NCAR: "number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun's impact on Earth"

NCAR

Solar Cycle Driven by More than Sunspots; Sun Also Bombards Earth with High-Speed Streams of Wind

From an NCAR press release September 17, 2009

BOULDER—Challenging conventional wisdom, new research finds that the number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. The study, led by scientists at the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Michigan, finds that Earth was bombarded last year with high levels of solar energy at a time when the Sun was in an unusually quiet phase and sunspots had virtually disappeared.

“The Sun continues to surprise us,” says NCAR scientist Sarah Gibson, the lead author. “The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there are virtually no sunspots.”

The study, also written by scientists at NOAA and NASA, is being published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics. It was funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

Scientists for centuries have used sunspots, which are areas of concentrated magnetic fields that appear as dark patches on the solar surface, to determine the approximately 11-year solar cycle. At solar maximum, the number of sunspots peaks. During this time, intense solar flares occur daily and geomagnetic storms frequently buffet Earth, knocking out satellites and disrupting communications networks.

(Illustration by Janet Kozyra with images from NASA, courtesy Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics.) click for larger image”]solar diagramGibson and her colleagues focused instead on another process by which the Sun discharges energy. The team analyzed high-speed streams within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system.

When those streams blow by Earth, they intensify the energy of the planet’s outer radiation belt. This can create serious hazards for weather, navigation, and communications satellites that travel at high altitudes within the outer radiation belts, while also threatening astronauts in the International Space Station. Auroral storms light up the night sky repeatedly at high latitudes as the streams move past, driving mega-ampere electrical currents about 75 miles above Earth’s surface. All that energy heats and expands the upper atmosphere. This expansion pushes denser air higher, slowing down satellites and causing them to drop to lower altitudes.

Scientists previously thought that the streams largely disappeared as the solar cycle approached minimum. But when the study team compared measurements within the current solar minimum interval, taken in 2008, with measurements of the last solar minimum in 1996, they found that Earth in 2008 was continuing to resonate with the effects of the streams. Although the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any minimum in 75 years, the Sun’s effect on Earth’s outer radiation belt, as measured by electron fluxes, was more than three times greater last year than in 1996.

Gibson said that observations this year show that the winds have finally slowed, almost two years after sunspots reached the levels of last cycle’s minimum.

The authors note that more research is needed to understand the impacts of these high-speed streams on the planet. The study raises questions about how the streams might have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went through extended periods of low sunspot activity, such as a period known as the Maunder minimum that lasted from about 1645 to 1715.

“The fact that Earth can continue to ring with solar energy has implications for satellites and sensitive technological systems,” Gibson says. “This will keep scientists busy bringing all the pieces together.”

Buffeting Earth with streams of energy

sarah gibson

Sarah Gibson [ENLARGE](©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.) News media terms of use*

For the new study, the scientists analyzed information gathered from an array of space- and ground-based instruments during two international scientific projects: the Whole Sun Month in the late summer of 1996 and the Whole Heliosphere Interval in the early spring of 2008. The solar cycle was at a minimal stage during both the study periods, with few sunspots in 1996 and even fewer in 2008.

The team found that strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams of charged particles buffeted Earth in 2008. In contrast, Earth encountered weaker and more sporadic streams in 1996. As a result, the planet was more affected by the Sun in 2008 than in 1996, as measured by such variables as the strength of electron fluxes in the outer radiation belt, the velocity of the solar wind in the vicinity of Earth, and the periodic behavior of auroras (the Northern and Southern Lights) as they responded to repeated high-speed streams.

The prevalence of high-speed streams during this solar minimum appears to be related to the current structure of the Sun. As sunspots became less common over the last few years, large coronal holes lingered in the surface of the Sun near its equator. The high-speed streams that blow out of those holes engulfed Earth during 55 percent of the study period in 2008, compared to 31 percent of the study period in 1996. A single stream of charged particles can last for as long as 7 to 10 days. At their peak, the accumulated impact of the streams during one year can inject as much energy into Earth’s environment as massive eruptions from the Sun’s surface can during a year at the peak of a solar cycle, says co-author Janet Kozyra of the University of Michigan.

The streams strike Earth periodically, spraying out in full force like water from a fire hose as the Sun revolves. When the magnetic fields in the solar winds point in a direction opposite to the magnetic lines in Earth’s magnetosphere, they have their strongest effect. The strength and speed of the magnetic fields in the high-speed streams can also affect Earth’s response.

The authors speculate that the high number of low-latitude coronal holes during this solar minimum may be related to a weakness in the Sun’s overall magnetic field. The Sun in 2008 had smaller polar coronal holes than in 1996, but high-speed streams that escape from the Sun’s poles do not travel in the direction of Earth.

“The Sun-Earth interaction is complex, and we haven’t yet discovered all the consequences for the Earth’s environment of the unusual solar winds this cycle,” Kozyra says. “The intensity of magnetic activity at Earth in this extremely quiet solar minimum surprised us all. The new observations from last year are changing our understanding of how solar quiet intervals affect the Earth and how and why this might change from cycle to cycle.”

About the article

Title: “If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals”

Authors: Sarah Gibson, Janet Kozyra, Giuliana de Toma, Barbara Emory, Terry Onsager, and Barbara Thompson

Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics

Related sites on the World Wide Web

Whole Heliosphere Interval (2008)

Whole Sun Month (1996)

h/t to Leif Svalgaard

====================================

Leif adds some perspective to this press release:

IMHO this is just another PR stunt, ‘never seen before’, ‘overturns what we thought before’, etc.

It has been known for a long time [decades] that there are strong recurrent solar wind streams leading up to solar minimum [EVERY solar minimum]. Attached are plots of the solar wind speed prior to minimum for many minima in the past. The blue curve show the speed derived from geomagnetic measurement and the pink curve shows that directly measured by spacecraft, some of the differences between the curves is due to missing data from the spacecraft [at times they only measured a small percentage of the time]. The smooth curves are 13 rotation running means.Also attached is the Recurrence Index, a measure for the recurrence tendency of the flow. High values = a solar rotation is very much like the previous one [the cross correlation between the two]

Sargent Recurrence Index - click for larger image
Sargent Recurrence Index - click for larger image

Especially the minimum in 1944 is very much like the current one in the sense that there was high-speed solar wind close to the minimum, even closer, fact. It is amazing that each new generation of scientists will have to rediscover and relearn what was already known. But such is human nature, every generation has to do this.

click for larger image
click for larger image
0 0 votes
Article Rating
344 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Adam from Kansas
September 17, 2009 7:24 pm

I wonder if that new finding could be part of the reason for last year’s Arctic temps. at this time to be warmer than today? A mention with a graphic on Intellicast showed the aftermath of a major geomagnetic storm on atmospheric anomalies years ago showing positive anomalies outside of the auroral ring.
Since it doesn’t seem like Sunspots are as a reliable indicator of the Sun-Earth connection as one thinks before some recent studies, we can’t really draw a conclusion that the Sun is not the most powerful climate driver, not until all the links are revealed which will probably take a while. The science cannot be settled at a consensus that Co2 is responsible for warming until all the links are found and even then if it shows the Sun is not responsible for climate changes.

rbateman
September 17, 2009 7:47 pm

Would this be the reason for the lag-time for GCR’s to take effect?
The level of GCR strikes on SOHO EIT camera has risen sharply of late.
This also begs the question: What happens when the coronal holes at low latitude shut off during a long and deep minimum?

Bob Long
September 17, 2009 8:04 pm

Someone mentioned this (WUWT on Australia’s ABC’s “Lateline”) on a previous comment, but here’s more information.
Co-author of “Unscientific America”, Chris Mooney (“I’m a fan of Al Gore”):
“CHRIS MOONEY: It’s extremely difficult because what you find with science communication on the web is both good science sites and bad science sites thrive and are popular and have lots of visitors. So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous, but that’s the kind of thing that can happen because this blog is really popular.” [at 9:20 in the video]
Transcript and video:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689429.htm

September 17, 2009 8:08 pm

rbateman (19:47:09) :
Would this be the reason for the lag-time for GCR’s to take effect?
The time lag is due to the fact that it takes a year for the solar wind to fill up the heliosphere, and we see this lag all the time.
The level of GCR strikes on SOHO EIT camera has risen sharply of late.
The GCR flux has turned now and is on its way down again.
This also begs the question: What happens when the coronal holes at low latitude shut off during a long and deep minimum?
They are replaced by coronal holes at higher latitudes. This is already happening.

Jon
September 17, 2009 8:12 pm

The observation of unexpected solar winds during solar minimums suggest that periods of low sunspot activity have little impact on the earth’s climate. The authors mention the strength and direction of the Sun’s magnetic field and it’s weakness during solar minimums. this would be the exact cause of increased cosmic radiation hitting the earth during periods of low solar activity. People like Svensmark and others have given this as a possible cause of increased cloud formation causing cooling.
Scientists have long puzzled as solar radiation itself cannot be shown to warm the earth to any great extent. This does not preclude the theory that the magnetic field has more to do with climate than fluctuations in solar radiation.

September 17, 2009 8:13 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32) :
So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous
We also discuss good solar science, that you won’t find elsewhere, to wit: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/15/a-significant-sc24-spot-may-be-in-the-making/

timetochooseagain
September 17, 2009 8:20 pm

Is there any reason to believe that these effects are in any way uncorrelated or vary independently of sunspots? If not, then this wouldn’t effect empirical determinations of the relationship between solar activity and various things (including climate) that are based on correlations with sunspots, but it would effect the theoretical linkages. On the other hand, if these effects vary independently of sunspots, especially on long time scales, that might be rather important considering all the discussion over whether there are solar trends that can be associated with climate.
So really, just asking.

Editor
September 17, 2009 8:25 pm

Working through this from a layman’s perspective, so this is our magnetoshpere;
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/Edu/magnetosphere/mag5.html
and sometimes the sun sends us intense blasts of charged particles as is show in the animation here:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/29/european-chinese-satellites-watch-solar-storms-pummel-earth/
When this occurs, the results look something like these:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003356/index.html
The first article states that, “Solar wind particles also rush through funnel-like openings (cusps) at the North and South Poles, releasing tremendous energy when they hit the upper atmosphere. The Northern and Southern Lights (auroras) are the evidence we can see of this energy transfer from the Sun to the Earth. ”
The natural question is how much energy is being transferred to Earth through this process?
Did an event like this:
http://dawn.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Extreme_comp/
have a measurable impact on Earth’s temperature?

September 17, 2009 8:27 pm

Jon (20:12:33) :
People like Svensmark and others have given this as a possible cause of increased cloud formation causing cooling.
Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.

Steve Huntwork
September 17, 2009 8:36 pm

Leif;
Are you saying that the cosmic ray intensity has not changed since the early 1950s?
What sources are you using to verify this claim?

theduke
September 17, 2009 8:38 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32) :
So which website does Chris Mooney think is a “good science site?” Which do you consider a “good science site?”
This should be good. If you have the courage to answer.

September 17, 2009 8:40 pm

Sarah Gibson is cute. Therefore, I believe her analysis. Sorry scientists. I love freckles.

JFD
September 17, 2009 8:42 pm

Leif, there was a super galactic ray influx in January 27 -29, 2009 resulting in a SSW that raised temperatures in the Stratosphere about 30 C. Could this event have any impact on the measurements made by NCAR? The super GCR did measureably impact the late cold winter and colder summer experienced in Northeast US. This event was actually accidently measured by muon count.
JFD

gtrip
September 17, 2009 8:51 pm

theduke (20:38:26) :
Bob Long (20:04:32) :
So which website does Chris Mooney think is a “good science site?” Which do you consider a “good science site?”
This should be good. If you have the courage to answer.
Am I missing something here? What did Bob Long say that makes you think that he is ragging on this (WUWT) site?

rbateman
September 17, 2009 8:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:08:05) :
Not seeing that:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin8.htm
I am seeing a lessening of polar coronal holes, and that they never really left.
Strangely, the lessening is not unlike the Arctic Ice Cap here on Earth, as the alarmists would have you believe is about to happen.
Now, in your Babcock theory, what would happen to the Sun if it’s Polar Coronal holes shut down to a fraction of what they are now? That’s a hypothetical.

September 17, 2009 8:54 pm

Just The Facts (20:25:54) :
The natural question is how much energy is being transferred to Earth through this process?
About one millionth of that we get from the ordinary heat and light.
Steve Huntwork (20:36:58) :
Are you saying that the cosmic ray intensity has not changed since the early 1950s?
More precisely that there is no long-term trend. There is, of course, still the usual solar cycle variation on top of the constant background.
What sources are you using to verify this claim?
The various records from dozens of cosmic ray observatories, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-1958-now.gif
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png
http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
etc, etc. Note that there are small differences between various CR stations.

September 17, 2009 8:58 pm

JFD (20:42:25) :
Leif, there was a super galactic ray influx in January 27 -29, 2009
No, there was a gamma ray burst. And it had no influence on anything, AFAIK.

September 17, 2009 9:01 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32) (Quoting Australia’s ABC’s “Lateline”): “So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous…
Leif Svalgaard (20:13:37) (Responding to the above): “We also discuss good solar science, that you won’t find elsewhere, to wit:…
A heartening response, and one which validates the faith so many of us have in the capacity of weblogs to slip through the filters of power and control which many would impose in the names of “settled” and “science” and… um… pomposity? to explore new frontiers (and old) and discover new truths, and validate and invalidate old.

Steve Huntwork
September 17, 2009 9:02 pm

Lief;
Why the souces of neutron counts, when we are talking about gamma rays?
Does nobody have a daily count of gamma-rays striking their instruments?
Seems to me, some high energy experiments (neutrino) are conducted deep in mines, to minimize the measurement errors caused by gamma rays.
What is their gamma-ray daily measurements, since that is something very important for their error analysis of Solar neutrino counts.

September 17, 2009 9:02 pm

rbateman (20:53:42) :
I am seeing a lessening of polar coronal holes, and that they never really left.
The polar magnetic field has decreased ~20% the past couple of years as we would expect from the increasing new cycle flux.
Now, in your Babcock theory, what would happen to the Sun if it’s Polar Coronal holes shut down to a fraction of what they are now? That’s a hypothetical.
They actually do that every 11 years at solar maximum. They are gone, as the polar magnetic field reverses. The result is that the solar wind speed at higher latitudes is cut in half for the duration.

Bob Long
September 17, 2009 9:04 pm

theduke (20:38:26) asks me, I presume, (in response to Bob Long (20:04:32)):
‘So which website does Chris Mooney think is a “good science site?” Which do you consider a “good science site?”’
Well, I don’t know what Mooney thinks is a good site. He never said, in that interview.
And, “This should be good. If you have the courage to answer.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I think WUWT is good. If you thought I was criticising WUWT, then my apologies for poor wording. I was merely adding a reference to the transcript of Mooney referring to WUWT.

Bill H
September 17, 2009 9:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:27:44) :
[I]Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.[/I]
Cosmic rays are short term in nature. Their effects are short term as well. In watching cloud formations they can increase and decrease quickly. It is the net effect of that 1-2% increase on reflected heat.
I beleive it may be a combination of effects that create the swing of climactic change.
Just more proof that we don’t know as much as we think we do.

Steve Huntwork
September 17, 2009 9:09 pm

Side note:
When I visited Trinity Site, New Mexico a few years ago, I smuggled home a piece of melted sand from the nuclear blast.
Of course, I was rather worried how radioactive this melted sand was, so I created a cloud chamber with some dry-ice, alchohol and an aquarium.
At 4,500 feet above sea level, the background radiation levels were higher than the melted sand from Trinity Site!

rbateman
September 17, 2009 9:13 pm

Strangely, the lessening is not unlike the Arctic Ice Cap here on Earth, as the alarmists would have you believe is about to happen.
Correction: Should be
Strangely, the lessening is not unlike the Arctic Ice Cap here on Earth, as the alarmists would have you believe is about to disappear.

