I got a tip by email from JohnA who runs solarscience.auditblogs.com about this NASA press release. John’s skeptical about it. He makes some good points in this post here.
What I most agree with JohnA’s post is about sunspots. While we’ve seen some small rumblings that the solar dynamo might be on the upswing, such as watching Leif’s plot of the 10.7 CM solar radio flux, there just doesn’t appear to be much change in character of the sunspots during the last year. And the magnetic field strength just doesn’t seem to be ramping up much.
He writes:
“Let’s check out the window”
On Solarcycle24.com they’ve got yet another sun speck recorded yesterday, that by today had disappeared. Exactly the same behaviour we’ve been having for 12 months with no end in sight.
I agree with JohnA, it’s still a bit slow out there. Leif is at the conference in Boulder where NASA made this announcement below, so perhaps he’ll fill us in on the details.
Here is the NASA story:
Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?
June 17, 2009: The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.
At an American Astronomical Society press conference today in Boulder, Colorado, researchers announced that a jet stream deep inside the sun is migrating slower than usual through the star’s interior, giving rise to the current lack of sunspots.
Rachel Howe and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, used a technique called helioseismology to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun. The sun generates new jet streams near its poles every 11 years, they explained to a room full of reporters and fellow scientists. The streams migrate slowly from the poles to the equator and when a jet stream reaches the critical latitude of 22 degrees, new-cycle sunspots begin to appear.
Above: A helioseismic map of the solar interior. Tilted red-yellow bands trace solar jet streams. Black contours denote sunspot activity. When the jet streams reach a critical latitude around 22 degrees, sunspot activity intensifies. [larger image] [more graphics]
Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.
The jet stream is now, finally, reaching the critical latitude, heralding a return of solar activity in the months and years ahead.
“It is exciting to see”, says Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging.”
he current solar minimum has been so long and deep, it prompted some scientists to speculate that the sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all, akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century. This new result dispells those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating, and the sunspot cycle is not “broken.”
Because it flows beneath the surface of the sun, the jet stream is not directly visible. Hill and Howe tracked its hidden motions via helioseismology. Shifting masses inside the sun send pressure waves rippling through the stellar interior. So-called “p modes” (p for pressure) bounce around the interior and cause the sun to ring like an enormous bell. By studying the vibrations of the sun’s surface, it is possible to figure out what is happening inside. Similar techniques are used by geologists to map the interior of our planet.
In this case, researchers combined data from GONG and SOHO. GONG, short for “Global Oscillation Network Group,” is an NSO-led network of telescopes that measures solar vibrations from various locations around Earth. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, makes similar measurements from Earth orbit.
“This is an important discovery,” says Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “It shows how flows inside the sun are tied to the creation of sunspots and how jet streams can affect the timing of the solar cycle.”
There is, however, much more to learn.
“We still don’t understand exactly how jet streams trigger sunspot production,” says Pesnell. “Nor do we fully understand how the jet streams themselves are generated.”
To solve these mysteries, and others, NASA plans to launch the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) later this year. SDO is equipped with sophisticated helioseismology sensors that will allow it to probe the solar interior better than ever before.
Right: An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. [more]
“The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on SDO will improve our understanding of these jet streams and other internal flows by providing full disk images at ever-increasing depths in the sun,” says Pesnell.
Continued tracking and study of solar jet streams could help researchers do something unprecedented–accurately predict the unfolding of future solar cycles. Stay tuned for that!
Anaconda (10:26:48) :
Your reference to the 50 GW of electrical energy recieved from Sun by the Earth treats it as a one time event, it is not as you well know.
A ‘Watt’ is one joule per second, so is ongoing, not a one time event.
Add that all up and the 50GW ends up being about 7,347,000 GW per year.
Since a Watt is one joule per second, 50 GW for a year is 50E9*365*24*3600 = 1.6E18 Joule in one year (also written as 1,600,000,000,000,000,000 Joule – when you eat a hamburger your energy intake 4,000,000 J, so a continuous input of 50 GW for a year corresponds to eating 400 billion hamburgers in that year – exceeding even McDonald’s wildest claims).
