As many regular readers know, I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005. The abrupt step change seemed (to me) to be out of place with the data, and the fact that the sun seems so have reestablished at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that event and has not recovered is an anomaly worth investigating.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little Ap magnetic activity there has been since. Here’s a graph from October 2008 showing the step in october 2005:
click for a larger image
However, some have suggested that this event doesn’t merit attention, and that it is not particularly unusual. I beg to differ. Here’s why.
In mid December I started working with Paul Stanko, who has an active interest in the solar data and saw what I saw in the Ap Index. He did some research and found Ap data that goes back further, all the way to 1932. His source for the data is the SPIDR (Space Physics Interactive Data Resource) which is a division of NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). He did some data import and put it all into a mult-page Excel spreadsheet which you can access here.
I had planned to do more study of it, but you know how holidays are, lot’s of things to do with that free time. I didn’t get back to looking at it until today, especially after SWPC updated their solar datasets on January 3rd, including the Ap Index. Looking at the data to 1932, it was clear to me that what we are seeing today for levels doesn’t exist in the record.
About the same time, I got an email from David Archibald, showing his graph of the Ap Index, graphed back to 1932. Having two independent sources of confirmation, I’ve decided to post this then. The solar average geomagnetic planetary index, Ap is at its lowest level in 75 years, for the entirety of the record:
Click for a larger image – I’ve added some annotation to the graph provided by Archibald to point out areas of interest and to clarify some aspects of it for the novice reader.
The last time the Ap index was this low was 1933. The December 2008 Ap value of 2, released by SWPC yesterday, has never been this low. (Note: Leif Svalgaard contends this value is erroneous, and that 4.2 is the correct value – either way, it is still lower than 1933) Further, the trend from October 2005 continues to decline after being on a fairly level plateau for two years. It has started a decline again in the last year.
This Ap index is a proxy that tells us that the sun is now quite inactive, and the other indices of sunspot index and 10.7 radio flux also confirm this. The sun is in a full blown funk, and your guess is as good as mine as to when it might pull out of it. So far, predictions by NOAA’s SWPC and NASA’s Hathway have not been near the reality that is being measured.
The starting gate for solar cycle 24 opened ayear ago today, when I announced the first ever cycle 24 sunspot. However in the year since, it has become increasingly clear that the horse hasn’t left the gate, and may very well be lame.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ooh, nice link, thanks Leif.
“its surface is covered with hills and valleys about 5 times the diameter of the earth in lateral size, but with a height of only about 1/2 kilometer.”
So, even closer in magnitude to the displacement of +/-0.2km Ray Tomes calculated!
Time to model the surface effect of an oscillating core in a weightless fluid sphere.
I’m getting goose bumps. 😉
Hi all,
Since Dr. Svaalgard has been looking at this data much longer than I have, I’m going to use his recommended adjustment for the Aa index in 1912 that I mentioned previously. He recommended we add +3 to the index values before 1957… so here are the average monthly index values with 3 added, compared to 2008 values…
Month 1912 value (+3) 2008 value
January 10.57 16.29 1912 is still lower
February 10.99 22.49 1912 is still lower
March 10.68 22.21 1912 is still lower
April 12.44 17.49 1912 is still lower
May 12.56 13.44 1912 is just a bit lower
June 11.38 14.38 1912 is still lower
July 10.81 11.17 almost a dead heat!
August 13.50 9.57 2008 is now lower
September 12.79 10.95 2008 is still lower
October 12.50 13.13 1912 is just a bit lower
My conclusion from this data is that solar cycle 24 is rivalling solar cycle
15 for historically low values of the Aa index. The minimum for solar cycle 15 dragged on for years, reaching over 1,000 spotless days. Based on using solar cycle 15 as an analog, it seems that most of 2009 will also be spotless and perhaps a significant chunk of 2010 as well.