Ed
September 17, 2009 9:20 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:27:44) :
“Jon (20:12:33) :
People like Svensmark and others have given this as a possible cause of increased cloud formation causing cooling.
Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.”
Leif,
I don’t think the sun has changed much either since then, at least since 1960 (can’t wait until the two next cycles play out!), so I wouldn’t expect much CR change either other than some 22yr cycle ripple impact on the temp signal from the nature of the alternating peaking characteristics).
We should separate the correlation between the obvious solar connection (ramp up from 1900-1960 of debatable magnitude in temp) which cosmic ray cloud seeding could amplify, from the recent ocean driven (1980-2000). There is an obvious disconnect between temperature and solar from 1945-1960 (likely ocean driven), which would also cause warming when the oceanic cycles reverse to the warming phase (1980-2000). Otherwise there is no lag between the sun and climate (probably a little anticipation in the temp record?) and there certainly should be a lagging influence from the ocean. There is a daily lag, an annual lag, surely a decadal lag.
I think until we start combining multiple factors we’ll never correlate temperature with anything, which makes it easy to discount most everything.
I think there is a very good case for solar plus oceanic cycles (previous solar perturbations?), and cosmic rays may well be proven to essentially amplify the solar signal. We’ll see over the next two solar cycles to be sure!
But no single driver will correlate well with temperature…let’s combine please…
Ed

JFD
September 17, 2009 9:21 pm

Thanks, Leif. After the event, the Arctic winds quickly increased pushing cold air down to the south. The 6 to 8 C coolness lasted for many months. Looking at the Stratosphere temperature chart, the SSWs occur every few years, usually in late winter raising the Stratosphere temperature in a major way. The increased temperature oushs the molecules further apart and thus allows an increase of cosmic rays to reach earth.
I have read papers that indicate that there is excess kinetic energy in the atmosphere. It occured to me that some of this excess energy could possibility come from GCRs.

anna v
September 17, 2009 9:27 pm

I wonder how penetrating the tail end of the energy of this plasma aimed at earth can be, into the lower atmosphere? What stops it from reaching the ground? Does it reach the ground? Could it generate cloud seeds a la GCR ?

Keith
September 17, 2009 9:42 pm

Steve Huntwork (21:02:14) : “Why the souces of neutron counts, when we are talking about gamma rays?”
Unless I’m missing something, the discussion was about cosmic rays, not gamma rays. They are two very different things. Cosmic rays are a misnomer in that they are actually energetic particles (usually protons).

savethesharks
September 17, 2009 9:42 pm

And did the intense GRB of Jan 21-22 actually work to magnify and turn the SSW event into one of the greatest since records were kept?
And did all that heating of the stratosphere…a red bubble that lasted for weeks and weeks on the CPC Vertical Cross Section chart of the Polar Vortex…did that heating finally translate down into the lower atmosphere and has that contributed to the recent warming spike observed? a la 1998??
As the cause of SSW events are heretofore unknown, such possible links, however remote, must not be ruled out entirely at this point.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Gene Nemetz
September 17, 2009 9:46 pm

BOULDER—Challenging conventional wisdom, new research finds that the number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
Piers Corbyn has always said this.
On October 28 he is going to make public some of the key elements of his method.

September 17, 2009 9:47 pm

Steve Huntwork (21:02:14) :
Why the souces of neutron counts, when we are talking about gamma rays?
You asked about cosmic rays. By historical accident, cosmic ‘rays’ are not rays at all, they are particles. So cosmic rays are not gamma rays.
JFD (21:21:56) :
After the event, the Arctic winds quickly increased pushing cold air down to the south.
I think that is just coincidence.
anna v (21:27:23) :
I wonder how penetrating the tail end of the energy of this plasma aimed at earth can be, into the lower atmosphere? What stops it from reaching the ground? Does it reach the ground? Could it generate cloud seeds a la GCR ?
The solar wind particles do not reach the ground. Solar cosmic rays do, in so-called ground-level events of which about 20 have been observed over the past 60 years, so they are very rare, and have no influence on the climate.

rbateman
September 17, 2009 9:51 pm

anna v (21:27:23) :
You have to wonder about there being a bit of cross-contamination between GCR count and Solar stuff hitting Earth. That would make Earth caught between a rock and a hard place.

Editor
September 17, 2009 9:54 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:54:25) :
“About one millionth of that we get from the ordinary heat and light.”
Perhaps solar wind has a direct influence on clouds, aside from its effect on GCRs, which increases solar wind’s overall impact on Earth’s climate?
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf

anna v
September 17, 2009 10:13 pm

Leif, please bear with my ignorance.
Plasma hits the stratosphere, plasma is streams of ions and electrons in bunches so the whole is neutral. When it hits matter, this symmetry is broken, and the atmosphere, higher and lower is matter. If the individual ions have enough energy they will ionize the matter they hit.
so maybe I should ask:
What is the energy distribution of the individual ions/electrons in the plasma ?
How deeply does the plasma penetrate before it breaks up?
From these two pieces of information one should be able to see if there are enough ions reaching the cloud creation level to generate a seeding effect

Keith Minto
September 17, 2009 10:17 pm

Bob Long (20:04:32),
Lateline seems to have a policy of bagging any criticism of AGM. Reporter Tony Jones launched into a pro AGM attack on the director of ‘The great global warming swindle’ a few years back, it was embarrassing to watch and designed to make the director look foolish,instead it did the opposite.
Lateline were so proud of their efforts, they released the interview to DVD and it is now available at your local library!

Gene Nemetz
September 17, 2009 10:24 pm

In trying to figure out what the sun’s influence on earth’s climate is you can’t simply look at what the sun is doing and then conclude something. The activity, in all its forms, coming from the sun is only one variable in that equation.

Stephen Wilde
September 17, 2009 10:30 pm

I’m inclined to think that solar driven variations at the top of the atmosphere would interfere with the outward rate of flow of radiative energy at the air/space boundary.
Thus one could find that a burst of energy at that boundary from solar variation would reduce the loss of radiative energy to space and allow a build up of energy at one or more levels within the air.
That would have an effect on the air pressure distributions within the air and influence the air flows thus affecting climate.
However I don’t accept that such effects within the air would be transmissible into the oceans because of the barrier presented by the evaporative process at the ocean surface.
So, as I’ve previously indicated one gets conflicting processes within the air whereby the air has to resolve simultaneously that the sea surface/surface air temperatures maintain equilibrium and at the same time the solar energy arriving has to approximately match radiative energy leaving the planet.
That is a whole class of energy interplay that is entirely unrecognised by current climatology and not reflected at all in the climate models, yet if true, it would account for a lot of puzzling phenomena observed in the air and especially at the air/space boundary.

Editor
September 17, 2009 11:40 pm

One of the impacts of solar wind on clouds may be Nocilucent Clouds:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/26/noctilucent-clouds-and-the-earths-interface-with-space/
AIM has been in service for a while.
http://aim.hamptonu.edu/
Are there any correlations between the AIM data:
http://aim.hamptonu.edu/sds/index.html
and Solar Wind?

gtrip
September 17, 2009 11:47 pm

As a famous doctor once wrote:
“The sun is up. The sun is yellow. The yellow sun is over the house.
It is hot out here in the sun. It is not hot here under the house.”

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 12:05 am

Leif Svalgaard (20:08:05) :
rbateman (19:47:09) :
What happens when the coronal holes at low latitude shut off during a long and deep minimum?
They are replaced by coronal holes at higher latitudes. This is already happening.

Leif, please could you tell us to what extent the energy streams from these higher latitude coronal holes ‘miss’ the planets lying in the orbital plane. i.e. Are they coming out perpendicular to the solar surface in fairly narrow streams or is there sufficient ‘spread’ that they still ‘cover’ the matter in the orbital plane?
Thanks

Frank Lansner
September 18, 2009 12:26 am

OT:
I just want to thank you Americans so much.
It appears, that democrats see no way of getting cap and trade through senate.
This message has come to Denmark, and politicians are chocked. They are already talking about making a new COPENHAGEN summit ½ year later so that the US will have time to get their legislation in place.
It seems the little Danes has no clue, that the problems for the democrats is not likely over in ½ year. Over here the missing legislation of US is seen as a knock out on the process. Which may be correct.
The Danes are brainwashed im afraid, but you Americans think for yourselves, and thankyou so much for this. Im sure that the fact that only 51% of the democtratic voters see global warming as something human made is the real reason why even some democrats cannot vote for your cap and trade.
Americans, thank you!!!

jeroen
September 18, 2009 12:42 am

if you look at that graph you see stronger winds pre 1970 and know comming back up. So stronger winds follow sunspots. I am a bid confused right know

gtrip
September 18, 2009 1:04 am

Frank Lansner (00:26:27)
Just want to say thanks for the appreciation you offer. Liberty is not lost here…yet. I am a bit surprised why the Aussies seem to be such lambs. Maybe they didn’t leave in search of freedom but went in search of riches. But our country (USA) is falling fast and the future see’s only submission or revolution.

gtrip
September 18, 2009 1:41 am

tallbloke (00:05:17) : Said…
.. what extent the energy streams from these higher latitude coronal holes ‘miss’ the planets lying in the orbital plane. i.e. Are they coming out perpendicular to the solar surface in fairly narrow streams or is there sufficient ’spread’ that they still ‘cover’ the matter in the orbital plane?
You know, if one were to study a fart, one could come up with the same argument that tallbloke made. Used to be that science would come up with things that advanced society. You know; electricity, telephones, batteries, aeroplanes, engines, etc. etc. Now it seems that all that science can come up with are inventions that want to diminish society. Why do you think that is?
We used to use God as a driver of mankind purpose. Now we use the earth as our driver. It seems we are taking a big step backwards.

September 18, 2009 2:31 am

anna v (22:13:02) :
Plasma hits the stratosphere
The Earth has a strong magnetic field and the plasma [a good electrical conductor] cannot cross a magnetic field, so it does not hit the atmosphere. The plasma stream is stopped about 10 Earth radii away from the Earth and flows around the Earth, confining the Earth’s magnetic field to a bubble [with a long tail pointing away from the Sun] around the Earth. A complicated system of electric currents are induced [as always when to move a conductor relative to a magnetic field] and a complicated system of plasma movements results that eventually lead to aurora and magnetic disturbances. See http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Intro.html for details.
tallbloke (00:05:17) :
Are they coming out perpendicular to the solar surface in fairly narrow streams or is there sufficient ’spread’ that they still ‘cover’ the matter in the orbital plane?
Near the Sun the streams expand laterally to fill all of space, so there are no ’empty’ spots. When there are few and weak low-latitude coronal holes, plasma from the polar regions is bent ‘down’ towards the equator. For details see:
http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf

September 18, 2009 2:35 am

Frank Lansner (00:26:27) :
you Americans think for yourselves, and thank you so much for this. Im sure that the fact that only 51% of the democtratic voters see global warming as something human made is the real reason why even some democrats cannot vote for your cap and trade.
Yet America [or more precisely USA] is also the place were an almost equal percentage believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

September 18, 2009 2:51 am

“Scientists previously thought that the streams largely disappeared as the solar cycle approached minimum. But when the study team compared measurements within the current solar minimum interval, taken in 2008, with measurements of the last solar minimum in 1996,”
I am not overly convinced by this “press release”
Are the 2 periods measured both considered the minimum, did they cherry pick the very bottom of 1996 and alternatively did they pick a period of still reasonable activity in 2008? Is any part of 2008 considered the minimum?
Would need to look directly at their data before jumping to conclusions.

Dave in Delaware
September 18, 2009 3:00 am

wait … upper atmosphere expansion in 2008?
from this NCAR press release above:
“All that energy heats and expands the upper atmosphere. This expansion pushes denser air higher, slowing down satellites and causing them to drop to lower altitudes. ………….. they found that Earth in 2008 was continuing to resonate with the effects of the streams.”
————————————
However, measurements in 2008 said that the Ionosphere was at a new low as we read in this WUWT link:
Earth’s Ionosphere drops to a new low
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-ionosphere-drops-to-a-new-low/
“Observations made by NASA instruments onboard an Air Force satellite have shown that the boundary between the Earth’s upper atmosphere and space has moved to extraordinarily low altitudes. These observations were made by the Coupled Ion Neutral Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) instrument suite, which was launched aboard the U.S. Air Force’s Communication/Navigation Outage Forecast System (C/NOFS) satellite on April 16, 2008.
“The height of the ionosphere/space transition is controlled in part by the amount of extreme ultraviolet energy emitted by the Sun and a somewhat contracted ionosphere could have been expected because C/NOFS was launched during a minimum in the 11-year cycle of solar activity. However, the size of the actual contraction caught investigators by surprise. (Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center)”
—————————-

Scott Mandia
September 18, 2009 3:11 am

Moody specifically mentions Realclimate.org as a “real science” blog.
Unscientific America is a must read if one is interested in understanding the science disconnect here in America. Moody suggests that scientists are not getting the message across to the general public because most of the discussions are between scientists in their scholraly journals. In fact, Car Sagan is one of the “heroes” in Moddy’s book yet he was ostracized by many scientists for being too “commercial”.
This book is the reason I am posting here on WUWT and why I made my climate change site.

Scott Mandia
September 18, 2009 3:12 am

scholraly
Great!

September 18, 2009 3:52 am

Leif:
Do you believe that the Maunder and Dalton minimums were colder epochs?
If the answer is yes, then these colder episodes were clearly linked to lower Sunspot activity, so what in the Sun’s output could be causing such temperature changes?
Electro-magnetic radiation, magnetic flux, solar wind – is there anything else we have missed? Nutrinos?
.

Richard111
September 18, 2009 4:30 am

Is this not a pre-Copenhagen pre-emptive strike against any mention of a “quiet sun” during the conference? “See, lots of other energy stuff coming from the sun, CO2 is the problem”.

Aligner
September 18, 2009 4:32 am

Leif,
On Dec. 15, 2008 NASA anounced there was a burst of regular protons that was preceeded by a stream of intact hydrogen atoms. How common do you think these are and what effect do you think they may have on the atmosphere?
Also, can you shed any light on what happens when a regular proton stream comes in, especially with the heavier ions present. I presume from the little I’ve read that the ozone layer takes an immediate hit but how much is reliably known about the chemistry that follows? The knock on effects seem like they could be very far reaching.

John W.
September 18, 2009 4:40 am

Set aside the science for a moment. The point of the press release wasn’t to add to anyone’s knowledge or understanding. It was a political tactic to preemptively discredit any hypotheses regarding the influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate. Thus, if/when the climate enters a long term cooling mode, they can say “Well, we’ve already shown it can’t be due to the Sun. Big mystery. But we better wreck the global economy because the planet is storing the heat somewhere.”
OT, anyone who can make a statement regarding the Heat being “stored” somewhere isn’t a scientist. They’re clowns.

Mr Green Genes
September 18, 2009 5:05 am

Leif Svalgaard (02:35:37) :
Yet America [or more precisely USA] is also the place were an almost equal percentage believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

The difference being that those people cannot force their strange views onto the rest of the country (let alone the rest of the world), unlike warmists with their Cap’n’Trade legislation.

J.Hansford
September 18, 2009 5:29 am

Bob Long (20:04:32) (Quoting Australia’s ABC’s “Lateline”): “So in the book we talk about how an anti-global warming blog called the What’s Up With That? actually won the award for “best science” blog, which was pretty outrageous…
…… Pfft, The ABC is outrageous, considering that the Australia’s ABC is a government funded propaganda organization that is 100% Labor party orientated and that the program “Lateline” has a host, Tony Jones who is a bolted on Socialist elite….. It is no wonder that they are critical of a privately owned and well run Science blog with good journalistic content like WUWT……

Mike Bryant
September 18, 2009 5:36 am

Leif,
“Yet America [or more precisely USA] is also the place were an almost equal percentage believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old.”
I wonder if it is these simple-minded people who are the reason we still have our freedom. It seems the more “scientific” and forward-thinking the society, the more likely they have fallen or will fall into bondage.
Lysenko is alive and well.
Mike

Mark
September 18, 2009 5:44 am

re, Leif (02:35:37:
“Yet America [or more precisely USA] is also the place were an almost equal percentage believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old.”
I can’t believe you said this Leif. Not only is it grossly wrong, it’s a stereotype spewed forth by many rabid warmers and extreme leftists.
Next time your in the USA, do an informal poll of your own. I bet you’ll find less than 1 out of 100 believes it.

John
September 18, 2009 5:44 am

What this says to me is that if the low activity of the sun, as measured by sunspots, has had anything to do with the lack of warming in the last few years, it doesn’t have to do with the Svensmark theory, which requires a lower solar wind to allow more cosmic rays to create more condensation nuclei.
Instead, if there has been any solar influence on the lack of warming the last few years, it much be through the mechanism proposed by Joanna Haigh: the 7% to 8% decrease of UV radiation at the minimum of the 11 year cycle causes less stratospheric ozone to be created, which through complex atmospheric processes causes a cooling. That effect was in fact just confirmed by the NOAA or NASA work using two different models.
That’s for the short term. What about a longer term period like the Maunder Minimum?
If the sun’s inactivity, marked by 70 years of very few sunspots, caused the Little Ice Age, what would the mechanism then be?
As Leif says, there is a strong solar wind leading up to every solar minimum (in the 11 year cycle), but it has now (finally) weakened. Suppose after weakening, the solar wind stays weak until sunspot numbers again ramp up? If this is the case, the possibility remains that over a long period such as the Maunder Minimum, the solar wind might indeed have been relatively weak for many decades. That would allow both the “Haigh effect” and the “Svensmark effect” to operate in tandem, and give us the Little Ice Age.
Leif, what do we know about the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum, if anything? It seems to me that the graphic from Judith Lean’s 1992 book for the NSF, the one showing Be10 and C14 isotopes as an indicator of solar activity, might provide backup for the “Svensmark effect” during that time, because clearly there were more cosmic rays creating increased levels of these isotopes during the Maunder Minimum.
I’m serious Leif — I really want your thoughts on this.

