Quick primer:
Beryllium-10 is an isotope that is a proxy for the sun’s activity. Be10 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions with atoms of oxygen and nitrogen. Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.
One way to capture earth’s record of that proxy data is to drill deep ice cores. Greenland, due to having a large and relatively stable deep ice sheet is often the target for drilling ice cores.
Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers.
While it sounds simple to analyze, there are issues of ice compression, flow, and other factors that must be taken into consideration when doing reconstructions from such data. I attended a talk at ICCC 09 that showed one of the ice core operations had procedures that left significant contamination issues for CO2. But since Beryllium is rather rare, it doesn’t seem to have the same contamination issues attached. – Anthony
Be-10 and Climate
Guest post by David Archibald
A couple of years ago on Climate Audit, I undertook to do battle with Dr Svalgaard’s invariate Sun using Dye 3 Be10 data. And so it has come to pass. Plotted up and annotated, the Dye 3 data shows the strong relationship between solar activity and climate. Instead of wading through hundreds of papers for evidence of the Sun’s influence on terrestrial climate, all you have to do is look at this graph.
All the major climate minima are evident in the Be10 record, and the cold period at the end of the 19th century. This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.
The end of the Little Ice Age corresponded with a dramatic decrease in the rate of production of Be10, due to fewer galactic cosmic rays getting into the inner planets of the solar system. Fewer galactic cosmic rays got into the inner planets because the solar wind got stronger. The solar wind got stronger because the Sun’s magnetic field got stronger, as measured by the aa Index from 1868.
Thus the recent fall of aa Index and Ap Index to lows never seen before in living memory is of considerable interest. This reminds me of a line out of Aliens: “Stay frosty people!” Well, we won’t have any choice – it will get frosty.
Ron de Haan (06:04:24) wrote in part: “In this regard it’s a key that could simplefy any future discussions and block any Government action on the reduction of CO2…
I applaud that belief, Ron, and support it. Perhaps I have grown tired; but not too tired to be uninspired by your vision. Ride on, sir!
Leif Svalgaard (19:02:22) :
Tim L (18:52:16) :
[AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] vs.
[Anti-AGW or more rabidly AGW]
I have noticed [empirical, anecdotal evidence only, so beware] that the AGW majority crowd is generally more laid-back, more secure [the science is settled after all so why get hot under the collar], and less combative than the Anti-AGW crowd, who is more desperate [being a minority], more combative, more hostile, and more prone to flights of fancy [not having a settled science to lean on], hence my wording.
Soooo, then this is why one of the nice, kind, hard working engineers that I have met
( Jeff ID ) is summarily deleted at RC and Taminos?
” more combative, more hostile ” ??? If this has happened here it is only be cause YOU are a CO2 warmer, and we are on to you. Got it?
Tim L (19:15:56) :
Soooo, then this is why one of the nice, kind, hard working engineers that I have met ( Jeff ID ) is summarily deleted at RC and Taminos? ”more combative, more hostile ” ??? If this has happened here it is only because YOU are a CO2 warmer, and we are on to you. Got it?
I have been banned [not just having posts deleted] at Tamino’s too…
maksimovich (13:48:27) As regards ‘Chance and Necessity’, it seems from my personal observations both are true. This is not place for this discussion.
Steve Keohane (19:52:08) : This wraps things up neatly. Leif is correct when he says the varience of solar output is not enough to drive the temperature change. But if the increased cloud cover occurs from more high energy neutrons ionizing the atmosphere, then increased solar output makes us warmer indirectly by reducing cloud cover and albedo. It’s still the sun, but not directly.
And don’t forget the cosmic ray mediated ozone destruction opening the 9-10 range of the IR spectrum to let IR out! That part where ozone is the major (almost the only) thing blocking the spectrum!
Geoff Sharp (05:17:30) :
Mary R (05:08:51) :”Does the sun’s activity or inactivity have any affect on volcanic activity? Wasn’t there more volcanic activity during the Maunder Minimum?”
This chart shows the present global quakes greater than 4.5 in the last week:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
Great timing Mary, in Melbourne today we witnessed another 4.6 earthquake.
That would be this one:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009eiay.php
which is the report you get if you click on the quake square over Melbourne on the first map.
(Gosh I love the USGS. I just wish we could hand the climate stuff over to them, they’d sort it out right quick!)
In 50 years I cannot remember activity like this.