After that, I would of course expect cycle 24 to begin in earnest, though I like Dr. Svaalgard’s weak cycle prediction. Based on information I have in another spreadsheet, I would guess around 50 to 70 for Rmax. After that, of course, information gets sketchier. We have Dr. Hathaway using speed of convection currents to tell us cycle 25 will be the weakest centuries. We have the paper from Penn and Livingston stating findings that sunspots may be a truly rare event after 2015. Sounds like it might be the beginnings of a grand minimum! Will it bring global cooling? We’ll only know 100% in retrospect. But, it will be a great opportunity to study this type of event. I’m sure Dr. Svaalgard and all other solar physicists would welcome the chance to see ‘Maunder minimum 2’ in action and study what might be the causes of such events.
Not being a solar physicist myself, I guess my take on it is that the sun is in the same state as the economy… in its deepest slumber since the great depression.
Later,
Paul
A quick back of the fag packet calculation says there would be about 24 ‘hills’ around the circumference of the sun’s equator, a classic mainline harmonic number. I’m kind of being guided by the graphic here though, because the text is ambiguous.
“hills and valleys about 5 times the diameter of the earth in lateral size”
Does this mean the hill and the two downslopes to the valley centres are 5 earth diameters, or the hills are 5 earth diameters, and the two downslopes are 2.5 earth diameters each? The drawing would suggest the former, in which case the calculation gives 21.95028 ‘hills’ and the same number of ‘valleys’ round the suns equator. Satisfyingly close to a whole integer, but not such a major harmonic number. More investigation needed to work out the ‘best fit’ number for the whole surface. My able researcher has just emailed me the paper you cited.
tallbloke (10:01:32) :
24 ‘hills’ around the circumference of the sun’s equator, a classic mainline harmonic number.
The figure is for illustration only. Scientists usually do not engage in the sort of numerology you suggest being at work here.
Leif (08:48:30)
Yes. I have to fall back on anthropomorphisms for lack of precise mechanisms.
=======================
kim (12:08:15) :
Yes. I have to fall back on anthropomorphisms for lack of precise mechanisms.
Here is a good link:
http://www.leif.org/research/ENSO-Internal-Fluctuation.pdf
Leif:
Leif: “If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 0.05K warmer, if you add it for 10 years, the temperature for those ten years will be 0.05K warmer, if you add it for 100 years, the temperature for those 100 years will be 0.05K warmer.”
Glenn: “This ignores the possibility that even a small change in overall temp may result in climatic changes that could change temp even more, ie “natural variability”, which is your pick out of other reasons for last century’s temp increase, such as solar or co2.”
Leif: “This works the other way. To suggest what you do, requires you to show that there is mechanism for this or empirical evidence for this happening.”
This works both ways, and your claims about what temperatures “will be”
would appeal for the same.
Lief Svalgaard (08:24:09) :
“But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate.”
Absolutely, most definitely… maybe.
You missed the point that this was a rhetorical question, and that the answer was in the negative.”
Hmm now some interesting questions arise.
J. Lilensten et al
Review on the solar spectral variability in the EUV for space weather purposes
Annales Geophysicae, 0000, 0001–10, 2007
SRef-ID: 1432-0576/ag/2007-0000-0001
“Let us do a simple calculation for the case of the ionosphere: the primary electron production (due to photoionization) is roughly proportional to the total XUV-EUV
solar flux, as it is described by the Beer-Lambert law (Lilensten et al., 1989). The additional production from electron collisions (secondary production) is also sensitive to solar activity. In the E and lower F regions, this additional production may double (quiet conditions) or triple (active conditions) the primary production. At higher altitude, the effect is about constant (30% of the primary production). In the E and lower F regions, the electron density is roughly proportional to the square root of the production (Schlegel, 1988). A variation of the solar irradiance by, say, 33% then results in a variation of the electron production rate by less than 100% (3 times the irradiance variation) and a variation of the electron density of about 10%. This value approximately equals the error bar for the most accurate measurements made by incoherent scatter radars; it certainly exceeds the precision on the TEC, as derived from global positioning measurements. To conclude, even accurate ionospheric measurements presently remain too coarse to evaluate the contribution of various parts of the solar EUV-XUV spectrum. Establishing a correspondence between the two is important for research, but trying to retrieve the XUV-EUV fluxes from their impact is illusory.”