The radiative heat (TSI) is 1361 W/m2. The Earth receives that amount times the surface of a disk (with the radius of the Earth) of 1.28E14 square meters, so in a year the Earth receives 1361*1.28E14*365*24*3600 = 5.5E24 J or 3,500,000 times as much as supplied by the 50 GW [which by the way is not even continuous as you point out], so the energy supplied by the solar wind is indeed minuscule compared with TSI. At solar maximum, TSI is 1.5 W/m2 higher than at solar minimum, or 0.11%. Or 6E21 J over the solar maximum year or 6E21/1.6E18 = 3800 times larger than the 50 GW would give even if continuous.
I hope that in spite of you not being able to follow the physics of electric and magnetic fields, that the simple calculations above might convince you that all experimental evidence [partly supplied by you due to your diligent research] shows that the electromagnetic energy [heat and light] we receive from the Sun [and measured as TSI] is vastly bigger [many thousand times bigger] than that supplied by the solar wind [using your figure of 50 GW].
It is for this simple reason that the solar wind energy is not being used in climate studies [and shouldn’t be – as it is quite negligible].
Anaconda (10:51:17) :
but the irradiance will have a tendency not to reach the surface, but “glance” off the upper levels of the atmosphere.
Maybe this is figured into TSI, but then again, maybe science doesn’t completely understand the dynamics involved.
If so TSI is being overestimated.
To calculate how much of TSI actually gets to the Earth, one first divides by four to compensate for the effect you have rediscovered and then compensates for the amount of light reflected back to space [e.g. by clouds] by reducing the incoming flux by another 30% [the ‘albedo’]. The net effect is to reduce the incoming 1361 W/m2 to 1361/4*0.70 = 238 W/m2 or about 6 times less. In the calculations of the relative amount from TSI and solar wind, a similar factor should be applied to your 50 GW as the substorms are intermittent rather than continuous, so these two factors conveniently cancel out.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (11:22:50) :
Thank you for the explanation.
Leif Svalgaard (11:15:22) :
Svalgaard wrote: “I hope that in spite of you not being able to follow the physics of electric and magnetic fields…”
I understand the physics of electric and magnetic fields…that’s what makes you and other “modern” astronomers uncomfortable.
I don’t hesitate to call you out on your misleading statements.
By the way, you still haven’t given me your mathematical definition of a point (after asking two times).
Cat got your tongue? Or do you know as well as I do, there is more than one definition, which leads to the ability to engage in circular reasoning and “papering over” knowledge gaps while not admitting it.
Leif Svalgaard
Anaconda
Some interesting observations by a scientist who should know, Dr. A. Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (20:48:31) :
Svalgaard wrote: “Hannes was a good friend of mine and we often discussed this issue. His lament was not that his ideas on frozen-in magnetic fields were wrong…”
Hannes Alfven in my estimation can’t be exceeded in his intellectual integrity and courage. Sadly, that can’t be said for all scientists.
Hannes alfven was explicit about the fallacy of “frozen in” magnetic field lines which took tremendous courage because he developed the idea in the first place.
After his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech which he devoted to explaining how the idea of “frozen in” magnetic field lines was wrong, he wrote many papers and books on space plasma.
Svalgaard wrote: “These conditions occurs but rarely in the cosmos…”
Hannes Alfven did not share your view as he wrote an entire book about space plasma.
Hannes Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma, (1981). Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 82 (1981) Springer Verlag. Dr. Svalgaard, you should familiarize yourself with Alfven’s book.
“Space is fill with a network of currents whch transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances.” — Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner for physics
“in order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents.” — Hannes Alfven
Also, Hannes Alfven knew that observation & measurement took precedent over abstract mathematical theorizing:
“We have to lean again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” — Hannes Alfven
Alfven stressed the danger of theories that “are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods as it is only the plasma itself which does not understand how beautiful the theories are, and absolutely refuses to obey them!”
