Another scientific consensus bites the dust

Leif Svalgaard (17:43:43) :
but the real meat is ‘heavy going’ and has to do with the identical isotopic compositions of the Earth and Moon, especially for Hafnium and Tungsten, the evidence for a molten magma ocean, etc, and the time scale for the formation.
But isotopic compositions don’t give a single clue on the occurrence of an impact; the same isotopic compositions obey to a Moon’s origin from a cloud of debris orbiting the Earth with the same composition than the debris which gave origin to the Earth.
About the paradox age of Moon’s rocks-age of Earth’s rocks, the most plausible explanation is that the melted crust of the Moon solidified long time before the melted crust of the Earth; the question is: when?
Now, with any successful theory you can always find detractors, even Plate Tectonics, Evolution, Big Bang, and Frozen-in Magnetic Fields [c.f. the previous post] have these. Here is not the place [or topic] for a prolonged discussion of this.
Agreed.

Leif Svalgaard (19:00:15) :
just to correct your concept of Earth’s oldest rocks. “The oldest minerals dated so far by the U/Pb technique are zircons from Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, with an age of 4.404 billion years,[2] interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons might be the oldest minerals on earth.”. And then leave it.
Just to correct your “correction” on my concept of Earth’s oldest rocks. There are also zircons on the Moon:
“A small mineral tidbit in a rock brought back from the moon in 1972 is giving scientists a big clue that our satellite’s surface was, for the most part, solidified by 4.4 billion years ago.” Source: Science News. 8/02/08, p. 12.
And then… leave if you wish, but after explaining how is it that the Moon’s zircons crystallized at the same time than the Earth’s zircons.

Leif Svalgaard (21:49:53) :
Nasif Nahle (21:01:02) :
And then… leave if you wish, but after explaining how is it that the Moon’s zircons crystallized at the same time than the Earth’s zircons.
The chemical part of the fairy tale is well-described in this very recent and authoritative paper:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full.pdf
Time to accept the ‘overwhelming evidence’. It is, at least, good enough for me.
I’ll read these paper in a few moments and give an answer. In the meanwhile, revise your e-mail inbox because I’ve sent you a graph related to HSG… Remember? 🙂

So-called “magnetic reconnection” is a flight of fancy. Electromagnetism acts as a circuit.
Leif Svalgaard is simply passing on a faulty theory that has nothing to do with the Laws of Electromagnetism as established in plasma physics laboratories across the world. Maxwell’s Equations established that electric current generates magnetic fields.
(So-called “modern” astronomy makes up all kinds of theories that have little or nothing to do with the Laws of Nature as established by observation & measurement in laboratory settings by experiment & testing.)
When a magnetic field changes, it is because the electric current that generates it has changed. Magnetic field “lines” are simply a conceptual aid as are latitude “lines” on a map.
Svalgaard states: “Reconnection has been directly observed and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe.”
The, above, statement just shows that “modern” astronomy has severe problems, as any competent plasma physicist will tell you that magnetic reconnection has not been observed and has no basis in electrical theory or practice.
That Svalgaard would repeat this easily proved fallacy demonstrates he carries water for “modern” astronomy.
Svalgaard’s ideas are faulty.
Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand: Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.
The total energy emitted by the Sun is much higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum.
Svalgaard states: “It [“magnetic portal] doesn’t really, as the energy involved is minute, and the ‘portal’ opens every few hours all the time, and there is not just one, but many all over the front of the magnetosphere, and it is a misleading concept anyway.”
(Not even NASA refers to Birkeland currents as “magnetic portals”, NASA refers to them as Flux Transfer Events, but Svalgaard is content to use this misleading term.)
Svalgaard’s, above, statment is completely false.
The electrical energy is substantial, NASA has stated that these Birkeland currents have 650,000 amperes of electricity and the electric currents flow on a consistent and regular basis.
The only reason it is “misleading” in Svalgaard’s mind’s eye is because “modern” astronomy was so late to acknowledge that electromagnetism plays a major role in the dynamics of the solar system.
Remember, “modern” astronomy denied, yes, outright denied the electromagnetic connection between the Sun and the Earth which causes the aurora for 70 years after it had first been proposed by Kristian Birkeland.
Only after in situ observation & measurement conducted by the Trident satellite, in 1973, confirmed this electromagnetic connection did “modern” astronomy acknowledge its mistake.
But as Svalgaard demonstrates, “modern” astronomers still downplay electromagntism’s role solar system dynamics.
And why they are consistently “surprised” by new observations & mearuements that confound the models.
Because the models are wrong and so is Svalgaard.
Svalgaard states: “The instrument simply lets solar radiation as it comes from the Sun fall on a black surface which is then heated by the energy received. An electric current is sent through another piece of the instrument until that other piece is at precisely the same temperature as the black surface. The amount of current needed to reach the same temperature is a measure of the TSI, and the current is then carefully measured.”
The light of the Sun falling on a “black surface” does not measure the TOTAL electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun and received by the Earth.
But that is why Svalgaard dismisses the electromagnetic energy that is carried from the Sun to the Earth by the Birkeland currents as “minute” because he knows this energy isn’t counted in the models he uses.
To admit to this fact would invalidate his models, so, of course, he resists that.
So what else is new.