I made a posting about this with pretty pictures:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
on the 9th when my windows gave the old double rattle that says a small quake went off a ways away. The P wave and S wave have different propagation velocities. (Compression and transverse waves). The difference between their arrival times gives a rough idea how far away the quake was (I’m not calibrated 😉 and give a characteristic RATTLE pause RATTLLLE noise to loose things like sliding windows in California …
There is a theory that the solar system players (Sun, Planets, Us) have spin orbit coupling due to the conservation of angular momentum and that as certain configurations of the solar system happen, we get more crustal flexing while the sun goes sleepy; thus the observed correlation of many volcanoes and quakes during the solar grand minima.
I can’t say if it’s real or a statistical anomaly. I can say that the correlation seems to be still holding. I can also say that angular momentum math makes my head hurt… The quake map of California looks far more active than I remember in most of my (sporadic) years of looking at it. Granted, most of them are 1s and 2s … but we’ve had some 4s and 5s mixed in. We tend to not get excited or even put them in the news if they are less than a 5+ … unless it’s a slow news day… I like the 6 range best, but a 7 is fun (though a few houses get broken that kind of puts a damper on the sprit of the thing. Yes, I’m a native Californian! 8-}
FWIW, the Loma Prieta quake (also called the SuperBowl quake) also happened at a time when the barycenter was inside the sun perimeter. If the angular momentum / spin orbit coupling thesis has merit, we ought to see increasing quakes from 2010 into about 2015 or so. Spooky about that 2012 thing…
So the short form answer to Mary’s question is a resounding: Maybe, we don’t know for sure, but there are some strong suspicions.
EMSmith: That’s about how this cooling works: The GCR’s open up a leak plus induce low-lying clouds. With the current quiet conditons plus the prospect of low to bum cycles, we are going to be witnessing a lot of leaking.
Got ozone generator?
Some solar wind sure would come in handy, but that’s not on the menu lately.
And I was banned from RC before I had a chance of posting a single reply to some “less combative” AGW attacks against one of my articles… 😉
Leif Svalgaard (19:02:22) :
I have noticed [empirical, anecdotal evidence only, so beware] that the AGW majority crowd is generally more laid-back, more secure [the science is settled after all so why get hot under the collar], and less combative than the Anti-AGW crowd, who is more desperate [being a minority], more combative, more hostile, and more prone to flights of fancy [not having a settled science to lean on], hence my wording.
Anecdotally, I would not put Hansen in the laid back category.
Objectively, the AGW crowd is at the trough. Have you noticed cattle feeding? they jostle a bit, but are careful that they do not move much so that they do not give an opportunity for a new comer to push them off.
Ethically, a lot of anti A in GW people are getting more and more horrified that the leaders of countries will be following the leaders of AGW falling off the cliff like lemmings. And this means that millions of children will die. Does pump up the adrenalin. Catastrophe is when little children die, not when your feet might get wet by a slowly rising sea.
Pamela Gray wrote: “These are HUGE sources of weather pattern variations within climate zones. Yet we just can’t seem to take them as seriously as the tiny minute metals and gasses we find in ice cores.”
Good point! Water, thicker than water, stores most of the Earth’s heat budget. Generally, the oceans drive the atmosphere and not vice versa.
I agree with her….the best indicators (not necessarily answers) are staring us right in the face.
Yet, having said that, the sun should not be discounted either. A sunspot (what are those….we haven’t seen one in so long) is the size of Planet Earth.
And neither should the invariabilities of the solar system’s coursing through various types of “space” at 500,000 MPH, be discounted either.
Our climate and our weather is most likely…a blend of the above (along with other factors such as volcanic activity)…but all things NOT being equal.
Emphasize all of the above…none of them being equal….
In this light….one can understand ANY skepticism as to one particular cause.
But the anecdotal evidence of those who are really dependent on the sun…the growers…should be enough of a warning signal to give us all pause.
Regardless….Earth has been around a lot longer than our species.
We will only be as lucky to survive IF we are to figure out how to coexist with the cycles that occur over the eons.
In that sense….may God help us. Fire or freeze….we can only rely on the truth…our greatest ally.
The world may not be ending for us (LOL)….but are we REALLY paying attention and trying to prepare for her signals??
Or are we just reacting??
Quote of the day: “The sun is blank–no sunspots.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Correction: “Water, thicker than air.”
LOL I am a terrible editor
Geoff Alder (06:03:45) : May I, as a humble ignoramus and an avid follower of WUWT, put a question to this world of scientific luminaries?
Well, I’m no luminary, but I’ve seen this come around a couple of times and not much answer, so I toss in what I know.
