December sunspots on the rise

The sun has seen a resurgence of activity in December, with a number of cycle 24 sunspots being seen. The latest is group 1039 seen below:

2009 is ending with a flurry of sunspots. Indeed, if sunspot 1039 holds together just one more day (prediction: it will), the month of December will accumulate a total of 22 spotted days and the final tally for the year will look like this: From Spaceweather.com

The dark line is a linear least-squares fit to the data. If the trend continues exactly as shown (prediction: it won’t), sunspots will become a non-stop daily occurance no later than February 2011. Blank suns would cease and solar minimum would be over.

If the past two years have taught us anything, however, it is that the sun can be tricky and unpredictable.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
273 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WeatherMan
December 30, 2009 6:45 am

I can see a hockey stick in this chart.

December 30, 2009 6:47 am

As the windchill temp is -10 today, I can say the sunspot activity hasn’t had much effect yet. But I look forward to a toasty January if the trend keeps up.

BarryW
December 30, 2009 6:52 am

Although this might be tracking the lower end of Dr. Hathaway’s
prediction

Ipse Dixit
December 30, 2009 6:53 am

The solar flux index is 75 and has been dropping. I personally don’t expect this group of spots to last much longer. I wonder whether Livinngston and Penn have analyzed this and recent spots to determine whether they continue to fit their model.

Caleb
December 30, 2009 6:54 am

Politics be d—ed. At this point I’m sick of the cold, and just want some heat. Hopefully these spots will do the trick.

Vincent
December 30, 2009 6:55 am

Looks like the original prediction of “high activity” for cycle 24 might turn out to be correct after all – just a couple of years late.

December 30, 2009 7:00 am

According to this research there seems to be a link between Angular momentum of the planets and Solar cycles… Thus the climate.
Extract from Page 45 of this document: http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
Angular momentum sum of 9 planets and the Sun
Scalar Sum
The “absolute value” chart (fig. 80) includes 0. It shows, that the sum seems very constant, and the “wave”,
seen on other charts, is only a “wave at the top of an ocean”, on the order of 8.11*10-7, close to 1 in million…
The high peaks are during times, when the Sun approaches the solar-system barycenter. At these times, the
Sun moves in the contrary (retrograde or highly inclined) direction for a short while, and has got a negative
angular momentum (with respect to the invariant plane), so it should actually subtract in a vector sum of the
system, but here it is added in the scalar sum (there is no negative scalar (absolute value or vector length)
angular momentum)…
The first derivation of angular momentum sum (fig. 78) only little matches the sun-spot cycle, but the highpeak
arround 1990 could be correlated with a drop of solar-flare activity at the middle of preceeding Sunspot
cycle 22, both peaks arround 1800 and 1990 having a damping effect on the Solar activity, possibly due to
effects of exchange between Sun orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum.
The “wave” of approximate period of 854 years, which could also probably be anti-correlated with Sun spin
rate, seems to match the climatologic events of Medieval optimum and Global warming, and also the Little
Ice age of Maunder minimum, and similar periods in earlier ages (fig. 81)…
If this is right, now the Solar activity could drop a little, but will approach a larger maximum arround year
2050, not disturbed by the peak anomally, and then drop to a next little-ice-age arround 2400 AD.
The time-lag between the spin rate change and activity change is still uncertain…

December 30, 2009 7:01 am

I really enjoyed this…!

Sunspotter
December 30, 2009 7:04 am

Tony Blair and Cherie are walking in the garden of No.10. Suddenly he rips off her knickers and throws them to the ground. ‘Tony,you randy devil! What about the security cameras?’ ‘No,dear’ replies Tony. ‘There’s a damp patch on the grass and I don’t want to muddy my shoes.’

