up at noon to what was, my entire life, ‘that big nuclear furnace in the sky’, and considering it possibly and rather, an Anode to the Cathode of the Heliosphere (and Beyond?) is not ‘easy’. I could ignore that possibility, ‘ignorance being bliss’ it’s been said.
    But hollow or metallic hydrogen, or something else, it is not my nature to ignore uncomfortable facts (except, possibly, in my own character ;-)), and I WANT TO KNOW.
    I was ‘poisoned’ by my teachers in University in the few science courses I took…the Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” was all the rage at that time, and I was such a firebrand for The Cause.
    I also made personal life-decisions based on that so-called “knowledge”. But apparently we’re not yet short of Tungsten, which among many other things ‘running out’ were to be gone long before the Millennium. Who knew? We were the ‘illuminated’, and I was quite willing to social engineer other people to conform, and voted thus for years.
    Argument from Authority doesn’t get too far with me, these days, and as I get even older, I’m starting (maybe) to appreciate how much a heavy dose of humility goes a long way towards understanding.

  111. Tiburon says:
    December 26, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    I would ask you to explain certain phenomena that I’ve seen described, like CME’s that are able to arrive an AU from the chromosphere in hours, rather than days,…all of which have seemingly plausible (though by no means “proven”) explanations being generated by the EU Model
    I would also sit with rapt attention if EU had any explanations for anything, but they do not [other than hand waving] so we are back to conventional explanations which usually suffice, e.g. CMEs arriving in hours is simply because they are fast [say 3000 km/sec]. Such speeds can be achieved by enough energy in the electric currents in the solar atmosphere. Yes, conventional astrophysics invoke currents too, the difference with EU is simply that the [real] currents are generated [induced] by changing magnetic fields and moving conducting, neutral plasma.

    2) I would not appreciate being ‘shut down’ as being “too ignorant of basic science” to appreciate The Truth, as, to be candid, I’ve seen you do frequently to those who question the basics you consider unassailable.
    I do not think that I ‘shut anybody down’. I always try hard to explain even complicated things [to wit my exchanges with Bob Weber], but there are folks that are hard of learning and after explaining the same thing for the umpteenth time, they get the ‘short’ and perceived harsh version.

  112. Re: “I would also sit with rapt attention if EU had any explanations for anything, but they do not”

    “Professionals generally avoid the risk inherent in real critical thinking and cannot properly be called critical thinkers. They are simply ideologically disciplined thinkers. Real critical thinking means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral assumptions; applying and refining a personally developed worldview; and calling for action that advances a personally created agenda. An approach that backs away from any of these three components lacks the critical spirit … Ideologically disciplined thinkers, especially the more gung-ho ones, often give the appearance of being critical thinkers as they go around deftly applying the official ideology and confidently reporting their judgments. The fact that professionals are usually more well-informed than nonprofessionals contributes to the illusion that they are critical thinkers.” (p41, Disciplined Minds, Jeff Schmidt)

    “Because they internalize both the paradigms and their employers’ priorities and values, scientists, at least in their own eyes, are completely nonpartisan in their work: They don’t “get political.” They don’t think about, let alone challenge, the ideology built into their techniques. Contrary to popular images of scientists as challengers of established beliefs (like Galileo or Einstein), the vast majority of scientists never seek to test their paradigms and do not participate in paradigm disputes. They don’t waste their employers’ coin by getting caught up in efforts to overthrow existing worldviews or to establish new ones. Instead, they tend to treat the accepted models of reality as reality itself.” (p82)

    From a Jeff Schmidt interview at http://www.julesnyquist.com/articles/article/1430100/16489.htm

    “MR: When you first thought of writing this book, you were in graduate school, right?

    JS: Yes, that’s right. I got interested [in the] topic when I was going to professional training myself, getting a PhD in physics at the University of California, Irvine. It seemed like the best of my fellow graduate students were either dropping out or being kicked out. And by ‘best,’ those were the most concerned about other people and seemed less self-centered, less narrowly-focused, most friendly people … they seemed to be handicapped in the competition. They seemed to be at a disadvantage not only because their attention was divided, but because their concerns about big picture issues like justice and the social role of the profession and so on, caused them to stop and think and question, whereas their unquestioning gung-ho classmates just plowed right through with nothing to hold them back. As I mentioned, there’s about a 50% drop-out rate for students entering University programs in all fields; and what I found was that this weeding out is not politically neutral. To put it bluntly, the programs favor ass-kissers.”

    Does any of this sound familiar?

    “At the end of the week the entire physics faculty gathers in a closed meeting to decide the fate of the students. Strange as it may seem, in most physics departments a student’s score on the test is only one factor in the faculty’s decision as to whether or not that student has passed the test. Students are not usually told their scores: this gives faculty members the option of deciding that a student has failed the test even if that student has outscored someone they are going to pass. In arriving at their personal opinions on whether to pass or fail a student, individual faculty members consider anything and everything carried away from informal discussions with the student and with others around the department.

    A faculty member who talks informally with a student in the hallway or at the weekly after-colloquium reception inevitably comes away with a feeling about whether or not that student ‘thinks like a physicist.’ The student’s political outlook can easily make a difference in the faculty member’s assessment. For example, in the usual informal discussion of an issue in the news, the student who rails against technical incompetence and confines his thoughts to the search for technical solutions within the given political framework builds a much more credible image as a professional physicist than does the student who emphasizes the need to alter the political framework as part of the solution. Indeed, the latter approach falls outside the work assignments given to professional physicists in industry and academe and so represents thinking unlike a physicist’s.” (p134)

    The question which the public never seems to quite ask is what the meaning of scientific consensus is when students who might disagree with it are simply purged from the programs?

  113. Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:59 pm
    Real critical thinking means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral assumptions;
    None of which are relevant for science.

  114. lsvalgaard says: –
    Thank you, Dr Svalgaard
    1) yes, I’ve come to ‘understand’ that a central issue between EU and conventional astrophysics circles around the relationship between magnetic fields and electrical currents, and whether the former can exist in absence of the latter, sort of ‘cart vs horse’ issue…
    I appreciate your clear explanation of the ‘conventional position’ regards acceleration of particles from the sun, as it potentially forms a basis whereby I can examine the postulates of the EU writings I come across: – Do they actually directly address this element and bring forward ‘falsifiable’ theory to offer cogent alternative explanations!? (albeit that as I understand it, the EU folk are still in process of designing scalable laboratory experiments to address this. Funding such, is another hurdle for them, though should they achieve funding doesn’t indicate anything regards ‘results’, of course. I suppose we’ll see, eventually, either way – many of the leading proponents seem very sober and serious about tackling these basic solar physics questions)

    2) I saw after your kind and direct answers to Bob Weber preceding my earlier comment and somewhat regretted my comments about your ‘attitude’ in your responses to some others, in my posting. – I realize that there are longstanding debates around solar issues here, as it impacts our earthly weather most specifically, and that there must be a lot of ‘history’ between those of strong opinions with some degree of scientific background and yourself. Unfortunately I couldn’t ‘map’ the positions of the various posters here, and also see that some folk are very confrontational with you without bringing forward much of substance.
    I’ve experienced the same in the past in other forums, politics, history, and ID most specifically. It can be very frustrating, dealing with the committed and vociferous ‘misinformed’…
    All the Best to you in the New Year
    David S.
    ps: – If you’ve not come across the work of Professor Gerald Pollack at U of Washington with water as a dipole factoring into cloud and thunderstorm formation, I believe you might find it intriguing – it certainly seems to add a significant possible element to our understanding of what drives weather, with possibly many implications for electrical energy circulation throughout the atmosphere. And there seems to be some exciting data coming to the table regards solar hydrogen in the ‘wind’ possibly interacting with O2 erupting off the ionosphere at the thermopause – Starwater, if you will, and a partial explanation of the seemingly ubiquitous presence of H2O where never before expected in our solar system, and well beyond. Exciting times of discovery, IMHO.

  115. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:56 am
    how those solar particles accelerate from the sun to the edge of heliosphere and beyond. What forces are at play there? Why don’t they slow down and stop somewhere sooner?
    The solar wind is accelerated to supersonic speed because of gravity weakening with distance. Same principle as in a deLaval rocket nozzle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

    And so where is the throat of the nozzle?