It’s all about size. The crust is very thick on an absolute scale, and it’s the absolutes that matter, not the scaled down model.
Is the planetary crust an unsurpassed insulator, capable of keeping its core molten forever?
Not unsurpassed, more like mediocre, but it’s thick; and it won’t keep the core molten forever, but for a very long time.
According to these folks:
http://www.greenbuilder.com/sourcebook/EarthGuidelines.html
a 10 inch (about 25 cm) earth wall has an R value of about 4.9 (call it 5).
So it doesn’t take too many 10 inch spaces to be at an R value of about 100 (IIRC, you just add them, so 20 chunks of 10 inches ought to be 20 times the R value or R100.) I make that about 200 inches (500 cm or 5 meters).
There is a whole lot more than 5 meters worth of dirt and rock below any given place on the surface… So that total R value is something to be admired!
Add to that the decay of radioactive stuff in the core and you get a lot of generated heat that can’t get out very quick.
Thus the observation that a couple of meters down the earth is the average of your annual temperature (more or less) and then starts rising at a more or less constant rate as you go more and more kilometers down.
The other problem with size in the popular conception is that the mantel gets really liquid like water just a little ways down there. It isn’t. It’s more like pudding or even like warm (not molten) wax. There is plastic flow for most of it, but that is not like water, it’s more like squeezing toothpaste or mashing ice cream. Yeah, it flows, but not very fast! Highly liquid lava / magma is fairly rare. (Water content makes some magma more liquid, so lava from near subduction zones is more liquid, thus part of the reason for volcanoes near subduction zones.) There are liquid layers, but not nearly as many or as much as commonly believed (until you get to the very deep layers). So, much of the mass transfer driven heat transfer is slower than folks expect as well.
When physical transport moves hot stuff to the surface, you get a lot of local heat in a hurry. This tends to be volcanos and hot springs / geologic “features”. This is the exception.
There are plumes of very hot liquid magma that rise from the deep liquid layer at selected spots around the world. These “hotspots” are places like Hawaii and Yellowstone. The extra heat gives very liquid magma even though the water content is low. These are far less common in the world (dozens scale).
So the bottom line is that most of the world has a very thick insulator over the hot stuff and the hot stuff doesn’t move all that much (at least until you get very very deep…) This ends up with the near surface temperature being pretty darned constant over most of the world with the exception of a few fairly small hot spots that poke through; and not all that much heat making it to the very top of the surface to heat snow, rain, etc. This lets the very top surface temperature wander over some large extremes.
klockarman (07:36:27) :
Ron de Haan (03:22:07) : See: http://algorelied.com/?p=899
It’s titled, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Like Ron, I believe that this study is worthy of discussion. I’d fully expected every AGW skeptic blog in the world to link to this article as I did, and yet there seems to be a collective shrugging of the shoulders. I am as mystified as Ron is.
Maybe I can help. I read them both. They looked to be reasonably well done to me. What was there for me to say? “Oh look, yet another proof that will be ignored by the AGW folks and power elite?” or maybe “Gee, a well done study that will be picked to death because the author uses split infinitives?”
Basically, it will have to go through the mill and be pounded on for a while and maybe if it survives it will slowly, over the course of a decade or so, shift the scientific debate; but we’ve left that regime in the USA as we have politically driven policy happening Right Now and no amount of science nor proof will change that.
Yes, I’m somewhat fatalistic about things, now. It will pass, but it will take a couple of years. My real hope rests with a moribund sun, GCRs raising clouds, ozone heading down, and abnormally cold weather slapping politicians up side the head. Any enhanced scientific paper is helpful sometime in the next decade, maybe, but that’s kind of like saying that you got a say of execution just 5 minutes after the switch was pulled and “Old Sparky” has done his thing. Nice for your heirs, but not so much for you…
I’d like to be excited about it. I’d like to have a raging debate about the merits of their discovery. But on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I’m working with a threat to “safety” (one off the bottom) and you want me to look at a really neat “self actualization” (at the very top level) and I’m thinking “Can I get back to you on that one, mate? I’ve got a bit of a question of where my next meal is coming from and what will be left in my accounts after the socialists get done spending my money…”
I’d generally avoided mentioning this, since I didn’t want to spoil anyone else’s fun; but you asked, a couple of times, so here we are.
FWIW, I’ve moved as much money as possible to places where it can not be grabbed nor squandered in the lunacy that is to come (happening now?). Maybe as soon as I see that it is working, I’ll move back up Maslow’s toward self actualization and sophistic debate will be more attractive again…
“There are plumes of very hot liquid magma that rise from the deep liquid layer at selected spots around the world. These “hotspots” are places like Hawaii and Yellowstone.”
