An interesting tidbit from the Australian Antarctic Division (h/t to Trevor Gunter)
Scientists have long searched for linkages between solar variability and weather. The sun varies on a wide-range of time scales, most dramatically on an ~11 year cycle which is strongly associated with the number and extent of sunspots on the sun and the occurrence of aurora at high latitudes. While correlations of weather and solar variability have been reported, often-times to disappear when further measurements become available, no viable mechanism for the strongest associations has been confirmed. One difficulty is that the variable solar energy, despite sunspots and aurora being spectacular, is but a small fraction of 1% of the total solar energy. Any mechanism for changing weather and climate by solar variability must involve influencing the distribution of the energy within the weather system. One possible mechanism is via the Earth’s geoelectric field.
Thunderclouds separate electric charge with positive charges accumulating in the upper reaches of the cloud and negative charges near its base. The lightning generated drags current from the Earth and, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is easier for this current to return to the Earth in a less dramatic fashion via the 99% of the Earth not covered by thunderstorms at any particular time. Currents preferentially travel along lines of least resistance. At altitudes above ~90 km, the Earth’s atmosphere contains a sufficient density of free electrons for a global equipotential to be largely maintained. The Earth’s surface is another global equipotential. Conductivity in the region of the atmosphere between these boundaries generally increases with altitude, and is dominantly maintained by ionising radiation from cosmic rays. The variation in conductivity in the atmosphere is such that the path of least resistance at an altitude greater than ~5 km is via the ionosphere, where it may spread globally and return to ground via the global ‘fair-weather’ field.
Global thunderstorms maintain the lowest reaches of the ionosphere at a potential of ~250 kV with respect to the ground. This results in a very weak atmospheric current (3 pico-amps per meter squared) toward the Earth in the fair-weather regions of the globe, and near the ground maintains a substantive vertical electric field of some 100 volts per meter. Cosmic ray ionisation, the magnitude of which can be controlled by solar activity via the solar wind, modulates the resistance of this global electric circuit in which thunderstorms are the generators. By controlling the ease with thunderstorms can dissipate current it is feasible that solar activity may modulate the intensity of thunderstorm development, thus modulating the distribution of energy within the meteorological system.
High, dry regions with no thunderstorms, such as the Antarctic plateau, are ideal for monitoring the global geoelectric circuit. Additional solar influences on the geoelectric field occur at high latitudes, via the same processes that generate the aurora. In conjunction with Russian and American colleagues, we presently measure the geoelectric field at the Russian station, Vostok, on the Antarctic plateau. We have shown that solar variability can influence the geoelectric field measured at ground level in polar regions, and are continuing to develop research instrumentation and methods of testing the viability of a solar variability influence on weather and climate through modulation of the geoelectric circuit.
For more information, email: sas@aad.gov.au
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
crosspatch (13:11:12) :
I would add that his “activated water” it was just water a bit ionized. However, here we are approaching to the following: Sun- water (clouds and seas)- ionization -climate.
“Now this large heat capacity of water has an equalizing effect on our climate.
Long after the summer is gone, the oceans are still warmer than the continents, and areas close to the ocean enjoy a much milder climate than those remote from the seas.
earth.boisestate.edu/home/jmcnamar/hydro08/Readings/water_peculiar.pdf
Svensmark´s idea of clouds cooling the earth would be only a part of the phenomenon because these can cool or warm and viceversa ,relatively to their amount. Being possible also a cooling through enhanced loss of heat when there were no clouds or almost none.
So, apart of Svensmark´clouds´ forming due to CR there would be a variability caused by ionization (electrical charges), its effect on rain and heat balance.
Not taking yet into consideration the “accidental” variations caused by aerosols from volcanic eruptions, as these brown clouds:
http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg
Here the link:
earth.boisestate.edu/home/jmcnamar/hydro08/Readings/water_peculiar.pdf
Yawn, pico amperes, 1/5 of a degree variation in magnetic field. To simplify equations I eliminate the insignificant. Solar variation is only insignificant if GHG influences are over estimated, which I believe is true by a factor of three. Natural influences I believe are under estimated by a factor of two. If I am right, solar, GHG and natural variation are all significant.
For natural variations, negative PDO, AMO etc. result in an attempt to heat the tropics which are near maximum temperature to begin with resulting in more convection. More tropical convection results in more heat loss with minimal global temperature rise. In reverse, positive oscillations result in higher temperatures less prone to convection. This results in global temperature rise due to simple math.
The MWP would be a regional event because it occurred in a region more easily influenced by temperature change. Northern Europe can have a three degree temperature rise during a positive oscillation, while the tropics would barely make a 0.3 degree temperature rise during a negative oscillation.
I still think you guys should read more Tsonis.
Ron de Haan (13:27:08) :
If you quote me, please make a correct quote, I stated NO measurable effect.
