From Spaceweather.com
NASA’s STEREO-B spacecraft is monitoring an active region hidden behind the sun’s eastern limb.
On May 5th, it produced an impressive coronal mass ejection (movie) and a burst of Type II radio emissions caused by a shock wave plowing through the sun’s outer atmosphere. STEREO-B’s extreme UV telescope captured this image during the explosion:
Activity continued apace on May 6th with at least two more eruptions. Furthermore, recent UV images from STEREO-B reveal not just one but two active regions: image below.
At the root of all this activity is probably a complex of sunspots. The region is not yet visible from Earth, but the sun is turning it toward us for a better view. Readers with solar telescopes should keep an eye on sun’s northeastern limb for an emergence on May 7th or 8th.
Place your bets on whether the sunspots a) exist and if so b) are SC23 or c) SC24 polarity.
Checking through the SOHO images, there is a nice big coronal hole near dead centre (aren’t these supposed to disappear before the next solar cycle begins?) but nothing on the northeast limb – at least so far.
The magnetogram is very quiet as well.
It strikes me that we do not know very much about the physics behind these solar eruptions. Perhaps this one event will help. I’m still struggling with how to characterize the C 23 spot from last week. Now they are saying that this will be a complex of C 24 spots. What does that mean?
OT:
I understand from friends in Juneau and from published sources that the Mendenhall Glacier increased ice mass over the last two years. Please consider posting weather data about the Juneau region similar to your post of Chico. As much as we love Chico, it is not building glaciers.
Cycle 24, from the latitude.
=================
And I’ll want to know if these biggies are still on Livingston’s decline curve.
I can’t comment on the sunspots but the WOW factor of the CME cannot be underestimated by this humble archaeologist.
Such raw power.
Its easier to see stuff like this when the sun is quiet, and from an angle.. but I doubt you will be seeing a sunspot out of the deal.. images for today that I can find have no spots so far.
ps.. anyone else seeing Ads by google in the story above?
It means PolicyGuy, that solar cycles have alternately magnetically polarized sunspots. So if the polarization is one way SC – 23, another – SC24.
The magnetogram will enable you to tell them apart.
That cooks it.
We’ll see a spot for sure now. It’s been discussed on WUWT.
I read a piece on Wired Science about this yesterday. It speculated on the size of the event and how it might put an end to speculation of global cooling. The area in question might not be visible until Friday. We’ll see by the weekend.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/sunspot/
One word – “awsome”!
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3250/cme20090505v1.gif
OT:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/05/mafia_wind_biz/
Mafia-busting Italian magistrates have launched a major investigation into crooked windfarm projects in Sicily, according to reports. It is suggested that large sums in government support have been collected for wind power stations which in many cases produce no electricity.
******************************
My question:
And how is this different from any other wind power project?
OT but relevant to solar is a post on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog covering the work of Dr Miskolczi. It suggests heat radiated from sun is the driver of our climate together with the distance of the earth from the sun.
See:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/
John A (23:55:25) :
Place your bets on whether the sunspots a) exist and if so b) are SC23 or c) SC24 polarity.
********************
Neither – It’s just a couple of solar zits – should clear up in no time.
Judging from the Magnetogram’s appearance of cold polished granite, I’d say this one turns out just like the other one. They look all big & bad out there on Stereo Behind but when they roll into view they are either dead or dying.
Might get a nice white-light faculae or two out of them.
Not getting my hopes up, the movie is all too familiar.
Anthony.Came across this article today .Sorry about posting it here-not really a comment. couldn’t find a normal contact method. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325899798635675&kw=al,gore
Reply: You might at least have tried posting in a relevant thread. ~ charles the moderator
Its very sobering to see the sun in action, CMEs put our petty concerns down here into perspective I think and still learned people suggest the sun is a minor driver of climate.
The question is how big does a CME pointing in our direction have to be to cause us real harm? the odd burp we can handle with just the nice visual effects of the northern lights but a very very powerful CME might just put back in the dark ages or worse, I wonder what the chances are of a really big CME?
An interesting article by James A Marusek on the two alternative paths that the next solar cycle may go down. http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Signpost.pdf
A direct CME hit on Earth would be catastrophic for the industrialised countries with energy, international communications and transport systems brought to a dead stop for possibly months until the systems could be brought back on line.
That would mean the loss of sewerage systems, water systems, fuel supplies and therefore no food supplies as the 4 day long stockpile of food in the major cities ran out.
No food resupplies as all transport will have stopped because of no fuel.
Gas supplies would cease after a few days as the computer controlled systems failed.
Stored refrigerated food would spoil after about 4 days.
No road signal lights and traffic chaos for any traffic still moving.
No central government or even state government co-ordination as most government systems will have also broken down.
Medical systems would be back to a 100 years ago without power after their fuel for the back up generators ran out.
There would also be the possibility of massive losses of electronically recorded or coded information, most of which would be irreplaceable.
And much more!
Nobody talks about a direct hit from a massive CME but it would make all the claims on the effects of global warming look like a teddy bears picnic!
At over 1.4 million kilometers (869,919 miles) wide, the Sun contains 99.86 percent of the mass of the entire solar system: well over a million Earths could fit inside its bulk. The total energy radiated by the Sun averages 383 billion trillion kilowatts, the equivalent of the energy generated by 100 billion tons of TNT exploding each and every second yet still learned people suggest the sun is a minor driver of climate compared to CO2.
I read an article or comment that CMEs were more frequent in the 19th century during periods of lower sunspot numbers. Is this true? Is this one of Leif Svaalgard’s indicators that the sun was more active in the 19th than said?
I do know that some of the largest CMEs observed were in the 19th.
ROM 3:23:30
Yeah, that’s the one. Apparently it was being approved as I was typing my previous comment.
ROM (03:23:30) :
You just aren’t reading the right blog. Check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/25/compared-to-the-suns-power-we-are-a-fly-speck-on-an-elephants-butt/
Perhaps this activity offers a chance to test the converse of the Watts Effect. Where we know that posts about a quiet sun are often followed by reports of a new sunspeck, then it may be that reports of an active region are followed by a blank sun.
BTW, http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ is stale and has a 05/06 01:41 timestamp, but http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/ (the magnetic field image) is 05/07 04:53 and is remarkably quiet.
PaulHClark (02:54:51) :
OT but relevant to solar is a post on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog covering the work of Dr Miskolczi. It suggests heat radiated from sun is the driver of our climate together with the distance of the earth from the sun.
See:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/
PaulClark,
Here is a short video that explains the theory clearly:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/miklos-zagoni-explains-miskolczis.html
AGW is dead.
Ric Werme;
OOPS! the memory banks must be fading or I missed it which is not often when WUWT is concerned.
Well if a big CME hits sometime in the near future and the world goes to hell in a bread basket, Anthony will be able to say, “Should’ve read my blog!”