Regrettably, that is what happened to Eugene Parker: His mathematical theorizing has no relationship to actual physical reality.
Dr. Svalgaard, by misrepresenting Hannes Alfven you are hurting your cause whatever it is.
NVQ (12:58:49) :
Thanks for the link. Should be interesting reading.
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
I note the website is sponsored by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), The United States Department of Energy, The National Science Foundation, Plasma International, DuPont, and The Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
Leif Svalgaard
Anaconda
Dr. Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory:
“Except in very limited circumstances, all cosmical plasmas carry electric currents that constitute the sources of the magnetic field.”
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/mag_fields.html
This solar minimum has been ongoing for over a year, the -ive PDo even longer. These are not ‘immediate’, if there was going to be cooling then, if the principle effect of the cosmic rayt/.cloud theory is, ehr, more cloud, then this would have an almost instant impact if it was in any way a relevant driver or global temperatures. There is always the possibility that thee is cooling but is being masked by, say, CO2?
Anaconda (12:03:09) :
By the way, you still haven’t given me your mathematical definition of a point (after asking two times).
If you really want to know it is a Hausdorff space of dimension zero.
Dr. Svalgaard, by misrepresenting Hannes Alfven
The point you do not want to understand is that there is a symbiosis between the magnetic field and the currents it carries. As I have said several times, the magnetic field generates a current that modifies the magnetic field. As the link you provided states: “Magnetism is the fundamental force that determines the character, or motion or shape of ionized matter (plasma).” [not electric currents or fields] This is precisely what Parker teaches us. A trivial example of a current generated by the field is simply the gyration of a charged particle [e.g. a cosmic ray particle] around a magnetic field line [e.g. of the Earth]. The gyrating particle is a current loop, and only the weakest of intellects would claim that the particle is creating the Earth’s magnetic field by its gyration. As long as you do not understand that duality and that there are no electric fields in the rest frame of the plasma you cannot make headway.
I understand the physics of electric and magnetic fields…
Your ignorance shows itself in the confusion about GigaWatts and energy, like in “Add that all up and the 50GW ends up being about 7,347,000GW per year”.
But more importantly, did you understand the calculation of solar input that I provided? After all, all the your confusion and vitriol are in service of your contention that enormous amounts of energy are missing as input to the climate system. So, perhaps you can leave mathematical points well alone for a while and get back on topic.
Anaconda (10:26:48) :
Your insistence that irradiance is the only measure of energy from the Sun by the Earth (and to justify your professional opinion and others in the field — to protect the “community”).
My take on Leif’s statements is that TSI Is the only significant energy input to the eearth from the sun. I.e. there may be other unmeasured but these are insignificant.
see the spectrum that is defined by the solar temperature:
http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pages/Chap.2.php
see this page on black body radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
This accounts for most of the solar energy hitting the earth. there will be solar wind, CME, magnetic fluctuations and the like but these are not significant (unless a CME hits the earth)
In the NASA report I linked, NASA found 50 GW of electrical energy from the Sun enters the Earth’s atmosphere in one substorm at one pole which you recognized is to be doubled to account for both North and South poles.
…
Your reference to the 50 GW of electrical energy recieved from Sun by the Earth treats it as a one time event, it is not as you well know.
…“Approximately every eight minutes…”, a Birkeland current enters the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun.
Some back of the envelope computations shows rougly 7.5 times an hour a Birkeland current enters the atmosphere times 24 hours a day times 365 days a year. Add that all up and the 50GW ends up being about 7,347,000GW per year.
…You simply can’t provide an accurate model of climate when ignoring that amount of energy, particularly when we’re talking about only a couple degrees Celsius anyhow
Unfortunately you are now showing your ignorance here Anaconda! (GW is an instantaneous power you need to enter [time] into the equation!!!!!!!)
The power out put of your Birkeland current is 50GW. How long does this last for – you need this to work out the energy input to the earth (in GWh).