Bill Illis
September 18, 2009 5:48 am

It would be beneficial if the impact of all these other solar variations could be fully explained.
We still have a Faint Young Sun paradox to explain. It is very likely that solar wind was much, much stronger in the distant past. It is likely that the Sun had a much stronger magnetic field and produced more x-ray and UV emissions in its early stages. There are even theories that the Sun lost more mass in its early evolution than the standard model indicates.
Generally, if these other changes can be shown to actually impact the climate, it might help explain why the early earth climate was warmer than it should have been.

September 18, 2009 5:52 am

Leif,
As I am relatively new to WUWT, you may have already answered these questions:
What is your position on how much of a role the sun has had in the climate change observed since the Industrial Revolution?
What role do you think human greenhouse gas emissions have had?

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 5:57 am

Leif Svalgaard (02:31:19) :
tallbloke (00:05:17) :
Are they coming out perpendicular to the solar surface in fairly narrow streams or is there sufficient ’spread’ that they still ‘cover’ the matter in the orbital plane?
Near the Sun the streams expand laterally to fill all of space, so there are no ‘empty’ spots. When there are few and weak low-latitude coronal holes, plasma from the polar regions is bent ‘down’ towards the equator. For details see:
http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Co

Fascinating. So would assymetry in ligher latitude coronal holes between northern and southern solar hemispheres influence the ‘flatness’ (notwithstanding the ‘waviness’) of the heliospheric current sheet? Would this mean planets might spend more time on one side of the sheet than the other as it sweeps round each 27 days, as an effect separate from (but adding to or subtracting from) their declination relative to the solar equatorial plane?
Complicated sentence – sorry.

TJA
September 18, 2009 6:14 am

I got a kick out of this story from a year ago
“Sun Shows Signs Of Life: Long-Awaited Solar Cycle 24 Starting To Take Off”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111230341.htm

TJA
September 18, 2009 6:16 am

ralph, I am a skeptic, and don’t buy some of the stuff that Leif is selling but “If the answer is yes, then these colder episodes were clearly linked to lower Sunspot activity, ” is just not a logical statement in any sense. It is rhetorical, and nobody every proved a scientific fact with rhetoric.

rbateman
September 18, 2009 6:19 am

Richard111 (04:30:30) :
Duality of purpose. Pre-emptive strike borne out of sheer terror. The Sun today bears little resemblance to what it was at any time in 1996/97, therefore they have no clue as to what comes next.
When in doubt, stall for time.
Won’t do any good.
6 mos. from now the hole they now dig will be dug that much deeper.

Steve (Paris)
September 18, 2009 6:21 am

gtrip (01:41:20) :
“We used to use God as a driver of mankind purpose. Now we use the earth as our driver. It seems we are taking a big step backwards.”
Interesting point you make. Been thinking about it all day

jon
September 18, 2009 6:27 am

From: http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
“According to the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark (Danish National Space Center) the variation of Earth’s temperature is (in brief) caused by the intensity of the solar wind.
For the first time in history, we therefore have a serious common denominator that can explain both the variation of Earth’s temperature as well as the cause of the (real) dynamo of Earth’s magnetic field.”

September 18, 2009 6:40 am

Aligner (04:32:22) :
On Dec. 15, 2008 NASA anounced there was a burst of regular protons that was preceeded by a stream of intact hydrogen atoms. How common do you think these are and what effect do you think they may have on the atmosphere?
Rare [happens in connection with strong flares], and little or no effect as the flux of atoms is much smaller than the normal solar wind.
Also, can you shed any light on what happens when a regular proton stream comes in
They do not ‘come in’, as they cannot cross the Earth’s magnetic field, see my reply to anna upthread.
ralph (03:52:46) :
Do you believe that the Maunder and Dalton minimums were colder epochs?
Not specifically, rather, several centuries were cold and it is probably just a coincidence that there was low solar activity embedded in that period.

September 18, 2009 6:53 am

Leif: my appreciation for your time answering what are often the same questions over and again, and in providing links – you have great patience and dedication, I cannot imagine how you do this and have time for anything else!
And also, to America and WUWT, for commitment to truth and politely done too!
Leif – on the GCR since 1950 – the four major troughs during solar maxima show a deepening through cycles 20-22. If you assess the area in the trough as a measure of any (potential) cumulative impact, you will see trough 22 is about 35% greater than trough 20. There is then a 15% recovery during cycle 23.
I make the supposition (in ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ – chapter on cosmic rays – for which I would be keen to get your feedback) that it is this cumulative effect that would be important if Svensmark’s theory is right and Usoskin’s confirmation of that with additional latitudinal effects toward the poles – and in this case, there would be cloud thinning in three pulses through cycles 20-22, leading to ocean surface warming and storage in the upper oceans – as registered by satellite data on radiation flux (short-wave at the surface), and upper ocean heat storage data (also reviewed in my book). The final consequence of this build up of heat – which is shuffled in the oceans into two major storage areas in the northern Pacific and northern Atlantic gyres with a few years lag, could have been the enhanced El Nino of 1998.
During cycle 23, the trough recovered by about 15% – and satellite data registers a step change in global cloud cover of about 2% during 2001, since maintained. This correlates to a flattening of the upper ocean heat storage (initially reported as a drop, but data since corrected), and of course, the current ‘cooling’ or flatline, as it may prove with the latest ENSO waxing strong.
Of course, these are all correlations – but it would be wrong to dismiss them, as indeed the European Space Agency acknowledge with their appointment of Svensmark to lead a $60m team of investigators at the CERN research centre who will look at potential mechanisms of cloud seeding.
There are other ways of affecting cloud cover – it can be changed spatially, without necessary altering global percentage cover, or even ocean basin percentage cover. And as the upper ocean heat stores are not distributed homogenously, the pattern of cloud above them become very significant.
In the north Atlantic gyre for example, a significant percentage of the warm water lies sufficiently far north for cloud insulation to be important during the northern winter. If cloud banks moved south by a couple of hundred kilometres, there could be an accelerated heat loss.
We know that each ocean basin has an oscillation linked to sea level pressure, and that this will be reflected in cloud cover and wind patterns – and also therefore, sea surface temperatures. I suspect the cool phases of both the PDO and NAO are determined by phase-shifts in cloud cover. I also suspect that the track of cyclones across these heat stores also shifts and that they are essentially heat extraction processes that have similar shifts – at some point extraction dominates over accumulation, and a major shift will occur when the excess heat is depleted.
The direction of the storm tracks is influenced by the jetstream – and it is known that the jetstream is sensitive to the magnetic status of the sun (mechanism not know – but may be linked to UV emission and solar maximum/minimum, which can be substantial variation of about 8%) – there may be other mechanisms that would influence the polar vortex and feedback to the jetstream. Research by Shindell at NASA concluded that during the Maunder Minimum the jetstream shifted southward (sediment data support this).
Let us suppose, theorise, that during a prolonged minimum, the ocean system moves into longer term depletion – over 50 years it would lose 0.5 C globally (equivalent to the whole of the global warming period 1950-2000), and that it might take some time to recover. We would have a mechanism for the 400/800 year cycles noted through the late Holocene, of which the last LIA trough was the deepest, and the recent warming one of the highest. How to falsify this hypothesis? – collect data on the historical track of the jetstream in relation to solar cycles and test for correlations; check upper ocean heat storage for correlation with cloud patterns; research mechanisms for solar factors affecting the polar vortex and feedback to the jetstream; analyse regional cloud data by cloud type and compare to GCR flux and other factors (though I suspect the jetstream effect to be dominant).
Until this work is done, I would argue it is unwise to dismiss solar-cloud or any solar-climate correlations (noting the importance of time-lags and feedbacks with ocean oscillations). By assuming random internal variability, climatologists have not sought to answer these questions. This is poor scientific practice.
A couple of questions, please:
1) I heard that the Earth’s magnetosphere has recently developed a large ‘hole’ – does this mean that plasma can come in?
2) Was the gamma ray burst of solar or galactic origin?
3) Was there anything unusual about the sun when the Carrington event occurred? How does the sun’s status then compare to today?
4) How does the magnetic field of a star transmit the mechanical energy of angular momentum from its satellites – as astrophysicists believe is the case (I have never understood how the gravitational force is actually transmitted and the whole orbital ‘rope’ anchored in the sun!).
Stephen Wilde:
I think the cloud effects, if real, would readily transmit to the oceans and create a signal, with some time-lags due to currents and storm track shifts.

Johnny Honda
September 18, 2009 6:59 am

@Kevin
“Sarah Gibson is cute. Therefore, I believe her analysis. Sorry scientists.”
You are right. She would be a good person for a little bit PR in TV for our cause.
I’m sure people prefer to see here instead of Joe Romm.
Any information if she is still single? 😉

kim
September 18, 2009 7:03 am

Leif 2:31:19
The information stream is stopped about 10 amplifier radii away from the speakers. A complicated system of electric currents are induced and a complicated system of speaker parts movements results that eventually leads to visible shaking and aural disturbances.
And there’s a big fat logical fallacy sitting in your insinuations to Frank Lansner at 2:35:37. Can you find it?
===================================

kim
September 18, 2009 7:04 am

Scott 3:11:51
There is a much simpler explanation for why the ‘scientists’ aren’t getting their message across to the general public. It is because they lie, and their message is false.
=========================

kim
September 18, 2009 7:11 am

kim 7:03:00
Leif, there is a bitterness in tone in my comment about your’s to Frank, that I do not personally feel toward you. It is among the most hackneyed of the alarmists’ criticisms to equate climate skepticism with evolution skepticism. It is a fallacious charge, particularly since the CO2 true believers are becoming the new deniers, the new flat earthers. I’m just trying to keep you off that thin ice.
========================================

kim
September 18, 2009 7:16 am

How do those few electrons make all those people dance and spin? Well, I know for sure, CO2 is involved.
::grin::
========================================

September 18, 2009 7:21 am

ralph (03:52:46) :
Do you believe that the Maunder and Dalton minimums were colder epochs?
Here are two reconstructions of Temperature [top] and Solar Output [bottom]: http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
I see no clear match.

kim
September 18, 2009 7:26 am

Scott 3:12:24
Just as I ask David B. Benson if the title of Spencer Weart’s new book will be ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’ so I ask if Chris Moody’s new book about the EPA and/or Cap and Trade will be ‘The Democrats’ War on Science’.
Back to schuul, boys and girls; don’t guess, look it up.
=====================================

September 18, 2009 7:38 am

Ralph,
Please consider that the appearance of colder temperatures when there was the Maunder and Dalton minimums only suggests that the sun had anything to do with temperatures. Just like an increase in CO2 along with an increase of temperatures has ‘settled’ the science for so many people using these time periods to prove that this is what drives temperature is foolish. Currently we are experiencing a lull in the Sun’s activity without seeing a large correlation thus far with temperatures. How many spotless days have we had and what has been the temperature response to date? This does not mean that temperature will not respond it simply means that while the theory that the minimums are linked with temperature there is no more concrete evidence of that then there is to link CO2 to the temperature. Honestly the climate system is really complex and while the sun is the main provider of energy it is also not varying enough ( or at least in a way we can correlate to date ) to cause major temperature fluctuations.
What does this boil down to… Just realize that it is easy to fall into the same trap that people who believe CO2 is the primary cause of climate change when it is an insignificant marker ( at least seems to be to date ) that the same thing can occur while trying to explain the recent warming and attributing it to other things like the sun. The point of being a skeptic is to think logically through the situation and notice fallacies. The moment you start talking about amplifications ( feedback ) you start sounding just like the people who advocate CO2 as the main climatic driver over the last 150 years.
This does not mean you do not present theories but do not simply embrace a theory because it seems to fill the void on something you have concluded cannot be the answer ( CO2 is not the main culprit for instance )
Lief, thanks for all the writing you do on this blog, it is always a joy to dip into your knowledge of the sun. Based on your understanding of the sun what would have to happen in order to cause a change in temperature on the earth either positive or negative? Is direct radiation the only known mechanism? Thanks again.

September 18, 2009 7:39 am

Leif, sorry for misspelling your name noticed it once I posted…

Nogw
September 18, 2009 8:24 am

Too much “pathos” (passion) in this sun issue, better we cool it down. Too many ions around?

Doug Ferguson
September 18, 2009 8:26 am

Dr. Svalgaard, I appreciate your contributing to this website where those of us who have science backgrounds, but are not expert in such fields as solar science can learn and help to wade through the tons of marginal or “junk” science that we see so much of in the climate change debate. Your comments on the release of this paper and your reference to prior work done, apparently ignored by the authors, raises a troubling question: Is the scientific peer review process so corrupted that authors such as these can get away with passing off their work without reference to prior work? If so, what can be done about it? Would appreciate any comment you might have on this.

John
September 18, 2009 8:27 am

Leif, in your post at 07:21:50, your temp reconstruction doesn’t match very well with your solar activity reconstruction. I’m looking to see if I can get the graphic for Judith Lean’s 10Be and 14C isotopic record for cosmic ray variation, e.g. a proxy for solar activity as it affects the troposphere and land. In the meantime, please look at the 14C graphic (“Solar Events in 14C”) in Wikipedia, and see if perhaps that doesn’t better match the temperature reconstruction. And I’ll keep looking to see if I can find the Lean graphic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 18, 2009 8:32 am

At least someone recognises that changes in the Sun do have an impact on Earth. It’s some kind of progress ….

Stephen Wilde
September 18, 2009 8:33 am

Peter Taylor (06:53:38)
“I think the cloud effects, if real, would readily transmit to the oceans and create a signal, with some time-lags due to currents and storm track shifts.”
Reply:
Reduced cloudiness would indeed allow more solar energy to hit the oceans and increase energy in the water with the consequences you mention.
My problem is in deciding whether the cloudiness changes drive ocean energy content changes or whether the oceans vary the rate of energy release to the air and thus drive cloudiness changes.
The oceans being liquid and in constant movement at all levels I find it hard to envisage that they always provide a steady flow of energy to the air. It seems inherently improbable given the hugely greater energy capacity of water as against air.
Then there is the matter of timing. There is no correlation with the 25 to 30 year ocean phase changes for any events in the air whether related to solar cycles or cosmic ray levels.
Furthermore we always see air temperature changes and latitudinal air circulation shifts AFTER changes in sea surface temperatures. Never before.
As I’ve said to Erl Happ on another thread I see this as a critical issue in discrediting AGW because if changes in the air alone cannot alter the background rate of energy flow from the oceans then AGW is falsified but there is an unfortunate side effect that sceptical air based ideas are also rendered implausible.
The reason is that if one cannot alter ocean temperatures by changing something in the air alone and we can see that air temperatures are always governed by sea surface temperatures then what happens instead is a change in the rate of energy flow from surface to space which has the potential to neutralise any extra energy in the air from more GHGs or from any other cause.

Stefan
September 18, 2009 8:34 am

Innocentious (07:38:02) :
The point of being a skeptic is to think logically through the situation and notice fallacies.

Well said.
One such fallacy is the AGW crowd’s notion that a lack of credible alternatives makes AGW more likely correct. So that invites people to show “credibility” towards alternatives. All a bit pointless.

Nogw
September 18, 2009 8:36 am

Don´t want to increase “voltage” but this press release has been cited also under a different perspective, here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

John
September 18, 2009 8:37 am

Leif, here is a link to a 1996 article written by J Lean and D Rind which shows low levels of 10Be and 14 C during the Sporer and Maunder minima. It is from the US climate change research program information office. The article has a useful graphic showing solar activity during the Sporer and Maunder minima; it isn’t the specific graphic I was looking for, but it is close enough:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article3-fig2.html
Here is the text about this graph, from the article:
“What we know of the connection between solar activity and radiation, coupled with high abundances of isotopes in tree-rings and ice-cores (Fig. 2d), supports the likely case that during the Maunder Minimum solar activity remained for over half a century at very low levels.”
The graph and text comes from this article:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html

John
September 18, 2009 8:43 am

Leif, I’ve found a graphic from a Judith Lean/David Rind article which shows low solar activity, as marked by variations in 10Be and 14 C during the Sporer and Maunder minima. Here’s a link the the article:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
And a link to the graphic itself:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article3-fig2.html
Figure 2 (d) is the one to look at.
And here is the text about the graph:
“What we know of the connection between solar activity and radiation, coupled with high abundances of isotopes in tree-rings and ice-cores (Fig. 2d), supports the likely case that during the Maunder Minimum solar activity remained for over half a century at very low levels.
The present production of terrestrial 14C and 10Be appears to be near historically-low levels, due to persistently high solar activity that inhibits the rate at which these isotopes are produced. The same isotopic records show that the Sun seems to have been building up over the last several hundred years to a state of enhanced activity that is the opposite of the suppressed levels of the 17th century Maunder Minimum. From this we might expect that solar radiation is also approaching levels last seen in the 12th century Medieval Maximum. Still, any extrapolation of future changes in the long-term behavior of the Sun is highly uncertain, since we are as yet unable to make accurate predictions of the level of solar activity in even the next eleven-year cycle, which will reach a maximum in about the year 2000. “

P Wilson
September 18, 2009 8:46 am

some years ago I remember NASA recording that the solar constant had increased from the 19th century. It was reported on the BBC site then though can’t fnd it now in the archives. It inferred that this alone was enough to have caused the 20th century’s warming. The best I can find is:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/

Bruckner8
September 18, 2009 8:47 am

Mark (05:44:30) :
re, Leif (02:35:37:
“Yet America [or more precisely USA] is also the place were an almost equal percentage believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old.”
I can’t believe you said this Leif. Not only is it grossly wrong, it’s a stereotype spewed forth by many rabid warmers and extreme leftists.
Next time your in the USA, do an informal poll of your own. I bet you’ll find less than 1 out of 100 believes it.