Maybe so, but its like trying to kill cockroaches with ripple sole shoes – they keep coming back
Allan, I corrected your quote.
“An interesting article by James A Marusek on the two alternative paths that the next solar cycle may go down.”
Considering the time devoted to the second path, ‘Grand Minima’, he may be tipping his hand. Our expert predicts the former, but Janssens’ spotless days progressions and lengths point to a regime change to a few cycles of comparative quiet.
And, of course, the cyclomaniacs called it Grand Minima years ago. I’ll go with Bateman’s forecast for presumptuous CME activity by sunspeck.
Read up on the Carrington flare of 1859.
James A Marusek, retired Navy man and Physicist has writen a couple of papers on the consequences. See reference as posted by ROM
Plus a long winded paper with some scary predictions at the end
Sloar Storm Predictions and Threat analysis
It seems that the Federal Government and the Military did a great deal of study on the effects of CME during the cold war. Of course their study was related to the CME effects of a nuclear blast. Some of the systems were “protected”
to prevent their damage by CME but one of our blasts just wouldn’t measure up the that put out by our friend Ole Sol. The results of the studies were not good news for the industrialized world.
Bill Derryberry
Cycle 24 for real and at last? It may be, hurrah. Though it is mighty interesting to watch what the sun is doing regardless.
It’s pretty amusing to me to watch Spaceweather.com cheerleading Cycle 24 (and higher solar activity). whenever there is anything that even hints at higher activity they are ready to announce ‘THE SUN IS BACK!’ .
Re: ROM (03:23:30)
Has the Earth ever taken a direct hit from a CME, perhaps in pre-industrial times, say?
100 quatloos on a cycle 23 spot!
And National Geographic just published the quiet sun article. This is the NatGeo Effect?
Even the mainstream media is catching on, but notice the obligatory disclaimer about climate change at the end.
———–
Posted on Wed, May. 06, 2009
Theories on calmer sun flare up
By SCOTT CANON
The Kansas City Star
Could Earth’s star, that life-giving ball of fire worshipped by the ancients and the tanned alike, be mellowing?
New research suggests the sun might be calming, erupting in fewer solar flares and winds that send cosmic rays spraying out toward the planets.
That could mean colder weather. And although it’s not time to put away your Ray-Bans, the sun also could be dimming ever so slightly.
A similar phenomenon caused what’s often called the Little Ice Age that chilled Europe and North America enough to form an ice barrier around Greenland and freeze solid the canals of the Netherlands.
Scientists don’t yet know if the seemingly calmer sun will linger in this lull. It’s too early to tell.
Yet a more tranquil sun would mean less protection from cosmic rays swirling into the solar system from elsewhere in our galaxy. That, in turn — assuming a controversial correlation between clouds and cosmic rays is correct — might mean fewer clouds, and without that pillowy cumulus, we might…bake more than ever.
Or … without them, the warming blanket effect of clouds could be lost and we could chill.
“You could have all these competing effects,” said Gregory Rudnick, an astronomy professor at the University of Kansas. “We don’t have a really good understanding of this.”
What’s known is that solar activity is as mild as it’s been in nearly a century.
The sun has always been an up-and-down heavenly body, regularly running through 11-year cycles of high and low flaring and winds and sunspots as its magnetic poles switch from north to south and back.
That overlaps with the Gleissberg Cycle, which runs roughly 80 years. If the universe is seeing those two line up now, the effect on Earth could be a decade or two of slightly lower temperatures.
Last year was at the bottom of the 11-year cycle with its next peak due in 2013 — most obvious in the form of more dramatic northern lights on Earth.
Yet 2008 was even more placid on the fiery orb than in most down years. Sunspots were seen barely one day out of four, the calmest since 1913.
So far this year, they’ve been seen hardly one day in 10.
If the effect is to cool the Earth, as in the so-called Maunder Minimum, the Little Ice Age that ran from 1645 to 1715, some scientists worry that it would mask the effects of global warming caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases.
“The problem is if the sun is, indeed, going into a minimum, which we don’t know yet, people will think that we don’t have to act on climate change,” said Angela Speck, an astrophysicist at the University of Missouri. “The sun came back out of that minimum in the 18th century” — when the River Thames turned to ice — “and it will come back out of this.”
“I’m inclined to think the effects are real,” said Adrian Melott, another KU astrophysicist. “But the evidence is nowhere as solid as it is for the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere” and climate change.
“My worry,” he said, “is that it will lower temperatures and cause people to think it’s OK to burn all that coal and oil.”
Theories on calmer sun flare up
By SCOTT CANON
The Kansas City Star
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1183017.html
It’s not even clear that the sun is, however temporarily, dimming. At most, it might be losing a tenth of a percent of its brightness and that might be a factor in changing temperatures on Earth.
Whatever is happening, it’s not the dying of our star.
The ball of gas took shape almost 5 billion years ago and is actually growing ever hotter. Scientists think it has at least another 5 billion years left.
Holy crap! The sun has turned green! Run for your lives!!
Jeff 06:53:12 – “Holy crap! The sun has turned green! Run for your lives!!”
No no no, don’t run, duck and cover!
We’re just seeing some preliminary activity and the sun will be waking up more during the month of June. And we’re going to to see the highest level of activity since March 2008.
“Holy crap! The sun has turned green! Run for your lives!!’
That is funny!
Without any historic comparison, this is a little miss-leading. Can some one direct us to a photo or movie of a medium and large CME?
@ Joseph: I believe there was a a big CME event in 1859, called the Carrington Event after the chap who actually saw it happening at the time, British astronomer Richard Carrington. See Wikipedia for more details.
“No no no, don’t run, duck and cover!”
Hit the ground and roll. That usually works.
Have there been events as big as this one during this minimum-say the last 12 months-?
It seems the AGW/MMCC believers are praying for more active sun, hoping and praying to the god sol that she will awake from her slumber to smite the infidel denialists and lay them low!
The AGW narrative ignored the sun as marginal when it suited, now if solar activity ramps up they can say that the lower temperatures were down to the sun and the denialists were wrong to question the dangerous global warming dogma, quite clever of them but a little desperate too.
Perhaps its the only card the AGWers have left to play, if the sun stays quiet and temperatures keep falling their cause is all but lost.
Allan M R Macrae:-))
I don’t think you are that much OT, it could have been a Solar Wind Farm!
Rob:-)
Those numbers are wonderfully Micky Mouse numbers they almost blow the mind, it puts everything into significance & perspective for me.