Indeed a problematic issue as correlation between “gross proxies” and instruments are at some distance
T. Egorova et al
Reconstruction of the solar spectral UV irradiance for nowcasting of
the middle atmosphere state on the basis of LYRA measurements
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2965–2973, 2008
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/2965/2008/
“Because the solar irradiance in Schumann-Runge band and Herzberg continuum is well correlated with LYRA-P and 205 nm proxies, the accuracy of the temperature simulation is rather high especially above 40 km. Below 40 km the influence of Hartley band is noticeable and the accuracy of the temperature simulations drops down. The results also demonstrated that the other proxies (including F10.7) do not provide sufficient accuracy for the simulation of all considered quantities.”
This is important for a number of reasons,for example, some chemical reactions are provoked only by light of frequency higher than a certain threshold; light of frequency lower than the threshold, no matter how intense, does not initiate the reaction. Similarly, electrons can be ejected from a metal plate by shining light of sufficiently high frequency on it (the photoelectric effect); the energy of the ejected electron is related only to the light’s frequency, not to its intensity.
Glenn (13:04:55) :
This works both ways, and your claims about what temperatures “will be” would appeal for the same.
Most certainly not. To say that there is a “possibility” of something means that you have at least a tentative mechanism that will allow that something to happen. I also ignore the ‘possibility’ that Little Green Men are manipulating the climate, because it is not a real possibility, as the mechanism is not credible.
maksimovich (13:14:02) :
ionospheric measurements presently remain too coarse to evaluate the contribution of various parts of the solar EUV-XUV spectrum
Luckily the ionosphere itself does a good global averaging with a result that is directly measurable by the magnetic effect of the Sq-currents regardless of the too coarse direct measurements.
Sorry for mistyping your name, Dr. Svalgaard…
I’m nearing the end of a long midnight shift.
After re-reading it a couple more times, I now understand your main points better. Since most of the sun’s TSI comes from its temperature, this is not expected to change much no matter how low the sunspot # goes (or stays).
Also that barring some unforeseen mechanism (which would just be speculation at this time), a grand minimum should have a TSI not much different from our current minima, the TSI floor concept. Makes the possible upcoming grand minimum that much more interesting to watch.
Thanks for sharing your considerable experience and expertise,
Paul
Paul S (13:44:36) :
Since most of the sun’s TSI comes from its temperature, this is not expected to change much no matter how low the sunspot # goes (or stays).
Precisely, and the sunspot number can’t go below zero [where is at now].
The difficulty is with people that in order to combat AGW think they MUST invoke the Sun and that therefore the Sun MUST vary enough [even if not observed to do so] or that the minute variations MUST be amplified by some mechanisms, because we MUST counter the CO2 argument with a simple-minded, single cause that can beat the hockey stick.
REPLY: So do you discount even the possibility of amplifying sun-earth linkages ? – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (10:09:25) :
tallbloke (10:01:32) :
24 ‘hills’ around the circumference of the sun’s equator, a classic mainline harmonic number.
The figure is for illustration only. Scientists usually do not engage in the sort of numerology you suggest being at work here.
Two points.
First, the way standing waves, crystal lattices, and atomic nuclei organize themselves in ways describable by harmonic series is a feature of nature waiting to be discovered by those unblinkered enough to look for them, not a numerological scheme imposed on them by me.
Second, you should look at an image of Jupiter taken from above it’s north pole, count the numbers of storms in the concentric rings, and reconsider your words in the light of logic.
Now, you say the figure is for illustration only, but if so, why would the authors trouble theselves to informs me of the approximate number of earth diameters of each ‘hill’, the vertical scale exaggeration, and put the right number of hills round the equator?
I agree their representation is imperfect, which is why I want clarification. I suppose I should try to track down one of the authors to ask rather than subject myself to your appelation of demonologist, numerologist or whichever other soubriquet you like to bestow on those who step beyond the narrow confine to discover interesting connections between the phenomena of nature.
