This is unusual. A live media teleconference on the sun. Even more unusual is this statement:
The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
As you may recall, I posted an entry about the Ulysses mission back on June 16th and the findings of a lowered magnetic field in the sun, from the JPL press release then:
Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun’s poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history.
We live in interesting times.
Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1726
DC Agle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-9011
MEDIA ADVISORY : M08-176
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html
NASA To Discuss Conditions On And Surrounding The Sun
WASHINGTON — NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
Ulysses was the first mission to survey the space environment above and below the poles of the sun. The reams of data Ulysses returned have changed forever the way scientists view our star and its effects. The venerable spacecraft has lasted more than 17 years – almost four times its expected mission lifetime.
The panelists are:
— Ed Smith, NASA Ulysses project scientist and magnetic field instrument investigator, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
— Dave McComas, Ulysses solar wind instrument principal investigator, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio
— Karine Issautier, Ulysses radio wave lead investigator, Observatoire de Paris, Meudon, France
— Nancy Crooker, Research Professor, Boston University, Boston, Mass.
Reporters should call 866-617-1526 and use the pass code “sun” to participate in the teleconference. International media should call 1-210-795-0624.
To access visuals that will the accompany presentations, go to:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ulysses-20080923.html
Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:
– end –
h/t to John Sumpton
“Remember that Froehlich is one of the foremost TSI researchers in the World, and remember that his paper is the result of discussions between him, Mike Lockwood and myself. It can’t get more ‘official’ or timely [as the paper is only a few months old] or authoritatively than that.”
Why should I remember something I don’t know and cannot verify? And this paper appears to be a powerpoint demonstration likely given at an open forum, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I do not agree that it can’t get more official than a ppt, or more authoritative. I have no idea what Lockwood might have discussed, nor have you seen fit to provide his current understanding. I completely agree with your statement that in science everyone makes mistakes. So you must be joking with all this, especially the “lets debate the specifics and find the truth”. I looked at slide 14, and it tells me that solar irradiance did increase over the last century.
“The issue is if the tiny variations of the Sun’s output make a significant difference in our climate.”
That I agree with. However, most everyone sees a clear and strong correlation between the two, and there is no doubt that the Sun is the provider of radiation to the planet.
Leif, you really should cease this “If you actually read the paper carefully” stuff.
It can only make you look bad. Think about it.
Leif (18:56:53)
If one believes the energy output of the sun directs the climate, and if the energy output only varies minimally, and why should I doubt it, then the wider variations in climate can only be explained by a magnifier, of unknown mechanism. Such a process can be doubted because of the hypersensitivity it might cause and because of the poor correlation between direct energy output and global temperature. If, however, the mechanism by which the sun directs the climate is from some other as yet unknown manifestation of the sun, which would vary more than direct energy output, working in conjunction with unknown modifying, diminishing or accentuating, mechanisms on Earth, then the wide swings in climate might be explained. These unknown manifestations of the sun wouldn’t have the energy content to directly modify Earth’s temperatures, but might act through Earthly processes to vary the amount of the sun’s energy reaching the earth, or to vary the amount of energy leaving the earth. If we are stymied from explaining the variations in Earth’s climate, by a relatively stable energy output from the sun, then that would support the idea that it is other manifestations of the sun’s output that determine climate.
Standby for corrections from the maven, Leif.
==============================
Glenn (20:22:50) :
I looked at slide 14, and it tells me that solar irradiance did increase over the last century.
What does the text say? and how does that compare with the numbers you mentioned? 1.65 or 1.5.
Still an increase, Leif. Incidentally while reading Froehlich’ bio and seeing he is listed as a science team co-investigator for SORCE, I found this:
” Willson [1997] combined the ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II data sets using their overlap with the ERB data, and his analysis suggests a net increase of solar radiation between solar minima in 1986 and 1996. (Note: only two solar minima have actually been observed thus far). The estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles and if the climate system feedbacks reached their full equilibrium response to the forcing.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
That at a time when solar activity is said to be on the wane from the first half of the last century.
“What does the text say? and how does that compare with the numbers you mentioned? 1.65 or 1.5.”
Missed that, Leif. What numbers did I mention? Refresh my memory, please.
Glenn (20:22:50) :
“Remember that Froehlich is one of the foremost TSI researchers […] Why should I remember something I don’t know and cannot verify?
You seem to be handy enough with Google, so google ‘Froehlich TSI’ . Researchers almost always present their results in talks or posters in front of their peers before going to formal publication. Froehlich cannot be a total unknown to you, since he was a coauthor of a paper you linked to. Now, I tell that Claus Froehlich is one of the foremost TSI researchers in the World. There are three or four TSI ‘providers’ in the World and he is one of them.