Having read the SPMs for FAR, SAR, TAR, & the FA……….doh!, didn’t think of that, even more reason to think this lot are a bunch of bureaucrats, then the SPM for AR4(they should have thought of that form first) table on forcing influences, I think I said a while ago now, that with all the apparent climate influences totalled up we have an increased heat input of a whopping 1.66W/m² which is 1.12% over the apparent natural Greenhouse forcing of 148W/m², big deal according to Lord Monkton! Also, the most critical thing about these SPMs is the level of scientific understanding attached to each forcing. We have gone in 6 years from IPCC SPM 2001 to IPCC SPM 2007 of having a “very low level of scientific understanding” about solar forcing, which means in lay terms “not much of a clue really” to a “low level scientific understanding”, which means “we have a lot more data than we had before, some good theories & ideas, but that’s it folks”! Such is the advancement of solar science in that vast time period. So how on Earth can any AGWer of any status say with absolute confidence, that the Sun plays a very small role in Climate effects, when by the IPCC’s own WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE PUBLIC ADMISSION TWICE IN SIX YEARS, states that they don’t really know that much about it? Were I to claim as a professional, that something I opined upon had little effect on a structure, yet at the same time publicly admitted I knew very little about its effects, I would be up before a Professional Conduct Committee were there to be an issue later on! Put another way, if the IPCC were an team of surgeons, & they said they had a low level of understanding of how the heart worked, yet they were happy to do your heart bypass operation, would you trust them to get it right? Not me guys!
Forgot to add, I am waiting with bated breath for Keanu Reeves as Klaatu to decend upon the Earth any minute now. Not a patch on the original!
AtB
From the Masurek paper:
“This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing high energy cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere…”
is typical of the nonsense out there. The cosmic ray intensity goes up by a few percent at minimum [and mostly the lowest energy cosmic rays are affected].
Cassandra King (08:12:47) :
It seems the AGW/MMCC believers are praying for more active sun, hoping and praying to the god sol that she will awake from her slumber
Of course, they are, and fanatically, but if it wakes up, that “energy money” will not go right away to “shopping” but to saving in the seas, so they would have to wait 6 to 8 years more.
Jeff Alberts (06:53:12) :
“Holy crap! The sun has turned green! Run for your lives!!”
Thank God I had just put my coffee cup down and swallowed before I read this.
.
>>Could Earth’s star, that life-giving ball of fire
>>worshipped by the ancients, be mellowing?
The Sun-god has many appellations. He was the Egyptian Ra, the Hyksos Aton, the Hebrew Eli, the Greek Heli, the Islamic Ala (Ela), the Palmyran Yahibol, the Roman Sol.
Since the Sun has exactly the same apparent diameter as the Moon, this had to be the design of the gods. And since all religion was dualist, then the serene Moon had to be the female counterpart of the blazing male Sun, while an eclipse was divine consummation.
The Moon was therefore the Egyptian Isis, the Greek Selene, the Roman Luna, and even the Christian Mary (invariably standing on a crescent Moon).
The soap-opera of the Solar System: the greatest story ever concealed.
.
They are cycle 24.
The one on right : fading spots (plague)
The one on the left, active spot regions.
Listen.. quasi- Laymen researcher here.. watch for Tectonic actividty as result of Cme.. I have been tracking trend.. and feed back greatly appreciated
Allan M R MacRae (02:51:41) :
OT:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/05/mafia_wind_biz/
Mafia-busting Italian magistrates have launched a major investigation into crooked windfarm projects in Sicily, according to reports. It is suggested that large sums in government support have been collected for wind power stations which in many cases produce no electricity.
******************************
My question:
And how is this different from any other wind power project?
alan, there is non, except for the fact that we currently have the Mafia in Government.
We had a CME earlier this month.
It had no visual effect and no sunspots were detected.
Let’s wait and see.
interesting post from Jennifer Marohasy…
The Climatically Saturated Greenhouse Effect: A Note from Christopher Game
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/#more-5058
The Miskolczi discovery of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect describes a climate process that is dynamically pinned at a thermodynamically-non-equilibrium phase transition. This means that the climate is in a stable stationary dynamical régime.
The overall effect is to keep a constant ratio of solar energetic driving to long term climate temperature. We might call this the climatic response ratio, but let us here refer to it just as ‘the ratio’. The ratio is independent of CO2 emissions, which therefore cannot increase the long term climate temperature. Only increased solar energetic driving can increase the long term climate temperature. Changes in solar energetic driving can be caused only by changes in the heat radiated from the sun and by changes in the earth’s distance from the sun. Other extraterrestrial solar system external drivers of the climate process can perturb it, but not alter the long term climate temperature. Such perturbations include many various and diverse mechanisms, such as increased admission of galactic cosmic rays, and the deterministic chaotic tidal effects of gravity of the sun, the moon, and the planets.
A question perhaps for Lief?
Considering that during an active solar cycle the TSI is measurably increased (excluding other real energy loss such as x-rays etc. and other unknowns) and that the internal nuclear engine of the sun (considering its size and internal pressures) is fairly constant) it is clear that during a period of active solar cycles the sun is actually losing energy in its upper layers? Similar to the warm/cold ocean cycles we see here on our planet.
Is it perhaps the case that this is enough to induce the period of reduced activity as we are now witnessing and in the observed cycles that have occurred before? Would this heat/energy loss not cause a slight contraction of the solar plasma on the surface and therefore the solar diameter and has been or is this measureable?
I know that the reduction is only in the very small percentage band but over an extended period and condidering the solar mass the actual energy loss involved must be huge and the period of time to replace and reheat the upper layers equally large. If this is so it could , because of the contraction, couse a pressure wave to extend to the core kicking off a heightened nuclear output that would then be manifest, say in a few thousand years as a new cycle and so infinitum untill of course the whole shebang explodes in the later stages. Pressures waves as you know can overlap and transect. Makes sense to me anyhow.
Excuse the spelling folks.
Rob (03:50:10) : “At over 1.4 million kilometers (869,919 miles) wide, the Sun contains 99.86 percent of the mass of the entire solar system: well over a million Earths could fit inside its bulk. The total energy radiated by the Sun averages 383 billion trillion kilowatts, the equivalent of the energy generated by 100 billion tons of TNT exploding each and every second yet still learned people suggest the sun is a minor driver of climate compared to CO2.”
Ah, so. Many things ‘Confucius say,’ he no say. Others say and then say he say. Same way, Learned People no say sun is minor driver of climate. Learned People say VARIABILITY of sun is minor driver of climate CHANGE.
They may be wrong, but there is no well-understood mechanism that proves the other side right. Yet. I’m really tired of seeing this straw man posted.
Douglas DC (06:16:27) :
400 quatloos on a white-light faculae.
800 quatloos on a specklet before it rotates back off the frontside.
Douglas DC (06:16:27) : “100 quatloos on a cycle 23 spot!”
Okay, 100 quatloos it is.
(I don’t think I can lose this wager. If there’s no spot, I win. If it’s a Cycle 24 spot, I win. And if it’s C23 polarity at that latitude, it’s sure to become a C25 spot. Woo-hoo!) How ’bout we make it 200 quatloos?
bushy (09:17:33) :
Considering that during an active solar cycle the TSI is measurably increased […] it is clear that during a period of active solar cycles the sun is actually losing energy in its upper layers?