🙂
Leif Svalgaard (13:43:39) :
Glenn (13:04:55) :
This works both ways, and your claims about what temperatures “will be” would appeal for the same.
“Most certainly not. To say that there is a “possibility” of something means that you have at least a tentative mechanism that will allow that something to happen. I also ignore the ‘possibility’ that Little Green Men are manipulating the climate, because it is not a real possibility, as the mechanism is not credible.”
That’s crazy. To provide a kindergarten example: What is the difference between blaming Little Green Men and increased solar energy in your statement
“If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 0.05K warmer”
It may be self explanatory to you, but adding a certain amount of heat into the complex open system of the Earth and simply claiming that temp will increase does require more explanation, and evidence to boot.
Does the following not require further explanation, since the mechanism is credible?
“If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 200.00K warmer”?
Leif Svalgaard (01:43:29) on 08/01/2009 stated that the diameter of the Sun is a little longer at solar maximum than at solar minimum. He wrote
“How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn’t change {see 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km.”
I would like to draw his and readers’ attention to the theory of the figure of the Sun developed by the French astrophysicists Sandrine Lefebvre, Jean-Pierre Rozelot and Sophie Pireaux, according to which the Sun shrinks at solar maximum and expands at solar minimum becoming more luminous as it shrinks. As I read this science, the French theory supersedes the results of Goode and Dziembowski to which Leif refers.
Here is a brief precise of the theory of the French astrophysicists.
The Sun’s shape, the Helioid, varies over the solar cycle resulting in luminosity varying as the shape varies. As a result, the Sun’s shape departs significantly from spherical symmetry. The Helioid is measured by several indices of asphericity. The degree of asymmetry is measured by the gravitational quadruple moments of the body. (The quadrupole moment is the standard measure of the extent to which the shape of a curved object departs from that of a perfect sphere. It has indices of prolateness (i.e. vertical stretch) and oblateness (i.e. horizontal stretch)). The shape of the Sun’s internal structures also varies, but not necessarily synchronised over time and location within the Sun. (Rozelot et al (2004) and Rozelot, Pireaux and Lefebrve (2004)). The main researcher is Sandrine Lefebvre.
The Helioid is like a football standing vertically, but slightly tilted forwards with a lumpy walnut-like surface whose exterior lumpiness is variably distributed over the Sun’s surface and which varies over time. The football expands and contracts over the solar cycle, contracting at solar maximum, but becoming more luminous, additional to that produced by the electromagnetic processes that vary over the solar cycle. The lumpiness is always changing.
The Sun’s variable shape appears to arise because of changes in the distribution of matter within the variably constituted Sun. Pireaux et al (2006) established that the mass of the Sun shifts within it during the sunspot cycle.
These shifts in the mass of the Sun introduce another matter for discussion which maybe should wait for another day. But briefly, given that the Sun is 1,000 times more massive than the rest of the solar system combined being 98 per cent of the solar system’s mass, significant shifts in the Sun’s mass within the body of the Sun may have gravitational consequences for the solar system.
If the changes in the distribution of mass within the Sun were sufficient to change the Sun’s gravitational field then the shifts may be sufficient to affect planetary orbits. The consequential interaction between the Sun’s shifting mass and planetary orbits could result in phase synchronisation between the Sun’s activity and planetary activity. Perhaps discussion of this chain of conjectures should wait for another day.
Pireaux, S., Fazel, Z., Rozelot, J P., Lefebvre, S. and Ajabshirizadeh, A., 2006. Solar gravitational energy and luminosity variations, Solar Physics, In Press.
Rozelot, J-P., Pireaux, S., Lefebvre, S., and Ajabshirizadeh, A., 2004. Solar rotation and gravitational moments: some astrophysical outcomes. Proceedings of the SOHO 14/GONG 2004 Workshop, New haven, Connecticut, USA, 12-16 July 2004
Rozelot, J-P., and Lefebvre, S., 2006. Is it possible to find a solar signature in the current climatic warming? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Vol 31 Issues 1 3 pps 41 45.