There is another that is apparently forming and hasn’t had a super eruption yet though one might be brewing. Nyiragongo in the Democratic Republic of Congo appears that it might be sitting on top of a mantle plume.
Oh, and Toba is erupting again.
Robert Bateman (18:06:19) :
Nightime temps did not reach the 40’s until June. I did not know about the decreased upper atmosphere, but I did know about what happens to crops when the solar cycle fails to ramp. We got more in than most people because we planted cooler weather varieties and root crops.
Those whom I was able to warn did ok.
Same in the UK last growing season. My polytunnel tomatoes didn’t ripen until late October! This year the main uncovered bed is full of potatoes and onions, with some room left for leeks and beetroot when they are ready to transplant. Courgettes also suffered last year, even in the polytunnel they didn’t crop heavily. Extra doses of seaweed fertiliser this year as I got given five hundredweight by an organic outfit where it has just been outlawed as ‘unecological’.
crosspatch (10:56:09) : And as humans are pretty much tied to “this year’s harvest” globally, anything that disrupts one or two growing seasons is going to end up killing a significant portion of the human population on the planet.
[…]Our existence as we know it is actually quite fragile.
You are correct, but the degree is worse than that…
We ship grain globally. We no longer store one years harvest and use it over the year. Grain is harvested and used in near real time. We have a few weeks of grain at any one time. We are pretty much tied to “The next seasonal harvest wherever it is”. The loss of Australian & Argentine wheat would have immediate consequences. Ditto the loss of Canadian / US wheat.
But wait, theirs more:
We don’t need a global crop failure to create a crisis. One large rock fall from space would make a tidal wave that would swamp / sink the major shipping needed to move that grain to where it is needed. It would take many years to rebuild those ships. The five major grain exporting regions would be fine (modulo the economic collapse – at least they would have lots of food) but the rest of the world would starve to some degree; or to a large degree if a big enough rock. This will happen. It’s just a matter of time. We, as a globe, are betting it will take a few hundred years. It could happen tomorrow (in fact, ought to happen soon; given the sizes that fall vs how often vs how long ago…)
FWIW, this is IMHO the most likely catastrophe we, as a planet, face. We really ought to be building granaries and storing a year or two of grain distributed evenly about the planet…
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 21, NO. 18, PAGES 2067-2070, SEPTEMBER 1, 1994
Does anyone know the whereabouts and name of this database of sunspot groups?
Nice summary E.M. Smith, but just a couple of corrections/clarifications.
“(Water content makes some magma more liquid, so lava from near subduction zones is more liquid, thus part of the reason for volcanoes near subduction zones.)”
While water certainly plays an important role in magmas, the greatest control on a magma’s viscosity is the silica content (SiO2). The more SiO2, the more viscosity. Magma’s in subduction zones require water for their generation, but typically these mamga’s have higher silica contents and are more viscous. Magma’s from subduction zones are typically andesitic (53-56% SiO2). The runny “water-like” magma’s come from the dry melts of the mantle in places like hawaii. These melts are basaltic (48-52% SiO2).
Temperature also has a major control on a magma’s viscosity. Magma from subduction zones are generated when water brought down on the subucting oceanic crust lowers the melting temperature of the surrounding mantle and magma’s form. These “wet melts” occur at lower temperatures then magma’s from rifts or hot spots.
In rifts and hot spots, as hot mantle ascends from deep within the mantle, during the ascent pressure changes more quickly than temperature, so when the pressure is low enough, magmas form. This is called decompression melting. These “dry melts” occur at much higher temperatures than the previously mentioned wet melts.
So colder, more silica-rich, and thus more viscous lavas in subduction zones (Cascades), hot, less silica-rich and runnier melts in hot spots (Hawaii) and rifts (Mid ocean ridges).
Another note about mantle convection is the science is not settled there. There are some folks who will make the case for whole-mantle convection and others that will argue there is a layered convection. As a geochemist, I ‘know’ the mantle is not well mixed, and therefore only a layered convective model can explain the observed geochemistry from the rocks we collect. Geophysics will argue that their tomography shows evidence for whole-mantle convection. The point is, it would be important understand how the heat/mass transfer works within the earth, before we try and apply it to surface temperatures.
Roger Carr (19:12:01) :
Ron de Haan (06:04:24) wrote in part: “In this regard it’s a key that could simplify any future discussions and block any Government action on the reduction of CO2…
I applaud that belief, Ron, and support it. Perhaps I have grown tired; but not too tired to be uninspired by your vision. Ride on, sir!