  116. lsvalgaard says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Chris Reeve says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:59 pm
    Real critical thinking means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral assumptions;
    None of which are relevant for science.
    – - – - – -
    Dr. Svalgaard: – I must demure. My nephew is now out of Stanford and other post-grad work at MIT, and working (at very impressive pay) for the Defence Industry, sharing (w/o details) that some of the breakthroughs with which he is involved have major implications for social control by the Establishment. How can he divorce his career and research decisions, as a scientist, from the social, political and moral assumptions. Not judging, just asking?
    Doesn’t your statement imply that simply by achieving a certain level of peer acceptance ‘as a scientist’ one is exempt from the strictures that maintain the social compact? {And here I must agree with Chris Reeve in regards the often utter lack of education and training in the Humanities among many scientists} I don’t buy it, if so – because it sounds all-too-much like that hackneyed quote: – “I was only following orders”…etc. (not invoking ‘Godwin’s Law’, mark you ;-) )
    My post- studies were interdisciplinary – and I’ve certainly come to believe that compartmentalization in science has potential to lead to presently unimaginable horrors, not for ‘others’, but for ourselves, our families and loved ones. Science is not ‘an end unto itself’ – in my opinion. It is an exploration of the mystery of our existence wherein the ‘scientist’ has responsibility to represent, via his talent and skill in the ‘scientific method’, the interests and curiosity of collective humanity. To me, this cannot proceed without the individual scientist integrating his social, political and moral assumptions within the course of his research, especially as we advance in our abilities to self-immolate. These aspects of ‘humanity’ are integral to what it means to be a scientist, the responsibility unavoidable.
    In the alternative, the rest of society would have the full right to deny access to tools to those scientists who do not feel this representative responsibility. Would you feel comfortable being so examined before being funded or let near work in your discipline?
    I’m quite certain you would not. Nor do I believe for an instant that you do not fully engage your perspective over social, political and moral assumptions each and every day in your work. Those scientists who do not are in my opinion like reckless children who have broken into their parents’ gun cabinet (and likely insane; socio or psychopathic) – they need to be disarmed.

    As to those scientists, and we see them all too evident and frequently within the CAGW community, whose temperament and immature and untrained thinking processes allow them to project their social, political, and moral assumptions on to others, compromising their scientific integrity to achieve those ends in the process? They can battle it out with those scientists with clearer balance and recognition of their own inherent biases who do not deviate from their principal mandate to honestly present data and research postulates: – While scientific debate is still allowed, they’ll be sorted out soon enough, or sooner or later.

  117. Brant Ra says:
    December 27, 2013 at 12:48 am
    ….And so where is the throat of the nozzle?
    Might that be at the Z-Pinch? ;-)

  118. Tiburon says:
    and that there must be a lot of ‘history’ between those of strong opinions with some degree of scientific background and yourself. Unfortunately I couldn’t ‘map’ the positions of the various posters here, and also see that some folk are very confrontational with you without bringing forward much of substance.

    In case you are alluding to my longstanding exchanges with Dr. S, my position is an easy one to ‘map’. As an engineer in the decades past, now with some time to spare, I for fun and personal enjoyment and possible peripheral information to others, comb through data from half a dozen or so reputable institution, and plot on the same time base.
    More often than not no physical mechanism for possible link is postulated, but many may assume that I imply existence of one.
    At qualification of what is shown in this link

    is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.

    despite a great respect I have for Dr. S, I look at with a light-hearted amusements (previous attributes include: incapable of learning, extreme cyclomaniac, man of superior ignorance and a danger to society), however I do not subscribe to the EU ideas and strictly keep out.

  119. Tiburon says:
    December 27, 2013 at 1:02 am
    Science is not ‘an end unto itself’ – in my opinion. It is an exploration of the mystery of our existence wherein the ‘scientist’ has responsibility to represent, via his talent and skill in the ‘scientific method’, the interests and curiosity of collective humanity. To me, this cannot proceed without the individual scientist integrating his social, political and moral assumptions within the course of his research, especially as we advance in our abilities to self-immolate. These aspects of ‘humanity’ are integral to what it means to be a scientist, the responsibility unavoidable.

    I most strongly disagree. We all have the same responsibilities as individuals, but science itself should – must – proceed without regard to social, political, or moral assumptions, otherwise these become limits and borders.

  120. Re: social morality and scientific pursuit. Indeed they become dangerously entwined unless completely barred from cohabitation in search of scientific knowledge and exploration. The human brain is fully equipped to bring open doors as well as limits to the search for scientific knowledge at great peril to Earth and all that resides here. To think otherwise is symbolic of our naive habits of thought.

  121. To wit: great advances have been made in disease management because we now understand evolutionary connections between humans and primates and we use that knowledge to explore disease. Yet many “socially moral” scientists and politicians would have barred such understandings.

  122. Scientific research should have no limits; application of the results is responsibility of the powers to be.

  123. Dogma is as “dangerous” as pseudo-science. Those who engage in either do not believe that is what they are doing. IMHO, dogmatic entrenchment has done more harm, than “pseudo-science”.

  124. David Ball says:
    December 27, 2013 at 7:34 am
    Dogma is as “dangerous” as pseudo-science. Those who engage in either do not believe that is what they are doing. IMHO, dogmatic entrenchment has done more harm, than “pseudo-science”.
    How do you define ‘dogma’? I know hundreds of scientists personally, and have never encountered one who was ‘dogmatic’ [in my view of what that means]. I have met many who are wrong, mistaken, pig-headed, mendacious, egotistical, etc [the list of human foibles is long], but ‘dogmatic’? Never.

  125. lsvalgaard says:
    “I most strongly disagree. We all have the same responsibilities as individuals, but science itself should – must – proceed without regard to social, political, or moral assumptions, otherwise these become limits and borders.”

    Right on that one, Leif, the real problem becomes, whose concepts of “social, political, or moral assumptions” will run the show. Bad idea. Like communism/socialism/facism or what passes for democracy in many countries, or any other control oriented government, the espoused goals may sound and “feel” good but the controllers inevitably get out of control. The majority of people always seem willing to trade their freedom for promises of security which they never receive. Kind of like keeping us safe from the nonexistent threat of gloabal warming.

  126. The book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich describes “social morality and scientific pursuit” becoming dangerously entwined.

    Social morality should learn from scientific pursuit, but should never be its master. The consequences are often devastating when it does.

  127. RockyRoad says:
    December 27, 2013 at 7:50 am
    “The book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich describes “social morality and scientific pursuit” becoming dangerously entwined.

    Social morality should learn from scientific pursuit, but should never be its master. The consequences are often devastating when it does.”

    I do not believe there is any such thing as “social morality”, individual morality, yes, but as a group people show their ignorance and weakness, the average IQ being what it is, by rushing to the best liars and scam artists, be they politicians or religous leaders. And again, always being willing to believe the lie which makes them feel most comfotable.

  128. A good example of believing the lie is the very concept that we insect sized creatures crawling around on the 30% of our planet which is not covered by water are somehow significantly impacting climate change which has been going on for eons and further believing that given the vast natural processes involved we could do anything about that perpetual changing of of climate.

  129. Dr. Svalgaard, if you don’t mind a few more questions…

    Why is the escape velocity temperature for “lighter” electrons so much higher than the “heavier” protons? Are there any times when temperatures are lower than 1.5 million K when protons would leave the sun in higher proportions than electrons (if the temperature isn’t high enough for electrons to escape)? Do the satellites measure electron speeds, proton speeds, and relative proportions separately?

    Moving on, from wikipedia:

    “A Van Allen radiation belt is one of at least two layers of energetic charged particles (plasma) that is held in place around the planet Earth by the planet’s magnetic field. The belts extend from an altitude of about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers above the surface in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[1] The belts are named after their discoverer, James Van Allen, and are located in the inner region of the Earth’s magnetosphere. The belts contain energetic electrons that form the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons that form the inner belt.”

    Question: Why do the Van Allen belts exist and persist? What are the mechanisms? Isn’t there charge separation between the negative electrons in the outer belt and the positive protons in the inner belt, and if so, why isn’t that considered a type of “double layer”? Wouldn’t the ever-present solar wind continually load-up the belts with electrons and protons into ever higher densities? What do these electrons and protons do, and where do they go as the layer densities build-up?

    Further, you said:

    “Once the solar wind has escaped it doesn’t really slow down until it meets the interstellar medium [some 110 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth] at which point the velocity indeed will slow to 0 km/sec.”

    If the electrons and protons slow down to 0 km/sec, wouldn’t they build-up at the heliospheric boundary, in a similar fashion as they apparently do in the Van Allen belts, along with neutral hydrogen atoms? If so, how do they behave when they build-up at the heliospheric boundary?

    As you were saying here,

    “The IEF is purely a local effect created when the solar wind hits the Earth’s magnetic field: positive charges are deflected one way around the Earth, and negative charges are deflected the other way. The resulting electric current neutralizes/closes by flowing through the ionosphere giving rise to aurorae and associated magnetic disturbances.”

    Is it not conceivable that there exists a heliospheric magnetosphere like the earth’s magnetosphere? If so, wouldn’t the electrons and protons deflect into opposite directions around the heliosphere like they do around the earth, and wouldn’t that result in an electric current around the heliosphere, and if so, wouldn’t it neutralize/close at the sun’s poles? If not, where and how?

  130. Here I compare two sets of data:
    Atlantic Multidecadal Osculation and the number of major tectonic events recorded in the far North Atlantic

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-NAT.htm

    Since it was not considered elsewhere it can not be said that causal link exist, equally it can not be summarily dismissed.
    Apparent correlation can be considered as a coincidence, or it can be considered as numerology, but is it pseudoscience?

    Exclusions: Pseudoscience does not include most obsolete scientific or medical theories, nor does it include every idea that currently lacks sufficient scientific evidence.

    Patently, Dr. Svalgaard dismissal as ‘pseudoscience’ doesn’t hold.