We can measure temperatures to a very small fraction of a degree, like 0.001 K or better. So if the effect was 0.002 K it would be measurable. You do not really mean ‘measurable’. You meant ‘discernible’ which means that if the CO2 had a 0.5 degree effect that can easily be measured], but was buried in 2 degrees [say] of natural ‘noise’, then one could say ‘not discernible’, but certainly measurable. When I said ‘NO effect’ I meant ‘NO measurable effect’, with the implicit assumption [which is always there – stated or not] that anything that is smaller than we can measure [as limited by our instruments] is NO effect.
Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)
It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.
jorgekafkazar (12:44:46) :
I thought the voltage difference between the ionosphere and the surface was created by the effect of solar electromagnetic radiation on the upper atmosphere, particularly from the shorter wavelengths, plus a small contribution from solar wind and cosmic rays.
It is not [careful reading of your link will show you that they don’t don’t say that]. The Solar radiation and wind only ionizes the air, that is removes an electron from an atom, leaving you with no net charge [it was neutral before, now has a negative electron and a positive ion, still a total of zero], so no voltage difference with the surface.
Mike McMIllan (12:48:02) :
Anyway, using Leif’s 0.72K for 1%, a 100% increase in solar output would add 72K to our temperature. In Celsius, 15 + 72 = 87°C. So doubling the sun’s output would not boil our oceans away.
You calculation is not quite correct, because the simple formula dT/T = 1/4 dS/S is only valid for small changes (dS and dT). If you double the Sun’s output the temperature goes up by a factor equal to the fourth root of 2, which is 1.19, for a total temperature of 342K or 69C. Still lower than 100C, though. However at lot of limestone would probably release a lot of CO2 at that temperature, plus there would be a lot more H2O vapor, so it is possible that the combined greenhouse effect might led to runaway. This probably happened on Venus, where solar input to the system is about twice of what it is for the Earth.
Paul Vaughan (15:05:30) :
Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)
It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.
If so, Pamela errs, as it seems there are people out there that clearly do not understand this.
Leif Svalgaard (14:54:47) :
We can measure temperatures to a very small fraction of a degree, like 0.001 K or better.
Um, we cannot measure the global “temperature” to that level of accuracy (or precision). Most of the thermometers being used in the field are not the sort a physicist would use in a lab.
Of course, that global “temperature” means anything must also be taken as a given. Given the context of Ron’s statement, it’s all but a certainty that’s what was being referred to.
Mark
Harold Ambler (08:03:11) :
“A hundred years from now, people will marvel at how little we knew about climate and weather in 2009.”
This reminds me of Michael Crichton’s observation at man’s audacity at trying to solve the problems of civilization 100 years in the future. Paraphrasing from memory so don’t hold me accountable for total accuracy:
If scientist in NYC in 1900 were considering the problems that civilization was facing in the year 2000, they’d probably be thinking “how can we breed enough horses to meet transportation needs in 2000, and what are we going to do with all the horse#$%”
I wish Michael had lived much longer. He was a clear, logical and non-emotional thinker which drove the warmists nuts! Eventually I believe his prescience will be recognized.
If you ever feel the debate is spinning out of control, go to his website and look at his speeches on the deterioration of science over the last generation:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/
Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:16:39)
My theory was that Leif Svalgaard would rush to Pamela Gray’s defense since Pamela Gray appears to have adopted Leif Svalgaard’s “consensus” view without question.
Paul Vaughan (15:05:30) :
Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)
It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.
If so, Pamela errs, as it seems there are people out there that clearly do not understand this.
I think Einstein said the universe was simple. He never mentioned the atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard (15:12:42) : “…so it is possible that the combined greenhouse effect might led to runaway.This probably happened on Venus, where solar input to the system is about twice of what it is for the Earth”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Ron de Haan (13:38:27) :
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
I came across this paper, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, a couple of months ago and was agreeably surprised since it embodies and restates arguments which I have been making for years.
It is clear, well argued and in my view sound, however I suspect non physicists might have a rather hard time of it.
Moreover it suffers from setting its scope a little wide and whilst being thorough is rather ponderous. This is not unusual for German physics papers. Moreover I assume it is a translation and some of the wording, although understandable, might strike the native English/American speaker as a bit whimsical.
What i will try to do, rather boldly, in the next couple of weeks is prepare a short summary of it for the more general reader and I hope post it on here.
Kindest Regards
Open the windows!!, too much greenhouse in here!, let it go up up and away! 🙂
This is what Gerlich & Tscheuschner say, in just a sentence.
a jones says:
I don’t think it is the non-physicists who have a hard time with it as much as us physicists who don’t really like people blatantly misapplying the laws of thermodynamics. I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T if you want to have any dream of being taken seriously in the scientific community. If the “skeptic community” can’t distinguish between G&T and real science, you folks frankly have no hope of having any serious impact on the scientific discourse.