The increased TSI does not come from the core, and by radiating the Sun is not ‘losing’ energy [which would happen, if energy generation in the core stopped]. The energy radiated is just a reflection of the energy generated, and they are in balance [for the moment – the next several billion years at least].
The solar cycle variation of TSI is due to surface processes related to variations of the magnetic field.
Ron de Haan (05:04:43) :
Thanks for the link. I now see that the reference is to Miskolczi’s paper of a couple of years ago. The video says it has not been falsified but actually there have been a number of challenges to it – so I think he would need to deal with those first before we could confidently say he had disproved AGW in my humble opinion.
Hmmmm … this looks to qualify as a veritable “Y2K-class event” …
Don’t think I’ll participate this time either.
Might be a good time to ‘get my book’ (CME DANGERS) out there though …
Does the CME become a sun spot or are sunspots just mini CME’s? I don’t know much about the physics of the sun and I was wondering if its entirely two different types of events that are going on. As far as I know a CME is greated from a huges difference in polarity. This blog always talks about SC23 and SC24 having to be different polarities and my assumption is that CME’s create sunspots. Am I wrong here?(FYI, fairly new to the site)
By the time they get on our side, they will be gone.
Leif, what is your take on Robert Ehrlich’s Theory?
Abstract. A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that appears to explain many details of the paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle. Other prior work suggesting a link between terrestrial paleoclimate and solar luminosity variations has not provided any specific mechanism. The particular mechanism described here has been demonstrated empirically, although not previously invoked in the solar context. The theory also lacks some of the problems associated with Milankovitch cycles.
The full article is found at: http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/Diffusion_waves.pdf
How can we tax the sun for such a shameless waste of energy?
Al Gore could sell it some offset credits.
Re: Jim H (07:44:53)
Thank you for that information Jim. Fascinating. Hmm, there seems to have been a similar event in 1989, but the damage was relatively minor (and I don’t recall experiencing any). It must take a pretty big CME to cause the destruction talked about above.
Could those two “active” area be the same ones that we say about a week or two ago?
PaulHClark (10:02:01) :
before we could confidently say he had disproved AGW in my humble opinion.
It has been said so often that for a theory to be science it must be falsifiable. Since it is claimed that AGW has been falsified, it would seem that AGW certainly meets that criterium for being science 🙂
“The increased TSI does not come from the core, and by radiating the Sun is not ‘losing’ energy [which would happen, if energy generation in the core stopped]. The energy radiated is just a reflection of the energy generated, and they are in balance [for the moment – the next several billion years at least].
The solar cycle variation of TSI is due to surface processes related to variations of the magnetic field.”
Thanks Lief and I understand what you are saying and understand that the core outputs at a constant as I metioned. However could not the temporary increased loss of energy at the surface which must be considerable in total have an influence on the solar process? My intuition tells me it must, even if minicule — which is what we see.
If AGW proponents deny the Sun’s energy drives climate, doesn’t their cheerleading for increased Sun activity (to warm the climate) totally contradict their basic contention to begin with?
A question: How many CME have happened during this somnolent sun period?
I ask because it occurs to me that CME are a form of Sun activity, too, which would also add to the energy emitted by the Sun.
For Sun experts: What is the dynamic relationship between CME’s and Sun Spots?
Bulletin: All the major climate datasets now confirm that we are in a global cooling trend and numerous scientists are predicting that it could last for decades. NASA and the NOAA, among other prominent organizations, all recognize this cooling trend. It is important to note that the climate is cooling while CO2 levels continue to increase. This, once again, disproves the correlation of CO2 levels to warming. CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming and never has as paleo-climate records show (see detail below).
This is why the 31,000 scientists who signed the Protest Petition stated that CO2 emissions are not damaging the environment but to the contrary are benefiting all life immensely. Earth greened by a further 6.17% over the 1982-1999 period (increased plant growth) due to increased levels of CO2, which is the food of all life.
Below is a protest against carbon/CO2 cap and trade or tax proposals. This summary is being sent to politicians, media outlets, scientists, and others across the world. It is a protest against the madness of anti-carbon thought and policies.
The Basic Science of Carbon/CO2: a brief summary
(Why are we trying to limit- cap and trade, tax- the basis of all life?)
All life is built from carbon. All life depends on carbon for its existence and functioning.
“All living things, starting at the cellular level which is common to all life, is based on carbon compounds, including the DNA that carry the gene sequences of the genetic codes. Of the trillions of cells in the human body, there is not one of them that is not made of carbon” (see article by Bob Brinsmead- The Vindication of Carbon- at http://www.bobbrinsmead.com). We subsist almost entirely on carbon dioxide. “The food used by all living things, to grow and to live, is carbon dioxide…food is carbon dioxide…the food of all plants and animals is carbon dioxide” (http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/ ). Everything is made of carbon and fueled by carbon. All things need carbon to grow and reproduce.
There is only one source of carbon for all life- CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (“they consume almost entirely carbon dioxide for food”- http://www.bydesign.com) and process it into carbohydrates for the animal kingdom. We get our food from this chain of CO2/carbon processing.
“The only gateway through which carbon can enter the food chain to enable the biosphere to exist is through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no other way. It all starts with CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire chain of life starts with plants absorbing this entirely natural, colorless, odorless, absolutely non-toxic aerial gas called CO2…more than 90 % of the dry matter of plants is simply processed CO2. Whether it is a cow eating grass or humans eating cows, all are eating- and being fuelled- by processed CO2” (Brinsmead, The Vindication of Carbon).
Recent levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been unprecedented and dangerously low. Plant growth shuts down between 50-200 ppm (parts per million in the atmosphere). Plant life is stressed and unhealthy at such low levels. Life evolved over the past 500 million years at levels of CO2 that were on average a more healthy 1500 ppm (see paleo-climate graphs at sites such as Geocraft.com). A dangerous upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere would be from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm (http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html). Other sources argue that CO2 levels are not dangerous till 15,000 or higher (see research papers on CO2 at co2science.org). We are in no danger of approaching these high levels. Our atmosphere is currently “CO2 impoverished”.
Plants and crops are healthier at higher levels of CO2 than are currently present in our atmosphere (now 386 ppm). They produce significantly more biomass, and are able to cope better with such natural vagaries as drought, heat, and cold (http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-wonderful-benefits-of-co2/ ). “More CO2 makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions…and this expands the habitat of many plants…and enhances agricultural productivity…and helps tropical rainforests” (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html ). Animals also survive better with more plant life. The small increase in CO2 over the past century has significantly greened the earth and this has increased populations in the animal kingdom. It has also enhanced the impacts of the Green Revolution with notably increased crop production which has helped to feed the poor.
Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are more normal and natural.
Current world average temperatures are also abnormally low. Higher temperatures on an ice-free earth (a warmer earth) are more normal and natural (see paleo-climate graphs at Geocraft.com). We are in one of earth’s infrequent and abnormally cold ice-age eras (the past two million years). A warmer earth would be better for all life.