Alan the Brit
December 30, 2009 7:06 am

Are you sure somebody is not trying to “hide a decline”? You never can tell these days!
Not that OT, UK – cold wet & miserable in the south-west, curiously, as it frequently does occur, above the line from Bristol & the River Severn, & London & the Thames Estuary, it’s colder still with snow & ice. I say curiously because it was the line I was lead to believe where the ice limit occurred in the last ice-age(s). Then again that was over forty years ago now in History classes, I expect it has all changed these days.
HNY everyone!

jmrSudbury
December 30, 2009 7:13 am

What? No title? I had to click on the Read More link! — John M Reynolds

Akira Shirakawa
December 30, 2009 7:18 am

>Are you sure somebody is not trying to “hide a decline”? You never can tell these days!
Well, to be fair, lately NOAA has been counting even very small spots that would have never been counted before. This month’s sunspot count especially is a bit inflated.
Anyway, the sunspot count might be subject to interpretation, but sun geomagnetic indices, which are instrumentally measured, are still very low.

Baa Humbug
December 30, 2009 7:19 am

Isn’t this the well predicted maxima the sun is now entering until about 2015? But this maxima I understand will be a weak one before heading back to a deeper minima.

Pingo
December 30, 2009 7:22 am

Hopefully they will help lift the ice from my riverside walk that was perilous earlier! I’m unsure whether I want the sun to ramp up or not – if it stayed quiet we’d be seeing an end to the AGW tomfoolery within the decade but would be a bad thing for human society.

Mark
December 30, 2009 7:23 am

This is depressing. These sunspots are going to warm the earth giving fuel to the warmers.

danimals
December 30, 2009 7:28 am

Would someone be kind and explain to me what the implication of this is on earth’s climate? If someone is willing to do this, you don’t need to hold back on the physics. I’m sorry but I’ve read all the posts on sunspots for several months and still haven’t come across what this might all be about. THanks!!!!

Philip T. Downman
December 30, 2009 7:28 am

According to Leif Svalgaards L&P-plot it seems to be on track: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

December 30, 2009 7:30 am

Baa Humbug, Exactly. I’d love to see the latest sunspot prediction curve for the cycle 24. A few years ago, the prognosticators were claiming that the delay in sunspots would only result in a higher intensity of spots once they began. It think, (amatuer solar astronomer here) that we are seeing an overall depressed cycle 24. Less area under the curve, slower to start, sooner to finish, less in height. Bob.

Patrick Davis
December 30, 2009 7:33 am

Look, the Sun has no impact on Earth’s climate, that is fact. Climate change is due to CO2, and we are really pushing a tax on that. The next tax, I mean cause, is methane. And we are pushing a tax on that, to save the planet.

Jerry M
December 30, 2009 7:35 am

I’m probably way off base here, but, isn’t there a lag time between solar sunspots and world-wide temperature? Sort of like when the shortest day is Dec. 21, but it continues to get colder until Feb. 18 when the pace of the earth cooling matches the solar warming effects. What I’m saying is that we could be in for more cooling until 2012-2014 before a warmin uptrend begins to assert itself.
Just asking.

December 30, 2009 7:37 am

Solar winds remain very low, cosmic rays hitting earth are unchanged.

Tom in Florida
December 30, 2009 7:45 am

From Dr Leif Svalgaard’s Research page:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Looks like Cycle 24 is ramping up for sure.

Mr. Alex
December 30, 2009 7:48 am

The August count is invalid, there were no spots in August. There were also no spots on the 24th December, however an 11 was assigned to an invisible region which had no spots or official number.
“Vincent (06:55:21) :
Looks like the original prediction of “high activity” for cycle 24 might turn out to be correct after all – just a couple of years late.”
Not necessarily. Notice SC 5 (the first cycle of the Dalton Minimum), had a minimum in May 1798. Only 6 months later, in November 1798 we see November’s sunspot number at 12.
March 1799 comes up with a value of 20, and this is before satellite and large telescope technology were available to count pores!
We only see a rise to these values in SC 24 one year after minimum (Dec 2008).
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/cycl3x.GIF
A Dalton type minimum is still very possible. Notice solar wind speed is currently at +-275km/sec, and geomagnetic indices are low. 1039 has failed to generate even a large B flare since at least 28th December.
Sunspot minimum may be over, but this does not mean that solar activity is no longer weak.