  131. Bob Weber says:
    December 27, 2013 at 8:29 am
    if you don’t mind a few more questions…
    Sounds like you are fishing for confirmation of some wishful thinking :-)

    Why is the escape velocity temperature for “lighter” electrons so much higher than the “heavier” protons?
    Those temperatures are for the place where the solar wind escapes and electrons are lighter and thus easier to get to move faster [=higher temp.], but temperature is a measure of random movements, not in any specific direction [as away from the Sun].

    Do the satellites measure electron speeds, proton speeds, and relative proportions separately?
    Generally not, as the instruments are often built to measure specific properties.

    Question: Why do the Van Allen belts exist and persist? What are the mechanisms?
    If you inject charged particles into space around a magnetic dipole, there are orbits in which the particles can get trapped. While being so, they bounce back and forth between the north and south poles.

    isn’t that considered a type of “double layer”?
    Double layers separate plasmas with different properties and are very thin. In the magnetosphere a double layer would only be a few hundred meters thick. The Van Allen Belts are not double layers.

    Wouldn’t the ever-present solar wind continually load-up the belts with electrons and protons into ever higher densities? What do these electrons and protons do, and where do they go as the layer densities build-up?
    Particles are continuously lost from the Belts, by collisions and by interactions with various types of waves, so have only a limited lifetime in the belts.

    If the electrons and protons slow down to 0 km/sec, wouldn’t they build-up at the heliospheric boundary
    They do build up a bit [into something called the Hydrogen Wall], but since the heliosphere is moving ]at about 20 km/sec] with respect to the interstellar medium, the stopped solar wind is eventually blown away [like smoke from a chimney when there is a wind blowing].

    Is it not conceivable that there exists a heliospheric magnetosphere like the earth’s magnetosphere? If so, wouldn’t the electrons and protons deflect into opposite directions around the heliosphere like they do around the earth, and wouldn’t that result in an electric current around the heliosphere,
    The heliosphere is a kind of ‘solar system magnetosphere’ seen from the view of the interstellar medium, but a much more dynamic beast as the direction of the magnetic field changes every week or so leaving little room for organized structures.

    wouldn’t it neutralize/close at the sun’s poles? If not, where and how?
    Particles cannot travel ‘upstream’ in the solar wind as the wind is highly ‘supersonic’ [at Earth the ‘Mach Number’ is about 10.

  132. vukcevic says:
    December 27, 2013 at 8:58 am
    Apparent correlation can be considered as a coincidence, or it can be considered as numerology, but is it pseudoscience?
    It is pseudo-science when the correlation is presented without clear description of the variables, without analysis of errors, and without estimate of statistical significance. As usual, you qualify on all points.

  133. lsvalgaard says:
    December 27, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Variables are there and the actual numbers will be published, then anyone can do statistics, if so inclined; however statistical analysis of errors and estimate of statistical significance do not make any difference either there is a causal link or there is not !

    Reserving judgment is one thing (expected from a true sceptical scientist) but suggesting that one day it is monster that rears its ugly head…. providing a deplorable shadowy disservice and the next respectable science is a judgment of no value.
    Have a happy new year.

  134. Re: “Real critical thinking means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral assumptions;
    None of which are relevant for science.”

    It’s perhaps not surprising that things like values lose their appeal when mathematics becomes the only way to judge ideas in science. Mathematics values accuracy. Critical and creative thinking are thrown away because they quite obviously fail to service accuracy. This is the same approach to science that was on display at the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (BAUT) forum. It’s the perfect system for killing innovation in science, and it’s lack of any philosophical complexity makes it palatable to middle schoolers. This worldview might have been a solution to problems which you faced when you were growing up, but today, critical and creative problem-solving are becoming the more pressing need.

    Hopefully I am not the first to tell you this, but your description of science is not a vision for the future of science which the larger public will ever accept. You’ve honestly taken the specialist physicist training too far for most people to relate to. Just as a philosopher cannot understand science by only studying philosophy, neither can a physicist come to understand how he taints his own inferences and observations without cultivating the broadest education available to him. The unfortunate fact that many people don’t learn until it’s too late is that the choices we make about what to ignore tend to largely determine the conclusions we arrive at — as well as how useful they are in the real world.

    And just to be clear, this desire which artificially motivates you (and many others) to reduce the number of cosmological options to choose from is a fundamental observation in psychology which relates to both how people buy things they are unfamiliar with and how people choose scientific models they are unfamiliar with. There is in truth no pressing need to reduce our cosmological options. This is your subconscious simply exerting pressure on you to reduce the number of choices to have to learn about, because it takes effort to learn about them.

    One more thing: There is no philosophical sense whatsoever to pursuing an ad hoc approach to the conventional models to the point where you are left with only 5% baryonic matter, while simultaneously refusing to investigate whether cosmic plasma might simply behave as the laboratory plasma — in that both exhibit E-fields, a minute electrical resistance, pinches, Birkeland Currents, and so on. The argument that you and others like Tom Bridgman put forth for the public takes advantage of the fact that the public doesn’t generally understand what a plasma is, how they are modeled, and how these models differ from what we see in the laboratory. The BAUT way is to position this as not even something which people should investigate, as if the idea that cosmic plasmas and laboratory plasmas might operate on the basis of the same principles is just a completely preposterous idea.

    Which aspect of the scientific methodology convinced you to invite others to refuse to question assumptions? The Jeff Schmidt quotes are critical for the public’s attempts to understand where this worldview comes from, insofar as they demonstrate that these are cultural cues which are being taught today at all of our universities in order to create workers who have assignable curiosity. Large organizations need thinkers who can work within an assigned context, so universities train physicists to refuse to question the social, political and moral assumptions that go into their work. If it was any other way, scientific and technological progress would tend to be marked by upheaval.

    Leif, scientists (in theory at least) opt for forced induction — we try all possibilities, with the consequence that many will knowingly turn out to be failures — rather than free induction, what animals do, because it’s a faster way to arrive at the answer. But, the history of science appears to be littered with obstructionists who very plainly seem to be allergic to the rate of change which this worldview naturally leads to. Leif, if you love science as much as you claim to, then realize that part of the implication of science is that it leads to rapid change, and that this necessarily means that many of our most cherished ideas will inevitably fail to lead anywhere. If you’ve never asked yourself that question about Dark Matter — as seems to be the case — then you’re not engaging the subject of science at the level that most of the people around you already are.

    Re: “How do you define ‘dogma’? I know hundreds of scientists personally, and have never encountered one who was ‘dogmatic’ [in my view of what that means]. I have met many who are wrong, mistaken, pig-headed, mendacious, egotistical, etc [the list of human foibles is long], but ‘dogmatic’? Never.

    The very point of the danger of dogma is that it tends to be invisible to our rational minds.

  135. Chris Reeve says:
    December 27, 2013 at 11:07 am
    It’s perhaps not surprising that things like values lose their appeal when mathematics becomes the only way to judge ideas in science. Mathematics values accuracy. Critical and creative thinking are thrown away because they quite obviously fail to service accuracy.
    This is totally wrong. The only real judge in science is whether observations agree with theory [and especially with predictions made with such]. Science is the embodiment of the utmost critical thinking and progress depends on creative thinking [constrained by the reality of observations].

    But, the history of science appears to be littered with obstructionists who very plainly seem to be allergic to the rate of change which this worldview naturally leads to. Leif, if you love science as much as you claim to, then realize that part of the implication of science is that it leads to rapid change, and that this necessarily means that many of our most cherished ideas will inevitably fail to lead anywhere.
    Any scientist worth his salt wants to change the prevailing worldview, and all realize that beneath our most cherished theories lies yet another layer of ‘truth’ waiting to be discovered. Where you go wrong is to assume that “our most cherished ideas will inevitably fail to lead anywhere”. On the contrary, we proceed to the deeper layers from the bedrock of the current ones.

    danger of dogma is that it tends to be invisible to our rational minds
    It is obviously clearly visible to those who accuse others of being dogmatic, so you are not quite consistent here.
    As I said before, you can only criticize that of which you have sufficient knowledge.

  136. vukcevic says:
    December 27, 2013 at 11:03 am
    Variables are there and the actual numbers will be published, then anyone can do statistics, if so inclined; however statistical analysis of errors and estimate of statistical significance do not make any difference either there is a causal link or there is not !
    This is like saying that there is a 50% chance that I win the lottery: either I win or I do not.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
    “Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status” … “those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience usually dispute the characterization”.

    You fully qualify.

  137. Re: “The only real judge in science is whether observations agree with theory [and especially with predictions made with such]. Science is the embodiment of the utmost critical thinking and progress depends on creative thinking [constrained by the reality of observations].”

    Ah, so what you’re saying is that you view the scientific method as just one single process with just one set of values. And yet, in making that determination, you’ve ignored the fact that asking questions and developing models exhibit two competing sets of values. When we ask questions — if our interest is to ask good ones — then we must go out of our way to value creative and critical thinking, and we must relax our immediate need for accuracy in order to come up with new promising ideas. Your approach to science tends to value the process of elaborating models, which values a fit between observations and theory (accuracy). But what you’re still struggling to grasp is that your decision to view the scientific method as just one single process is biasing your entire approach to science towards the elaboration of existing models. You perceive that a choice must be made — between being “scientific” and not — and this perception that there is only one process at play in the scientific methodology then undermines your ability to to ask good questions. By mistaking these two very different processes — one fundamentally intended to diverge and the other to converge — as if they should exhibit the same set of values, you’ve created the very problem which you then must solve: A lack of innovation and creative solutions.