I.e. 50GW* event time(hrs) * repetition rate(/hour) will give this energy in GWh
The figures I gave in bill (18:06:54) for total power generated by thermal powerstations is 4.5e13 kWh/year = 4.5e10GWh/year
Assuming that birkeland currents were continuous event (like the power stations) then the total energy would be 50*365.25*24 *2 GWH/year for both poles = 9,642,600GWh/year (a bit more than your figure)
this is 4700 time less than the power station energy.
that is – it is totally insignificant
There would be a lag if the premise of any of these potential weather pattern variation drivers influences the oceans’ ability to distribute hot or cold potential drivers like CO2’s equatorial greenhouse affect, Solar influences on equatorial heat (either through plasma bursts, TSI or cosmic ray cloud production), or trade wind and oceanic oscillations. Any amateur theorist worth salt would have to contend with equatorial oceanic and atmospheric beginnings of this redistribution. So the theories being proposed are best done at that early stage of weather pattern variation. I don’t see these potential drivers being able to overcome the variability we see at the end portions of redistribution. The further we get from the initial hot or cold drivers, the more we see weather noise. Noise that just buries these rather small potential trend drivers that are easily obscured in local weather noise collected from our global sensors.
Anaconda (13:37:26) :
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
I note the website is sponsored by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), The United States Department of Energy, The National Science Foundation, Plasma International, DuPont, and The Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
The website [and the ‘Plasma universe’ and ‘Electric Universe’ sites] is the worst kind of pseudo-science. The organizations mentioned are not sponsors or associates of the website. They may have sponsored [i.e. paid the salary of] the author/promoter of the site in the past, but in that sense they have sponsored me as well: here is a list of my sponsors and associates: Office of Naval Research, NASA, NSF, International Astronomical Union, American Geophysical Union, IAGA, Stanford University, etc, etc.
The website is basically fraudulent in its claims and reflects the pseudo-science of its promoter. The site does not pass an elementary smell test once you begin to look at it in details, for instance this on Hubble: “Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.” So modern cosmology also goes down the drain. Since I knew Alfven personally and have discussed his ideas with him, I cannot let you besmirch him with this pseudo-science.
In this pseudo-world Birkeland currents flow from the Sun along the curved magnetic field lines and thus comes in at an angle of 45 degrees when hitting the Earth, and thereafter encircle the Sun many times as the magnetic field becomes more and more azimuthal because of solar rotation. Yet our spacecraft show the solar wind to come from the Sun, not flowing along the magnetic field. The Heliospheric Current Sheet driven by the different magnetic field polarities in the two hemispheres flow transverse to the field, not along it, etc. There comes a point of diminishing return when debunking pseudo-science and it seems that we are already past that point. I think the readership has endured your nonsense long enough.
Pamela Gray (16:41:09)
There would be a lag if the premise of any of these potential weather pattern variation drivers influences the oceans’ ability to distribute hot or cold potential drivers like CO2’s equatorial greenhouse affect, Solar influences on equatorial heat (either through plasma bursts, TSI or cosmic ray cloud production), or trade wind and oceanic oscillations. Any amateur theorist worth salt would have to contend with equatorial oceanic and atmospheric beginnings of this redistribution. So the theories being proposed are best done at that early stage of weather pattern variation. I don’t see these potential drivers being able to overcome the variability we see at the end portions of redistribution. The further we get from the initial hot or cold drivers, the more we see weather noise. Noise that just buries these rather small potential trend drivers that are easily obscured in local weather noise collected from our global sensors.
I think you started out great and I was with you until you dismissed the possibility of anything overcoming the redistribution process. Just remember the conductor steers the train so it’s not that hard to fathom. And I’ve yet to see an ENSO event form that didn’t follow the conductor. (Solar forcing)
And the ENSO can have an effect upon the PDO. And then there are other variables also that it can influence. So the domino effect is out there with certain oceanic and atmospheric teleconnections and this is where people need to look.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
You can slander me all you want (that’s why I use a psuedonym).
But Dr. Anthony Peratt works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and is highly respected in his field of plasma physics, including space plasma and has been an adviser to the U.S. government on plasma energy.