Rozelot, J-P., Pireaux, S., Lefebvre, S., 2004. The Sun’s Asphericities: Astrophysical Relevance. astro-ph/04033082
Rozelot, J-P., and Lefebvre, S., 2003. The Figure of the Sun, Astrophysical Consequences: A Tutorial in The Sun’s Surface and Subsurface: Investigating Shape and Irradiance Rozelot, J-P., (Ed), Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer pps 4-25.
Preprints of some of the relevant papers may be found on the websites of Sandrine Lefebvre (http://astrosurf.com/lefebvre ) and Sophie Pireaux
(http://sophie.pireaux.neuf.fr/public_html/page_web_perso_boulot/index.html )
Dodgy Geezer (06:19:30) :
but if we take ‘total deaths’as a measure of how ‘hard’ the fighting was, the US was the lowest ‘provider’, just above the Netherlands.
Unlike European autocracies, the U.S. prefers to fight smarter, not ‘harder’. Deaths are not a good thing for your own side… Why we didn’t like to hand our troops over to Euro commanders to be squandered as cannon fodder like they did in WWI…
Of course, if you measure things like this, WW2 turns out to be primarily a war between Russia and Germany, with a few other countries on the sidelines.
I seem to remember this little thing called the Pacific Theatre and Japan…
Or maybe the dozens of aircraft carriers, hundreds of pilots et. al. don’t count as much in your view since they didn’t die enough?
Interesting weather bits in that war. Halsey sailed his fleet into 2 killer storms. The pictures of an aircraft carrier deck bent down over the bows is chilling…
Then there was the minor D Day thing with more plains, ships, etc. than anyone had imagined. Interesting weather event there, too, what with the surprise element being levered off of our willingness to trust our met office and Germany thinking we never would risk it…
Yes, the U.S. was largely the Arsenal of Democracy (sending a great deal of material to Russia via Alaska too… the AlCan highway was an astounding feat again in the face of brutal weather…) but then we did our share of the dirty work too. Just didn’t see much reason to die in the process if it could be avoided.
My mother was in England at the time my dad showed up for the D-Day event as a combat engineer. She was a British Volunteer putting out fires in the Blitz. My wife’s dad went in with the 101st Airborn.
And this, of course, ignores the actions in Italy, Greece, and north africa. But what’s a continent or two…
I find it interesting that our military has been very involved with building an all weather force and is keenly interested in good weather prediction. Halsey being blind sided by the cyclones made a big impression…
Leif Svalgaard (14:18:28) :
REPLY: So do you discount even the possibility of amplifying sun-earth linkages ? – Anthony
No, what I discount is the starting point: This MUST be happening because it fits with our bias/theory/belief/dogma/whatever. As in Glenn’s posts, “possibility” means that it must be possible, i.e. there is a mechanism, that is energetically viable.
Glenn (14:31:13) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:43:39) :
Glenn (13:04:55) :
Does the following not require further explanation, since the mechanism is credible?
“If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 200.00K warmer”?
I do not think your mechanism is credible, or rather, you have not specified by what mechanism the temperature will rise 200.00K.
tallbloke (14:20:42) :
those who step beyond the narrow confine to discover interesting connections between the phenomena of nature.
I agree that numerology can be fun and interesting and mostly harmless; the narrow confines of reality hopefully intruding before harm ensues.
Richard Mackey (15:12:00) :
[…] according to which the Sun shrinks at solar maximum and expands at solar minimum becoming more luminous as it shrinks. As I read this science, the French theory supersedes the results of Goode and Dziembowski to which Leif refers
The most up-to-date and accurate measurements of the shape of the Sun has been made by the RHESSI satellite experiment:
Solar Shape Measurements from RHESSI: A Large Excess Oblateness
Fivian, M. D.; Hudson, H. S.; Lin, R. P.; Zahid, H. J.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #SH53A-1076
The Solar Aspect System of the RHESSI spacecraft scans the limb at the ~4 sec rotation period of the spacecraft, producing a large quantity of precise differential measurements of the solar radius at optical wavelengths (monochromatic at 670 nm). These data provide the most precise determinations of the oblateness prior in particular to the launch of the Picard mission in 2008. The observation of standing waves in the body of the Sun (helioseismology) provided the first direct way to study the interior of a star. The astrometric shape of the solar limb gives independent constraints on interior structures and flows; the surface rotation predicts an oblate ellipsoid with an equator-pole radius difference of some 8 mas (~0.001%). Here we report the most accurate observations to date of the solar shape, which show a much larger apparent oblateness with an equator-pole radius difference of 13.72± 0.44 mas. This new component can easily be distinguished spatially from the effects of faculae in the active latitude zones. Comparison with earlier observations suggests that this excess oblateness results from solar magnetic activity, as do the frequency variations of the helioseismic modes.