Stephen Wilde
December 30, 2009 7:50 am

I’d like the increased solar activity to resolve the query in my mind that perhaps a more active sun cools the stratosphere by increasing the rate of energy to space whereas a quiet sun warms the stratosphere by decreasing the rate of energy loss to space.
Either way there would be a knock on effect involving the rate of energy transfer from the troposphere.
Imagine a reduction of energy release from the oceans to the air during a negative PDO phase being aggravated by a faster loss of energy from the stratosphere caused by a more active sun.
Now if we get a strong La Nina in a year or so plus a more active sun as we come out of the solar minimum then that should resolve the issue one way or another. Either the current trend towards cooling will accelerate or it won’t.
Interesting times.

Rich Day
December 30, 2009 7:52 am

I would like to see the Northern Hemisphere really freeze its butt off for the entire winter so the pseudo-science could be proved wrong regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Mike Bryant
December 30, 2009 7:54 am

OK… you win it’s the sun… we realize we were wrong about that…. but the real problem is that our oceans are turning acid… we have the data to prove it, and it is much worch than we thought… we even did a little demonstration before congress… now, you realize, of course, that the acidification data is not subject to FOIA, requests and neither is any of the other data we have… so stop asking… you people are very annoying and you are keeping us from saving the planet.
Thanks,
True Science

Stephan
December 30, 2009 7:55 am

Jerry I think you are right the lag effects are in 10-100 years me thinks or from what i understand. If I recall/think L Svaalgard does not believe in a sun/climate link though

Andrew Keplinger
December 30, 2009 7:58 am

Sunspots don’t produce heat. An uptick in the solar wind will lead to an increase in the earth’s magnetic field, a drop in cosmic rays, and therefore a lower planetary aldebo. But it will take years for the magnetic field to catch up to the solar wind. An uptick in solar activity now translates into warming in two or three years. For now, expect the cooling to continue. Expect the hudson to freeze.

tallbloke
December 30, 2009 7:59 am

Jerry M (07:35:05) :
I’m probably way off base here, but, isn’t there a lag time between solar sunspots and world-wide temperature?

Yes.
What I’m saying is that we could be in for more cooling until 2012-2014 before a warmin uptrend begins to assert itself.
Sounds about right.
My prediction is that the uptrend in sunspots will be slow, reaching a maximum around late 2015.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/ap-prediction.gif

December 30, 2009 7:59 am

We have almost complete daily coverage back to solar cycle 8 and can thus plot the number of spotless days during the minima between these cycles. To the extent that that count is a measure of the next cycle [and that is hypothetical, but not unreasonable as a large cycle during its rise would quickly squash the number of spotless days], one could use the rise of the accumulated count of spotless days during a minimum as a rough indicator of the size of the next cycle [as surmised e.g. by Jan Janssens http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html ]
An issue is when to start the start. Choosing the first spotless day leads to large scatter as there is a large degree of randomness in the system. One can decrease the scatter by letting the system ‘average’ out some of the noise by choosing e.g. the 10th day [or the 8th or 12th, or so -doesn’t make much difference]. Here is a plot of the accumulated number of days with a sunspot number of zero as a function of time [in months] since the 10th spotless day: http://www.leif.org/research/accum-zero-ssn.png . The current minimum is the green curve. Curves for minima where the final count is greater than the median value are blue. Curves for minima where the final count is less than the median are red.
The green curve has slowed its growth and begun to flatten, perhaps at the 800 level. If so, there are only three cycles since cycle 8 with a lower count. Cycles following the ‘blue’ minima were less than average size, so one might surmise that cycle 24 also will be small [as predicted by other methods].
Simon Filiatrault (07:00:09) :
angular momentum (with respect to the invariant plane), so it should actually subtract in a vector sum of the system, but here it is added in the scalar sum
computing the scalar sum is meaningless.

John
December 30, 2009 8:05 am

The state of NASA solar science and analysis is on display.

Michael Larkin
December 30, 2009 8:05 am

Danimals:
“Would someone be kind and explain to me what the implication of this is on earth’s climate?”
see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
As I understand it, it could relate to Henrik Svensmark’s work. The idea is that particles in cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere provide the “seed nuclei” for clouds to form.
When the sun is in a period of relative inactivity, its magnetic field is weak, and when that’s the case, it is less effective in shielding the earth from charged cosmic particles. Hence, more clouds form, and so less heat from the sun gets through to warm the earth – resulting in global cooling.
However, when the sun is more active, its magnetic field deflects more cosmic particles and so less clouds form, and therefore more heat gets through. Sunspots are a sign of solar magnetic activity, hence the correlation between them and global warming.
Svensmark had a devil of a job raising funding to test his theory in the laboratory because it was hardly on-message in AGW terms, but eventually, he did, and demonstrated the effect experimentally. Now Cern is involved, are looking to test the theory on a much larger scale, and have much better funding to do that.
If I have any of this wrong, which is quite possible as I’m not an expert, doubtless someone will correct me, and I’d welcome that.