Mark, he says it quite often, and it reduces his credibility. I’m 100% Agnostic, and I don’t even use that ignorant statement against the believers. There’s only a very small segment of Americans (er, USA) that believes in the strict, literal interpretation of the Bible, and that’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But when you discuss this with them, they’re very clear on their response: The mistranslation of units of time.
I’ll just leave it at that.
It’s amazing how the intelligent among us can be so ignorant sometimes.

September 18, 2009 8:49 am

@ kim (07:26:51) :
Just as I ask David B. Benson if the title of Spencer Weart’s new book will be ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’
Why would Spencer Weart write about something that is not happening? There is no global cooling.

Mark
September 18, 2009 9:03 am

re Bruckner8 (08:47:46);
This is the first time I’ve heard him say this. If he has used it before, then you’re right, it shows ignorance.
That’s too bad because I find solar physics interesting and think it’s rather cool that he occasionally stops by here to inform us and get in on discussions.

P Wilson
September 18, 2009 9:03 am

I understand, Scott, theat the concept of an increasing solar constant is quite a confounding idea, ie, its not so constant. However, if its provided the greater part of warming in the 20thC, then surely solar inconstancy can also force a cooling climate.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 9:03 am

Peter Taylor (06:53:38) :
4) How does the magnetic field of a star transmit the mechanical energy of angular momentum from its satellites – as astrophysicists believe is the case

Nice analysis, and nice question!
I have done some calcs on ocean heat content and looked at rates of oceanic heat/energy accumulation and dissipation and devised a method for reconstucting Earth’s temperature history from sunspot and magnetic data.
Leif confirmed my OHC calcs as correct but unconvinced by my oceanic heat retention theory.
Nicola Scafetta has advised me to publish (and no doubt be damned) 🙂
I hope Leif takes the trouble to answer your post.

September 18, 2009 9:09 am

Mike Bryant (05:36:08) :
I wonder if it is these simple-minded people who are the reason we still have our freedom.>
Mark (05:44:30) :
Next time your in the USA, do an informal poll of your own. I bet you’ll find less than 1 out of 100 believes it.
I actually live in the US. I lived many years in Texas and I can tell from personal experience [friends and neighbors] that the percentage I quoted is not far off. Also, see Mike’s post above.
John (05:44:50) :
possibility remains that over a long period such as the Maunder Minimum, the solar wind might indeed have been relatively weak for many decades.
We know that there still was a solar modulation of cosmic rays and reconstructions of the magnetic field during the MM show almost the same value as today, so the evidence for a significant downturn is weak.
Scott A. Mandia (05:52:35) :
What is your position on how much of a role the sun has had in the climate change observed since the Industrial Revolution?
What role do you think human greenhouse gas emissions have had?

My opinion is ‘not much’ for both.
tallbloke (05:57:03) :
Fascinating. So would assymetry in higher latitude coronal holes between northern and southern solar hemispheres influence the ‘flatness’ (notwithstanding the ‘waviness’) of the heliospheric current sheet?
There are some people that think so. Google ‘bashful ballerina’
TJA (06:16:16) :
ralph, I am a skeptic, and don’t buy some of the stuff that Leif is selling but “If the answer is yes, then these colder episodes were clearly linked to lower Sunspot activity, ” is just not a logical statement in any sense. It is rhetorical, and nobody every proved a scientific fact with rhetoric.
Couldn’t have said it better meself. On the other hand, you convince the average Joe [the Plummer] with rhetoric, not science.
Peter Taylor (06:53:38) :
you will see trough 22 is about 35% greater than trough 20. There is then a 15% recovery during cycle 23.
Those variations ride on top of a large background. The GCR variation is only a few percent of the total flux and 35% of a few percent still ain’t much.
I would argue it is unwise to dismiss solar-cloud or any solar-climate correlations
It is the other way around, proponents have to demonstrate their efficiency. It is unwise to act on those before such clear demonstration.
1) I heard that the Earth’s magnetosphere has recently developed a large ‘hole’ – does this mean that plasma can come in?
Pure PR stunt. There are no holes. The solar wind magnetic field connects with the Earth’s every few hours [or even minutes at times] as it has done for billions of years. This allows the two regimes to interact.
2) Was the gamma ray burst of solar or galactic origin?
Neither. It came from a very distant source far, far outside our Galaxy.
3) Was there anything unusual about the sun when the Carrington event occurred? How does the sun’s status then compare to today?
Not that we know of [and Carrington has left us very detailed observations for years before and after the event]. The Carrington event could happen today [well perhaps in a few years, when we get some spots]
4) How does the magnetic field of a star transmit the mechanical energy of angular momentum from its satellites
It doesn’t, but the magnetic field does transfer angular momentum to the solar wind [magnetic field lines have tension in them – try to move opposite magnetic poles apart and you’ll see] and as the solar wind is lost from the solar system [eventually] this process brakes solar rotation slightly. That is why the Sun rotates so slowly [25 days], compared to very young stars that rotate in a day or so.
kim (07:03:00) :
And there’s a big fat logical fallacy sitting in your insinuations to Frank Lansner at 2:35:37. Can you find it?
No, as I didn’t draw any logical conclusions.
kim (07:11:19) :
I’m just trying to keep you off that thin ice.
And I was just relaying a personal observation.
Innocentious (07:38:02) :
what would have to happen in order to cause a change in temperature on the earth either positive or negative? Is direct radiation the only known mechanism?
A very important mechanism is the orbital elements of the Earth: distance to the Sun, obliquity, season of perihelion, etc. Those are likely the direct causes of the glaciations we have had in the past [and will have in the future]. What the Sun does is but a tiny wiggle on top of that and has to compete with variations in ocean circulation, volcanoes, etc.

September 18, 2009 9:22 am

Regards Maunder and Dalton minimums.
>>>but “If the answer is yes, then these colder episodes were
>>>clearly linked to lower Sunspot activity, ” is just not a logical
>>>statement in any sense.
>>>Currently we are experiencing a lull in the Sun’s activity
>>>without seeing a large correlation thus far with temperatures.
If you believe that the Maunder epoch was colder, then there must be a mechanism for that. A likely candidate has to be the equivalent lack of Sunspots in that era. The Sun is, after all, the sole provider of weather and climate on the Earth.
If you don’t believe that Sunspots and solar activity were involved, then perhaps you could present an alternate hypothesis. I am all ears.
As to the current Sunspot minimum not producing lower temperatures, I would beg to differ. The long upward drift of global temperatures has abated. Likewise, it is fairly axiomatic that a large body of water, like that contained in the oceans, would act as a huge accumulator of energy. Any cooling is likely to involve a considerable time lag.
.

September 18, 2009 9:29 am

Doug Ferguson (08:26:04) :
Is the scientific peer review process so corrupted that authors such as these can get away with passing off their work without reference to prior work? If so, what can be done about it?
If the ‘peers’ don’t know any better…
The real fault is with the PR people that issue misleading and over-hyped press releases. Take them out back and shoot them 🙂
Stephen Wilde (08:33:26) :
i>I see this as a critical issue in discrediting AGW
The goal of research should not be to discredit anybody, but to find out how things work.
John (08:43:57) :
In this business a decade is a long time. The variations in TSI that Lean used are way obsolete. The real variations are much smaller.
Modern reconstructions of both temperature and solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
P Wilson (08:46:06) :
some years ago I remember NASA recording that the solar constant had increased from the 19th century.
modern reconstructions do not show any such increase.
Mark (09:03:10) :
That’s too bad because I find solar physics interesting and think it’s rather cool that he occasionally stops by here to inform us and get in on discussions.
The literal interpretation of the Bible is not restricted to Jehovah Witnesses [as Googling “young earth” will show], and I think the ignorance bit is with the ‘young Earth’ crowd.

D Johnson
September 18, 2009 9:30 am

With respect to the “6000 year old Earth” belief percentage, it seems to have it’s roots in an interpretation of Gallup poll results which dealt with questions related to belief in the biblical interpretation of man’s origin, rather than a specific belief in a 6000 year old Earth. The percentage of people in the US who believe in the literal truth of such a young Earth would be far lower. This is discussed here: http://www.michaelpatrickleahy.com/column_042207_biglie.html

Pamela Gray
September 18, 2009 9:33 am

Once again Stephen, I have to comment on your clarity of thought and what seems to me to be a wonderfully logical mind. You are to the oceans what Leif is to the Sun. 4 marks.

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 9:55 am

Leif:
‘bashful ballerina’

Hmmmmm, interesting. 🙂
Thanks Leif, you truly are a mine of interesting information.

September 18, 2009 9:55 am

ralph (09:22:19) :
If you believe that the Maunder epoch was colder, then there must be a mechanism for that.
Solar cycle 4 was one of the largest on record, yet it was cold, there must be a mechanism for that…

rbateman
September 18, 2009 9:57 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:21:50) :
You don’t see it because the effect you are looking for is not the effect that the two datasets are trying to tell you.
The Steady State System you are trying to paint on everything that matters is unreal.

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 9:59 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:29:04) :
The goal of research should not be to discredit anybody, but to find out how things work.

Cut, pasted and kept. 😉

September 18, 2009 10:00 am

D Johnson (09:30:01) :
The percentage of people in the US who believe in the literal truth of such a young Earth would be far lower.
Your link suggests 18% rather than 45%, and weasels out a bit, but saying that there are people that put the age at 10,000 years, so we’ll have to add those to the 18%.
Either way, the point was that the percentage is high, far too high for a rational society. Same thing with Evolution [related, of course].

September 18, 2009 10:05 am

Scott Mandia (03:11:51) : Oh dear. Well, I suppose there is no hope for you then. That anyone would take such a partisan scumbag as Mooney seriously is, to my mind, appalling.

September 18, 2009 10:42 am

D Johnson (09:30:01) :
The percentage of people in the US who believe in the literal truth of such a young Earth would be far lower.
the issue is not that particular belief, but the general level of scientific literacy in the US. You link has this: “Seven Gallup polls taken between 1982 and 2006 showed that between 44 and 47% of Americans agreed with the following statement:
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”
One might ask where the 10,000 years come from. And the question just asked for ‘at one time within the last 10,000 years’. ‘Last Tuesday’ would qualify. So, to agree, you have to dismiss the scientific measurements of ages, that show much longer times, e.g. of cave paintings 30,000 years ago, and of the general history of the human race and its spread over the world. So, its about science literary, not religion. And their US is dismal. This is, of course, cleverly exploited for political reasons. The ‘science is settled”, because Joe the Plummer can’t understand the issues and is easily deceived.
Now, that raises the question why people in other nations with much better science literacy [e.g. Denmark] are taken in by the politicians. I don’t know the answer to that one, but it may have something to do with a perceived notions that the US is scientifically advanced [number of Nobel Prize winners, e.g.] and so what Al Gore says must be true [if inconvenient]. I don’t know. It might be interesting to know what people in China thinks about this. Anybody know?

September 18, 2009 10:50 am

rbateman (09:57:33) :
You don’t see it because the effect you are looking for is not the effect that the two datasets are trying to tell you.
Then you tell me what the two datasets are trying to tell.

Pamela Gray
September 18, 2009 11:03 am

The answer is in the groupthink phenomenon. Humans are social animals that depend on like mindedness for survival. Many lower species demonstrate this quite clearly in how they protect their young, their territory, etc. Humans demonstrate this same instinct in their beliefs. In order to receive benefit from the group, it becomes necessary to think like the group, even in things that may not be scientifically valid. Our animal humanness trumps all.

John
September 18, 2009 12:11 pm

Leif, if the solar wind weren’t much different in the Maunder Minimum than it is today, which I think you are implying, what is the reason for the lower 10Be and 14 C levels throughout that period?

anna v
September 18, 2009 12:26 pm

Pamela Gray (11:03:57) :
The answer is in the groupthink phenomenon. Humans are social animals that depend on like mindedness for survival. Many lower species demonstrate this quite clearly in how they protect their young, their territory, etc. Humans demonstrate this same instinct in their beliefs. In order to receive benefit from the group, it becomes necessary to think like the group, even in things that may not be scientifically valid. Our animal humanness trumps all..
aka “consensus” :).

Scott Mandia
September 18, 2009 12:27 pm

@ Andrew (10:05:41) :
I never said I agreed with his politics but I do agree with his observation that scientists need to get off their academic high horses and communicate to the non-scientists with language that is understandable. The overwhelming majority of the public will never have an appetite for reading peer-reviewed journals.
BTW, this issue is the current thread over at your favorite blog – Realclimate. 🙂

Zeke the Sneak
September 18, 2009 12:41 pm

“So, its about science literary, not religion. And their US is dismal.’ inre, belief the earth is only 6,000 yo
The only important distiction between science and faith is that in the US, one is a Constitutionally protected activity. The founders saw fit to leave matters of religion up to the individual in the free exercise clause. This they saw as foundational to the functioning of a free republic. This means that free citizens may choose any cosmology they like.
It may be an emotional issue for some people that there are young earth creationists out there. But it may be beneficial to set one’s emotions aside, as it really is a legal issue. If the gov’t is slowly deciding more and more questions of faith for the people, then they cannot call themselves free.
Why say the gov’t is slowly making more and more of these religious determinations? Because the Big Bang, planetary accretion, and evolution are universally taught in schools. By way of forceful taxation and truancy laws, all children must learn this cosmology.
One minor point. I think that many scientists do not agree with the Big Bang/evolution narrative. Most Americans are familiar with it, and may also be more familiar with the scientific arguments agaist this paradigm then you give them credit for. So scientific literacy can be served by criticism of scientific dogmas, as well.

September 18, 2009 12:42 pm

John (12:11:03) :
if the solar wind weren’t much different in the Maunder Minimum than it is today, which I think you are implying, what is the reason for the lower 10Be and 14 C levels throughout that period?
Apart from you meaning higher rather than lower, there has been a reassessment of the 10Be and 14C fluxes in recent work. If you look at Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf you’ll see that the fluxes [2nd and 5th panel from the top] of 10Be first of all are different between two sites [NGRIP and Dye-3], second that the peaks around 1700 really were when the Sun was coming out of the MM, and also that the flux [for the high-precision NGRIP core] around 1700 was not different from that around 1810 and 1890 [and we wouldn’t call them MMs]. There is a distinct possibility that these peaks anyway are not even solar related, but due to [perhaps in part] volcanic eactivity affecting the deposition of 10Be. Solar activity was probably lower at these times, but not terribly so. The sharp peaks at 1460 AD was probably due to GCRs from a supernova. It is not so clear-cut as we thought a decade or two ago.

Jack Simmons
September 18, 2009 12:53 pm

Frank Lansner (00:26:27) :

It appears, that democrats see no way of getting cap and trade through senate.
This message has come to Denmark, and politicians are chocked. They are already talking about making a new COPENHAGEN summit ½ year later so that the US will have time to get their legislation in place.
It seems the little Danes has no clue, that the problems for the democrats is not likely over in ½ year. Over here the missing legislation of US is seen as a knock out on the process. Which may be correct.