    If you had simply spent some time away from your intense focus upon science itself, you might read about the process of innovation. Talk to a designer you might run into about how they do innovation. What they will tell you is that they switch between these two distinct processes of divergence and convergence. This cycling back and forth between these two very different states of thinking is absolutely fundamental to the process of originating and elaborating new ideas. Science is not somehow unique in this regard. It follows the same patterns of innovation we see everywhere else.

    Here’s a thought: Have you considered that ALL models go through a stage of infancy where they are vulnerable to arguments that they have not been elaborated? What makes the Electric Universe model unique? Are you picking on it simply because it’s a new idea?

    Re: “Where you go wrong is to assume that “our most cherished ideas will inevitably fail to lead anywhere”. On the contrary, we proceed to the deeper layers from the bedrock of the current ones.”

    But, then you seem to be simply ignoring the instances which don’t make your case — like aether, spontaneous generation, and a very lengthy list of ideas which have simply been abandoned over time.

    Are you aware that parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way? All distances beyond that are inferred based upon the theory itself. Does it really make any sense to ascribe the same level of certainty to cosmology as it does to our more terrestrial endeavors? Have you ever, for instance, contemplated how exactly a person might disprove the notion of a black hole? Each time that new features are observed, they are simply integrated into the theory. Do such problems ever invite you to question the underlying science itself?

  138. Chris Reeve says:
    December 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm
    When we ask questions — if our interest is to ask good ones — then we must go out of our way to value creative and critical thinking, and we must relax our immediate need for accuracy in order to come up with new promising ideas.
    Not at all. We ask questions to improve the accuracy, so we must sharpen the need for accuracy from the outset.

    you’ve created the very problem which you then must solve: A lack of innovation and creative solutions.
    Again, not at all. Science is not innovation. Mother Nature sets strict limits within which we must stay. Einstein once said it clearly when he wondered whether God had any choice in fashioning his Creation.

    This cycling back and forth between these two very different states of thinking is absolutely fundamental to the process of originating and elaborating new ideas.
    Again, not at all. New ideas are with very few exceptions born out of discrepancies between new data and old ideas or of new data without old ideas explaining them

    Here’s a thought: Have you considered that ALL models go through a stage of infancy where they are vulnerable to arguments that they have not been elaborated?
    No, a new model is by definition better than the old one from the very beginning. That is why it was made.

    What makes the Electric Universe model unique? Are you picking on it simply because it’s a new idea?
    What makes it different [not unique, there are other bad stuff out there, e.g. Creationism] is that it never has made any quantitative predictions and is in blatant disagreement with observations.

    But, then you seem to be simply ignoring the instances which don’t make your case — like aether, spontaneous generation, and a very lengthy list of ideas which have simply been abandoned over time.
    These ideas were steps on the way to where we are now. Without them we would be nowhere.

    Are you aware that parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way? All distances beyond that are inferred based upon the theory itself. Does it really make any sense to ascribe the same level of certainty to cosmology as it does to our more terrestrial endeavors?
    But nobody does that. Each step on the ‘distance ladders’ is carefully connected and calibrated to the previous steps. And everywhere we look we see the same laws of nature operating.

    Have you ever, for instance, contemplated how exactly a person might disprove the notion of a black hole? Each time that new features are observed, they are simply integrated into the theory.
    I don’t think you have any idea about this. The theory does not allow any old arbitrary feature. One potential problem that is unresolved is the lack of reconciliation with Quantum Mechanics. But both General Relativity and QM have survived all our clever tricks of finding flaws.

    Do such problems ever invite you to question the underlying science itself?
    To question the underlying science one must first KNOW the underlying science. And scientists are constantly examining and questioning the ‘accepted’ paradigm in the hope of finding that it breaks down. Everybody wants to prove Einstein wrong.

  139. lsvalgaard says:
    December 27, 2013 at 11:27 am
    ………
    If this is such a rubbish, why so much hassle with the ‘pseudoscience’, just say it is a “worthless rubbish”.
    But, of course you would, if it was not self-evident that it is not, so you roll out hubristic hilarious hysterics :Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice., strait out of 1950s ‘suppression of ideological subversion’ manual.
    End of another day, end of another pseudo-discourse.

  140. Thank you again Dr. Svalgaard. It’s been a pleasure discussing the solar wind with you. Perhaps the particle density at the heliosphere is insufficient to organize as you say, I don’t know. Plasma is said to operate similarly at various scales, that’s why I ask the questions, to get a better picture of the reality as we know it today.

    As the sun moves through the galaxy, the Earth moves in space too, so the same principles you spoke of in your chimney smoke example (excuse me while I go stoke the fireplace…) might apply to the solar wind around the Earth, right? Earth and the heliosphere are both immersed in an ever-changing magnetic environment.

    As the solar system flies though the galaxy, the leading edge of the heliospheric bubble will stream electrons, protons, and hydrogen towards the trailing edge (because at 0 km/sec, they have no more forward momentum), and would that not create electric currents? Hubble photos are full of twisted filaments at many scales, and the heliosphere trailing edge (magnetotail) might look like many of those space photos at the right wavelengths. Presently I have no information to believe the sun recycles electrons or protons from the heliosphere boundary. Perhaps it recycles “charge” at some foundational level.

    Again, the electric weather I will be talking about in the future is what happens in our atmosphere as a result of solar wind impacts of photons, protons, and electrons, and I would be remiss to miss any chance to better understand solar wind dynamics and their implications. Thanks for being here. I’ll be back.

  141. Chris Reeve says: – …
    Chris: – An epistemological tour de force, pretty well everything you’ve written here at the thread’s end. I admire your elegant description of the ‘cycling’ of scientific research between divergence and convergence to advance theoretical understandings, much akin to Thomas Kuhn’s thought in this area. And no, one does NOT need to be an ‘expert knower’ of any particular science to participate in this process; it is in fact often the very obstacle that prevents such advance, the history of science being rife with examples.

    Sorry Dr Svalgaard – I’ll appoint myself an ‘independent arbiter’ and pronounce that it’s clear Chris has a background and rigour of thought that outclasses your self-analysis of what constitutes the process of scientific advancement. This is in no way any comment on your skills in your own discipline, elucidating and refining existing paradigm.
    There’s an old expression, “does the fish know it is in water?” The very arguments you bring forward to support your position clearly evidence, to the neutral observer, the very thought processes and bias towards status quo of which Chris tries to warn against, as being little conducive to scientific breakthrough.

    Bob Weber says,
    … “I’ll be back”
    Thank you for bringing forward many of the questions that trouble me, in regards conventional astrophysics response to the reality of the burgeoning EU worldview’s emergence on to the scientific stage {well, more properly, RE-emergence – as much of the ‘bedrock’ has been laid down well over a century ago}. And kudos to Dr Svalgaard for engaging very competently in presenting that conventional position, of course.
    I look forward to your future postings, focusing more on the reality and implications of electrical interactions between near-space and our terrestrial sphere.

    vukcevic says, …
    Thank you for clarifying the ‘backstory’ of the longstanding debate between you and Dr Svalgaard, and what you endeavour to bring forward here. I’m not sure I can quite appreciate your standing aside from the whole EU thing, but do respect your right to do so. That it is ‘pseudo science’ it clearly is most certainly not; more like a huge Question Mark smack in the middle of our path to knowledge and understanding of ‘how it all works’.

    To All – Don’t know if someone has brought this to this forum’s attention already: –

    I’ve been following the ‘non-scientist’ (what’s that?) fellow who produces the 3min daily ‘world and space weather reports’ on Youtube and who’s audience has grown to the hundreds of thousands in but a couple of years. (158,000 subscribers) (not the only solar weather clearing site I follow, that said)
    Ben is very respectful and measured in his opinions while he attempts to offer pathways to tools for self-education to his audience. He obviously follows and respects Professor Svalgaard’s work, having recently linked to the Doctor’s recent appearance at the AGU discussing the “weak sun”, though I suppose the respect might not be ‘reciprocal’ (would be interested in hearing Dr Svalgaard’s thoughts on his diligent work). I would do him a tremendous disservice to attempt to describe his developing predictive theory of tectonic disturbance as influenced by changes in activity of Our Sun [namely by coronal holes, CME's and planetary alignments, mostly] – go look if you are interested – but statistically he is surpassing 80% accuracy in predicting +6.0 Earthquakes. Pretty Impressive. http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
    Eyes Open. No Fear.

  142. David Ball says:
    December 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
    Just as EU.

    vukcevic says:
    December 27, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    If this is such a rubbish, why so much hassle with the ‘pseudoscience’, just say it is a “worthless rubbish”.
    ‘pseudo-science’ is a subset ‘of worthless rubbish’ but has the additional quality of being insidious especially when peddled incessantly.