You may not like it, but the website is directly sponsored by Los Alamos National laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy — to say differently is to be gulity of smear tactics or worse.
Dr. Anthony Peratt was a student and then professional associate of Hannes Alfven and has acted in a leadership role at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
You seriously need to look in the mirror when you call others pseudo-scientists — your probity and candor have been shown to be less than stellar.
You’ve called me a “nasty” person. Look in the mirror.
You act on this website to spread misinformation and act as a lookout for you professional group and your own personal theory of TSI. Some are flattered that you roam the website and answer questions — it is much more self-interested than that. And your tactics demonstrate the quality of your opinions.
I had to put the NASA links, here, many times before you would admit that there are electric currents in space.
I had to put the NASA links, here, many times before you would acknowledge the electrical energy that Birkeland currents transport into the atmosphere.
You still deny the obvious that the energy output of the Sun at solar maximum and solar minimum is significantly different, even though the image evidence is indisputable.
You attempt to promote a hypothesis for which no experimental or in situ scientific evidence exists: Namely, that magnetic fields cause don’t require electric currents. There are no experiments or in situ observations that support that proposition, NONE, But I repeatedly provide links to NASA reports of in situ observations & measurements that support my positions and plasma experiments support my postions.
You criticize and arrogantly dismiss facts and evidence that contradict your opinion and agenda, yet offer speculation that supports your pet ideas that support your opinion and agenda. The double standards you employ are obvious.
You misrepresent Hannes Alfven’s views. If you were his friend, who needs enemies, such is your disregard for facts and evidence and Hannes Alfven’s legacy. No one who knew him would characterize his convictions like you did, here.
You slander Dr. Anthony Peratt even though his professional standing is much high than yours.
Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s educational & professional vitae:
Anthony L. Peratt (S’60–M’63–SM’85–F’99) Ph.D: EE, 1971, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. Staff Member, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); Guest Physicist, Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975–1977); Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (1985); Los Alamos National Laboratory (1981–), Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs; Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995–1999) where he served a term as Acting Director, National Security, in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate.
Dr. Peratt’s research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, Z-pinches, and inertially driven fusion target designs.
He has served as session organizer for space plasmas, IEEE International Conf. on Plasma Science 1987–1989; Guest Editor Transactions on Plasma Science, special issues on Space Plasmas 1986, 89, 90, 92, 2000, 2003; Organizer, IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003; Associate Editor Transactions on Plasma Science 1989—; Elected member of IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom), 1987–1989; 1995– 1997; GENERAL CHAIRMAN, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman 1997; Elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, 1997, named an IEEE Fellow, 1999.
He holds memberships in the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, Eta Kappa Nu and has earned the United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1993; Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer, 1995. Dr. Peratt is Author, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992); Editor, Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995); Editor, Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997).
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/people/perattbio04.html
I know you have no shame because your job on this website is to spread misinformation and protect your personal theory of Sun’s energy output. Anybody who stands in your way is to be marginalized.
But scientific facts are stubborn things.
REPLY: “Anaconda”, I suggest that you dial back your rhetoric and accusations a bit if you wish to continue posting. I have a low tolerance level for cowards whom use made up silly names, all the while attacking a person who puts his name behind what he says. You may have some valid points, but your approach is not at all impressive. If you think your opinion is worth something, use your name and stand behind it. – Anthony Watts
@ur momisugly Anthony Watts
I think you allow double standards for your favorites — that does not impress me.
1) Wow . . . what a conversation.
2) James F. Evans; are you identifying yourself as Anaconda then, or not.
3) It is highly counter productive to get into ad hominem attacks and resume exhibitions.
Let’s just have the science, let those who are qualified review that science, and make appropriat commentary. Those of us who are in the process of trying to learn and understand it benefit a great deal from that, not from the other stuff.
Anthony; Thanks again for a great website.
James F. Evans, welcome to the light.
Bob,
Part of the problem is that there are so many agenda’s running around we don’t know who is qualified to review the science or not.