In the US, the election schedules play a big role in how laws get enacted. When you have a new President, he basically has the first year to get done what is going to get done. In his second year, the next congressional elections kick in, and very few congressmen or senators up for election want to do anything that can be held against them; so nothing gets done.
This means the President must be very selective about what he pushes for in his first year. O’Bama has chosen health care reform. That means everything else gets very little, if any attention, including the Cap and Trade laws.
Only after lots of bribes and threats did the House manage to pass a Cap and Trade bill. They managed by one vote.
The Senate has made it clear there will be no Cap and Trade bill even considered. Americans are seeing what the cost will be and are also seeing the climate is cooling off just fine without giving more money to the government.
The American public will kill anyone raising taxes this year on energy.
I believe we will look back on 2008 as the high water mark for the environmentalist movement. Economic and climatic trends are in place to guarantee no passage of Cap and Trade. What little credibility remains in the AGW camp will be gone within five years with the polar caps intact and temperatures on their way down.
Most people I talk with don’t really want to talk about things like cosmic rays, recovering ice caps, manipulated temperature records and the like. First, not as much curiosity about the natural world and they have their lives to live. Getting a job and paying bills are the biggest worries.
Americans aren’t wise, they’re just too busy to bother with nonsense like cap and trade. Too bad for Al Gore and his financial partners. There won’t be any bucks to be made on manipulating carbon credit prices.
They’re just going to have to steal money the old fashioned way.

Ulric Lyons
September 18, 2009 1:04 pm

“” Leif Svalgaard (09:55:51) :
ralph (09:22:19) :
If you believe that the Maunder epoch was colder, then there must be a mechanism for that.
Solar cycle 4 was one of the largest on record, yet it was cold, there must be a mechanism for that…””
Ok there was a couple of severe winters from 1785 to 1798, but the mean yearly temp`s were generally not too cold, and some quite warm.
From CET:
8.54
8.25
9.28
9.21
8.91
9.44
9.27
9.19
9.09
9.89
8.67
9.02
9
9.61
C3 was even bigger, and apart from 1784, even warmer at times.
1776 had a London frost fair, 1779/80 was a cold winter, but high N.H. summer temp`s occurred through most of C3.
CET, 1775-84;
10.09
9.01
9.08
9.2
10.4
9.09
10.2
8.01
9.28
7.83
I am not saying SSN is directly proportional to temperature, but there is some relationship.

September 18, 2009 1:06 pm

Zeke the Sneak (12:41:19) :
This means that free citizens may choose any cosmology they like.
When it comes to science, no choice is possible. Nature shows us what is, whether or not it fits our faith or belief system. And our children should be taught that.

Willy
September 18, 2009 1:22 pm

Interesting how the 40% of USA people who do not believe in evolution are essentially the same ones who reject AGW and so keep the AGW-ers from controlling everything. This is because they know how full of BS the intelligensia & media are. So these people have common sense and no science, and our would-be masters thus have science but no common sense. People with both are rare. I like to think I have both.

Oliver Ramsay
September 18, 2009 1:22 pm

tallbloke (09:55:31) :
Leif:
‘bashful ballerina’
Hmmmmm, interesting. 🙂
Thanks Leif, you truly are a mine of interesting information.
—-
Surely, a field of mines!!

September 18, 2009 1:24 pm

Zeke the Sneak (12:41:19) :
One minor point. I think that many scientists do not agree with the Big Bang/evolution narrative.
You are most certainly wrong there. Modern astrophysics/biology don’t make sense without that narrative. We are making enormous strides in both areas. Most scientists would not bother debating this, only the nuts.

Vukcevic
September 18, 2009 1:35 pm

Hi everyone
Just back from http://www.me land, and to my surprise I see that WUWT has moved there with its web address. WUWT you are welcome, to the micro-country of great contrasts, deep blue sea and bright skies!
(http://www.sunrise-doo.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=2079797)
Dr. Svalgaard
If you got a higher resolution data for z-component for 60N 90W, I would really appreciate copy pasted on the SC24 thread.
Thanks.

Michael Jennings
September 18, 2009 1:37 pm

To Scott Mandia:
Peer reviewed by whom? The same scientists who are part of the same clique and who peer review each other? How about the reviewers like Steve McIntyre, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen or Ross McKittrick who have their comments (as peer reviewers) ignored or rejected because they don’t follow the concensus groupthink? It is a good old boy system that the left constantly decries when done by an oil, pharmaceutical, or Insurance industry company. The fact that you look at your “buddies” work and (wink, wink) say it is fine and he does the same for you makes the whole process corrupt and unverifiable by independent people who are refused access to data or computer codes in an attempt to replicate the “peer reviewed studies”. It seems to me you are tragically naive about how hte system truly works if you swallow it so easily.

September 18, 2009 1:39 pm

Oliver Ramsay (13:22:34) :
Surely, a field of mines!!
That blow up half-baked ideas, idle speculation, pseudo-science, rhetoric, and the like.
Willy (13:22:21) :
I like to think I have both.
What, both no common sense and no science? 🙂

September 18, 2009 1:43 pm

Vukcevic (13:35:42) :
If you got a higher resolution data for z-component for 60N 90W, I would really appreciate copy pasted on the SC24 thread
What good is that gonna do you? The secular variation is so slow that you can just linearly interpolate, or quadratic, if you want to gold-plate the thing. The data does not get any better before 1945 or so anyway, by going to higher resolution.

Tenuc
September 18, 2009 1:52 pm

Scott Mandia (12:27:13) :
“@ Andrew (10:05:41) :
I never said I agreed with his politics but I do agree with his observation that scientists need to get off their academic high horses and communicate to the non-scientists with language that is understandable. The overwhelming majority of the public will never have an appetite for reading peer-reviewed journals.
BTW, this issue is the current thread over at your favorite blog – Realclimate. :)”
They do this anyway, through PR releases and articles which are often publshed before papers are available. Once you dumb down the research so Joe public can understand it and let the journalists put whatever spin their employers want to see on it, and the whole thing becomes a futile process.
The only way to solve the ‘knowledge is power’ conudrum is to teach people how to think. The powers that be don’t want this to happen, or course, as ignorant people are easy to influence.

Zeke the Sneak
September 18, 2009 2:00 pm

Only the nuts question BB/accretion/evolution. So much for that argument then.
But based on gov’t involvement in religious issues, if my theory is correct, then I will make this prediction:
The government will want to move into the area of end-of-the-world scenarios, and indulgences. 🙂
[Think Thermogeddon and offsets!]

Ulric Lyons
September 18, 2009 2:01 pm

tallbloke (09:55:31) :
Leif:
‘bashful ballerina’
Hmmmmm, interesting. 🙂
Thanks Leif, you truly are a mine of interesting information.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4P4FV84-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1016893017&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=80050619afc7a0dabf1ae7d5ee8840a5
extract; It has been shown that the global HMF has persistent active longitudes whose dominance depicts an oscillation with a period of about 3.2 years. Accordingly, the bashful ballerina takes three such steps per activity cycle, thus dancing in waltz tempo. Stellar observations show that this is a general pattern for sun-like cool stars. We describe these phenomena and discuss their implications.
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 2:36 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:06:39) :
Zeke the Sneak (12:41:19) :
This means that free citizens may choose any cosmology they like.
When it comes to science, no choice is possible. Nature shows us what is, whether or not it fits our faith or belief system. And our children should be taught that.

25 years ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale who told us that he and his fellow astronomers were well on the way to proving irrefutably that the big bang theory was correct, that new discoveries were just around the corner, and within a few years, all the loose ends would be tied up.
I got a fit of the giggles then, and I’m still waiting.
Our children should be taught to be inquisitive, experimental, and skeptical of those who claim to be the high priests of truth, whether they are carrying bibles, almanacs, or particle physics papers.

September 18, 2009 2:39 pm

Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…

Willy
September 18, 2009 2:51 pm

Not changing the topic here, but Leif, the Big Bang does have its problems. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are now needed to model about 90% of the universe, to keep the model together. Anything with band-aids that big cannot be a healthy puppy.

John
September 18, 2009 2:58 pm

Leif, I’ve looked at the two panels you asked me to look at. I partly agree and partly and respectfully disagree for the moment with your interpretation.
I agree that although the two panels tend to move together, the NGRIP has higher peaks in the 1810/1815 and 1890 peaks, and leading up to 1700 as well. So they do differ, as you say.
The Maunder Minimum was 1645 to 1715. The NGRIP panel shows 10Be rising all the was from 1645 through 1700, before it abates a bit. That pattern perfectly fits the MM. The flux at Dye doesn’t escalate that much until close to 1700, so the match isn’t as good, but it still shows a peak during the MM.
You used the term high precision for the NGRIP record. Does this possibly imply that the 10Be flux there is somewhat more accurate than the Dye record? If not, what is your sense for why the 10Be records differ, as I agree they do?
You suggest that volcanos might be a cause for elevated 10Be levels, which is interesting and new to me. Is it possible that what you have called the 1810 and 1890 elevations are actually in 1815 and 1885 or a year or two afterwards? It looks this could be the case. If they were 1815 and 1885 or slightly later, they would coincide exactly with the two biggest volcanos of that century, Tambora and Krakatoa. And if this is the case, then the two biggest peaks of 10Be which don’t coincide with the MM would be explained by vulcanism.
Your thoughts? and thanks.

tallbloke
September 18, 2009 3:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:39:27) :
Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…

Ulric, wait ’til you see Ian Wilson’s forthcoming paper. The resonance periods are tieing up nicely. Leif likes to ridicule those of us who have an interest in these things, but then, we like to ridicule his passe petty positivism and his dilletante deprecatory denialism of planetary positional paradiddles, so fair’s fair.

DaveC
September 18, 2009 3:39 pm

@ Scott Mandia-
I don’t think the general public has a problem with AGW because peer-reviewed science is ‘over their heads.’ I think the Chicken Little sky-is-falling, ‘it’s worse than we thought,’ blame everything on global warming that the MSM and climate scientists partake in is what turns the public off. And it makes this trained scientist highly suspicious, or should I say- skeptical.

September 18, 2009 3:58 pm

tallbloke (14:36:13) :
25 years ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale who told us that he and his fellow astronomers were well on the way to proving irrefutably that the big bang theory was correct, that new discoveries were just around the corner, and within a few years, all the loose ends would be tied up.
I got a fit of the giggles then, and I’m still waiting.

Well he was right and you apparently have been asleep since.

September 18, 2009 4:13 pm

Willy (14:51:51) :
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are now needed to model about 90% of the universe, to keep the model together.
Those are not problems, but things we have learned. And they are not really dependent on the BB. They are needed to explain observations we are making right now.
John (14:58:40) :
You used the term high precision for the NGRIP record. Does this possibly imply that the 10Be flux there is somewhat more accurate than the Dye record? If not, what is your sense for why the 10Be records differ, as I agree they do?
The high-precision refers to the time resolution.
And if this is the case, then the two biggest peaks of 10Be which don’t coincide with the MM would be explained by vulcanism.
10Be is deposited by adhering to stratospheric aerosols which then drift down and rain out. The amount of aerosols in the stratosphere is controlled mainly by volcanic eruptions. There were such strong eruptions in 1693 (Hekla on Iceland, having large effect on nearby Greenland), 1809 (see Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), 1815 (Tambora), 1883 (Krakatoa), and 1897 )Mayon again. By 1810 and 1890, I meant 1810s and 1890s. A reconstruction of the solar wind magnetic field from 10Be [which is what we are discussing] by McCracken is here [my version with an easier to view Figure] http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf Apart from a calibration problem he has in the 1940s where he is trying to splice two different record together, it is clear that the level in 1645-1690 [most of the MM] is not much different from 1765-1800 or 1830-1880 or even 1900-1940. Those sharp dips are not [and we are certain of that since 1850] solar-related. The volcano explanation is tempting, but is just a suggestion for now.
We are also learning that the deposition of 10Be actually depends on the weather [it has to be transported with the wind from low-latitudes to the poles] and that that is one of reasons for variation between ice cores. My point is that as we learn more about these processes, the old ‘everybody knows’ picture is failing.

Ulric Lyons
September 18, 2009 4:15 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:39:27) :
Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…
I think you will find you are talking Neptune`s orbit with that figure. I am talking synodic periods and not orbits for good reason.

rbateman
September 18, 2009 4:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:50:35) :
The two datasets are trying to tell you that there is a middle ground where the Sun does not move the temperature (or is a weak factor). If you went and snipped out the area that doesn’t correlate, you’d end up with hysterisis levels, high & low.
Then you have something you can work with. You would be able to find any additional signal in the parts that move the temperature, and you’d also have the removed part to disect.
Break the problem down into it’s relevant parts.

Pascvaks
September 18, 2009 4:42 pm

“Ref. Leif Svalgaard (20:58:12) :
JFD (20:42:25) :
Leif, there was a super galactic ray influx in January 27 -29, 2009
No, there was a gamma ray burst. And it had no influence on anything, AFAIK.”
Is the GRB impact you’re referring to reflected at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_lat_t01_2009.gif ?

September 18, 2009 4:46 pm

rbateman (16:22:01) :
Break the problem down into it’s relevant parts.
‘Relevant’ is cherry picking. Now, I’m not in this business, really, and would like to see a true believer do what you suggest. What I’m saying is that the way the looks on its face, there is not much there.
Ulric Lyons (16:15:57) :
I think you will find you are talking Neptune`s orbit with that figure. I am talking synodic periods and not orbits for good reason.
I have to apologize, I was trying to make fun of you by being deliberately wrong. You see, the Sun does not about synodic periods. Those are seen from the Earth.

September 18, 2009 4:52 pm

Pascvaks (16:42:51) :
Is the GRB impact you’re referring to reflected at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_lat_t01_2009.gif ?
I don’t think so, there are many other gamma ray bursts and SSWs over time and those are not coincident. Perhaps the instruments were affected by the GRB. In any event the SSW began in mid-January, well before the burst: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/gesNews/giovanni-provides-unique-perspective-on-sudden-stratospheric-warming-with-airs-data

September 18, 2009 4:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard (09:09:37) : “…I lived many years in Texas and I can tell from personal experience [friends and neighbors] that the percentage I quoted is not far off…”
Leif-san, Texas is Bible belt country. Your friends & neighbors there are not a representative sample. But if I were in trouble and needed help, I’d rather be there than in a more cosmopolitan, scientifically astute area.
BTW, I’m glad you’re here, Leif.

September 18, 2009 5:41 pm

jorgekafkazar (16:52:05) :
Leif-san, Texas is Bible belt country.
This was, of course, taken into account when extrapolating from the 75% I found in TX to the whole nation 🙂

Ulric Lyons
September 18, 2009 6:06 pm

” tallbloke (15:03:26) :
Leif Svalgaard (14:39:27) :
Ulric Lyons (14:01:22) :
3.2 years = 2 Venus synodic periods, and 1.5 Mars synodic periods.
And 3.2 Earth synodic periods and exactly 1/51.5 of Uranus’…
Ulric, wait ’til you see Ian Wilson’s forthcoming paper. The resonance periods are tieing up nicely. Leif likes to ridicule those of us who have an interest in these things, but then, we like to ridicule his passe petty positivism and his dilletante deprecatory denialism of planetary positional paradiddles, so fair’s fair.”
The simple test is to see if the alignment dates are synchronous with the observed phenomena; 31/10/2006, 20/08/2003, 08/06/2000, 28/03/1997, 15/01/1994, 04/11/1990, 25/08/1987.

Ulric Lyons
September 18, 2009 6:13 pm

” Leif Svalgaard (16:46:25) :
Ulric Lyons (16:15:57) :
I think you will find you are talking Neptune`s orbit with that figure. I am talking synodic periods and not orbits for good reason.
I have to apologize, I was trying to make fun of you by being deliberately wrong. You see, the Sun does not about synodic periods. Those are seen from the Earth.”
Synodic periods can be seen from Mars, Venus, and even the ring of Uranus.

September 18, 2009 6:20 pm

The reliability of the solar proxy records is further backed up by overlaying the 14C record over the 10Be record. There is an extremely close match.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/51
To my knowledge 14C is not affected in the same manner as 10Be by volcanic activity, so one would assume these allowances have been made.. similar to the geometric allowances made for 14C.
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima and that those levels might match current solar cycle minimums, but do they match the levels recorded at solar max, once again we need to be virulent in obtaining the WHOLE truth.

September 18, 2009 6:23 pm

That should have read “vigilant”

Adam from Kansas
September 18, 2009 6:36 pm

Here’s one thing I can tell you, a lot of Creationists are skeptical of AGW, the ICR, the foremost organization researching evidences of Creationism, have taken the side that AGW as the government puts it simply does not exist. They have come to these views through 24 hour science which I believe is being done properly.
It looks like Leif wouldn’t now want to associate with the ICR and its creationist research, much like how he doesn’t want to associate with the people who think on the same lines on Sun-Climate relationship as Archibald and some others despite those people believing in evolutionary theory. Too much emphasis on seeing the public school system as bastions of truth I suppose.
Just to note I thought of evolution being true back during some of my years in elementary school, I managed to snap out of it 🙂

September 18, 2009 7:49 pm

Geoff Sharp (18:20:29) :
To my knowledge 14C is not affected in the same manner as 10Be by volcanic activity,
But both records are affected by climate. Of course, it is not the case that every little wiggle is due to volcanoes, just that things are more complex than at first sight.
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima
Those are the same proxies as the ones you cite, when looked at with 1-year time resolution. So, not some other proxies in some places.