  143. Tiburon says:
    December 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    I admire your elegant description of the ‘cycling’ of scientific research between divergence and convergence to advance theoretical understandings
    No matter how elegant, it is nevertheless dead wrong. Might I ask how many scientific discoveries either one of you have ever made? I have made some, and know the process in-and-out. To make a discovery you do not first lose the accuracy and adopt a ‘woolly’ stance. On the contrary, you sharpen and focus the view to drive up the accuracy.

  144. A little cinematic drama this evening? (and fun!)
    “Do not allow yourself to cheat” (rough translation from the Russian which is in itself much fun to read.
    When I first saw this a year ago, the hackles on the back of my neck stood up, and my eyes watered. Y’know? That feeling you get when all the pieces just seem to fall into place?
    My take-away – we never come back to the same place twice…and apparently, we’re definitely ‘on the way to….somewhere’.

  145. Tiburon says:
    December 27, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    the hackles on the back of my neck stood up, and my eyes watered. Y’know? That feeling you get when all the pieces just seem to fall into place?
    If that is so, no wonder you are taking in by Vuk’s nonsense. My eyes also watered, but from sadness over how low the scientific literacy of many of the general public have sunk.

  146. Dr Svalgaard – Would insight into the internal psychology of another human being count as “a discovery”? Derived through linguistic and syntactical analysis? If so, guess I’d have to count one (1), this very evening!
    But perhaps you would say that too is the realm of ‘pseudo-science’, being, umm…not of YOUR discipline?
    As much as anyone I suppose, I’m deeply uncomfortable having my assumptions challenged. I’ve said as much, in different ways, above. But how else to grow? To not stagnate?
    One of my areas of study was in the area of the ‘history of science’, lo some 40 years ago now.
    I got good grades. To answer a question with a question: – how many courses have you taken, papers written (let alone published), in this area? None?
    Well, unlike you, I’m not led to invalidate your expressed opinion because you haven’t done so.
    I try to take everything I meet and learn of, “on the merits”. OK?
    And yes, I’m ‘reacting’ a little, not ‘responding’. So shoot me. Your last comment was specifically what I was talking about earlier on this thread, Leif (may I call you Leif? I’m David).
    It’s rude to attack people in the way you just did, as well as argumentatively fallacious.

    It’s hard to learn to think clearly, takes a lot of work. I do not pretend that I’m even a beginner in the process – I just recognize it is a necessary process, and one that I was NOT taught in school, nor, extrapolating, were any of my contemporaries save perhaps a few truly Classically educated.
    Much a ‘lost art’.
    Sorry for any ‘sting’ – but I’m not taking it back this time.

  147. DR SVALGAARD!!!!
    That last little youtube ditty was meant as Friday Fun! I’m a trained musician and happen to like “Two Steps From Hell” and the piece of vid was elegantly staged, given likely done on a laptop. There’s some interesting ‘food for thought’ in it, too (what? the Sun DOESN’T move through the local Galaxy??) – but can you distinguish between the serious, and a joke? Geeeeeze!

  148. I have to do some reading so won’t be here to reply. I’m not ‘running away’ or doing troll-ish driveby. Lighten up everyone! (me too…I know I know)

  149. Tiburon says:
    December 27, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    One of my areas of study was in the area of the ‘history of science’, lo some 40 years ago now.
    I got good grades. To answer a question with a question: – how many courses have you taken, papers written (let alone published), in this area? None?

    Here is a recent one: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf or this one http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO-23,%20Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf

    It’s rude to attack people in the way you just did, as well as argumentatively fallacious.
    So be it. The truth is rarely appreciated.

    Sorry for any ‘sting’ – but I’m not taking it back this time.
    Your stings are mild. An honest sting is better than a lame taking-it-back.

    Tiburon says:
    December 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    but can you distinguish between the serious, and a joke?
    From your comments it is at times hard. I thought your post was in character, well aligned with your other comments.

  150. Tiburon says:
    December 27, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    As much as anyone I suppose, I’m deeply uncomfortable having my assumptions challenged.
    I am not. This is a normal situation for any scientist. Assumptions, claims, findings, what have you, are challenged every single day. One simply meets the challenge the best one can. Science is self-correcting and if one’s assumptions have merit they will prevail [for a while], and if not, they are best buried and forgotten. There is no stigma attached to that [for most scientists - although some may be more human in that respect than others].

  151. “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” – Tolstoy

  152. David Ball says:
    December 27, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions …”
    Perfect characterization of the EU cult. You are very perceptive today.

  153. Tiburon, I appreciate your supportive comments. Please remember how gracious and open Dr. Svalgaard was here in giving of his knowledge and opinions.

  154. Bob Weber says:
    December 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    “Tiburon, I appreciate your supportive comments. Please remember how gracious and open Dr. Svalgaard was here in giving of his knowledge and opinions.”

    You are very welcome, Bob. And Yes, I will remember and appreciate. Thank you.
    I take no pleasure in the {somewhat facetiously described} “discovery”, earlier referred.
    To all, a Good Night, and Best of the New Year. May we all find in Peace and Joy, that which we are truly seeking. ds

  155. Alan McIntire says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:28 am

    Old’ un’ “climate change”, and Luke Warmist’s typo, “cmimate change” led me to a new
    portmanteau word to describe deliberate, unethical manipulation of date to get the climate change results you want” “crimate change”
    ——————————————————————–

    Ah the Chinese perspective, “crimate change”.

  156. As the end December is near, the SIDC non smoothed monthly SSN looks like ending on at about 80.
    Since this is solar related thread, before I proceed take a note of the following :
    What is shown in the link below may be by some considered as numerology and pseudo science.
    In less than 10 days time, it is exactly 10 years since publication of my solar formula approximation. According to some of the above statements the proof of an idea as scientifically valid it is its predictive ability. So you may ask, how did ‘solar formula’ do according to this metric? Well, you can see here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm

    Call it coincidence, numerology or whatever you wish, but may I remind you that at the time the top NASA scientists (Hathaway and Dikpati) were predicting SC24 as the highest ever.

  157. vukcevic says:
    December 28, 2013 at 7:07 am
    Call it coincidence, numerology or whatever you wish, but may I remind you that at the time the top NASA scientists (Hathaway and Dikpati) were predicting SC24 as the highest ever.
    They were as wrong as you are for cycle 20 and 10. So, both their and your ideas fail in predictive [or even descriptive] ability. This is the predictable fate of ‘predictions’ based on faulty science [them] and no science [you]. In addition you should not use the non-smoothed monthly SSN for comparison. If you do the maximum was 97 back in 2011. Hathaway at least has the honesty to admit he was wrong. You still have to get to that point.

    [Duped. Should the earlier comment be deleted? Mod]

  158. Hathaway at least has the honesty to admit he was wrong. You still have to get to that point.

    I did not predict anything so I do not need to explain or even less to apologise for any aberration, it is extrapolation of the formula that gives results; after all ‘the exception prove the rule’. At the time in 2003, I didn’t even realise that someone may show particular interest in the future values.
    I could certainly find a periodicity which could iron out anomaly, but that was not the point, the point was to link solar magnetic oscillation with clearly defined and accurately measured astronomical values for the two strongest sources of magnetic field within solar system.

    Solar magnetic oscillations periodicity = magnetic periodicity A + magnetic periodicity (A+B).

    The amplitude magnitude correlation of the solar cycles materialised itself as an unintended additional extra.
    Note: I do/did not work for NASA or for that matter anyone else, no financial benefit was acquired for the work I show here. Detailed science explanations are greatly appreciated, but demeaning comments are regularly dismissed.

  159. vukcevic says:
    December 28, 2013 at 8:38 am
    I did not predict anything so I do not need to explain or even less to apologise for any aberration, it is extrapolation of the formula that gives results
    If the science is valid the extrapolation should work both for the future and for the past. It does not, hence is not valid.

  160. Tiburon says:

    December 27, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    …My take-away – we never come back to the same place twice…and apparently, we’re definitely ‘on the way to….somewhere’…
    ——–

    My que..

    From the article above:
    “”However, the GEC is affected by the solar activity in a different way, via the interplanetary electric field (IEF), so that only positive IEF plays a role, while negative IEF does not. Positive IEF corresponds to a interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with a southward component, or negative z-component, which favors a direct energy transfer from solar wind to the magnetosphere and to ionosphere. For negative IEF (positive z-component of the IMF) the transfer is much less efficient and only a very small percentage of the solar wind energy is transferred to the magnetosphere (e.g. Dungey 1961, Papitashvili and Rich 2002, Siingh et al 2005). “”
    If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?

    Why do we say that earth’s magnetosphere is stationary? If the Earth is rotating and orbiting its field will twist and turn and blow back from headwind. If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?

    Back at Tiburon, The Moody Blues, from “On the Threshold of a Dream.”
    Have you heard (1), The Voyage and Have you heard (2)

    And Dr. S., pretty cool space images and time lapse set to some classical/rock. Note on Jupiter spot, you can see it break and spin off the EEJ (equatorial electro jet) of Jupiter. Might see a few things.

  161. Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 8:55 am
    If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?
    Yes, because the IEF is not a property of the solar wind or the sun, but rather results from interaction with the Earth.

