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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.