September 18, 2009 8:00 pm

Geoff Sharp (18:20:29) :
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima
Here is the 10Be record through the 17th century:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png
At the left is the power spectrum with a peak at 12.5 years. It is likely that the depth of the rightmost dip starting in 1693 is influenced by the eruption of Hekla that year (it was one of Hekla’s most destructive in the last 1000 years)
There is by now no doubt that the solar cycle persisted through all of the Grand Minima we have observed.

September 18, 2009 8:02 pm

Adam from Kansas (18:36:32) :
Too much emphasis on seeing the public school system as bastions of truth I suppose
Lately, the public school system seems to have failed [and was certainly wasted on you 🙂 as you explain]

rbateman
September 18, 2009 8:23 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:46:25) :
You have to pick the fruit off the tree to eat it, and you have to break complex problems down to solve them. Your use of ‘cherry picking’ would have us go about throwing away everything that needs separating, like noise from signal, or multiple overlain signals.
I can see you have little to no interest in climate.

September 18, 2009 8:30 pm

rbateman (20:23:28) :
I can see you have little to no interest in climate.
Oh, but I do, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. I have even published real peer-reviewed papers on the subject.
But the science has to be done right, and there is just too much hand waving and wishful thinking going on.

Mike Bryant
September 18, 2009 8:30 pm

Leif,
I truly hope your 75% + estimate is correct, I’m counting on my friends and neighbors here in Texas to keep the federal government from shoving the Cap and Trade idiocy down our throats, and any other scientific claptrap that the new scientific elite think might be good for us. As I said Lysenko is alive in Washington.
Mike

September 18, 2009 8:33 pm

rbateman (20:23:28) :
needs separating, like noise from signal, or multiple overlain signals.
I know it is a lot to read [because things are not simple], but http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf is an excellent example of how one separates multiple overlain signals and teases out the physics and the causation. It is a good read.

Gene Nemetz
September 18, 2009 8:35 pm

Another post on the sun that has become all about Lief.

September 18, 2009 8:44 pm

Mike Bryant (20:30:30) :
As I said Lysenko is alive in Washington.
As I recall, Lysenko was not exactly ‘scientific elite’ rather the opposite… The kind you might find in Texas 🙂

Gene Nemetz
September 18, 2009 8:46 pm

Johnny Honda (06:59:56) :
@Kevin
“Sarah Gibson is cute. Therefore, I believe her analysis. Sorry scientists.”

Now if we could only get Megan Fox to host a documentary that features Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Nir Shaviv, Anthony Watts, etc., a sort of second edition of Great Global Warming Swindle, then global warming is dead meat! 😉

savethesharks
September 18, 2009 9:14 pm

kim (07:11:19) : “Leif, there is a bitterness in tone in my comment about your’s to Frank, that I do not personally feel toward you. It is among the most hackneyed of the alarmists’ criticisms to equate climate skepticism with evolution skepticism. It is a fallacious charge, particularly since the CO2 true believers are becoming the new deniers, the new flat earthers. I’m just trying to keep you off that thin ice.”
Spot on, Kim. In the book,
Unscientific America which I am currently reading, more than one time [actually over and over] are “global warming deniers” rounded up in the SAME blankety-blank sentence with “anti-evolutionists.”
And interesting to note as well [Anthony you will like this] the co-author of the book, Sheril Kirshenbaum, was recently interviewed on NPR’s Science Friday.
On that program, she looked down her nose at “blogs not really being any good source of scientific information” and then she used as her example and I quote:
“I mean…look at the science blog that was recently voted the most popular Wattsupwiththat.com….a climate change denialist blog.”
Climate change denialist blog??? Huh?? Wha??
Who in this forum is denying that climate is changing??
No one. Climate changes. THAT IS WHAT IT DOES.
Her rhetoric in that statement above [and she is a scientist] is JUST AS BAD as the rhetoric of any religious fundamentalist that believes the world is 6000 years old.
So the book Unscientific America examines the disconnect in American society today, a VALID premise.
Yet, curiously, the book’s authors…peppering the book with their AGW rhetoric…are JUST AS DOGMA-CONTROLLED as the fundamentalists of the other side.
Interesting dilemma…isn’t it??
No wonder the world of science today is a cluster**** of fear and mistrust. Bright and talented and world-saving scientists….in fear of losing grants or research support…in the event they dare dissent the predominant “church creed” of the day, whatever that may be.
Currently it is the Worldwide Church of the Great AGW.
Sheril and Chris…looking at the contents of your book….just WHO is being “unscientific” here??
[This author’s note: I have emailed both of them….giving them a short chapter by chapter review and critique.]
They have not replied to me…even once.
Typical.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

September 18, 2009 9:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:00:27) :
Geoff Sharp (18:20:29) :
There may be proxy records (in some places) that the solar cycle (magnetic field) persisted through grand minima
——————————
Here is the 10Be record through the 17th century:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png
At the left is the power spectrum with a peak at 12.5 years. It is likely that the depth of the rightmost dip starting in 1693 is influenced by the eruption of Hekla that year (it was one of Hekla’s most destructive in the last 1000 years)
There is by now no doubt that the solar cycle persisted through all of the Grand Minima we have observed.

I beg to differ, it may have persisted but surely severely reduced levels at maximum when comparing Grand Minima cycles with those non affected. It also depends on what study you look at, if I remember correctly the evidence you support comes from one small group of trees or similar. The graphs that you present do not support your argument or affect mine. Any FFT study of solar cycles will show a 12 yr approx peak, what we are looking for is a change in those peaks which cant be seen in FFT. You other graph only shows the record for the Maunder, we need to see those records compared to high cycles before we can say there is no difference in the cycles.

Aligner
September 18, 2009 9:23 pm

Leif,
Thank you for your reply above. I’m having trouble understanding some of the concepts bandied about in this area and hope you can put me straight. You answered Peter Taylor’s excellent follow-up question to mine like this:
Q: I heard that the Earth’s magnetosphere has recently developed a large ‘hole’ – does this mean that plasma can come in?
A: Pure PR stunt. There are no holes. The solar wind magnetic field connects with the Earth’s every few hours [or even minutes at times] as it has done for billions of years. This allows the two regimes to interact.
I assume you mean that magnetic reconnection has always happened and this concept of ‘a hole’ is just ill conceived or a bad analogy. But you answered my direct question like this:
Q: Also, can you shed any light on what happens when a regular proton stream comes in …
A: They do not ‘come in’, as they cannot cross the Earth’s magnetic field …
Now I’m confused 🙂 … probably by these NASA PR newsletters:
1. Sun Often Tears Out A Wall In Earth’s Solar Storm Shield.
2. A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field.
3. Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth.
There are others concerning ‘flux ropes’ being discovered/confirmed recently by the THEMIS project I haven’t listed. And then there’s this paper describing the effects on the ozone layer of large SPEs during cycle 23, which seems to suggest ions [and I guess free electrons] get into the atmosphere directly.
Are you saying that the connection is purely electromagnetic and no ions actually get inside the magnetosphere i.e. the flux involved causes knock-on ionization of matter already on the inside?
This paper is focused on the marked ozone depletion, NO2 production, etc. but there must be substantial knock on climate effects. This is why I asked about heavier ions [which I’ve read elsewhere can be as large as nickel]. It seems to me there may be a lot more going on here than ozone depletion.
Peter also asked if there was anything unusual about the sun when the Carrington event occurred. Not the sun perhaps, but there are several papers estimating the ozone implications, the latest freely available I know of is here.
I’d also like your thoughts on noctilucent clouds, but I appreciate your time is limited. I know the official ice crystal theory but they just scream plasma to my simple mind (e.g. lattice formations that have apparently been observed).
We live in extremely fascinating times. With the number of satellites now buzzing about and a quiet sun the pace of discovery is leaving Joe Plumbers like me behind big time. Having guys like you around willing to answer the odd dumb question is fantastic. You’re doing a great job and it’s much appreciated!

September 18, 2009 9:52 pm

Geoff Sharp (21:16:09) :
I beg to differ, it may have persisted but surely severely reduced levels at maximum when comparing Grand Minima cycles with those non affected.
The graph I showed http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png is McCracken’s reconstruction of the Heliospheric Magnetic File d [HMF] based on the latest 10Be data. As you can see the values during the Maunder minimum reached 4 to 5 nT much as they do today, so were not severely reduced.
It also depends on what study you look at, if I remember correctly the evidence you support comes from one small group of trees or similar.
It is true that it depends on the study, that is why I concentrate on the newest data, and the 10Be data shown does not come from trees [which some of the 14C data does] but from ice cores.
Any FFT study of solar cycles will show a 12 yr approx peak, what we are looking for is a change in those peaks which cant be seen in FFT.
The FFT is calculated for the 17th century and shows that there is a clear 12.5 period during the MM.
You other graph only shows the record for the Maunder, we need to see those records compared to high cycles before we can say there is no difference in the cycles.
The values vary in almost the same range as today. I have shown many times the full record http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
You have to disregard the data after 1945 [he has a calibration problem splicing together muon and neutron data] or add 1.7 nT to all his values before 1945. But even if you don’t want to do this you can compare 1600-1690 with 1750-1800 and 1830-1880 and 1900-1945 and verify that there are very small differences.
Aligner (21:23:11) :
I assume you mean that magnetic reconnection has always happened and this concept of ‘a hole’ is just ill conceived or a bad analogy.
Yes, that is correct
Are you saying that the connection is purely electromagnetic and no ions actually get inside the magnetosphere
Almost; the ions and the field are swept into the ‘tail’ of the magnetosphere. Once there, a further reconnection occurs and electrons are accelerated [because they are the lightest] towards to Earth and into the upper atmosphere near the poles causing aurora.
This paper is focused on the marked ozone depletion
The electrons are dumped at about 100 km height, and ozone is sitting at 30 km.
I’d also like your thoughts on noctilucent clouds, but I appreciate your time is limited. I know the official ice crystal theory
I think that is about right, but there are still unresolved issues, the clouds might even be a result of climate change.
We live in extremely fascinating times.
Indeed,

September 18, 2009 9:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard (21:52:38) :
Geoff Sharp (21:16:09) :
It also depends on what study you look at, if I remember correctly the evidence you support comes from one small group of trees or similar.
It is true that it depends on the study, that is why I concentrate on the newest data, and the 10Be data shown does not come from trees [which some of the 14C data does] but from ice cores.

September 18, 2009 10:16 pm

Geoff Sharp (21:16:09) :
But even if you don’t want to do this you can compare 1600-1690 with 1750-1800 and 1830-1880 and 1900-1945 and verify that there are very small differences.
Here I have overlain those interval on the Maunder Minimum starting in 1645: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Maunder-Comparisons.png
Granted that the MM points are a tad lower [after all it is a Grand Minimum], but it is clear that they are not ‘severely reduced’. In fact they are in the region where the HMF is today, right now.

September 18, 2009 11:06 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:16:57) :
Amazing how you can talk yourself into a result. All of your data suggests higher levels of 10Be than what was recorded during the Maunder (in reverse of course). Plus we only have records of 10Be to 1945, there is still quite a peak of activity to come if it were able to be measured. What you suggesting is that the proxy records (both 14C & 10Be) do not fluctuate in amplitude altho the graphs clearly show it. I think I would rather rely on Solanki and Steinhilber.

gtrip
September 18, 2009 11:37 pm

A bit off topic…maybe. But where are the Atlantic tropical storms this year? Only six named storms so far and three of them were suspect. Warmest oceans ever and no storms of the century? Will this be enough to show that the warmist’s are frauds? Or will we keep muddling forward with the “CO2 is pollution” newspeak?

September 19, 2009 2:39 am

Age of Mankind debate:
>>>So, its about science literacy, not religion.
Indeed, Leif, but it is religion that promotes the young age of man concept (based upon some rather flimsy evidence, even by biblical standards).
In order to attach your belief-banner to a particular mast, someone must have erected that mast in the first place.
.

September 19, 2009 2:48 am

>>>It may be an emotional issue for some people that
>>>there are young earth creationists out there. But it
>>>may be beneficial to set one’s emotions aside, as it
>>>really is a legal issue.
No. It is a political, social, technological and economic issue. The UK (and then the rest of Europe) only became industrial and technical once we had unshackled ourselves from from the primitive idea that one tattered old book contained the font of all knowledge (and if you disagreed with that notion, you had a nice warm fire prepared for you).
However, in our PC attempt to be nice and accommodating to all races, beliefs and creeds, we are actually allowing ourselves to drift back to the former Dark Age situation – and we do so at our peril.
.

tallbloke
September 19, 2009 2:49 am

Phil. (15:58:21) :
tallbloke (14:36:13) :
25 years ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale who told us that he and his fellow astronomers were well on the way to proving irrefutably that the big bang theory was correct, that new discoveries were just around the corner, and within a few years, all the loose ends would be tied up.
I got a fit of the giggles then, and I’m still waiting.
Well he was right and you apparently have been asleep since.

Heh, caulk and spackle doesn’t cut it for me.

Scott Mandia
September 19, 2009 4:22 am

@ gtrip (23:37:11) :
No. A link between the frequency of storms and AGW has not been shown with any certainty. However, there may be a connection between greater intensity and AGW. Jury is still out on this.
A good article if you have access is:
Vecchi, G.A., Swanson, K.L., & Soden, B.J. (2008). Whither hurricane activity?. Science. 322, 687-689.

kim
September 19, 2009 5:13 am

tallbloke 2:39:48
Of course not; you must sand and paint also.
Scott 4:22:25
See Ryan Maue’s chart of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, now at a thirty year low. The jury hasn’t even been picked yet.
======================================

kim
September 19, 2009 5:19 am

I’m persistently amused that we are facing another opportunity to observe whether or not Solar Grand Minimums are correlated with cold spells and even observe well enough to help determine causation, and that such a grand experiment might be clouded, get it, by an outbreak of Vulcanism. Yet further amused that there might be something causal between the Sun and the Vulcanism.
=========================================

kim
September 19, 2009 5:28 am

Leif 9:09:37 et suite
Ah, skated safely away. Be sure to give us the error bars on any future analysis of the ‘personal observation’. ::grin::
============================

Tom in Florida
September 19, 2009 6:23 am

gtrip (23:37:11) : “A bit off topic…maybe. But where are the Atlantic tropical storms this year? Only six named storms so far and three of them were suspect. Warmest oceans ever and no storms of the century? Will this be enough to show that the warmist’s are frauds? ”
I was thinking this myself this morning. Warmer waters are the fuel for the storms but not the igniter.
I was also wondering about what could look like a link between the number of Atlantic storms and Arctic sea ice melt with a 3 year time delay. Most probably a coincidence but we had lots of Atlantic activity in 2004 and 2005 with lots of Arctic sea ice melt in 2007 and 2008. Both were less before and since. (how’s that for cherry pickin’ data).

September 19, 2009 6:25 am

>>>I’m persistently amused that we are facing another
>>>opportunity to observe whether or not Solar Grand
>>>Minimums are correlated with cold spells
You should have continued … … … and we are doing nothing observationally or experimentally to determine if this is true or not.
There is no point noticing that it (perhaps) got cooler, without understanding why.
.

Ron de Haan
September 19, 2009 7:05 am

OT, Good view Chaitén Volcano eruption today:
http://www.aipchile.cl/camara/location.php?locationID=34

September 19, 2009 7:13 am

Geoff Sharp (23:06:13) :
What you suggesting is that the proxy records (both 14C & 10Be) do not fluctuate in amplitude altho the graphs clearly show it. I think I would rather rely on Solanki and Steinhilber.
What the record shows is that 10Be during 1600-1690 was not much different from 1750-1800 and 1830-1880 and 1900-1945 http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Maunder-Comparisons.png
If we correct McCracken’s calibration error [in 1945], the levels are even comparable to the modern spacecraft based values.
There was a clear solar cycle during the MM [and BTW this is also the case for the Spoerer Minimum and the Dalton Minimum and the current minimum].