1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.
That an auroral event is releasing more energy than all humanity can produce is a comment on how small humans are, not how great the solar electric system is.
Leif, thank you for your many and interesting posts.

Leif Svalgaard (06:12:15) :
Nasif Nahle (23:23:35) :
2. Did the Earth have two accretion events?
Of course, there had to be an Earth to begin with (1st event) for a collision to happen, after which the 2nd event took place from the debris. What a straw man!
No, not so easy to refute because the interplanetary conditions 110 Ma after the first accretion were not the same during the second accretion. I put under consideration the main asteroids belt, formed almost at the same time than the Earth-Moon System (4.5 Ga). The melting phase of the main belt ended about 10 Ma after the solar system start.

[snip – pointless all caps rant]

My modest proposal:
President Obama should announce that he’s “not going to tolerate any further atmospheric loss” and then demand Congress address this “crisis” by immediately passing appropriate legislation.
Shucks, that ought to fix the problem pronto. 😉

@ur momisugly Hunter:
Hunter states: “1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.”
For overall solar emissions, “trivial” would be appropriate, but not for the Earth’s energy budget when you consider this “1million amps” is repeated multiple times each day, 365 days a year.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps [Anaconda] you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min?”
Please, this kind of a question is a redherring. I’m not the scientist, here, rather, a scientific observer, which includes most of us who read this website.
Svalgaard states: “Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement.”
As I stated, above: “Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.”
In Scientific terms, it’s called “morphology”, or study of shapes, we can see the Sun is much more active at solar maximum than solar minimum.
The fact that Science hasn’t quantified the Sun’s emittance in total is no excuse to ignore that the Sun varies in electromagnetic energy emittance.
Now, Svalgaard is a pugnacious fellow, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I give him credit for responding to questions in the comment threads on a regular basis, but his “you go and measure it” comment reveals the lack of knowledge on the part of scientists because if there was an answer (particularly that backed up his position) Svalgaard would, no doubt, be happy to present it (again to his credit), but seeing that his response was an attempt to divert the question instead of forthrightly acknowledging the lack of quantification, readers should take scepticism away from that. There is nothing wrong with scientists saying, “we don’t know”, there is something wrong with attempting to paper over the lack of knowledge as unimportant.
(Also, when presumed “experts” are challenged and they resort to “you go measure it” type answers, this is a subtle appeal to their authority, but when they don’t have answers…well then…they aren’t authorities are they?)
Svalgaard states: “The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI.”
Yes, that is true, it’s called irradiance, but that isn’t the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget the Earth receives from the Sun. Irradiance is is photons striking the Earth. Plasma, charged particles, also carry energy and not an insignificant amount that is “minute” or “trivial” which is a subtle way to say, “not important enough to measure it”.
Well, have do we know until it has been accurately quantified?
Svalgaard states: “It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
False.
The solar wind isn’t simply “kinetic energy” it is electromagnetic energy transferred by plasma, charged particles, in a tenuous fashion, albeit for the Birkeland currents which have much higher electric current density.
“kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
As I stated, above, “reconnection” doesn’t happen, but since “reconnection” is the party line of “modern” astronomy, Svalgaard repeats the fallacy.
Electric current directly transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth, there is no “transformation” because the energy starts off as electrical energy to begin with and reaches the Earth as electrical energy.
Svalgaard states: “Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions.”
False.
Svalgaard presents as the typical “modern” astronomer: He claims that electromagnetic forces are fully included in “modern” astronomy, but when you peel back the layers of the onion (penetrate the obfiscation) you see they don’t consider much at all or down play its importance.
Heck, Svalgaard and crew don’t even acknowledge the solar wind is electromagnetic energy, but rather is only “kinetic energy” that only later is “transformed” into electromagnetic energy.