Also, standing aside, and letting somebody “qualified” make the decisions is what got us into this mess in the first place.
WE have to make the decisions and not necessarily rely on an “elite” who knows better than us.
That’s the death knell for democracy.
Self-education has never been easier than right now.
It is the quality of the reasoning and logic that measure the opinion, not how many letters you have after your name.
Leif Svalgaard (15:37:58) :
Anaconda (12:03:09) :
“But more importantly, did you understand the calculation of solar input that I provided?”
Aside from your attacks, the above question still stands. And that is after all what matters.
For the record, I am a physicist ( high energy particle physics, retired) and I have been following Leif’s explanations on this board and have learned much, since I am not a solar scientist.I have found no behavior as described here:
“because your job on this website is to spread misinformation and protect your personal theory of Sun’s energy output. Anybody who stands in your way is to be marginalized.”
This has to be retracted. It may be that there are theories one favors, and a scientist becomes attached to his own version, that does not mean that if data refute the theories a good scientist will not accept the refutation; Leif is a good scientist.
On the other hand, wrong claims of solutions of Maxwell’s equations (electric currents are necessary) do not make for favorable opinions on the people promoting them, as also the inability to deal with large numbers.
James F. Evans (09:07:57) :
Bob,
Part of the problem is that there are so many agenda’s running around we don’t know who is qualified to review the science or not.
Also, standing aside, and letting somebody “qualified” make the decisions is what got us into this mess in the first place.
WE have to make the decisions and not necessarily rely on an “elite” who knows better than us.
Now it depends on who “WE” is
That’s the death knell for democracy.
Science and the scientific method have no democracy. Only meritocracy. The absolute ruler is the theory that fits the data and has predictive power. That is not democracy. One does not vote about gravity. It is this voting about climate, “consensus” that has created this mess.
Self-education has never been easier than right now.
Maybe, if the self educated spends the hours upon hours to build the background to have an informed opinion. The hundreds of hours us scientists have spent in learning the basics of the previous generation’s physics is a necessary condition for learning, except maybe for people like Feynman.
It is the quality of the reasoning and logic that measure the opinion, not how many letters you have after your name.
I know people with a lot of letters after their name that are soap bubbles, this does not mean that everybody that has a lot of letters after their name is fluff.
It is the solid background in the science under discussion that is important and the objective look at the data. Logic and reasoning is not enough, we would still be counting angels on the end of a pin, logically. They are necessary, but not sufficient ( in the mathematical sense).
Tenacity in a debate will in the end never be a match for superior intellect.
anna v (09:17:37) :
Anna wrote: “I have found no behavior as described here:
[James F. Evans:] “because your job on this website is to spread misinformation and protect your personal theory of Sun’s energy output. Anybody who stands in your way is to be marginalized.”
This has to be retracted. It may be that there are theories one favors, and a scientist becomes attached to his own version, that does not mean that if data refute the theories a good scientist will not accept the refutation; Leif is a good scientist.
I’m happy to retract where I’m wrong or misstate somethng.
Leif Svalgaard (01:23:28) : (Sunspots Today: A Cheshire Cat – New Essay from Livingston and Penn): “rephelan (00:54:19) :
bright spots? Has that actually happened before? Have bright sunspots actually been observed?
In a sense, yes. They are called faculae. There are many examples of bright areas on the Sun with moderate magnetic fields, but no visible sunspots. Some even recently.
Very speculatively: it is possible that during the Maunder Minimum, there was actually significant solar activity [we know, f.ex. that the cosmic ray modulation was strong back then], but that magnetic field was just at or below the 1500 Gauss that makes the spots invisible. Perhaps TSI was even higher then without the black spots to drag down the values. This idea will be strongly opposed by those that for other [non-solar, e.g. anti-AGW] reasons cannot accept such heresy.”
The operative phrase: “Very speculatively: it is possible that during the Maunder Minimum, there was actually significant solar activity…”
So, as you can see Dr. Svalgaard will offer, in his own words, “Very speculatively” personal opinions.