    Why do we say that earth’s magnetosphere is stationary?
    Because both orbital and rotational speeds are so much smaller than that of the solar wind.

  162. If the science is valid the extrapolation should work both for the future and for the past. It does not, hence is not valid.

    Dr.S
    Once you finish all the past SSN numbers corrections my formula will fit perfectly with no exceptions apparent.

    Carla
    This is my favourite

  163. I found this very interesting. http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf
    In light of new data from the Voyager spacecraft, it posits that the Heliopause is a “virtual” Cathode and the Sun is an Anode…. The whole system as a cell imbedded within the electrically charged plasma of the galaxy and thus potentially powering the sun externally.

    [....Therefore the question arises why did Juergens only consider electron flow when he calculated the constituents of the total current in the solar plasma? It seems he was fixated on the electric circuit analogy wherein only electron flow is important. In the cosmos, there are no prohibitions against long distance travel of +ions. There are no signs that say, “No ions allowed beyond this point” as there are (figuratively) placed in front of cathodes in every lab discharge.
    Therefore, if we make the estimate that there are as many +ions moving near and through the Sun as there are electrons (the ‘quasi-neutral’ assumption), the requisite number of electrons can be cut in half. The required number of electrons to power the Sun electrically is thus one out of every 40,000 that the Sun takes in from its environment near the heliopause.
    Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis seems to be increasingly supported by every new bit of data NASA releases.
    D.E. Scott (June 2013)]

    For the full rundown on the EU hypothesis…. http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

  164. What about Earth’s “pre-reversal electric field,” (PRE) located at LOWER latitudes having an effect on cloud formation, high energy particles and the continuation of a fair weather global electric circuit?

    Effects of the South Atlantic Anomaly
    on the muon flux at sea level
    C. R. A. Augusto, J. B. Dolival, C. E. Navia, and K. H. Tsui
    …The magnetosphere’s dip is responsible for several processes,
    such as the high conductivity of the atmospheric layers due to the precipitation
    of energetic particles in this region and an zonal electric field known as the
    pre-reversal electric field (PRE) with an
    enhancement at evening hours. In addition the open magnetosphere, propitiate
    the magnetic reconnections of the IMF lines that will take place in this site in the
    day side. These factors are responsible for an unusually large particle flux present
    in the SAA region, including particles with energies above the pion production
    threshold. The main effect is an increase of the muon intensity (Eμ > 0.2GeV ) at
    ground, in the day side, in up to ten times. We show that it is correlated with the
    pre-reversal electric field, and propitiate the observation of muon enhancements
    due to small solar transient events, such as corotating interaction region (CIR)
    and micro-flares. Details of these results are reported in this paper.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3166.pdf

  165. From the article

    ..The precipitation of energetic particles on the SAA ionizing the high layers of the atmo-
    sphere and increasing their conductivity (Gledhill & Torr 1975; Paulikas 1975; Nishino et al.
    2002) and propitiating the appearance of an electric field, the pre-reversal electric field
    (PRE), with an enhancement at evening hours, the so called sunset enhancement. In fact,
    we show in this survey that there is a correlation in the hourly variation of the atmospheric
    conductivity gradient and the hourly variation of the muon intensity at ground, both present
    the so called sunset enhancement. In most cases the precipitation of the high energy par-
    ticles in the SAA region begins around 3 hours after the sunrise and it finishes around one
    hour after the sunset, these schedules are subject to periodic variations (they move with the
    seasons of the year).
    The low rigidity of response of the telescopes plus the fact that in the SAA region we
    have an almost open magnetosphere, and it propitiate the reconnection of the IMF lines,
    producing field lines with one end at the Earth and the other in distant space,..

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3166.pdf

  166. lsvalgaard says:

    December 28, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 8:55 am
    If the earths north pole were positive would the above be reversed?
    Yes, because the IEF is not a property of the solar wind or the sun, but rather results from interaction with the Earth.

    Why do we say that earth’s magnetosphere is stationary?
    Because both orbital and rotational speeds are so much smaller than that of the solar wind

    ——

    So then does Earth’s magnetic field also have a negative inward, positive outward component?

  167. Well I have been playing with the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA).
    They are suggesting that there is an anticyclonic sub surface flow producing the corresponding increase in monopole field strength in that region, at the same time the axial dipole strength weakens.
    Its (SAMA) increase in motion corresponds with the increase in motion in the magnetic north pole 1990-2000. The latter slowing down latitudinally around 2005 and started moving more longitudinally.
    Something creepy about the magnetic fields in the Solar System, starting early in 1990′s till now.

    Vuks hoping you have already seen this, if not check the sine wave in Figure 7.

    Equivalent monopole source of the geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly

    http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/5557/1/SAA_Monopole_Pageoph_rev3_in%20press.pdf

    Angelo De Santis1,2 and Enkelejda Qamili 1,3

    Some excerpts..
    …The fluid motions that produce the SAA in the deep
    outer core form an anticyclonic (i.e. counterclockwise) system underneath the Southern Hemisphere
    (Olson and Amit, 2006), analogous to typical persistent features emerging from turbulent, possibly
    chaotic flows (e.g., McWilliams, 1984). To our knowledge, SAA persistence is as long as the Great
    Red Spot on Jupiter’s atmosphere, an anticyclonic vortex that has been persistent for 300-400 years
    (e.g. Beebe, 1997)….

    Figure 5 shows a comparison between monopole and axial dipole geomagnetic fields at Earth
    surface from 1600 to 2000 (at steps of 50 years) from GUFM1 and IGRF at the centre of the
    obtained “monopolar” anomaly. We notice that changes of the axial field are counterbalanced by
    opposite changes of the monopole field: to the almost general decrease of the axial field
    corresponds a general increase of the monopolar field over all the period of study.

    Figure 6 shows the horizontal (latitude-longitude) path of the equivalent monopole for both
    GUFM1 and IGRF models at 25-year steps (exception the addition of 1990 for GUFM1). An
    apparent anticyclonic rotation of around 800 years of main period (half rotation in around 400
    years) is evident. This kind of anticyclonic (anticlockwise) regime is typical of the Southern
    Hemisphere as confirmed by previous results when analysed the corresponding generating flows at
    the CMB (e.g. Olson and Amit, 2006). Horizontal and vertical bars represent estimates of the errors
    of centre determination of the monopolar anomaly, decreasing from older epochs (±4o in latitude
    and longitude) to most recent ones (± 2o in latitude and longitude). It is worth noting as well a
    recent acceleration of the motion from 1990 to 2000: we do not know if this is just a mere
    coincidence or if this acceleration can be associated to recent accelerations of other features of the
    geomagnetic field, such as the geomagnetic poles (De Santis et al., 2007, 2008) and magnetic dip
    poles (Newitt et al., 2002 )…

  168. lsvalgaard says:

    December 28, 2013 at 11:25 am

    Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 11:20 am
    So then does Earth’s magnetic field also have a negative inward, positive outward component?
    Yes, inward in the North, outward in the South.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=VU8FhINYZle0xM&tbnid=JxkuSwEuF1weIM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fmagnetic%2Fmagearth.html&ei=eyW_UsnUAYbgoATel4GwAQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNEerEVHkU-OioAR7NSANqPA1rQdsQ&ust=1388345081401651

    _______

    thank you Dr. S.
    Wondering how many of us here didn’t think about this>
    Negative North inward
    Positive South outward

  169. Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 11:55 am
    Wondering how many of us here didn’t think about this>
    Negative North inward Positive South outward

    The pole in the Arctic is actually a magnetic south pole, and in Antarctica a magnetic north pole.
    So, the convention is: magnetic north pole = outward = positive; magnetic south pole = inward = negative.

  170. Carla
    You are starting to talk to yourself :)
    Thanks, yes I did see article very recently (someone linked to it), but I’ll look at it again. Solid part of the earth core is asymmetrical (it continuously melts on one side and crystallise on the opposite) and due to its differential rotation it affects the outer core circulation with anomalies shifting around.
    Some years ago I produced this geomagnetic chart

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC.htm

    which shows 4 centuries of variability, what I found interesting is that at 60S, 130E not far from current position of the ‘south’ (=north) magnetic pole the intensity stayed constant during that period.
    See also:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC6.htm

    I also proposed the idea that geo-field is driven by 3 conical termal circulation vortices

    more appropriate for a sphere than the current eccentric cylinders model.

  171. Just a couple of simple observations between Earths South Atlantic Anomaly and Jupiters red spot.
    Great Red Spot
    The Great Red Spot (GRS) is a persistent anticyclonic storm, 22° south of Jupiter’s equator; Earth observations establish a minimum storm lifetime of, variously, 183 years to possibly 348 years.[67][68] The storm is large enough to be visible through Earth-based telescopes, first being observed by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe in 1831 as a drawing of the gap formed around it, and possibly even earlier, as a “permanent spot” was described by Gian Domenico Cassini between 1665 and 1713. The actual spot has been continually described and observed since Carr Walter Pritchett did so in 1878.[69]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter

    “””…The Tupi experiment is at sea level and
    is located at 22S and 43W, which is close to the SAA center 26S and 53W….”””
    …”””This kind of anticyclonic (anticlockwise) regime is typical of the Southern
    Hemisphere as confirmed by previous results when analysed the corresponding generating flows at
    the CMB (e.g. Olson and Amit, 2006). …”””

    And the relationship with their EEJ Equatorial Electro Jet and solar activity. Or if you prefer solar wind variation effect..