Why does Svalgaard cling to magnetic reconnection even after it has been discredited?
Because it’s the attempted way to pass off changing magnetic fields without discussing the electric current which generates magnetic fields.
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
It is more of the same — but those who want to understand the dynamics of Earth’s climate can not afford the luxury of having their heads in the sand.
@ur momisugly Hunter:
Hunter states: “1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.”
For overall solar emissions, “trivial” would be appropriate, but not for the Earth’s energy budget when you consider this “1million amps” is repeated multiple times each day, 365 days a year.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps [Anaconda] you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min?”
Please, this kind of a question is a redherring. I’m not the scientist, here, rather, a scientific observer, which includes most of us who read this website.
Svalgaard states: “Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement.”
As I stated, above: “Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.”
In Scientific terms, it’s called “morphology”, or study of shapes, we can see the Sun is much more active at solar maximum than solar minimum.
The fact that Science hasn’t quantified the Sun’s emittance in total is no excuse to ignore that the Sun varies in electromagnetic energy emittance.
Now, Svalgaard is a pugnacious fellow, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I give him credit for responding to questions in the comment threads on a regular basis, but his “you go and measure it” comment reveals the lack of knowledge on the part of scientists because if there was an answer (particularly that backed up his position) Svalgaard would, no doubt, be happy to present it (again to his credit), but seeing that his response was an attempt to divert the question instead of forthrightly acknowledging the lack of quantification, readers should take scepticism away from that. There is nothing wrong with scientists saying, “we don’t know”, there is something wrong with attempting to paper over the lack of knowledge as unimportant.
(Also, when presumed “experts” are challenged and they resort to “you go measure it” type answers, this is a subtle appeal to their authority, but when they don’t have answers…well then…they aren’t authorities are they?)
Svalgaard states: “The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI.”
Yes, that is true, it’s called irradiance, but that isn’t the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget the Earth receives from the Sun. Irradiance is is photons striking the Earth. Plasma, charged particles, also carry energy and not an insignificant amount that is “minute” or “trivial” which is a subtle way to say, “not important enough to measure it”.
Well, have do we know until it has been accurately quantified?
Svalgaard states: “It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
False.
The solar wind isn’t simply “kinetic energy” it is electromagnetic energy transferred by plasma, charged particles, in a tenuous fashion, albeit for the Birkeland currents which have much higher electric current density.
“kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
As I stated, above, “reconnection” doesn’t happen, but since “reconnection” is the party line of “modern” astronomy, Svalgaard repeats the fallacy.
Electric current directly transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth, there is no “transformation” because the energy starts off as electrical energy to begin with and reaches the Earth as electrical energy.
Svalgaard states: “Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions.”
False.
Svalgaard presents as the typical “modern” astronomer: He claims that electromagnetic forces are fully included in “modern” astronomy, but when you peel back the layers of the onion (penetrate the obfiscation) you see they don’t consider much at all or down play its importance.
Heck, Svalgaard and crew don’t even acknowledge the solar wind is electromagnetic energy, but rather is only “kinetic energy” that only later is “transformed” into electromagnetic energy.
Why does Svalgaard cling to magnetic reconnection even after it has been discredited?
Because it’s the attempted way to pass off changing magnetic fields without discussing the electric current which generates magnetic fields.
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
It is more of the same — but those who want to understand the dynamics of Earth’s climate can not afford the luxury of having their heads in the sand.
@ur momisugly Hunter:
Hunter states: “1 million amps, in the scale at which the Solar system works, is trivial.”
For overall solar emissions, “trivial” would be appropriate, but not for the Earth’s energy budget when you consider this “1million amps” is repeated multiple times each day, 365 days a year.