Galen Haugh
December 30, 2009 8:06 am

For a good explanation of how the sun (and the stars) influence Earth’s weather, go to YouTube and enter “The Cloud Mystery” and go through the six 10-minute videos (although I prefer the 7-video collage). That presentation discusses the way the sun’s sunspot maxima and minima control cosmic rays, which impacts Earth’s weather in an amazing way. It’s a bit technical but you can view it as many times as you want, getting more info with each view.
Think of it this way: Are clouds caused by climate, or is climate caused by clouds? The answer may surprise you (although the stubborness of the current AGWers to consider anything else other than CO2 probably won’t surprise you).

Galen Haugh
December 30, 2009 8:10 am

Jerry M (07:35:05) :
I’m probably way off base here, but, isn’t there a lag time between solar sunspots and world-wide temperature? Sort of like when the shortest day is Dec. 21, but it continues to get colder until Feb. 18 when the pace of the earth cooling matches the solar warming effects. What I’m saying is that we could be in for more cooling until 2012-2014 before a warmin uptrend begins to assert itself.
Just asking.
_____________
Jerry, I’m trying to find a paper put out recently by an insurance actuarialist who, having some time on his hands, applied his mathematical expertise to sunspot cycles and weather/temperature patterns and he found several things:
1) He was amazed with the correlation he saw (having worked just with health/life demographics for insurance estimates, typically his results are rather imprecise), and
2) He did indeed see a definite lag of about 2-3 years. So I’m expecting really cold weather to set in 2-3 years after the deep solar minimum which we may be in now, or it may not have happened quite yet.
Now I just have to find that reference.

Emmanuel from France
December 30, 2009 8:16 am

Ap (A – Index) : another day with zero.

pwl
December 30, 2009 8:18 am
December 30, 2009 8:26 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:59:22) :
The green curve has slowed its growth and begun to flatten, perhaps at the 800 level. If so, there are only three cycles since cycle 8 with a lower count.
correction: higher count. And lower cycle size.

danimals
December 30, 2009 8:30 am

To:
Leif Svalgaard (07:59:22)
and
Galen Haugh (08:06:01),
Hey guys, thanks a lot for taking the time for my question – it was splendid help and very appreciated!!
Dan
New Jersey, USA.

View from the Solent
December 30, 2009 8:30 am

We now have the opportunity to determine whether or not the Watts-effect conforms to P-symmetry. If violated, the sunspot numbers will continue to rise. If the effect conforms, the numbers will, um, decline.

AdderW
December 30, 2009 8:31 am

We urgently need a tax on sun spots now, to keep the numbers down.
Sun spot trading anyone?

December 30, 2009 8:43 am

Thanks, for keeping us informed about Earth’s real heat source – the Sun!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Jerry M
December 30, 2009 9:04 am

Steve, Tallblokes, Galen,
Thanks, all. This is what I love about this site – always learning something new every day.

Pascvaks
December 30, 2009 9:07 am

Ref – Leif Svalgaard (07:59:22) :
“We have almost complete daily coverage back to solar cycle 8 and can thus plot the number of spotless days during the minima between these cycles. To the extent that that count is a measure of the next cycle [and that is hypothetical, but not unreasonable as a large cycle during its rise would quickly squash the number of spotless days], one could use the rise of the accumulated count of spotless days during a minimum as a rough indicator of the size of the next cycle [as surmised e.g. by Jan Janssens http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html ]”
____________
Dr Svalgaard
After referring to your link (above), I went to your link at http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf and took another look at the Figure 2. illustration/graph of TSI during the Holocene. Are you seeing anything yet in solar activity that leads you to suspect that the trend in TSI will go below zero over the course of the next several solar cycles? Another minimum?