Roger,
This subject has nothing to do with belief.
It’s about our future.
This is the wrong moment in time to get tired and give up.
We are now in the phase where political decisions about legislation are made based on BS (Bad Science) and a very unhealthy political ideology. And it’s happening world wide.
We have the science on our side, mother nature playing her cards in our favor and we have all the social, political and legal arguments on our side to counter this eco fascist coup that will rob our future.
We have the advantage of the current crises that has put the break on budgets world wide and a fast growing opposition.
What to think about this recent posting I found at http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13087:
We Won’t Pay
Wednesday, 18 Mar 09, politics
“According to an article in the Washington Times ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/ ), the cost of Obama’s cap-and-trade plan could exceed $2 trillion. How can anyone even calculate such a thing? The collateral damage to the economy is beyond conception, until it happens.
What if millions of taxpayers materialized outside post offices on April 15 and burned their returns? Such a protest would exceed the reach of law enforcement. The IRS would be overwhelmed. If it does not happen this year, it will surely happen next year. But by then the damage would be done. There is still time to stop the juggernaut, if the public gets angry enough. soon enough.
For starters, get off withholding, if you can. Don’t let the government take your earnings before you receive them. This makes it too easy for you to ignore the confiscation”.
If you read the comments posted at the Washington post article you can see for yourself that opposition is building.
We have to make an inventory of the best science available, formulate our arguments, short and powerful, group and organize creating an international platform, get the necessary financing and simply stop this madness.
That’s what we have to do.
The Heartland Institute already has moved to a political level supporting an Australian Political Party and hosting the ICCC meeting which was opened by EU President Vaclav Klaus.
I think we have a hell of a ship in terms of the science and the arguments and it’s of coast. We only have to get our bearings and sail it into the harbor.
David Archibald (14:47:43) : We have burnt most of the oil, there are now shortages of basic commodities like coking coal,
Um, these are not true. We have maybe burnt about 1/2 of the oil, or maybe not. It is not clear that we have passed Hubberts peak. And even at that, it’s a broad peak. We’ve had a 100 year lead in (and will have a 100 year exit). So for at least the next 10 to 20 years of their lives there will be no significant reduction in total oil pumped each year even if we are at Hubberts peak (it really starts falling off in about year 120 to 140.)
There is no shortage of coking coal reserves. We have a limited capacity to produce above the typical rate per year and when China was rebuilding whole regions for modernity and for the Olympics at the same time we reached that production limit but that is not a shortage of resource. We run out of coking coal in about 200 to 400 years. Then we will need to resort to biomass or other manufactured carbon lumps… at almost the same cost.
For almost all commodities, any “shortages” are not resource shortages, they are production rate limits. It just makes no economic sense to size your operation for the 5% or less of the business cycle where demand is excessive and about to drop off anyway.
My calculations are that a full blown Dalton Minimum rerun will reduce US agricultural production by 20%, taking the US out of the export food market. In turn, for some people on the planet, this will mean that eating animal protein will be a fond memory.
That, too, is excessive. Most of our food production goes directly into livestock feed grains, not human food. We can easily export a lot more human food if it were desired. And yes, that would mean less beef but not necessarily less meat! Chicken and pork are about a 3:1 feed conversion ratio. Beef is 10:1 more or less. So with a 70% reduction in feed grains for beef production, we could eat the same volume of meat… It would just be chickens and pigs instead of beef… Catfish farming has about a 1:1 feed conversion ratio, as does trout farming. So the worst case is we would have to “scrape by” with trout almondine and fried catfish. Hardly draconian.
So I’d suggest recasting your “pitch” from “we used the good stuff, you get the icky dregs” into more of a “You get as good as we got, but you need to use your imagination to give your children even more, with less, as we have done.”
Frankly, the whole “running out” pitch is just broken. It fails to realize that we create resources by applying technology to whatever is laying around. There are unlimited resources as long as we have a planet to live on. We just have not needed to figure out how to use most of them before.