Svalgaard states: “Perhaps [Anaconda] you could give us number for how much energy is emitted at max and at min?”
Please, this kind of a question is a redherring. I’m not the scientist, here, rather, a scientific observer, which includes most of us who read this website.
Svalgaard states: “Without such numbers, you cannot make such a statement.”
As I stated, above: “Who am I to believe, Svalgaard or my lying eyes: The Sun at solar maximum and at solar minimun are two different animals. Anybody can see that…except “modern” astronomers.”
In Scientific terms, it’s called “morphology”, or study of shapes, we can see the Sun is much more active at solar maximum than solar minimum.
The fact that Science hasn’t quantified the Sun’s emittance in total is no excuse to ignore that the Sun varies in electromagnetic energy emittance.
Now, Svalgaard is a pugnacious fellow, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I give him credit for responding to questions in the comment threads on a regular basis, but his “you go and measure it” comment reveals the lack of knowledge on the part of scientists because if there was an answer (particularly that backed up his position) Svalgaard would, no doubt, be happy to present it (again to his credit), but seeing that his response was an attempt to divert the question instead of forthrightly acknowledging the lack of quantification, readers should take scepticism away from that. There is nothing wrong with scientists saying, “we don’t know”, there is something wrong with attempting to paper over the lack of knowledge as unimportant.
(Also, when presumed “experts” are challenged and they resort to “you go measure it” type answers, this is a subtle appeal to their authority, but when they don’t have answers…well then…they aren’t authorities are they?)
Svalgaard states: “The Earth receives electromagnetic waves [light] from the Sun. This is measured as TSI.”
Yes, that is true, it’s called irradiance, but that isn’t the TOTAL electromagnetic energy budget the Earth receives from the Sun. Irradiance is is photons striking the Earth. Plasma, charged particles, also carry energy and not an insignificant amount that is “minute” or “trivial” which is a subtle way to say, “not important enough to measure it”.
Well, have do we know until it has been accurately quantified?
Svalgaard states: “It also receives kinetic energy from the solar wind. Some of that kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
False.
The solar wind isn’t simply “kinetic energy” it is electromagnetic energy transferred by plasma, charged particles, in a tenuous fashion, albeit for the Birkeland currents which have much higher electric current density.
“kinetic energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy by reconnection [without which no transfer would take place].”
As I stated, above, “reconnection” doesn’t happen, but since “reconnection” is the party line of “modern” astronomy, Svalgaard repeats the fallacy.
Electric current directly transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth, there is no “transformation” because the energy starts off as electrical energy to begin with and reaches the Earth as electrical energy.
Svalgaard states: “Except that the E/M force is fully included in modern cosmology and is used all the time to describe plasmas and magnetic fields and their interactions.”
False.
Svalgaard presents as the typical “modern” astronomer: He claims that electromagnetic forces are fully included in “modern” astronomy, but when you peel back the layers of the onion (penetrate the obfiscation) you see they don’t consider much at all or down play its importance.
Heck, Svalgaard and crew don’t even acknowledge the solar wind is electromagnetic energy, but rather is only “kinetic energy” that only later is “transformed” into electromagnetic energy.
Why does Svalgaard cling to magnetic reconnection even after it has been discredited?
Because it’s the attempted way to pass off changing magnetic fields without discussing the electric current which generates magnetic fields.
Svalgaard and most of “modern” astronomy insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields, electric current.
It is more of the same — but those who want to understand the Earth’s climate can’t afford to have their heads in the sand.
“Auroral Activity Extrapolated from NOAA POES
Instruments on board the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) continually monitor the power flux carried by the protons and electrons that produce aurora in the atmosphere.” Per NOAA link by Svalgaard.
Notice this isn’t kinetic energy, but is the electric potential between electrons and protons (plasma).

Fortunately with all the politicians out there, we can loose atmosphere and still generate more hot air to replace it (and more).