A month earlier, the foremost TSI experts in the world [including yours truly :-)] met at the so-called SORCE meeting in Santa Fe, NM: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/
Click on Speakers/Abstracts in the left panel to find an earlier version of Claus’ talk and one of Judith Lean’s as well. These people are top-notch. Your lame ‘I didn’t know that’ just shows that you have some way to go.
Leif, lets do this, if you can agree to the below, we could at least be on the same page concerning one thing at least.
Is this known, yes or no:
“Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature. Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes have given estimates of the solar influence on the Earth that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with major climatic events on the Earth.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
kim (20:38:01) :
If we are stymied from explaining the variations in Earth’s climate, by a relatively stable energy output from the sun, then that would support the idea that it is other manifestations of the sun’s output that determine climate.
Standby for corrections from the maven, Leif.
Correction follows:
It would also support ‘the idea that there are no manifestations of the sun’s output that determine climate’
In fact, that would be the more likely conclusion, c.f. “We cannot understand or explain how the burglar broke in, and that would support the idea that he robbed the house”.
Leif (21:10:01)
Well, I agree that it supports your idea, too, but not that yours is the more likely conclusion. If you have a robbed house, and it was locked, then a burglar broke in, just how we don’t know. In this analogy, the sun is the burglar and the robbed house is the warmed earth.
=========================================
“Your lame ‘I didn’t know that’ just shows that you have some way to go.”
It isn’t lame, nor is there any reason to think that not knowing Claus is “one of the foremost” means I have “some way to go”. You’re really going off the deep end here, Leif. How many are in the foremost? Quantify “some”.
And what the dickens would it matter anyway? Appeal to authority again?
“You seem to be handy enough with Google, so google ‘Froehlich TSI’ . Researchers almost always present their results in talks or posters in front of their peers before going to formal publication. Froehlich cannot be a total unknown to you, since he was a coauthor of a paper you linked to.”
He is not unknown to me, but that doesn’t mean he is “one of the foremost”, nor does a successful google search of his name reveal him to be “one of the foremost”. That I am not aware of him being “one of the foremost” does not mean that he is a total unknown to me. I hope this atrocious logic isn’t revealed in your science.
“Now, I tell that Claus Froehlich is one of the foremost TSI researchers in the World. There are three or four TSI ‘providers’ in the World and he is one of them.”
Ah, now you expect me to accept your word for it. What is a TSI “provider”?
Is that one that like sells TSI from a truck passing through the neighborhood, or what? And why is a “provider” assumed to be “one of the foremost”?
Glenn (21:04:45) :
Leif, lets do this, if you can agree to the below, we could at least be on the same page concerning one thing at least.
Is this known, yes or no:
“Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature.”
This is for consumption by the funding agencies. Note the careful wording: ‘is known to be linked’. That just says that some people link the two, not that we know that there is any causative connection.
So, clearly my answer is no.
At the SORCE meeting organized by the source of your quote (LASP) an invited talk by Rind et al. concludes:
Bottom line…
• Solar cycle effects in the stratosphere are
highly significant, and do depend on the
ozone profile change
• Solar effects in the troposphere are
somewhat robust, but account for only a
small percentage of the variability, in
general. They seem to provide a ‘weighting
of the dice’.
So this is not ‘known’ to be a fact. Of course, you can alway make it true by making the effect small enough, but i don’t think that is what you have in mind.
But you are evading the question I asked. What does slide 14 say? What is the precise text? and how does that number compare with the 1.65 or 1.5 that you quoted? Does the slide support Lockwood’s 1999 number?
Glenn (20:54:11) :
” Willson [1997] combined the ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II data sets using their overlap with the ERB data, and his analysis suggests a net increase of solar radiation between solar minima in 1986 and 1996. (Note: only two solar minima have actually been observed thus far). The estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles and if the climate system feedbacks reached their full equilibrium response to the forcing.”
You have a knack for finding obsolete papers as long as they support your view. Willson’s claim is not believed anymore and the purported increase did not persist, rather turned into a decrease, if anything.
Glenn (21:19:59)
Please look at my comment at 20:38:01. The bulk of it hasn’t been corrected by Leif, and could stand a little meditating over. I don’t think the answer you seek is in variations in the sun’s energy output.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
The trouble is, the message doesn’t tell me how, and that Leif insists upon.
===============================================
Leif, you have “evaded” many of my questions. Should I remind you of that whenever you decide to be “evasive” in the future?
And frankly, I don’t know what you are on about concerning my quoting “1.65” or “1.5”? I don’t recall “mentioning” any numbers (“the numbers you mentioned? 1.65 or 1.5.”).
You can read what slide 14 says for yourself, and if you wish to make some point, *you* answer your own question. I told you what I saw. Deal with it, instead of being evasive.