September 19, 2009 7:42 am

kim (05:19:17) :
amused that there might be something causal between the Sun and the Vulcanism.
That is probably only coincidence, lest the Vulcans have something to do with it [I’ll ask Spock]. What is not a coincidence is that our proxy records of solar activity are contaminated by volcanism [and weather/climate]

kim
September 19, 2009 7:45 am

ralph 6:25:30
Though our eyes may be somewhat off the ball, thanks to the distraction of the dancing chimera of CO2 splendor, I’ve little doubt that the association between solar minima and earthly climate, whatever it is, is being closely watched. Without doubt, we should spend increased treasure on the examination of the question, as I’ve little doubt Leif would agree, he who has been as cost effective as anyone in addressing the question.
==============================

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 7:51 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:09:37) “I actually live in the US. I lived many years in Texas and I can tell from personal experience [friends and neighbors] that the percentage I quoted is not far off. Also, see Mike’s post above.”
With all due respect, that is a very prejudiced and UNscientific statement.
Please stop looking down your nose of people that are probably more reasonable than you think when confronted with the evidence.
Even my mom [who is part of the “religious right”] has a deep respect for science and carbon dating and the fact that we have to speak on timescales of billions of years.
So your PRE-judgement based upon your personal observations may not be giving you any reasonable statistical results here.
If you REALLY want to spend time lamenting religious fundamentalism, then stop pointing fingers at little school marm sunday school teachers in some small town anywhere-USA church somewhere and start pointing fingers at the SCIENTISTS who should know better who are regularly doing the bidding of the deacons and presbyter/politicians of that OTHER church [and a sham church at that]: The Worldwide Church of the Great AGW!
Most Americans, right and left, are reasonable when presented with the evidence, and that is why they are skeptical of cap and trade.
But at least we are seeing progress for NCAR to admit that it ain’t just the spots, baby.
Something you have been saying for a long time, Leif.
Maybe they are listening more to your research now.
Keep up the good work and thanks for hearing me out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

kim
September 19, 2009 7:55 am

Leif 7:42:07
Yes, I understand the likelihood of coincidence and understand the contamination. To be perfectly speculative I wonder if the correlation is from both responding to the same cause, which might even be from outside the solar system.
===============================

September 19, 2009 8:17 am

The problem of what the solar wind magnetic field [HMF] would be for very low solar activity is addressed here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus%20IMF%20B.pdf
The graphs [red, blue] show the best estimates of the HMF B by two competing groups [that have in the past doubted each other’s findings, but are now agreeing]. The green curve is the best estimate of the sunspot number. The heavy curves are 11-yr running means to show the general trends. As is evident, there is a very close correspondence between these 11-yr means, as is also shown by the scatter plot between mean B (called <B>11) and the corresponding sunspot means. [The R2 should not be calculated for running means, so its presence is just because I forgot to remove it].
Anyway, <B> = 4.05 + 0.0385 <R>, which for R going to zero gives B approaching 4 nT, being the basis for the statement [confirmed by the 10Be proxy] that there is a significant solar wind even during Grand Minima, as evidenced by the observed solar modulation of cosmic rays.

September 19, 2009 8:27 am

tallbloke (02:49:38) :
25 years ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale who told us that he and his fellow astronomers were well on the way to proving irrefutably that the big bang theory was correct, that new discoveries were just around the corner, and within a few years, all the loose ends would be tied up.
I got a fit of the giggles then, and I’m still waiting.
“Well he was right and you apparently have been asleep since.”
Heh, caulk and spackle doesn’t cut it for me.

Neither does science, apparently…

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 8:50 am

“The Sun-Earth interaction is complex, and we haven’t yet discovered all the consequences for the Earth’s environment of the unusual solar winds this cycle,” Kozyra says.
In this video Piers Corbyn says he will be revealing key ingredients to his solar forecasting technique on October 28. After he does I hope certain people will cease with calling him a charlatan and snake oil salesman. Those who called him those things have revealed more about their own character than they did about his.

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 9:08 am

Geoff Sharp (23:06:13) :
I imagine it would be painstaking, 😉, to cut a one year segment of a proxy in to 365 pieces.
I haven’t read all the comments in this thread so I don’t know if anyone has brought this up :
Nir Shaviv explained that it should be expected that such a signal is not seen in the averaged monthly data they had used……1-week delay needed for the cloud nuclei to get mature. Roughly three billions of tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere (they remain there as vapor, which is more likely to warm the air than to cool it down).
This is showing that much more detail than a monthly or yearly average is needed to see how the sun effects earth’s weather and climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/#more-9771
p.s. The average family has 2.19 children. Where can we find the family that has 2.19 children? Averages don’t tell the whole story.

September 19, 2009 9:11 am

Gene Nemetz (08:50:00) :
In this video Piers Corbyn says he will be revealing key ingredients to his solar forecasting technique on October 28.
Is that the day his peer-reviewed paper will be published?

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 9:24 am

Tom in Florida (06:23:20) :
Al Gore’s predictions of increased hurricanes, and of an ice free North Pole, are turning out to be antipodean (the opposite of what is really happening). I don’t know how he will cope with that. He didn’t cope well with not getting elected president. Some say, and I agree, that his global warming crusade is a direct result of not being able to cope with losing the election in 2000. Dennis Miller thinks he has “Marianas Trench dad issues”, that his Florida 2000 recount and now his Messiah complex over global warming are all tied somehow to trying to please his father, even though his father is dead.
Could we see this man come apart at the seems as his predictions blow up in his face over the next few years? Will he then withdraw even further from reality while feigning consequentially?
Part of me actually feels sorry for him.

September 19, 2009 9:24 am

kim (07:55:36) :
I wonder if the correlation is from both responding to the same cause, which might even be from outside the solar system.
I see where the Vulcans come in…

Ed
September 19, 2009 9:27 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:42:07) :
“What is not a coincidence is that our proxy records of solar activity are contaminated by volcanism [and weather/climate]”
I thought the science was settled…
(sorry couldn’t resist) 🙂

September 19, 2009 9:29 am

savethesharks (07:51:44) :
So your PRE-judgement based upon your personal observations may not be giving you any reasonable statistical results here.
There is this Gallop-poll that quotes 44-49%, but my statement was simply a response to:
Mark (05:44:30) :
“do an informal poll of your own. I bet you’ll find less than 1 out of 100 believes it.”
And I did just that.

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 9:30 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:11:07) :
I don’t feel like arguing with you about Piers Corbyn again.

September 19, 2009 9:45 am

Gene Nemetz (09:30:53) :
I don’t feel like arguing with you about Piers Corbyn again.
No argument, just answer the question.

September 19, 2009 9:49 am

Ed (09:27:08) :
“What is not a coincidence is that our proxy records of solar activity are contaminated by volcanism [and weather/climate]”
I thought the science was settled…
(sorry couldn’t resist) 🙂

Ah, but you didn’t take the Vulcans into account…

Zeke the Sneak
September 19, 2009 10:19 am

“ralph (02:48:19) :
>>>It may be an emotional issue for some people that
>>>there are young earth creationists out there. But it
>>>may be beneficial to set one’s emotions aside, as it
>>>really is a legal issue.
No. It is a political, social, technological and economic issue.”

I was referring to the First Amendment, so no, it is a legal issue.
It seems interesting to me that you have pointed to European history to demonstrate that society “only became industrial and technical once we had unshackled ourselves from from the primitive idea that one tattered old book contained the font of all knowledge.”
May I suggest European history instead demonstrates that State churches are very bloody businesses, and that the free excercise of religion by the individual in society is the precursor to both political freedom and economic prosperity.
To be specific and define terms, a religion in general addresses issues of creation, sin, redemption, and the final destiny of the creation. Therefore, any gov’t that concerns itself in these issues is establishing a religion, and prohibiting the free excercise thereof.
Besides, the tenth amendment clearly shows that cosmology is none of the Federal gov’t’s blasted business anyway.

September 19, 2009 10:40 am

Zeke the Sneak (10:19:02) :
cosmology is none of the Federal gov’t’s blasted business anyway.
Is science? Most science is funded by the gov. Should that funding stop?

September 19, 2009 10:40 am

Zeke the Sneak (10:19:02) :
cosmology is none of the Federal gov’t’s blasted business anyway.
Is science? Most science is funded by the gov. Should that funding stop?

September 19, 2009 10:45 am

Sorry, Leif, while I defer to you in science matters, I don’t agree that the federal gov’t has any business running a public science industry. Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I realize we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the Constitution that we can’t get back. But that’s what causes these problems.

September 19, 2009 10:55 am

Smokey (10:45:38) :
I don’t agree that the federal gov’t has any business running a public science industry. Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, should the States? or the People? The States don’t, and the People don’t much [it used to be different, with wealthy individuals funding much science: Yale, Lick, Yerkes, Carnegie, etc, to take examples from my own science]. Today some science is so expensive [billions] that this type of funding has dried up [with some exceptions: e.g. Keck.]. Society funds science because science has turned out to be useful to society. I’m all for private funding. Go to my website and fling some funds, please.

Zeke the Sneak
September 19, 2009 11:13 am

Yes, it should stop.
If not, then the NSF should be broken into 20 different organizations, with a wall of separation between them, so that science can once again have the benefit of blind experimentation.

September 19, 2009 11:21 am

Zeke the Sneak (11:13:45) :
Yes, it should stop.
science can once again have the benefit of blind experimentation.

Groping in the dark rarely leads to progress. And if it happens, it would bode ill for this country, sinking to the level of Zimbabwe, perhaps.

September 19, 2009 11:26 am

“Is that the day his peer-reviewed paper will be published?”
And peer reviewed by Hansen, Mann, Santer, Jones, Steig, et.al.?

the_Butcher
September 19, 2009 11:42 am

Guys, come on, give Leify a break. Being a solar physicist and spending his life on Blogs trying to prove everybody that only he and his methods are right must make him very desperate.
Now he’s asking for private funding, what do you need the funding for Leif?
You’ve miserably failed to predict the sunspots and suns activity in general and aren’t you like 100yo or something? Don’t stress cause you might miss this solar maximum…

September 19, 2009 11:54 am

Tom in Texas (11:26:59) :
“Is that the day his peer-reviewed paper will be published?”
And peer reviewed by Hansen, Mann, Santer, Jones, Steig, et.al.?

When you submit a paper you can usually specify whom you would NOT want as reviewers.

Zeke the Sneak
September 19, 2009 11:58 am

Leif Svalgaard (11:21:21) :
Zeke the Sneak (11:13:45) :
Yes, it should stop.
science can once again have the benefit of blind experimentation.
Groping in the dark rarely leads to progress.

Alright, then double-blind experimentation.

September 19, 2009 12:35 pm

Zeke the Sneak (11:58:35) :
Alright, then double-blind experimentation.
Groping in the dark by blind people?

September 19, 2009 1:07 pm

the_Butcher (11:42:28),
Leif is an esteemed scientist who is unfailingly polite. And he makes predictions, which is always risky. What’s your solar prediction?

September 19, 2009 1:37 pm

Smokey (13:07:10) :
the_Butcher (11:42:28),
And he makes predictions, which is always risky.
And I think the prediction is pretty good for now, as we predicted that SC24 would be the lowest in a 100 years, which seems to be coming to pass.

September 19, 2009 1:49 pm

the_Butcher (11:42:28) : RUDE!!

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 3:05 pm

kim (05:13:22) : re. Scott 4:22:25 “See Ryan Maue’s chart of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, now at a thirty year low. The jury hasn’t even been picked yet.”
No jury has been picked…because there is NO trial.
The Judge has thrown the case out for sheer lack of supporting evidence. 🙂
On second thought, it would not be unreasonable to put Al Gore and his ilk on trial for yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, namely, scaring children across the globe that their coastal cities might be swept over by a 20-foot wall of water [and not a tsunami mind you].
But a child does not know the difference.
For shame.
The US Chamber of Commerce has recently proffered putting AGW and its henchmen on trial.
I wanna be on that jury!!!!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chris

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 3:10 pm

“Pamela Gray (09:33:58) :Once again Stephen, I have to comment on your clarity of thought and what seems to me to be a wonderfully logical mind. You are to the oceans what Leif is to the Sun. 4 marks.”
I could not agree more. And he is an easy read at that. I sincerely hope he will compile all of these elegant posts for a book!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 3:20 pm

the_Butcher (11:42:28) :
You are lucky your major ad hominem did not get snipped. The moderator may have been asleep.
Or maybe the moderator allowed it to be published so that such blither can be seen for what it is.
You are wrong on Leif.
No big deal anyways…as I can ASSURE you he doesn’t care what you think anyway, and, evidently by the juvenile tone of your post, with good reason.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

REPLY: I let it through. I wanted to show how cowards who won’t give their own name, will stoop to such lows to disparage people who do have the courage to put their name behind their work and words. I knew Leif wouldn’t be bothered by it. That being said, we should all stop this sneaking around with nom de plumes and use our real names, no matter what side of the debate you are on if what you have to say has any value, stand behind it. – Anthony

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 3:45 pm

That’s why I always end my posts with my real name, even though my screen name reflects a certain passion of mine in regards to stopping overfishing in the oceans.
Happy to give my last name, too….there aren’t many of our clan in the country LOL.
Chris Malendoski
Norfolk, VA, USA

September 19, 2009 4:13 pm

Chris Malendoski
Another ski.
Tom Wisneski

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 5:14 pm

From one ski to another!

rbateman
September 19, 2009 5:22 pm

I don’t agree with everything Leif says, but he is still entitled to say it.
We all have our various beliefs.
I form my opinions based on what I can see and measure.
If either science or politics cannot answer my questions in a straightforward manner, I will attempt to discover them myself using whatever means I possess.
You’d do the same if you were in my shoes.
Robert Bateman
Weaverville, CA, USA

September 19, 2009 6:02 pm

rbateman (17:22:46) :
I form my opinions based on what I can see and measure.
If you fall ill, you might seek qualified medical advice, rather than relying on what you can see and measure.

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 6:17 pm

Yes but if you fall ill you also rely upon your own instincts and knowledge, and methodically attempt to deduce as to what’s ailing you.
Many times doctors and specialists can be off on their assessments…so that is not failsafe.
However, if I need an operation, I am not going to be operating on myself, that’s for sure.
Relying upon a surgeon to do the right thing while you are under the knife is one thing.
Arriving at scientific conclusions based upon the best knowledge and research there is, combined with common sense and intuition, as to what is the underlying causes of, lets say, the long-term shifts in the AMO, is another.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

September 19, 2009 6:42 pm

savethesharks (18:17:51) :
Arriving at scientific conclusions based upon the best knowledge and research there is, combined with common sense and intuition, as to what is the underlying causes
That is what scientists do. And it is a BIG [and full-time] job to learn ‘the best knowledge and research’.

rbateman
September 19, 2009 6:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:02:36) :
We’re talking the health of the Sun and Climate here, not Healthcare.

rbateman
September 19, 2009 6:57 pm

savethesharks (18:17:51) :
The doctor understands that more often than not, the patient knows what hurts.

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 7:36 pm

As I have said at least 100 times: Your work is much appreciated and scientists like yourself are invaluable for the human race and for the whole planet.
I support you and your life’s work and I think I have made that clear.
In light of the great mass confusion today thanks to both sides of the political aisle that are pulling the scientific method apart into little shreds, that should not stop “laypeople” [especially those with great skills, like Rob] from arriving at their own conclusions, or using their own means [e.g. the “Layman’s Sunspot Count”].
The most important part of the quote:
“If either science or politics cannot answer my questions in a straightforward manner, I will attempt to discover them myself using whatever means I possess.”
There is nothing wrong with that approach….and nothing whatsoever in that approach is meant to discount the life’s work of a super-specialist like yourself.
Knowledge is power.
And perhaps one day we all will be able to use all of this knowledge to solve vexing problems of our planet and our future.
Thanks for your dedication and if I were a philanthropist, I would be pitching private money right and left to back your research.
But I think Rob has a unique scientific aptitude and I would be throwing money his direction too.
All the best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

September 19, 2009 7:52 pm

savethesharks (19:36:05) :
that should not stop “laypeople” [especially those with great skills, like Rob] from arriving at their own conclusions, or using their own means [e.g. the “Layman’s Sunspot Count”].
And that is valuable and encouraged. Amateurs have always [especially in Astronomy and related fields] done important [and appreciated] work [Schwabe comes to mind]. You get the most benefit when their work is tempered and put in context by the centuries of knowledge accrued and underpinned by modern physics. Modern science is a coherent structure, and the coherence is hard-won. [Please, no lecture on open mind, out-of-the-box, blinkers, etc]

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 7:53 pm

Speaking of philanthropy….I have this idea and I may be way off base but humor me here:
Thinking about starting a private foundation that is devoted to non-political funding of pure scientific research, for science’s sake.
Want to focus specifically on the oceans, the sun, the earth, and all of their interrelations thereto. Obviously, astronomy and other disciplines are necessary.
All of this crazy, fascinating maze of information as to what makes the earth’s climate tick, what makes the sun’s “climate” tick, and so on.
FOS Foundation of the Oceans and the Sun
And this would fund a new institute, where the best in the world would be invited to become adjunct professors [while remaining at their respective posts, such as Stanford].
IOS Institute of the Oceans and the Sun
Eventually….form….
AOS Academy of the Oceans and the Sun
This would be a K – 12 school that attempts to get more and more children “turned on” to science with a science/math-intensive program.
Other disciplines, such as philosophy, the arts, and of course competetive sports and martial arts, would be part of the ciriculum too.
The point is to REVERSE the trend of the last 40 years where science and math have taken a back seat in our schools.
The school and the academy would be “elite” in the sense that the standards are high, but is AFFORDABLE for anyone with the aptitude to keep up.
Crazy idea….and I feel sure it is not an original idea….just a dream of where we could be and how much we could advance as a species if we only had the right tools….
…and thus the ability to solve problems never before imagined.
Since I have two of my very favorite people on this blog at a dialogue right now….
What do you think??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

the_Butcher
September 19, 2009 7:59 pm

Tom in Texas (13:49:37) :
the_Butcher (11:42:28) : RUDE!!
——————–
Its nothing compared to his bad sarcasm all over the Blogs, unless you enjoy it? 😉
=================
Smokey (13:07:10) :
Leif is an esteemed scientist who is unfailingly polite. And he makes predictions…
——–
I fail to see his politeness and you know that very well, why such a slurping now?
He also insured us about the sunspot number going up early this summer but such thing never happened. Basically what that means is that he has no clue about the Sun yet he’s a Solar Physicist, why should we listen to his new predictions?
Everybody can make predictions, even my grandma.