wayne
December 30, 2009 9:14 am

Some posters above have been queuing for some insight to the possible relation between sunspot counts and climate change. I have done a little low key research along these lines. This is using pre-1990 type of science, you know, old-school.
Over long periods of time, say decades, if an extremely low sunspot count average tends to result in a cooling earth and if an extremely high sunspot count average tends to result in a warmer earth, like 1940s to 2002, then there must be a point somewhere between these extremes where there is basically no change in the earth’s temperature at all. But what average sunspot count would that be? My research led to a count of somewhere between 44-47.
I came to this number by doing an eleven year boxed average over the sunspot counts from 1700 to 2009 to remove the sine component. This is the same as an eleven year moving average advanced 5.5 years into the future to allow peaks and valleys to coincide at the same year as an un-averaged graph points.
You can try it yourselves. Go to http://www.sidc.be/DATA/yearssn.dat to get years and yearly average sunspot numbers. Separate into column one and two on a spreadsheet. In new column, for each year, average that year plus the five year before and the five years following. Now plot years and the averages in column three. You can now view this chart not as a temperature anomaly but as a factor which forces the global temperature anomaly.
Make a fourth column. For each year take the average sunspot number in column three and subtract, let’s say 46 from it and multiply this difference by a tiny number, say 0.00025 and add it to the previous value of the year before. That is: =D(n-1) + (C(n) – 46)*0.00025 for each year in row n. Now plot years in column one by this anomaly in column four. Look familiar? That’s pretty close to your average chart you see when looking at the global temperature anomaly found all over the internet, roughly.
This seems to imply the sun’s influence on the global temperatures but correlation is not cause. However, the sun is our very major source of all energy input so in the old-school science, I would first want to prove this wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. The exact mechanism how the sun seems to exert 8-10 times the influence than is shown by irradiance variance is currently unknown. Some question the electric aspect via ions in solar wind. Some question the magnetic ties to the sun’s magnetic field. Neutrino flow would be a slimmer chance of influence and VERY hard to prove it, if any. These would, however, tend to explain why the other planets also have shown heating in the previous few decades. The clouds and water vapor are, of course, major players in heat retention and redistribution.
There’s a little insight into a far fetched relationship I stumbled upon.
By the way, the 0.00025, it’s units are (+/-) degrees / year / sunspot count in Celsius. Can account for ~0.00003 by irradiance. Real science will have to help here! This is just my best guess to the correct amount.
Yes, I know, there’s a hockey stick graph right in front of you now, strictly from the sun’s variability. Maybe AGW scientists had the anomaly correct but the cause wrong, the sun’s furnace, not 366 PPM of CO2.
A sample spreadsheet row 11: A is 1710.5, B is 3, C is =AVERAGE(B6:B16), D is =D10+(C11-46)*0.00025 .

wayne
December 30, 2009 9:17 am

By the way, 2009.5’s average sunspot count seems to end up 9.

wayne
December 30, 2009 9:30 am

Also, when you view that graph, keep in mind that major factors as El Nino, La Nina, PDO, AO, NAO etc can delay or advance this line for many years. The two major ways for the Earth to “hide” heat. On is to shove it deep in the oceans. The other is to absorb it in melting ice. To show “self heating” is the opposite. Seems these factors are why this graph doesn’t exactly follow the anomaly reconstructions.

December 30, 2009 9:42 am

The theory is that an active sun will block cosmic rays from entering earths atmosphere. An inactive sun will allow these cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere. Actually, this appears to be more than a theory, because there is correlation with causation. Cosmic rays can be accurately measured, and here is the chart since 1964.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/10/20&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/12/30&endtime=07:16&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
You can see that we have the highest amt of cosmic rays since measurements began. The increased cosmic rays are theorized to increase formation of lower clouds which block out the sun from warming our planet, thereby leading to possible global cooling.
The length of the sun cycle is theorized by many to be more important than the amt of sun spots.
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf
go to root directory for more papers.
Mean Montly Sunspots – scroll to bottom.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY

December 30, 2009 9:45 am

This slide show might spin your head around to how complex this situation is, with many, many variables and complex systems.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