Here is a more popular account:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm
The point is that the hills and corrugations are more pronounced [‘bigger sun’] at solar maximum when magnetic activity is highest.
In a few years [after the data from the Picard satellite is in we shall know more].
Leif Svalgaard (17:45:42) :
Further analysis of the RHESSI data:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sun-039-s-Sphere-Is-Not-Perfect-94896.shtml
Shows that if you subtract the extra oblateness due to magnetic features, the result is precisely what is expected from simple rotation, so no adjustment of solar models, interior structure, planetary tides, or general relativity is required.
Luigi (12:00:08) :
So can draw a relationship for the lowest point for Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index and the economy!? or the beginning of the green house effect?
There is a long observed correlation between low sunspots (low solar output) and the economy. Business cycles track sunspots with some fair accuracy. If you plot “Financial Panics” or “Banking Panics” vs sunspots they cluster at times of low sunspots.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons
Why? Don’t ask why, down that path lies insanity and ruin…
The theory is that the lower output of light and cooler temps lead to lower agricultural output and that (hand waving) translates into lower demand for tractors, cars, train shipping etc. thus modulating the business cycle.
I’d be just as likely to believe that lower UV leads to lower Vitamin D levels and we all get a mild case of Seasonal Affective Disorder and pull our money out of the banks… which is to say that any mechanism is all hypothetical.
And you thought arguing about climate is fraught with dodgy fantasies…
You can make money trading stocks and ag commodities with sunspots. Due to the correlation between sunspots and planetary positions, there are folks who make money trading stocks based on astrology as a proxy for sunspots. Then again you can do the same thing with a decent trailing stop loss and random entries with a ‘buy if touched’ on the upside. (Trap in, exit on reversal, repeat).
Leif:
Does the following not require further explanation, since the mechanism is credible?
If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 200.00K warmer.
“I do not think your mechanism is credible, or rather, you have not specified by what mechanism the temperature will rise 200.00K.”
So you think your similar statement is “credible” and does specify a mechanism by which the earth will warm by a certain amount, but that my statement fails in both. And you think that your statement needs no explanation, yet my argument is that both statements would. Interesting.
By this one would assume you think that credible means what doesn’t need explanation or support beyond your assurance.
jeez (13:16:09) :
Mary Hinge:
So when the Hadley Center tells us that the average Central England Temperature on March 19th 1772 was 7.3 C, they have not introduced false accuracy? How accurate were thermometers in 1772?
And my favorite: Since the land data, at least for the U.S. are rounded to whole degrees, any use of precision greater than one degree is also false accuracy.
My high school chem / physics teacher pounded into our heads to never let our precision exceed our accuracy. Unless this rule is somehow not applicable, I don’t see how anything after the decimal point can have any value at all, no matter how processed.
There is a 1 degree F stochastic jitter in all the U.S. land data.
Glenn (18:07:32) :
And you think that your statement needs no explanation, yet my argument is that both statements would.
I have given the detailed calculation several times, so the explanation has always been there.
E.M.Smith (17:53:33) :
Due to the correlation between sunspots and planetary positions, there are folks who make money trading stocks based on astrology as a proxy for sunspots.
I once visited a research institution in the former Soviet Union and heard a lecture by one of the local buys how the interplanetary magnetic field influenced the wellbeing of inmates of their local lunatic asylum [more ‘agitation’ when the IMF changed polarity]. People have great capacity for believing weird things.