September 19, 2009 8:06 pm

savethesharks (19:53:18) :
FOS Foundation of the Oceans and the Sun
IOS Institute of the Oceans and the Sun
AOS Academy of the Oceans and the Sun

Commendable idea, but Science functions best in a decentralized manner, without too much control or organization. Point is that scientists disagree all the time. Such disagreement is the life-blood of science. And when they finally agree on something, that becomes ‘knowledge’ and part of our human heritage.
Too much ‘institution’ would stifle that disagreement and slow progress. What does the ‘I’ in GISS stand for…

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 8:10 pm

You again??
Anybody can hide behind their computer and hurl insults. The TRUE definition of cowardice.
Trolls always like to creep up from under the bridge…but you know, “butcher”, the sad thing is…for a troll….nobody gives a fat flying **** what the troll thinks or says.
Yo Leif or Rob or Anthony….what do you think of the institute idea?
Chris Malendoski
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 8:12 pm

Got your reponse, Leif. Thanks!
If I ever form it I am inviting you to be an adjunct!
Chris Malendoski
Norfolk, VA, USA

September 19, 2009 8:18 pm

savethesharks (20:12:14) :
If I ever form it I am inviting you to be an adjunct!
For now, just fling funds 🙂

savethesharks
September 19, 2009 8:29 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:06:33) : “Too much ‘institution’ would stifle that disagreement and slow progress. What does the ‘I’ in GISS stand for…”
“I” stands for “Hansen”? LOL
No….I get ya on that. If there was a way to “hardwire” from the very beginning, to keep an “institute” from becoming like the GISS or any other scientific organization that has succumbed to politics.
I think there is a way to provide mechanisms in the charters of the organizations themselves to self-limit them from becoming politicized.
A long shot….no doubt.
But…. to take into account my own personal feelings: I don’t care if the sun takes last place or first place or in between in being the primary driver on earth’s climate.
I just want the TRUTH…however bland it may be.
Point is….the SUN does not have lobbyists….nor do cosmic rays or oceans.
We just need a major paradigm shift in scientific research.
WAY TOO long have scientists been at the whim and bitch-mode of politicians and corporations.
It should be the other way around, no??
If…IF we are evolving as a species [and I believe we are] then there is no reason it can’t be the other way around.
Politicians and businessmen and real estate developers and stock brokers all live in a fantasy world thanks to the baby-boom expansion, free of major world-wide catastrophes.
Science is the wave of the future…and our only hope.
Chris
Norfolk, Va, USA

rbateman
September 19, 2009 9:48 pm

‘what do you think of the institute idea?’
Fine with me. I like labs. Just promise me a mountain of data to dig into.
If you structure it loosely, like Silicon Valley used to do, it will be more than the sum of it’s parts.

September 19, 2009 10:23 pm

Innocentious (07:38:02) : (Regarding the sun.) “… The moment you start talking about amplifications ( feedback ) you start sounding just like the people who advocate CO2 as the main climatic driver over the last 150 years. …
I have a growing concern over this kind of switch, too, Inno… It weakens the thrust of the (my?) belief that the C02 cry is a wolf cry and should be pursued and debunked in itself as it is driving both the money and the misery of AGW.
What actually drives climate is another matter; worth pursuing if only for the expansion of science — but is not the primary goal of all who wish to see a return of reason, and is therefore best divorced from the black and white end-of-the-world-is-nigh hysteria of the death-clouds of feral C02.
(Definition of feral on the Web: wild and menacing…)

September 19, 2009 10:25 pm

rbateman (21:48:37) :
Just promise me a mountain of data to dig into.
SDO will give you a terabyte each and every day.
REPLY: A terabyte a day, keeps all other tasks away. – A

September 19, 2009 10:48 pm

Pamela Gray (11:03:57) : “The answer is in the groupthink phenomenon. Humans are social animals that depend on like mindedness for survival. …
Brought back a vivid memory from my youth, Pamela. Moving the sheep through a gate. The lead sheep jumps some imaginary line (chasm?), and the rest of them follow with a bump showing the flowback of the leader’s panic or caution.

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 11:12 pm

Leif Svalgaard (09:45:37) : Gene Nemetz (09:30:53) :
I don’t feel like arguing with you about Piers Corbyn again.
No argument, just answer the question.

No, I have experience with you. I suppose you don’t remember. I’ll just leave it at that.

rbateman
September 19, 2009 11:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:25:29) :
That calls for a T3 line or better.
And with Anthony’s terrabyte a day SDO, we need a processing pipeline.
Siting? We need a solar tower and some scopes. Technology has die-cast carbon-fiber mirrors at 1/10 the cost and weight.

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 11:21 pm

Smokey (10:45:38) : I realize we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the Constitution that we can’t get back.
Don’t be so sure Smokey!

September 19, 2009 11:37 pm

Gene Nemetz (23:12:56) :
“No argument, just answer the question.”
No, I have experience with you. I suppose you don’t remember. I’ll just leave it at that.

Perhaps you can convince your Piers Corbyn to submit the article to WUWT instead?

Gene Nemetz
September 19, 2009 11:58 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:37:09) :
You see? You can’t let it go.
Perhaps you can talk with Mr. Corbyn yourself.
His record speaks for itself. In the real world that’s the only thing that matters.

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 12:03 am

Leif Svalgaard (23:37:09) : submit the article
I don’t have any knowledge of this article.
You can wait until October 28. Because of Piers Corbyn’s success there will be people all over the world that will be interested to see what he will reveal.
The only reason I have replied to you these few times is because I didn’t want to leave an appearance that I was shying away from you.
Is this enough for you now sir?

September 20, 2009 12:32 am

Gene Nemetz (23:58:03) :
Leif Svalgaard (23:37:09) :
You see? You can’t let it go.
Perhaps you can talk with Mr. Corbyn yourself.
His record speaks for itself. In the real world that’s the only thing that matters.

What exactly is his record? I was following some of his predictions a while back and, to be frank, they were pretty wide of the mark. That could be down to bad luck, but I suspect Piers is a great one for trumpeting his successes while keeping quiet about his failures.

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 12:45 am

John Finn (00:32:18) :
No one ever claimed 100 % accuracy. Ok?

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 12:57 am

John Finn (00:32:18) : but I suspect Piers is a great one for trumpeting his successes while keeping quiet about his failures
This is not true. I have not observed this about him at all. Have you seen this in your experience of him? But I think you say you ‘suspect’ this about him. I think you should look more in to the issue. That would be for your sake.
This same thing happened in a thread some months ago—I was dragged in to an unnecessarily long argument.
I think some need to calm down about Piers Corbyn. I have no idea how, by his actions, he has earned ill feelings toward him from some.

Ulric Lyons
September 20, 2009 4:43 am
Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 5:01 am

Ulric Lyons (04:43:21) : Weather Action audits;
Weather Action is Piers Corbyn’s business place
Thanks Ulric.

tallbloke
September 20, 2009 5:28 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:27:42) :
tallbloke (02:49:38) :
25 years ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale who told us that he and his fellow astronomers were well on the way to proving irrefutably that the big bang theory was correct, that new discoveries were just around the corner, and within a few years, all the loose ends would be tied up.
I got a fit of the giggles then, and I’m still waiting.
“Well he was right and you apparently have been asleep since.”

Heh, caulk and spackle doesn’t cut it for me.
Neither does science, apparently…
Science’s methods are useful tools in the box, but I don’t rely on it for provision of ultimate truth about the origin and destiny of the universe. There are too many inconvenient facts which can’t be accommodated by the big bang theory for me to accept it.
Also, at the aesthetic level, I find the Big Bang theory intensely unsatisfying and nihilistic. Since it is nowhere near being a convincing explanation, I don’t feel the need to adhere to it.
A lot of folks crave certainty and feel the need to believe that science has a firm grip on the ultimate truth about the existence of everything. I’m quite content to accept that we are nowhere near knowing the ultimate truth about the existence of everything, and that we may indeed be barking up the wrong tree with the current pet theory.
This frees me to consider alternative ideas about the cosmos with an unbiased eye.

kim
September 20, 2009 5:54 am

Leif 9:24:35
Oh, yes; were such a cause galactic or other it would indeed be mythologically epic.
===========================================

kim
September 20, 2009 5:58 am

tallbloke 5:28:06
Another problem is what preceded the ‘Big Bang’. Cosmology and even more fundamentally, being, have unanswerable questions. Even the study of knowledge is artifactual and inadequate, witness the ‘creation’ debate.
===========================================

kim
September 20, 2009 5:59 am

I’m a skeptic, but there are ‘Everlasting’ questions.
================================

kim
September 20, 2009 6:07 am

Heh, the caulk, spackle, smoothing and painting haven’t quite covered it all.
Where is that doggone proton, anywho? And why?
==============================================

kim
September 20, 2009 6:10 am

It’s only a bird in a gilded cage.
===================

September 20, 2009 6:35 am

tallbloke (05:28:06) :
There are too many inconvenient facts which can’t be accommodated by the big bang theory for me to accept it.
Such as?

September 20, 2009 8:20 am

The big bang theory…perhaps just another cycle that comes and goes. Matter expands and eventually contracts, the black hole being the ultimate player?

Stephen Wilde
September 20, 2009 8:48 am

savethesharks (15:10:05) :
“Pamela Gray (09:33:58) :Once again Stephen, I have to comment on your clarity of thought and what seems to me to be a wonderfully logical mind. You are to the oceans what Leif is to the Sun. 4 marks.”
I could not agree more. And he is an easy read at that. I sincerely hope he will compile all of these elegant posts for a book!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
That’s quite a testimonial Pamela and savethesharks.
I think I’d better start taking the idea seriously since the real world of climate does seem to be fitting in to the general gist of my assertions.
Anthony, is there a way that I can extract all my posts from your archive and save them for my future use ?

September 20, 2009 8:54 am

Gene Nemetz (00:57:07) :
I think some need to calm down about Piers Corbyn. I have no idea how, by his actions, he has earned ill feelings toward him from some

I’ve got no particular feelings either way about Piers Corbyn. I’m just questioning the accuracy of his forecasts.

September 20, 2009 9:00 am

Stephen Wilde (08:48:54) :
Anthony, is there a way that I can extract all my posts from your archive and save them for my future use ?
Same question…

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 9:36 am

tallbloke (05:28:06) : Neither does science, apparently…
Good bit of wit tall! 😉

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 9:44 am

tallbloke (05:28:06) : Also, at the aesthetic level, I find the Big Bang theory intensely unsatisfying and nihilistic.
The original idea of the big bang loses support as time goes by. Since is is becoming clearer that there never was ‘nothing’ before the big bang new and more more fascinating hypothesis are popping up. Membranes are fascinating to me.
Guth’s Inflation are the place where the big bang is finding a home—a much different concept that Georges Lemaître in mond. Though I wonder if Lemaître would have been just as fascinated with Inflation as others are. IMO I think he would.

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 9:47 am

Geoff Sharp (08:20:28) : The big bang theory…perhaps just another cycle
I never liked the idea of there being ‘nothing at the beginning’ either.

tallbloke
September 20, 2009 10:20 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:00:36) :
Stephen Wilde (08:48:54) :
Anthony, is there a way that I can extract all my posts from your archive and save them for my future use ?
Same question…

Go to
http://www.google.com
Enter the following in the search box:
site:wattsupwiththat.com “Leif Svalgaard”
896 results, many will be references to you by other people, so some filtering required, less so for Stephen I would guess.

tallbloke
September 20, 2009 10:32 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:35:58) :
tallbloke (05:28:06) :
There are too many inconvenient facts which can’t be accommodated by the big bang theory for me to accept it.
Such as?

Take 6 minutes of your life to listen carefully to this.

Then we can discuss the disposition of matter in space if you like.

Stephen Wilde
September 20, 2009 10:38 am

Thanks tallbloke.
That gets me to each of the threads I have contributed to.
Is there a way to extract my comments alone and save them to my computer without dealing with every comment individually ?

Sandy
September 20, 2009 11:02 am

Search for
‘Stephen Wilde (‘
Should get just your comments?

Ulric Lyons
September 20, 2009 11:18 am

” Gene Nemetz (09:47:17) :
Geoff Sharp (08:20:28) : The big bang theory…perhaps just another cycle
I never liked the idea of there being ‘nothing at the beginning’ either.”
Just see it as a metaphor for a mindset, rather than the nature of the cosmos :0
as below, so above!

tallbloke
September 20, 2009 11:20 am

Stephen Wilde (10:38:19) :
Thanks tallbloke.
That gets me to each of the threads I have contributed to.
Is there a way to extract my comments alone and save them to my computer without dealing with every comment individually ?

Perhaps you could copy and paste the whole pages into notepad (CTL-A works to highlight all the text) and then use the search function to find your name followed by a space and left bracket. This should get you to the top line of each of your posts. Then you can cut’n’paste each of your posts into another file.

Philip Mulholland
September 20, 2009 12:50 pm

Stephen Wilde (10:38:19) :
Stephen
You want to find the unique comment ID number for your individaul postings within a given thread?
The following workflow may help you:
Using Internet Explorer choose the Source option under the View menu.
Source opens the full thread coding into Notepad.
In Notepad use the Find option to search for your postings by your personal Name.
For each hit look for the comment id number e.g.
Edit the Address bar for your thread to include this ID number at the end of the thread root e.g. /#comment-190919
This address will take you directly to your comment e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/ncar-number-of-sunspots-provides-an-incomplete-measure-of-changes-in-the-suns-impact-on-earth/#comment-190919

Ulric Lyons
September 20, 2009 12:51 pm

” John Finn (00:32:18) :
What exactly is his record? I was following some of his predictions a while back and, to be frank, they were pretty wide of the mark.”
I am sure Piers is happy at getting 85% and above accuracy on weather events, a year or more in advance.
Clever, isn`t it.

Philip Mulholland
September 20, 2009 1:12 pm

Oops 🙁
Ho Hum…
Not 190919, that was Leif’s comment, let’s try 190955
As has been commented by others before me, this blog lacks a preview thread..
Now there is a way round that too, but I don’t want to get myself barred 😉
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/ncar-number-of-sunspots-provides-an-incomplete-measure-of-changes-in-the-suns-impact-on-earth/#comment-190955

Stephen Wilde
September 20, 2009 1:18 pm

Thanks chaps. I’ll have a go at the various suggestions.

Gene Nemetz
September 20, 2009 2:07 pm

Ulric Lyons (11:18:37) : as below, so above!
Seems to be as lot of that in the science world.
I still am confounded by the story that conferences were held to denounce Einstein’s Relativity right after the theory was published. Scientists would give their view as to why it was not only wrong, but some said he was crazy. One scientist even said Einstein should be killed for bringing such bizarre ideas that came from Relativity into the world.
Einstein actually attended some of the conferences, sat in the audience, and tried to defend himself.
I think the same thing, to a lesser degree, is happening now to Henrik Svensmark, Piers Corbyn, Richard Lindzen, etc. as happened to Einstein.

September 20, 2009 6:08 pm

tallbloke (10:32:53) :
Take 6 minutes of your life to listen carefully to this.
Then we can discuss the disposition of matter in space if you like.

This is cyclomania even worse than the planetary cycles. Since 1990, our redshift data has increased by several orders of magnitude and the resulting distribution does not show any such cycles. That you can be taken in by such nonsense shows your low level of scientific literacy and your high level of pseudo-scientific literacy. No wonder that AGW has such a grip on people, if your level is typical of the general population. This is sad.

Zeke the Sneak
September 20, 2009 7:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard (12:35:54) :
Zeke the Sneak (11:58:35) :
Alright, then double-blind experimentation.

Groping in the dark by blind people?

Well, I try to speak so PhDs can understand me. But I don’t always succeed.
I am just messing with you. Always read your posts, Dr. S.