“You have a knack for finding obsolete papers as long as they support your view.”
Yes, it must be karma or something. Or maybe it’s like I have told you many times, it is literally all over the place. And maybe your view is pretty well restricted to “leif.org”.
“You have a knack for finding obsolete papers as long as they support your view. Willson’s claim is not believed anymore and the purported increase did not persist, rather turned into a decrease, if anything.”
Umm, that wasn’t a “paper”, it was a quote from the SORCE website. And I referenced the URL. You didn’t notice, did you.
Glenn (21:19:59) :
nor is there any reason to think that not knowing Claus is “one of the foremost” means I have “some way to go”. […] How many are in the foremost?
I would say you count the attendees at the SORCE meeting. 10% of those folks are the ‘foremost’. I can give you a list if you would take my word for it.
Quantify “some”.
99%
And what the dickens would it matter anyway?
It matters as much as your insistence on peer-reviewed papers.
Appeal to authority again?
Appeal to knowledge, experience, integrity, honesty.
“You seem to be handy enough with Google, so google ‘Froehlich TSI’ . Researchers almost always present their results in talks or posters in front of their peers before going to formal publication. Froehlich cannot be a total unknown to you, since he was a coauthor of a paper you linked to.”
“Now, I tell that Claus Froehlich is one of the foremost TSI researchers in the World. There are three or four TSI ‘providers’ in the World and he is one of them.”
Ah, now you expect me to accept your word for it.
Yes I do, for the reasons given above re authority.
What is a TSI “provider”?
Is that one that like sells TSI from a truck passing through the neighborhood, or what?
Almost, except you go to him [or rather to the website of his institution that built the instrument and process the data for the public and other scientists.
And why is a “provider” assumed to be “one of the foremost”?
Because there are less than a handful of such in the entire world, but I think that strictly speaking I didn’t say that the provider was foremost, although I agree with it. Of all the people in the world that work with the TSI provided, the provider himself must stand out to be foremost. He built the instrument, developed the algorithms, struggled with the calibration, wrote the proposals, presented that results to the public. Those are the things that make someone foremost.
Glenn (21:32:50) :
Leif, you have “evaded” many of my questions.
Why in quotes? and which ones specifically?
And frankly, I don’t know what you are on about concerning my quoting “1.65″ or “1.5″? I don’t recall “mentioning” any numbers (”the numbers you mentioned? 1.65 or 1.5.”).
From
Glenn (14:24:42) :
“Another paper, from Lockwood 1999 concerning solar increase:
From this correlation, we show that the 131% rise in the mean coronal source field over the interval 1901-1995 corresponds to a rise in the average total solar irradiance of D I = 1.65 ± 0.23 Wm-2.
Again, 1.5 w/m2 is what is claimed of CO2 forcing in the last century. Seems that figure is more than insignificant or immeasurable.”
Do you recall now?
You can read what slide 14 says for yourself,
I would like you to tell us all what it says. So that we all are on the same page. Is that so hard to do? Also tell us how the number compare to the numbers you ‘don’t recall’.
Well I think you are working yourself into a real lather. But since we have been arguing about solar activity affecting temperature for the last century (and before), would you please explain why you think a person who builds instruments to detect TSI from satellites should be considered a “foremost” authority concerning this disagreement?
You also mentioned doing a google search. Here it is. Show me where this individual is “foremost”:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=%22total+solar+irradiance%22&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search
Warning: It is beginning to sound like you both are working yourselves into a lather. – Dee Norris
Ditto, perhaps take a moment and continue tomorrow. – Anthony
Glenn (21:41:58) :
Umm, that wasn’t a “paper”, it was a quote from the SORCE website. And I referenced the URL. You didn’t notice, did you.
The quote referred to an obsolete Willson paper, same thing. What is important is that you apparently thought the message of the paper was important enough to quote a reference to it.
“Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature.”
“This is for consumption by the funding agencies. Note the careful wording: ‘is known to be linked’. That just says that some people link the two, not that we know that there is any causative connection.”
Huh? What, funding agencies need to be fed bs? You really need to support your many contentions, Leif. Yes, linked. It’s been called a “correlation” in many of the references I have given you. Why do you make an issue of this SORCE statement being “careful” not to claim a causative connection? Why do you mention it at all now?
“Umm, that wasn’t a “paper”, it was a quote from the SORCE website. And I referenced the URL. You didn’t notice, did you.”
“The quote referred to an obsolete Willson paper, same thing. What is important is that you apparently thought the message of the paper was important enough to quote a reference to it.”
No, it isn’t the same thing. It’s from the SORCE website. Had they put up something about astrology, would you have said the same thing and ignored the fact that it was a statement on the SORCE website?