For example: Almost all the copper mined today would not have been thought of as copper ore when I was a child. It was assumed impossible to use. Another? We can extract Uranium from sea water at economical prices. We can never “run out” of Uranium (and thus, of energy); we can only choose not to use it. The same technology can extract other metals. Yet another? There are something like 500 Gigatons of Manganese nodules on the ocean floor. These hold copper and other metals too. We don’t harvest them (even though we know how) because other sources are still cheaper. They are not a ‘resource’ even though we can use them any time we wish. (What each person on the planet would do with their ~100 ton share I leave for the student to decide 😎 Trees? We can grow wood fiber in timber lots at between 10 and 50 Tons / acre /year (depending on species and conditions). We don’t need that much… The list goes on and on, but I don’t…
So I’d suggest an upbeat message about the nifty fields of engineering, mining, polymer Uranium ion adsorption surface chemistry, advance agronomy, etc. laying in front of them to choose from, to “save the planet” from minor discomfort…
Oh what the heck, one more: There are several companies that have developed engineered building materials made from straw composites. They have names like “strawboard” and “goldenboard”. We burn, plough under, or just leave in the field to rot thousands and thousands of tons of this stuff every year. If we made it all into building materials, the whole country would be built over in just a few years (think single digit to low double digit.) We will never run out of construction panels, plyboard, or ‘timbers’. The biggest issue these products face is that their raw material is harvested in only part of the year, where trees are harvested year round. So the companies are not very profitable (yet) and have trouble competing with cheap plentiful wood.
That, btw, is an example of the usual kinds of trap the Malthusian approach falls into. It assumes that a lack of economically available substitute product today means no substitute exists (shortage! running out!) when it usually just means the original is still so dirt cheap that the alternatives can’t price compete effectively. The Malthusians also assume that a ‘tight market’ somehow means “shortage” when it usually is no such thing; it’s just a production rate limit at peak demand.
See:
http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/weblog/2008/06/strawboard-panels.htm
http://www.environbiocomposites.com/products.php
and even cabinetry & nick-nacks made from straw composites:
http://www.greenhomeguide.com/index.php/product/C126
http://www.golden-board.com/
for examples. Or do a google search on “Earthship” for the ultimate in low brow resource. Very interesting homes built from rammed earth, trash tires, and used drink bottles… I don’t think we are in danger of running out of dirt and trash…
Benjamin P. (01:08:58) : Nice summary E.M. Smith, but just a couple of corrections/clarifications.
Thanks. I was trying to gloss over the exact “why” a magma was more ‘runny’ by conflating the chemistry / temperature / water process into a single “is runny” metric. When I’m in a “Layman explainer” mode, I’ve found that it’s often needed to hide the actual chemistry (as much as I love it) or math (if beyond algebra) while keeping the sense of it correct. My other mode is more of a “Mr. Science” mode with painful detail and prolix style. It usually is reserved for when the topic demands it (based on the questioners style / level) or if someone shows the slightest interest in Economics 😉
Robert Bateman (18:06:19) :
“David Archibald (14:47:43) :
There are reports that Spring in some parts of the US is two weeks later than normal. Two weeks at both ends of the growing season and you have a significant effect.
We are already seeing that in our locale. The spring was late, the greening was slow and pale, and the fall found plants stopping ripening even when the weather was still quite warm.
A wine grape harvest failed, many gardens had soured vegetables and fruit trees failed to ripen.
Nightime temps did not reach the 40’s until June. I did not know about the decreased upper atmosphere, but I did know about what happens to crops when the solar cycle fails to ramp. We got more in than most people because we planted cooler weather varieties and root crops.
Those whom I was able to warn did ok.
I cannot warn a state, much less a whole nation, out of my reach”.
Robert,
May I ask the question why we have a Ministry/Department of Agriculture.
They should inform the farmers about the type of crops they have to plant.
Maybe they too are obsessed with the AGW hoax causing them to fail their primary responsibilities?
Leif Svalgaard (19:02:22) said
More constrained by the necessity of making everything fit together. [snip] It is the nature of the beast.
Reply: Behave Eli ~ charles the moderator going to bed waaaayy too late
E.M.Smith (02:47:24) wrote in part: So I’d suggest recasting your “pitch” from “we used the good stuff, you get the icky dregs” into more of a “You get as good as we got, but you need to use your imagination to give your children even more, with less, as we have done.”
A fine and inspirational posting, E, M.. Thank you.
@crosspatch
In the year 535 the last Western Roman emperor was already more then 75 years dead. The Eastern Roman empire actually lasted untill the late middle ages and was called Byzantium. The 530’s and later did see the infamous Gothic wars, which saw temporary restauration of Emperial Roman rule. In fact parts of Italy remained under Byzantine rule known as exarchate and formed the basis of the Papal states.
The Dark Ages is another name for the migratory period, which started well before the 530’s. Attila’s invasion of Gaul and Italy was in 450 and 452.