Mark T (15:24:01) :
Of course, that global “temperature” means anything must also be taken as a given. Given the context of Ron’s statement, it’s all but a certainty that’s what was being referred to.
Global temperature has a very precise and physically real meaning, namely that temperature that will produce an emission of radiation equal to that measured by a satellite at some distance from the Earth. In a hundred years time that will be the way we’ll measure the ‘global temperature’, just as we today measure the TSI to high precision. In fact, a very good project would be a satellite at L1 looking at and measuring the total radiance of the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and some stars at the same time.
Although I am reasonably skeptical, I find all these attacks on the greenhouse affect to be fairly unscientific. There is no doubt that greenhouses work by inhibiting convection, and the warming mechanism by which co2 inhibits long wave radiation emission from the earth is completely different. But this is the postulated warming mechanism, and for want of a better metaphor, it is termed the greenhouse affect. While the papers conclusions are not necessarily incorrect, they are hardly well developed or demonstrated.
Joel Shore (18:44:24) :
I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T
Hear, hear.
Paul Vaughan (15:52:33) :
Pamela Gray appears to have adopted Leif Svalgaard’s “consensus” view without question.
Nothing said anything about consensus. If you question everything, you’ll learn and understand nothing.
” If the “skeptic community” can’t distinguish between G&T and real science, you folks frankly have no hope of having any serious impact on the scientific discourse.”
Is that the “real science” that has been pushing these myths?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html
And these from Roger Sowell’s great comment?
“EPA stated “The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future–including but not limited to” (my responses in parentheses)
1. the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, (even if valid, which is debatable, given the dust bowl years of the 1930s, these are more likely related to Jet stream and El Nino, which are natural events and very cyclical)
2. more wildfires, (likely not a valid statement, given the short period of records, plus modern fires are more likely due to forest mis-management, lighting strikes, arson. I made a point earlier on a WUWT thread that evidence of massive wildfires in the form of layers of charcoal can be found in the banks of rivers and streams)
3. degraded air quality, (air quality laws are improving air quality)
4. more heavy downpours and flooding, (storm intensity index not higher as stated by Bolt, but more damage occurs due to population growth and location in areas prone to flooding)
5. increased drought, (droughts are cyclical, more severe droughts in the past are known, some areas of drought are caused by poor land management)
6. greater sea level rise, (see the answer already given by Bolt)
7. more intense storms, (refer to the answer for more heavy downpours and flooding, above)
8. harm to water resources, (non-sequitur; water resources are affected by agricultural runoff, overuse, population growth, but not CO2)
9. harm to agriculture (no evidence provided, crop shortages and failures not noted, instead, cold weather is inhibiting planting and is shortening growing seasons).
10. harm to wildlife and ecosystems-(polar bear populations are growing, coral atolls are thriving)
Looks to me like the EPA is 0-for-10 on this one…that is even worse than Michael Jordan’s minor league batting average.”
The United States cannot afford any more of this gobbledygook poliscience that passes for science…
a jones, I look forward to your post.
And don’t listen to the grumblers who fervently hope this site has no serious impact on the scientific discourse. It’s already having an impact.
Here are some more peer reviewed papers that falsify the hypothesis that CO2 = AGW:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
– Patrick J. Michaels
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
That narrows it down a bit.
Next.
Robert Bateman (19:47:30) :
So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
Pretty much. Except that ‘measurable’ is too fuzzy. I would say they are in principle measurable [and there are claims that they have been measured, e.g. a 0.1K influence of TSI], but difficult to ‘discern’ over the naturally occurring noise and stochastic’cycles’ as any complex phenomenon exhibits.
I am very familiar with noise from imaging. We dither fanatically, make hundreds of calibration images, dust the ccd chip, swoon over the equipment to eliminate as much tracking error as possible, drift align religiously, use ice in water buckets to keep that sensor as cold as possible, chase down every connection, clean the mirrors, flock the tubes, baffle the scope, sweat over backlash and spend days upon end decovoluting in hopes of gaining one more magnitude out of the background noise. I imaged NGC 5943 for an entire week, just to get a clearer picture of that wandering black hole trail, only to discover that I didn’t get enough 400-500 nm data.
My conclusive data was, in the end, too fuzzy.
The answer was too deeply buried in the noise for my 16″ to resolve.
I needed a big observatory, or Hubble, but my proposal was turned down.
Can’t justify it because I couldn’t prove it.
Drat and double drat.
Leif Svalgaard (19:01:45)
“Nothing said anything about consensus. If you question everything, you’ll learn and understand nothing.”
http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf
“[…] a remarkable consensus is now emerging […]”
It’s not everyday I see a paper announced as a “Consensus” – beginning with the very first word in it’s title.
Now I’m curious to know if journals that run papers related to climate science have any policies (including informal ones) on the inclusion of the word “consensus” in titles.