    Movie Description
    A movie of the variation of the geomagnetic field at the surface of the Earth due to the ionsopheric current systems. The equatorial intensification of the magnetic field is due to the Equatorial Electrojet (EEJ). UT = universal time. The unit is nT (nano-Tesla). The movie was generated using a geomagnetic field model (CM4) . This was presented in a meeting in Potsdam, Germany in 2006.

  172. vukcevic says:

    December 28, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Carla
    You are starting to talk to yourself :)
    …I also proposed the idea that geo-field is driven by 3 conical termal circulation vortices

    more appropriate for a sphere than the current eccentric cylinders model.
    ———
    Check out figure 3 then..

    http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/5557/1/SAA_Monopole_Pageoph_rev3_in%20press.pdf

    “”””To find the depth of the anomalous monopole there are several methods. For instance, we could
    estimate it from the vertical derivative of the field. Figure 3 shows an example of this quantity (in
    nT/km) for the epoch 1600. The thicker circle covers the SAA area of interest: it is relevant to
    notice that this is the area of the world with greatest vertical gradient (>13nT/km) confirming that
    the corresponding source is the shallowest one among all sources of the non-axial dipole part of the
    main geomagnetic field. The very circular shape of the vertical gradient is another confirmation of a
    possible monopole-like type of the
    corresponding source.
    A good estimator of the monopole source
    depth is the distance between vertical gradient maximum and its half value (e.g. Telford et al.,
    1990): a rapid calculation provides an estimate of around 2800 km.””””

  173. Try and tie this up.. lol .. ok

    From our article above
    Clouds blown by solar wind
    …”””In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism…”””

    Auroral jets connected to the Equatorial jets hmm via the Interplanetary Electric Field IEF hmm

    The response of the dayside equatorial electrojet to step-like changes of IMF BZ

    S. Ohtani1,*, T. Uozumi2, H. Kawano2, A. Yoshikawa2,
    H. Utada3, T. Nagatsuma4, K. Yumoto2 17 JUN 2013

    1] The equatorial electrojet (EEJ) is driven by zonal electric fields, which are known to be well correlated with the interplanetary electric field and therefore with the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) BZ component. In the present study, we investigate how the equatorial H magnetic component, and therefore the EEJ, responds to step-like changes of IMF BZ. The reduction of southward IMF BZ (northward turning) and that of northward IMF BZ (southward turning) are examined separately. The result shows that for the northward turnings, the EEJ immediately starts to weaken with the accuracy of the estimates of the travel times of the IMF changes. The time constant of the response is much longer, and the equatorial H component decreases continuously by 40 nT for 30 min after the northward turnings. In contrast, the response of the EEJ to the southward turnings is far less clear in both magnitude and timing, and it does not depend on whether or not IMF BZ actually becomes southward. The difference in the EEJ response to the northward and southward turnings reflects at least partially the fact that the magnetosphere-ionosphere system is more sensitive to IMF BZ when IMF is southward than northward. It is suggested that the electric field penetrates from the polar region to the dip equator through a global current system that connects the auroral electrojets and the EEJ, and the ionospheric conductance in the polar region may play an important role in the formation of such a current system.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50318/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

  174. Sure hope you watched the movie of the EEJ and saw the dip in the dip equator, cus it sure looks like one helluva wave to me..

  175. Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    Try and tie this up.. lol .. ok
    Auroral jets connected to the Equatorial jets hmm via the Interplanetary Electric Field IEF hmm
    All these jets are in the ionosphere, not part of the climate or weather systems. No ‘hmm’s needed.

  176. lsvalgaard says:

    December 28, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    Try and tie this up.. lol .. ok
    Auroral jets connected to the Equatorial jets hmm via the Interplanetary Electric Field IEF hmm
    All these jets are in the ionosphere, not part of the climate or weather systems. No ‘hmm’s needed.
    ————————————
    What drives the Equatorial Electro Jet EEJ? Why the Equatorial Electric Field EEF. What drives the EEF?
    “”” ..Due to its importance, there is much interest in accurately measuring and modeling the EEF for both climatological and near real-time studies. The Swarm satellite mission ..”””
    You did notice the word ‘climatological’ Dr. S.?

    Swarm SCARF equatorial electric field inversion chain

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EP%26S…65.1309A

    Alken, P.; Maus, S.; Vigneron, P.; Sirol, O.; Hulot, G.

    Earth, Planets and Space, Volume 65, Issue 11, p. 1309-1317.

    The day-time eastward equatorial electric field (EEF) in the ionospheric E-region plays a crucial role in equatorial ionospheric dynamics. It is responsible for driving the equatorial electrojet (EEJ) current system, equatorial vertical ion drifts, and the equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA). Due to its importance, there is much interest in accurately measuring and modeling the EEF for both climatological and near real-time studies. The Swarm satellite mission offers a unique opportunity to estimate the equatorial electric field from measurements of the geomagnetic field. Due to the near-polar orbits of each satellite, the on-board magnetometers record a full profile in latitude of the ionospheric current signatures at satellite altitude. These latitudinal magnetic profiles are then modeled using a first principles approach with empirical climatological inputs specifying the state of the ionosphere. Since the EEF is the primary driver of the low-latitude ionospheric current system, the observed magnetic measurements can then be inverted for the EEF. This paper details the algorithm for recovering the EEF from Swarm geomagnetic field measurements. The equatorial electric field estimates are an official Swarm level-2 product developed within the Swarm SCARF (Satellite Constellation Application Research Facility). They will be made freely available by ESA after the commissioning phase.
    DOI: 10.5047/eps.2013.09.008

  177. Carla says:
    December 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    What drives the Equatorial Electro Jet EEJ? Why the Equatorial Electric Field EEF. What drives the EEF?
    Nothing special. Dynamo action produces an electric field in the E-layer [110 km altitude, magnetic effect discovered in 1722]. Because electrical conduction is easiest along the magnetic field than across it, the conductivity and hence the current [the electrojets] is larger where the magnetic field is horizontal, that is: in a narrow strip along the magnetic equator. That is the reason for the EEJ.

  178. Thanks Carla for continuing this discussion about electric/magnetic weather effects. Clearly we’re still learning about how it all really happens. The volume of papers on these topics is exploding, and even non-experts are noticing. As a degreed electrical engineer in circuits and systems, it’s been a fascinating intellectual journey thus far learning how much the weather and climate are modulated by the interaction of the solar wind and the GEC. I’m glad to see your fervor in seeking new ways of looking at things. Just think where we’d be today if we all took James Hansen’s and Steven Schnieder’s word on carbon dioxide weather-climate control uncritically. Look how long it’s taken to get to this point where we can be confident they were wrong.

  179. Bob Weber says:
    December 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    how much the weather and climate are modulated by the interaction of the solar wind and the GEC….Look how long it’s taken to get to this point where we can be confident they were wrong.
    I wonder how long it will take before you realize you are wrong. For example, there has been ‘No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926′ :

    http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf

    But weather/climate has changed rather much.

  180. Dr. Svalgaard, what I have said has nothing to do with any IEF, and I don’t know how long it will take for you to realize that.

  181. Bob Weber says:
    December 29, 2013 at 7:21 am
    what I have said has nothing to do with any IEF
    Ah, well. I mistakenly thought that was the topic of this thread….
    But I can stand corrected that you disavow any such connection.

  182. Dr. Svalgaard, let’s start with a clean slate right now. I understand why there is confusion about what constitutes “solar forcing” beyond TSI measurements. To understand the electric/magnetic weather effect concepts that I have talked about, we don’t have to look at this particular paper featured on this blog today (despite its usefulness) or any other papers to see how it works.

    We don’t have to buy into any EU ideas to understand electric weather. Electric weather ideas are independent of the Thunderbolts project. Perhaps earlier you may have thought I was here to prove EU concepts for them – that’s their job, and if they didn’t make the grade, that’s on them. What EU is or isn’t – is irrelevant to the electric weather paradigm shift that is happening as we speak, a paradigm shift that I and others bring to the table is based on, for me, 10 years of observations, conceptual thinking, and fact-checking.

    As I told you before in our previous mental exercises, I am trying to insure that I understand solar wind dynamics and implications – well enough to explain it to both Phds and the man on the street.

    Here we go… to understand electric weather and how it changes the weather, open minds will find evidence of solar forcing by space weather today (Dec 29), on the following websites

    http://solarimg.org/artis/

    http://www.solarham.net/

    http://www.spaceweather.com/

    From spaceweather:

    MINOR RADIATION STORM IN PROGRESS: Energetic protons are swarming around Earth on Dec. 29th following a magnetic eruption near the western limb of the sun: movie. The ongoing radiation storm ranks S1 on NOAA storm scales, which means it is a relatively minor storm with little effect on spacecraft and high-altitude aviation.