A recent SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute) paper by Christopher Moncton notes that today’s temperatures are well below those of the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods. They are 5 degrees F. below temps over the past 10,000 years, 10 degrees F. below temps of each of the past four inter-glacials, and 12.5 degrees F. below median global temperature (surface) over the past 600 million years. Warmer periods with higher CO2 have benefited all life. This is the normal and natural condition for life. Not this abnormally cold and CO2 impoverished situation of the current ice age era.
CO2 is not a pollutant but is a rare gas (1 molecule to every 3,000 molecules of the atmosphere) that is the essential food of all life. “All plants and animals are growing and living on a rare gas” (www.bydesign.com). And while there are other potential pollutants associated with fossil fuel use, CO2 and carbon are not among them.
CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods. See the Vostok Ice Core research at http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php . Oceans, which hold 90 times the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, release CO2 as they warm and this increases atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increases tend to lag behind warming periods by about 800 years.
CO2 is a tiny part of the greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect ( http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html ). The warming effect of CO2 gets lost among other much larger natural climate drivers. Human emissions of CO2 are even tinier (1 part per 100,000 parts of the atmosphere) and a human fingerprint causing warming is even more lost among natural influences. The human contribution to climate warming, if it were statistically detectable, would amount to nothing more than “a fart in a hurricane”. Natural climate drivers with strong, clear correlations to warming/cooling periods include cosmic rays (see Henrik Svensmark’s The Chilling Stars), solar flare cycles, related cloud cover, ocean current decadal oscillations (changing current patterns), earth’s 100,000 year wobble, and others.
CO2 levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm in the past and no dangerous global warming occurred. During the Late Ordovician Period (some 400 million years ago) CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm and Earth was as cold as it is now. Note also that Earth has been cooling since 2002 despite the fact that CO2 emissions have been increasing. “There is no valid correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming”, concludes geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch.
Therefore, there is no valid scientific reason for us to worry about contributing to increasing CO2 levels. We do not need to reduce our carbon footprint. We do not need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere or decarbonize our economies. As the 31,000 plus scientists who signed the Protest Petition have stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth” ( http://www.petitionproject.org/ ).
To demonize carbon/CO2, as environmentalists have done, is to demonize life itself. This is ridiculous hysteria and entirely unscientific. The only way to fully understand this anti-carbon movement is to recognize that it is ideologically-driven extremism now gone utterly mad. Its real goal is to slow, halt, and even reverse economic growth and development and it uses carbon as a proxy to fight growth and the human enterprise. But the Green movement in demonizing carbon has become anti-green, anti-life, and anti-nature.
Wendell Krossa wkrossa@shaw.ca
AGW just issue a kind of Papal Bulls, EX-CATHEDRA, so they are to be faithfully believed.
Ray (10:15:11) :
Leif, what is your take on Robert Ehrlich’s Theory?
Haven’t had time to look at it. Will do. Patience.
Joseph (06:01:34) : Re: ROM (03:23:30)
Has the Earth ever taken a direct hit from a CME, perhaps in pre-industrial times, say?
Slightly OT – This is reminding me of a paradigm-shifting book I read that was recommended somewhere in WUWT – no idea where! Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, by Robert Felix. Stunner. Classic. http://www.iceagenow.com/
Near as I can see CME’s since the solar minimum started have not disappeared. I would guess that weve had one about every 2-3 months. They have been one of the most interesting things about the sun lately. Weve had slow moving ones and large ones, and even one earth facing.. but Im going off of memory on that.
From: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/CMEs.shtml
dur… months should have been weeks as in 2 -3 weeks.
Anthony, those Coronal Mass Ejections are magnificent; “CME” does not quite capture the power, sounds something like MRE. The following comment came close though.
Alan the Brit in the IPCC (8:15): “Put another way, if the IPCC were an team of surgeons, & they said they had a low level of understanding of how the heart worked, yet they were happy to do your heart bypass operation, would you trust them to get it right? Not me guys!” The entire comment is great, both content and passion. Thanks
Leif Savalgaard, e.g., 09:05. Your generosity for the purpose of educating all of us is greatly appreciated. Like Joe Friday, “All we want are the [scientific] facts” aka “Just the facts, Ma’am”. Just doing a job, like all those other dedicated scientists putting the intellectual-scientific-con-artists behind the bars of knowledge.
Ron de Haan (08:59:00) on the Mafia-busting Italian magistrates on crooked windfarms using large sums of government [taxpayers] money: “My question:
And how is this different from any other wind power project? …There is non, except for the fact that we currently have the Mafia in Government.”
Absolutely true. A bow of gratitude to you, too.
Joseph (06:01:34) :
Has the Earth ever taken a direct hit from a CME, perhaps in pre-industrial times, say?
James A Marusek again below and as Les Francis (05:36:05) : says a somewhat long winded paper but a lot of info in there on previous massive CME events going way back into geological history.
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/SSTA.pdf
In this paper Marusek also goes into great detail on the effects of a massive CME on our industrial civilisation and particularly provides examples and photos of the damage that run of the mill CME’s can do to the power transmission systems.
As to the power and size of the largest CME events he has this to say;
The data point on the lowest right
portion of the graph is the largest event
measured using Aluminum and Beryllium
dating from moon rocks. The graph implies
that solar storms with a fluence a million
time greater than the Carrington solar storm
are possible on a scale of approximately
once every million years.
He does go on to indicate that he thinks that this event may have been the result of a nearby super nova event but the evidence is there in the moon and earth rocks of events that vastly exceed, in power, any event that mankind has probably ever witnessed.
PaulHClark (10:02:01) :
Ron de Haan (05:04:43) :
Thanks for the link. I now see that the reference is to Miskolczi’s paper of a couple of years ago. The video says it has not been falsified but actually there have been a number of challenges to it – so I think he would need to deal with those first before we could confidently say he had disproved AGW in my humble opinion.
PaulClark,
Well, if we combine Miskolczi’s theory,
and we take this work: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/ocean-heat-agw-climate-models-v-reality.html
and we take Anthony’s Report on surface station here:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/major-report-by-anthony-watts-on-junk.html
And we hustle a bit, I guess there is not much Global Warming left, don’t you thinks so?
And in all three cases we have left the sun out of the bucket, but that is only to do Leif a favor.
wendell krossa (11:05:14) :
Brilliant, comprehensive post….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
To all the Gamesters-400 quatloos on the spot-cycle 23 Polarity,with cycle 24 latitude.
Which would make it the first cycle 25! Com’on baby needs a new pair of shoes!
It is a plage area at the moment. Look at the lower right latest entry.
http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images/
It is cycle 24 leading black.
Ray (10:15:11) :
what is your take on Robert Ehrlich’s Theory?