Leif Svalgaard (13:30:00) :
Mike McMillan (12:36:47) :
Capitalized Nazis were the National Socialists, who believed in a charismatic leader and believed government should regulate otherwise free markets.
Sounds very much like our government…
Not at all. The similarities are only superficial. We don’t have the funny pants, odd hats, banners and pageantry…
Leif:
And you think that your statement needs no explanation, yet my argument is that both statements would.
“I have given the detailed calculation several times, so the explanation has always been there.”
All I have seen is a *simple relationship, which does not take any climate variable* into consideration. Earth’s climate is a *complex system. And it just seems interesting that you would make this bald assertion, when you are supposed to be for the natural variability* point of view, however vague or unresponsive you are to identifying specific causes, with this “x solar energy would increase the temp of the earth by y degrees, period” position.
Leif Svalgaard (19:02:14) :
I once visited a research institution in the former Soviet Union and heard a lecture by one of the local buys how the interplanetary magnetic field influenced the wellbeing of inmates of their local lunatic asylum [more ‘agitation’ when the IMF changed polarity]. People have great capacity for believing weird things.
Yes the attachment of a number to anything always produces correlation in the general(and scientific)communities.
Geomagnetic forecasts are part of the general weather forecasts in Russia .And as such the “TV population “suffers from the influence of solar flares etc.This ailment effects males and females equally,whereas the western female ailment pms is unknown in Russia.
We can relate this to the the widespread understanding of energy flows as expounded by Tesla and is found in a number of school textbooks.
“Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth’s axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
This momentum is constant as well as upward centrifugal push, amounting to about fifty-five hundredth of a pound, and both will probably be without marked influence on his life functions. The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount.
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them….
This enormous energy is, however, not constant, but varies with the position of the automaton in relation to the sun. The circumference of the earth has a speed of 1,520 feet per second, which is either added to or subtracted from the translatory velocity of nineteen miles through space. Owing to this the energy will vary from twelve to twelve hours by an amount approximately equal to 1,533,000,000 foot pounds, which means that energy streams in some unknown way into and out of the body of the automaton at the rate of about sixty-four horse-power.
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html
Indeed as soon as the new ‘disease of the week” arrives in the local woman’s magazine or Sunday paper micro epidemics of the new disease inundate the local practitioners.
“Fear feeds ignorance” said James Lovelock in the Ages of Gaia,*and a great niche was opened for fear when science became incomprehensible to those who were not its practitioners”
The attachment of a number to anything or anyone implies a significance that was missing from its physical description .A telephone number is valuable tool in comparison the observation that atmospheric abundance of perfluoromethyl cyclohexane is 5.6×10-15 ,or that whilst you have read this line of text a hundred thousand of the atoms in your body will have disintegrated.whilst interesting confer neither benefit or significance to your health.
But once numbers are attached to say an environmental property the means will soon be made to justify their recording,and before long a data bank of information about the distribution of substance x or radioactive isotope y will exist.It is a small step to compare the different databanks ,and in the nature of statistical distributions there will be a correlation of the distribution of substance x and disease Z
It is no exaggeration to observe that once some curious investigator pries open such a niche,it will be filled by the opportunistic growth of hungry professionals and their predators.A new subset of society will be occupied in the monitoring of substance x and disease Z as will as the makers of the instrumentation. Then there will be the lawyers who make the legislation for the beaurecrats to administer and so on.”
The entire new industry sector all funded and constructed on the raison d’etre that their continued employment and vested interests comes from more exaggeration of associated phenomena to maintain the gravy train. Crisis sells!
Glenn (20:24:45) :
Earth’s climate is a *complex system.
In the end, what goes in, must come out, no matter how complex. Of course, there is ‘natural variability’, but it will in the end all wash. The original question was what time scale we were talking about. My answer was that the warming would be the same on all time scales long enough. Each year we get a 90 W/m2 kick in January over July and yet that does not build up over time. People that claim 11-year or 22-year solar cycle variations generally don’t claim significant lags, so the evidence is that the variations don’t build up.