Which would be fine, everybody is entitled to their opinions, but I do have a problem when he dismisses other’s opinions in harsh terms, which are based on facts and scientific evidence, but feels no compunction about offering his own very speculative ideas (to justify his opinion).
Dr. Svalgaard has been very slow to acknowledge the refutations I’ve offered based on NASA findings (better late than never, I admit).
And I also have been following Dr. Svalgaard’s comments (not just the ones directed at me), and in my opinion, yes, Dr. Svalgaard has engaged in spreading misinformation to protect his personal theory of the Sun’s energy output and attempted to marginalized anybody who disagreed with him.
(Many people can’t take the heat and silently accept his harsh rebukes.)
anna v wrote: “Science and the scientific method have no democracy. Only meritocracy. The absolute ruler is the theory that fits the data and has predictive power. That is not democracy.”
Agreed.
And you are right to point that out and to that extend I do retract the offending statement.
This does require empiricism be adhered to and compulsion rather than deduction be the standard for reaching scientific conclusions. Problematically, it is not always possible to use compulsion as the standard of reaching conclusions in field sciences. And the recourse to deduction leads to scientific conclusion by consensus. Once “consensus” is reached it can be very hard to change because “group” justification kicks in. And, thereafter, scientific facts and evidence that contradict the “group’s consensus” have a tendency to be ignored or marginalized.
(if the contradicting evidence isn’t actively suppressed.)
It is my opinion that is what has happened in the AGW debate.
What to do?
Outside individuals with cross-disciplinary skills that can be objective about the “group’s consensus” need to closely review all the scientific evidence and be prepared to challenge the “group consensus” if the evidence doesn’t add up.
In democracy that’s called “checks and balances”.
This website is a noble effort in that direction.
anna v wrote: “On the other hand, wrong claims of solutions of Maxwell’s equations (electric currents are necessary) do not make for favorable opinions on the people promoting them, as also the inability to deal with large numbers.”
anna can you point to one experiment or in situ observation & measurement that verifies your statement? Even Dr. Parker acknowledged that, here, on Earth electric current is required to generate a magnetic field. Or can you point to one in situ observation & measurement in the space environment that conclusvely demonstates the hypothesis he and Dr. Parker espouse?
What has happened is that an unsupported assumption based on a priori mathemtatical theorizing has been accepted as fact when no empirical evidence supports that assumption.
Hannes Alfven warned against that kind of proceeding.
Resort to “large numbers” seems to be an acknowledgement that empirical science backs me up. It’s that kind of a priori mathematical extrapolation to justify “new physics” that has gotten astronomy into problems.
James F. Evans (12:12:19) :
So, as you can see Dr. Svalgaard will offer, in his own words, “Very speculatively” personal opinions.
Which is perfectly OK as long as they are labeled as speculation. But you are avoiding the issue: “do you understand the calculation of the solar output that I provided you with?”, namely that the solar wind energy input is millions of times smaller than the TSI. This is the crucial point. It may be hopeless to make you understand the physics, but perhaps the numbers may do the trick.
James F. Evans (12:12:19) :
anna v wrote: “On the other hand, wrong claims of solutions of Maxwell’s equations (electric currents are necessary) do not make for favorable opinions on the people promoting them, as also the inability to deal with large numbers.”
anna can you point to one experiment or in situ observation & measurement that verifies your statement?
Somebody else has already pointed out that the electromagnetic field, light etc, does not need any electric currents. The magnetic field creates the electric field which creates the magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of energy propagation. Classical solution of Maxwell’s equations.
Resort to “large numbers” seems to be an acknowledgement that empirical science backs me up. It’s that kind of a priori mathematical extrapolation to justify “new physics” that has gotten astronomy into problems.
We are not talking of video games. The solar system is full of measured large numbers, and measured small numbers, and the measured energy carried by the magnetic and electric fields of the plasma is very much smaller than the radiant electromagnetic energy flowing out of the sun towards earth, as people have repeatedly pointed out here.