Speculative [which is not necessarily bad], but my main problem is that it is very indirect, namely that we first have to assume that the Sun controls the temperature, and then from the temperatures infer something about the Sun. It is a bit like saying that because we had the LIA we must have had a Maunder Minimum [Jack Eddy actually used that argument…]. The real proof will come when we have paleotemperatures from another planet or a moon.
Ron de Haan (18:16:23) :
“Well, if we combine Miskolczi’s theory,
and we take this work: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/ocean-heat-agw-climate-models-v-reality.html
and we take Anthony’s Report on surface station here:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/major-report-by-anthony-watts-on-junk.html
And we hustle a bit, I guess there is not much Global Warming left, don’t you thinks so?
And in all three cases we have left the sun out of the bucket, but that is only to do Leif a favor.”
I agree with your thoughts entirely.
I think there are 2 major challenges to AGW from an evidence point of view:
1). the positive forcing that is supposed to occur in the upper troposphere is clearly in doubt see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416
and
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2009.pdf
2). ocean heat as a robust metric of AGW is now showing signs of trending in a way that suggests AGW is not happening (as per the DiPuccio analysis)
What is interesting is that in both these fields the data measurements are open to much question and hence become the centre of the debate rather than having focus on what the data are telling us.
This is hugely familiar thoughthroughout the debate as Anthony’s excellent work has shown – the surface temp measures can hardly be trusted at all as well. But the system rolls on manipulating the data to suit its cause.
Hopefully soon we will get better data but somehow I doubt it.
On Miskolczi – he may well be right but others
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html
say otherwise and I think it would be good to see Miskolczi’s rebuttal of the questions raised.
In summary I think it will take global temperatures falling for a few more years while CO2 continues to rise before the debate is won. Interestingly if Mikolczi is right then a quiet sun should make that happen a little sooner.
wendell krossa (11:05:14) :
Recent levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been unprecedented and dangerously low….Life evolved over the past 500 million years at levels of CO2 that were on average a more healthy 1500 ppm (see paleo-climate graphs at sites such as Geocraft.com). A dangerous upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere would be from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm … Our atmosphere is currently “CO2 impoverished”.
Its not too good for humans:
Normal CO2 Levels
The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:
normal outdoor level: 350 – 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppm
ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm
adverse health effects expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm
The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods. See the Vostok Ice Core research at
Data from Ice cores is not year perfect and the further back in time the fewer data points are available. Check out this plot I made comparing dust ch4 co2 gisp and epica data. You will note that gisp temps start to rise 2000years after COI2 has risen and EPICA just about simultaneous temp and co2 rises (190ppm to 210ppm). Note also that the younger dryas only seems to occur in the NH.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6826/iceage040kkq1.jpg
CO2 levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm in the past and no dangerous global warming occurred. During the Late Ordovician Period (some 400 million years ago) CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm and Earth was as cold as it is now.
Landmasses have moved. Ocean currents have changed, It is not sensible comparing effectively a different planet with this current state.
In the same vein, it’s not sensible to take temperatures in vastly different places take an average or mean, and call it a “Global Mean Temperature”.
Also, you’re basically saying that those other factors are the most important thing about climate, and not CO2. Thanks for confirming that.
What’s going on with the soho images. It really looks like that Coronal hole is not moving…
bill (02:52:31) :
Here’s a counter view that says the alarm you spread in your post is perhaps not correct.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Demonising_Carbon.pdf
Jeff Alberts (07:15:20) : etc
In the same vein, it’s not sensible to take temperatures in vastly different places take an average or mean, and call it a “Global Mean Temperature”.
I agree – so suggest some other way of measuring global warming/cooling
you’re basically saying that those other factors are the most important thing about climate, and not CO2.
CO2 is currently giving 1 (ish)degC per doubling of CO2.
So 380 760 1520 3060 6120 – four doublings == 4 to 8deg C and the CO2 level is it was a few hundred million years ago (according to geocarbsulf 3? – a computer model). Also what was NOx and CFCs etc. doing at that time. And for that matter what was the composition of the atmosphere? Change these and you get a different t vs co2 effect
An interesting document on trace gases and GW:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram%20JGR%2090%20D3%205547-5566%201985.pdf
But does this logarithmic effect hold as more of the absoption lines get filled or does the temp increase flatten off further?
Jeff Alberts (07:14:06) :
In the same vein, it’s not sensible to take temperatures in vastly different places take an average or mean, and call it a “Global Mean Temperature”.
One way to combat GW [or AGW] is to argue that the object of their love doesn’t exist. This is classical rhetorics. Physically it is very sensible to compute a mean global temperature. The argument for this is simply Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that says the the total radiation from a body is proportional to its temperature to the forth power [this is valid for both black and ‘gray’ bodies with just a difference in the constant of proportionality]. Since it is sensible to collect and count all the photons emitted by the body, the total emission can be found, and therefore the ‘effective’ temperature can sensibly be calculated. We can define ‘effective’ temperature as that temperature that would give us the measured emission. It is sensible [if the body is the Earth] to call that effective temperature the ‘Global Mean Temperature’. The only question is whether the weather station or satellite data we use to estimate that temperature are good enough in coverage and/or quality. This may not be the case, but does not mean that it is not sensible to talk about a Global Mean Temperature.
PaulHClark (07:40:39) :]
From wiki
Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions.[28] Some people (for example David Bellamy) believe that as the concentration of CO2 rises in the atmosphere that it will lead to faster plant growth and therefore increase food production.[29] Such views are too simplistic; studies have shown that increased CO2 leads to fewer stomata developing on plants[30] which leads to reduced water usage.[31] Studies using FACE have shown that increases in CO2 lead to decreased concentration of micronutrients in crop plants.[32] This may have knock-on effects on other parts of ecosystems as herbivores will need to eat more food to gain the same amount of protein.[33
and
Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.[36]
Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:
1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2]
At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[36]
At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[36]
At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[36]
A natural disaster linked to CO2 intoxication occurred during the limnic eruptions in the CO2-rich lakes of Monoun and Nyos in the Okun range of North-West Cameroon: the gas was brutally expelled from the mountain lakes and leaked into the surrounding valleys, killing most animal forms. During the Lake Nyos tragedy of 1988, 1700 villagers and 3500 livestock died.
… U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). …For …under ten minutes exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health.[37]
…Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself. At 2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality.
Acute carbon dioxide toxicity is sometimes known by the names given to it by miners: blackdamp (also called choke damp or stythe). Miners would try to alert themselves to dangerous levels of carbon dioxide in a mine shaft by bringing a caged canary with them as they worked. The canary would inevitably die before CO2 reached levels toxic to people.
Carbon dioxide ppm levels (CDPL) are a surrogate for measuring indoor pollutants that may cause occupants to grow drowsy, get headaches, or function at lower activity levels. To eliminate most indoor air quality complaints, total indoor CDPL must be reduced to below 600. NIOSH considers that indoor air concentrations that exceed 1,000 are a marker suggesting inadequate ventilation. ASHRAE recommends they not exceed 1,000 inside a space.