    From solarham:

    A number of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) were observed during the past 24 hours, however all appear to be directed away from our planet. The most energetic of these events was an eruption beyond the northwest limb, resulting in a bright, fast moving, westerly directed CME. This event looks to be directly responsible for the rise in low energy proton levels streaming past Earth. Particles began to saturate the SOHO/LASCO sensor soon after the CME became visible. This resulted in a brief, minor S1 level radiation storm. Proton levels are slowly dropping off this morning.

    From solarimg:

    GOES xray & proton plots, ACE LE/HE protons and LE electron plots registered an uptick in solar activity from the photons, protons, and electrons emitted from above mentioned CMEs. Also see Jet Stream and US Pressure Index provided by solarimg from today (links here): http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/JetStream/conus.jpg and

    Cause: solar uptick in photons, protons, and electrons. Effect: auroras and the jet stream pushed southward, bringing frigid artic air and more snow.

    This particular example is just the latest in a large number solar event-driven weather events here on Earth that I’ve seen in ten years. My research into past extreme weather events reveals this type of repeating pattern throughout SC24. Accumulated cyclone enegy charts for 2013 show a clear correspondence between SSN, flux, and tornadic and hurricane activity, a point also brought out here at WUWT by another commenter named Paul Pierett in his similar research here: http://sunspotshurricanesandglaciers.com/files/74034647.pdf

    To top it off, check out “What does the dearth of large SEP events in Solar Cycle 24 tell us about the physics of particle acceleration?” here at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4889.pdf

    This month’s US and UK weather was extremely well-predicted by someone who does understand solar-driven electric and magnetic weather effects, someone who has refined his skill through the years to now be at the cutting-edge of understanding applied sciences in long-range weather forecasting, Piers Corbyn. Open minds may inquire at weatheraction.com.

    I hope Dr. Svalgaard that you will take ten minutes in about ten days (will announce) when my debut video is posted on my upcoming The Electric Weather Channel (youtube), where you can see for yourself first-hand how solar forcing works beyond TSI, backed up by science, not conjecture. In the meantime keep a keen eye on those active regions… Thank you for being here. I’ll be back.

  183. lsvalgaard says:
    December 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm
    … For example, there has been ‘No increase of the interplanetary electric field since 1926′ :

    http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf

    ———–
    Usually, Dr. S., I agree with or accept your explanations. No, no, no, not this time.
    Two stations, both located on the West coast of Greenland? huh
    Data so smooth I can ice skate on it.
    And remember, I’m just a stamp collector……………………………………………………………………………

  184. Carla says:
    December 29, 2013 at 9:04 am
    Usually, Dr. S., I agree with or accept your explanations. No, no, no, not this time.
    Two stations, both located on the West coast of Greenland? huh

    It just happens that the polar cap is covered with an electric current flowing across it at an altitude of 110 km. All stations within the polar cap see the same magnetic effects of the current overhead as well as satellites flying above the current. You can see more here: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202006%20SH51A-06.pdf so start accepting. This is well-established science and is not contentious.

  185. lsvalgaard says:

    December 29, 2013 at 9:10 am
    It just happens that the polar cap is covered with an electric current flowing across it at an altitude of 110 km. All stations within the polar cap see the same magnetic effects of the current overhead as well as satellites flying above the current. You can see more here: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202006%20SH51A-06.pdf so start accepting. This is well-established science and is not contentious.
    ——————
    Thank you Dr. S.
    Now be nice bout this..
    Page 7

    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202006%20SH51A-06.pdf

    Why the size difference in the cap of potential between 1904 and 1993-2000? Does size matter? Does it grow and shrink on a time scale of sorts?

  186. Carla says:
    December 29, 2013 at 9:51 am
    Why the size difference in the cap of potential between 1904 and 1993-2000? Does size matter? Does it grow and shrink on a time scale of sorts?
    Because the speed of the solar wind and the magnetic field varies over time. The very last slide shows both and the [lack of] variation of the electric field VxB.

  187. Additionally Dr. Svalgaard, I will make every attempt at understanding and conveying with precision the GEC and IEC as they relate to weather and climate, and I’m positive any mistakes I make will will be corrected by feedback from others such as yourself. So far, the only thing I can disagree with you on technical grounds that you said to me is “a box of electrons of zero size”. One thing about being 20+ years past university education is the appreciation for the need for precision in speaking with a Phd while conveying concepts, and for an equal ability in speaking a language understandable to the non-college educated.

    When I was a feature editor for our university student newspaper back in the days of Pons and Fleischman’s “cold fusion” fervor, it was my responsibility to accurately understand and convey their ideas, and the opinions of many department heads from physics, mechanical, and electrical engineering, along with the technically degreed university president – all Phds. So I understand the challenge to both understand and convey complex ideas from Phds to the man on the street, and I strive to satisfy both. Unfortunately the past two weeks I’ve been so busy handling snow in the driveway, parking lot, and the roof almost everyday, leaving me somewhat tired and distracted from giving some things like this paper and every concept in it all my attention.

    My beautiful blonde-haired nationally-certified massage therapist lady with a high school algrebra education understands and follows electric weather with me, understands how it works, knows what to look for to see it coming, and watches it happen along with me almost everyday as she has for six years. If she can understand it, so can everyone else.

  188. Bob Weber says:
    December 29, 2013 at 9:00 am
    This particular example is just the latest in a large number solar event-driven weather events here on Earth that I’ve seen in ten years.
    what is lacking [the same problem Piers has] is a simple statistical [numerical] study of precisely what was predicted and what was actually found. Meteorologists well know how to do this, perhaps you could learn to do it too and apply those methods. To say ‘that I’ve seen’ simply does not cut it. The easiest one to fool is oneself [if one is honest], the next-easiest is a paying customer [if one is a bit less honest] who does not like to accept that he has been had.

  189. Bob Weber says:
    December 29, 2013 at 10:09 am
    So far, the only thing I can disagree with you on technical grounds that you said to me is “a box of electrons of zero size”.
    On what technical grounds? It is generally accepted that electrons have no extension, i.e. zero size, so any collection of electrons packed as closely as possible will also have zero size [apart from the impossibility of doing so]. In a black hole, for example, gravity overwhelms the electron degeneracy pressure which normally prevents electrons to occupy the same space and we, of course, for the thought experiment assumes that that pressure can be overcome. BTW, for the conclusion the exact sizes of the boxes are not relevant.

  190. Dr. Svalgaard I completely understand what you mean here. Since recognizing the problem of conveying the solar activity connections I had “seen”, and in evaluating Corbyn’s methods, I set about to demonstrate for myself if there was any way to objectively determine how solar activity influences the weather and climate, and also to try to score his forecasts, realizing that I just can’t stand here waving my hands jumping up and down saying, ya I’m right, he’s right, and you should believe me just ’cause I say so. I understand that doesn’t cut it. Thus far, I am totally in agreement – I have to demonstrate validity just like anyone else.

    Further, it doesn’t cut it for me to assert anything from my place in life about electric weather without scientific backup that can be investigated and evaluated by others, and has predictive power. So, even though I’d recognized electric weather signatures as they happened over the years, I had found it a difficult challenge to put it together for someone in your position to evaluate.

    It wasn’t until November this year, when Typhoon Haiyan hit, and all the CAGW crowd jumped on board calling it a result of global warming, that I said to myself, that’s it, I’m done messing around. Even though I have no experience writing science papers to satisfy the requirements of the peer-review process, I set about examining GOES and ACE data, and geomagnetic activity, and “saw” a regular, high correspondence of extreme weather events after higher solar activity events/levels, in a way I have not seen very many talk about. What I saw in that data was recurring circumstantial evidence for direct solar forcing of earth weather that appeared to me to be grossly overlooked. My ten-minute presentation is based on what I found, why I think it matters, and how well Piers did in the last three months.

    Additionally, if I could ever get the time and energy to attempt to write a documented science paper for peer-review, someone like you would see there are many scientists whose papers relate in important ways to the points I’m making – papers I’ve collected for six years, which doesn’t even touch the number of paywalled papers I’ve flagged for future purchase, evaluation, and inclusion.

    The way things are going, such a paper by me is on the horizon, not right in front of me. So the next best thing I can do now is to release my preliminary findings so people like you might have a reason to believe TSI is not the only solar measure that counts, and that claims of global warming causing extreme weather events are unfounded. Thereafter, I will leave it up to professional scientists like you and others to do “the science”. That’s the best I can do from where I am now.

    And just so you know, I tell a lot of people the following: “you can’t fool anyone if you don’t fool yourself first”. So I am completely aware of what I’m getting myself into with people like you. That is the reason why for the first time in six years I’ve started to comment on blogs, because I believe for good reasons that I’m not fooling myself, and I would never try to deliberately mislead on matters of such importance, or try to interfere with someone’s ideas maliciously. I had to start somewhere. I hope you understand its been an honor speaking with you. Where I live, there isn’t a BS/MS/Phd within 50 miles for me to talk to about anything, and my sweetheart can only take so much, if you get my drift.

    Some backup here: http://www.thegwpf.org/madhav-khandekar-global-warming-extreme-weather-link/

Comments are closed.