It is not a “safe” gas
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:38) :
“It has been said so often that for a theory to be science it must be falsifiable. Since it is claimed that AGW has been falsified, it would seem that AGW certainly meets that criterium for being science :-)”
I take your point but I think we may have crossed lines [which is my fault given the wording I used 🙂 ]
Please allow me to try and explain:
Zagoni’s clip ends with the statement that until someone issues a paper to falsify Misklosczi’s theory then AGW is dead and that in two years no-one has issued such a paper.
The comment I made was that, “actually there have been a number of challenges to it – so I think he would need to deal with those first before we could confidently say he had disproved AGW in my humble opinion.” – meaning Miskolczi’s paper had been challenged.
The issue is can AGW be disproved/falsified? [and by implication is it science?]
First I would like to see the exponents of the AGW hypothesis specifying what the criteria would be for falsifiability. To date I have not seen them do that so one could argue that it is not science.
That said I think there are a couple of areas where we could reasonably challenge the AGW hypothesis – see my post above:
@ PaulHClark (00:39:36) :
this would say AGW is science but would importantly put the onus on the proponents of the hypothesis to accept real world empirical evidence can disprove their theory and we can get on and measure it
I hope I have clarified what I meant but please let me know if this does not square with you?
bill (08:28:40) There is probably no compound that is safe at some unreasonable concentration. Even too much water can be ‘toxic’ if electrolytes diminish too much. To say that CO2 “It is not a “safe” gas ” is not a realistic argument. If the present concentrations were to triple, going to 1150ppm, that is still 0.11%, nine times less than causing “drownsiness”. To my knowledge, drowsiness is not a detrimental condition. Unmentioned by you is the necessity of the presence of CO2 in the lungs in order for O2 to be absorbed, it is an exchange. That is why hyperventalation is remedied by breathing into a paper bag, increasing the amount of CO2 present, allowing for more O2 to be absorbed. Without doing this, a person will pass out while hyperventalating due to lack of oxygen, then the CO2 increases in their lungs causing ‘normal’ breathing to resume. It is actually the level of CO2 in the lungs that stimulates the need to take a breath.
Oxygen gas (O2) can be toxic at elevated partial pressures, leading to convulsions and other health problems.[77][98][99] Oxygen toxicity usually begins to occur at partial pressures more than 50 kilopascals (kPa), or 2.5 times the normal sea-level O2 partial pressure of about 21 kPa. Therefore, air supplied through oxygen masks in medical applications is typically composed of 30% O2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure).[25] At one time, premature babies were placed in incubators containing O2-rich air, but this practice was discontinued after some babies were blinded by it.[25][100]
Oxygen toxicity to the lungs and central nervous system can also occur in deep scuba diving and surface supplied diving.[77][25] Prolonged breathing of an air mixture with an O2 partial pressure more than 60 kPa can eventually lead to permanent pulmonary fibrosis.[102] Exposure to a O2 partial pressures greater than 160 kPa may lead to convulsions (normally fatal for divers). Acute oxygen toxicity can occur by breathing an air mixture with 21% O2 at 66 m or more of depth while the same thing can occur by breathing 100% O2 at only 6 m.
Highly-concentrated sources of oxygen promote rapid combustion. Fire and explosion hazards exist when concentrated oxidants and fuels are brought into close proximity; however, an ignition event, such as heat or a spark, is needed to trigger combustion.[106] Oxygen itself is not the fuel, but the oxidant. Combustion hazards also apply to compounds of oxygen with a high oxidative potential, such as peroxides, chlorates, nitrates, perchlorates, and dichromates because they can donate oxygen to a fire.
Pure O2 at higher than normal pressure and a spark led to a fire and the loss of the Apollo 1 crew.Concentrated O2 will allow combustion to proceed rapidly and energetically.[106] Steel pipes and storage vessels used to store and transmit both gaseous and liquid oxygen will act as a fuel; and therefore the design and manufacture of O2 systems requires special training to ensure that ignition sources are minimized.[106]
Oxygen is NOT a safe gas.
bill (08:28:40) :
“It is not a “safe” gas”
Says more about the writer than he will ever know.
PaulHClark (08:54:01) :
I hope I have clarified what I meant but please let me know if this does not square with you?
My post was a bit tongue-in-cheek [note the smiley]. It was meant to just show how removed from reason the debate about falsifying AGW is.
Leif Svalgaard (09:30:52) :
My response was also tongue in cheek – [note the smiley] – yet it would be good to have your thoughts about the very issue of is AGW science or not?
Personally I struggle with the scientific argument about what fundamentally defines the AGW hypothesis in a way that it could be challenged empirically.
So come on – don’t leave it like this – “It was meant to just show how removed from reason the debate about falsifying AGW is.” – I respect and admire you immensely and I would very much welcome your views on these specifics:
– is the AGW hypothesis falsifiable?
– if so how?
Please understand I would very much understand if you did not want to comment.
They pump CO2 into the greenhouses to make the plants grow faster and bigger.
Simple stuff, they don’t spend the money for CO2 because they don’t like their money.
PaulHClark (10:33:30) :
– is the AGW hypothesis falsifiable?
– if so how?
Please understand I would very much understand if you did not want to comment.
Why would any scientist not want to comment if she/he can?
Perhaps AGW is already falsified [a lot of people think so].
The problem is wrongly stated. There is no doubt that there is AGW. The problem is how much? This is something that can be answered in two ways:
1) we know all the physics involved, so should be able to figure out how much if we just collect [as we are doing] the data needed for this.
2) empirically we can follow the evolution of the various factors involved and untangle the various effects. We have done that successfully with another problem that vexed people a century ago: how does the Sun generate geomagnetic storms.
With time we’ll figure out how much AGW is worth. One problem is that there are well-meaning, good people who believe we don’t have the time and that we must save the planet NOW. I have the same problem with them as I have with well-meaning, good people who come to my door telling me that the end in nigh and they will help me save my soul [perhaps for a small donation…].
PaulHClark (09:29:24) :
“It is not a “safe” gas”
Says more about the writer than he will ever know.
My response was to those saying that CO2 is a food – more = better. There are limits , whatever they may be, which make this a nonsense. I agree the same applies to most things. But it is not me saying more=better of anything.
Leif Svalgaard (08:26:53) :
Physically it is very sensible to compute a mean global temperature. The argument for this is simply Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that says the the total radiation from a body is proportional to its temperature to the forth power … Since it is sensible to collect and count all the photons emitted by the body, the total emission can be found, and therefore the ‘effective’ temperature can sensibly be calculated. …The only question is whether the weather station or satellite data we use to estimate that temperature are good enough in coverage and/or quality.
Surely the truth is there is no accurate way of calculating the total emission from the earth or received irradience from the sun.
The irradiance from the sun can be measured over the bandwidth of the satellite sensors – but these do not operate over dc-infinity frequency. Is there anything (important) being missed?
The same applies to emissions from the earth – is there in fact a stellite measuring these emissions?
Also Leif, or anyone else, can you point me in the direction of a explanation of how satellites measure temperatures. From my experience of thermal imaging cameras it is very difficult measureing temperatures (=ir wavelenghts) through hot air – the air fogs the picture. But the satellites apparently measure at 3 different altitudes – cannot see how that is possible!
Thanks
Re: Mike Bryant (09:24:00)
O2 is also a greenhouse gas, as it does have spectral lines in the IR (weak, but they are there), but you don’t ever here that talked about.
http://physweb.bgu.ac.il/COURSES/Astronomy1/Graphics/solar_spectrum.png
>>Therefore, air supplied through oxygen masks in
>>medical applications is typically composed of 30%
>>O2 by volume (about 30 kPa at standard pressure).
Emergency oxygen for pilots (during decompression) can be supplied at 100%. While this is only for short-term use, 100% is certainly breathable.
.
If the SOHO image is still showing no Sunspots ….
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
…. then surely this CME outburst cannot be associated with Sunspots.
Leif Svalgaard (11:13:16) :
…2) empirically we can follow the evolution of the various factors involved and untangle the various effects. We have done that successfully with another problem that vexed people a century ago: how does the Sun generate geomagnetic storms.
With time we’ll figure out how much AGW is worth.
This is my problem. It took decades to limit CFC emissions. It will take further decades for atmospheric levels to reduce. CO2 will be similar. Do we have time? Will it harm the earth if we act to use renewables and lower CO2? If we do nothing and AGW is real how do we fix it retrospectively.
How much is AGW worth – a old paper of interest:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram%20JGR%2090%20D3%205547-5566%201985.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (11:13:16) :
“Why would any scientist not want to comment if she/he can?”
I have often wondered that too – but I came to the view that it was more than it was worth to many scientsits to comment.
I accept the problem is – ‘how much?’ – but the proponents will not say how little.
Do we really know all the physics?
But collecting the data is the biggest part of the problem – everywhere you turn it is poor, challenged, manipulated, derived [but no-one tells you how] etc, etc
2) OK – but do you really believe current science is evolving as it used to/ as it should?
For me the trouble is all these well meaning/good people [and I am passionate about our environment] are making decisions that are based upon unproven science [per your comment – ‘we’ll figure out how much AGW is worth’] and these decisions are extremely expensive……and may not be necessary.
My children will already be debt burdened for a long time by the decisions of the UK government because of the economic issues we face and I ask why should we add to that woe on poorly defined and unproven science?
As you say at end of your post my analogy would be – they have turned up at my door and will just take my donation even though it may not really be necessary.
I ask again:
– is the AGW hypothesis falsifiable?
– if so how?
PaulHClark (12:33:04) :
I ask again:
– is the AGW hypothesis falsifiable?
– if so how?
The climate change hypothesis is not falsifiable because by construction the climate changes. The reason one hears “climate change” instead of ” anthropogenic global warming” is because the extreme predictions of the hypothesis coming out of the IPCC models with AGW have been already falsified, so they are changing the goal posts.
1) There is a stasis in temperatures the past ten years, and even trends are becoming negative, instead of the rise predicted, while CO2 is merrily rising.
2) The oceans are cooling since 2005 despite predictions from above models that they should be heating
3) The tropical troposphere which according to the models should be heating up at twice the rate of the surface is not doing so
4) The moisture content of the troposphere is diminishing, not growing, as per the predictions of the models.
So the thermagedon hypothesis has been falsified.
New embroideries are coming out, but we have only seen one, where they incorporated the PDO change ( Keenliside et al? sorry if the name is not right) and talk of stasis for the next 15 years and then AGW will hit us. That is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It moves when you go to find it.
And I have not entered on why the IPCC models are wrong ab initio, as mathematical models, but am just saying “if they are right, they are already falsified”.
Now the more general question : do people change the climate, can be answered in the positive with many proofs: urban warming, change of wetlands, burning of forests , etc. etc. All these change local climate and they change world climate to greater or smaller extent, as possibly the CO2 with its tiny contribution to the effect of that great greenhouse gas, H2O. All these have to be studied, because contrary to the IPCC opinions, the science is not settled.
Bill:
“It took decades to limit CFC emissions. It will take further decades for atmospheric levels to reduce. CO2 will be similar. Do we have time? Will it harm the earth if we act to use renewables and lower CO2? If we do nothing and AGW is real how do we fix it retrospectively.”
—
Wrong. Your premise is wrong.
We have centuries to change CO2 – IF we even need to: Today’s higher CO2 levels are feedingbillions with better, faster growing, more drought-tolerant crops and cotton fiber and wood and ground cover and fodder and food. EVERY plant and photo-sensitive plankton on earth is growing 12 – 27 FASTER and stronger becuase of today’s higher CO2 levels.
Will it harm earth if CO2 remains high?
NO.
Will increased CO2 increase temperatures on earth – beyond today’s 2/10 of ONE degree? There is NO evidence that any past increase in CO2 to MUCH higher levels than what we can create has increased temperatures.
Why do you think this year’s, next year’s, next century’s increase will be any different?
—
What is the cost of trying to control CO2?
Today’s world-wide depression/recession/economic failures are DIRECTLY CAUSED by YOUR demands to limit oil production between spring 2007 and summer 2008, YOUR demands to limit energy production and distribution between those times.
YOUR recession was caused by high gasoline prices (deliberately raised due to YOUR concerns about global warming1) that stoppe economic growth with 4.00 and 5.00 dollar gasoline. THAT stopped car and house and manufactoring and tourism and consumer spending, which stopped the housing market and collapsed the banks.
YOU are the problem. Not CO2.
Temperatures have been declining for 11 years now – what is the evidence for global warming?
From stereo behind, it looks as if the second area coming to view might give sunspots.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
On the other hand the plage area in the images in http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images/ that has come into view is so faint, that I am not sure whether the extra intensity in the second area coming up soon is enough for sunspots. I would say 50/50 in bets that it will be a stronger plage.
anna v (13:25:35) :
Thanks – I always find your comments lucid and very helpful.
I agree with the points you make too.
I find defining the AGW hypothesis is like pinning a pocket of air to a board with a nail and analysing it! 🙂
Lucia over at the Blackboard may well one day show GCM model runs to be falsified statistically but all that will happen is they upgrade the GCM’s, change the timeline, improve the parameterisation…..
I think it would be good for scientists who want to challenge AGW to
1). focus on Upper Troposphere humidity trends to show that the positive feedback is just not there at the level they say it is
2). show Ocean Heat Content is not behaving as predicted
at least there would then be two big holes in the AGW hypothesis
http://spaceweather.com/ seems either to say that the sunspot fizzled before it got around to our side, or that is wasn’t a sun spot at all. Not clear to me which.