December 30, 2009 9:50 am

Pascvaks (09:07:07) :
Are you seeing anything yet in solar activity that leads you to suspect that the trend in TSI will go below zero over the course of the next several solar cycles? Another minimum?
Solar activity is now back to where it was ~100 years ago, so I expect TSI [as the HMF] also to be back to the values that long ago. As solar activity can’t drop lower than zero, there is not much further decrease in TSI to expect. Low cycles often come in bunches, so a few low cycles in the coming years would be expected [but not certain, of course]. Whether one would name this a special ‘minimum’ is an arbitrary matter of taste. The Eddy Minimum has been suggested and sounds good to me. Another Maunder Minimum-style minimum is uncertain. One might surmise that if Livingston is right, that sunspots will become harder to see [but still be there] and that that might be an explanation of a Maunder Minimum-style low sunspot count. We know that cosmic ray modulation was still taking place during the MM so solar activity did not go away.

Robuk
December 30, 2009 9:50 am

You have to ask why they don`t run the old equipment alongside the modern, might it be they are trying to hide the decline.

Trev
December 30, 2009 10:04 am

Its surely not the case of their being a really cold winter. Yahoo!
Its understanding the real reason as to what causes whatever happens.
Clearly a cold winter is at odds with climate hysteria (ie ever onward and upward temperatures) – but understanding and proving why is important.
Personally I think the most important thing now is claiming independence and accessibility to the raw data and confirming its veracity (no matter what it might say). Then let anybody deal with it as they will.

December 30, 2009 10:06 am

Robuk (09:50:31) :
You have to ask why they don`t run the old equipment alongside the modern, might it be they are trying to hide the decline.
But they do, and it does not make any difference. Here is the telescope Wolf used: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Telescope.png and it is still being used by [amateurs] Friedli and Keller:
The sunspot-activity in the years 1976 – 1995.
Keller, H. U.; Friedli, T. K.
Mitt. Rudolf Wolf Ges., Jahrg. 3, Nr. 7, p. 1 – 46 (1996)
Abstract
The paper contains the last twenty years of sunspot relative and group numbers as observed by the standard observers M. Waldmeier, A. Zelenka and H. U. Keller in Zurich. Starting with January 1996 a new series of sunspot countings called Swiss Wolf Numbers RS will be initiated using standard observations made by T. K. Friedli at the original Fraunhofer Refractor used by Wolf and an international network of professional and amateur astronomers.

Calvin Ball
December 30, 2009 10:14 am

The Medieval Spotted Period is a myth!

jmrSudbury
December 30, 2009 10:19 am

Robert Jones (07:30:43) Here is the Dec 8, 2009 sunspot graph with the red prediction line from the NOAA:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
John M Reynolds

wmsc
December 30, 2009 10:25 am

Personally, I’d love to see the sunspot number go up, it’s highly annoying when band (HF radio) conditions just go completely to pot when the sun sets…
Given the fairly long period of inactivity, it would be interesting to see just how much the spots go towards influencing the effects on the atmosphere.
I’m not at all sure that humans should try to influence the climate, given normal laws, the Earth will seek it’s own balance. Why should the AGW crowd want to maintain a status quo pegged at some predetermined preindustrial date?

Pascvaks
December 30, 2009 10:30 am

Ref – Leif Svalgaard (10:06:34) :
“Robuk (09:50:31) :
You have to ask why they don`t run the old equipment alongside the modern, might it be they are trying to hide the decline.”
“But they do, and it does not make any difference. Here is the telescope Wolf used: ..”
__________________________
Outstanding! Surprised they don’t have in enclosed.

Frederick Michael
December 30, 2009 10:31 am

Galen Haugh (08:10:25) :
Jerry, I’m trying to find a paper put out recently by an insurance actuarialist who, having some time on his hands, applied his mathematical expertise to sunspot cycles and weather/temperature patterns and he found several things:
1) He was amazed with the correlation he saw (having worked just with health/life demographics for insurance estimates, typically his results are rather imprecise), and
2) He did indeed see a definite lag of about 2-3 years. So I’m expecting really cold weather to set in 2-3 years after the deep solar minimum which we may be in now, or it may not have happened quite yet.

There are many possible mechanisms for a lag:
1) The solar flux takes time to propagate out to the edges of the heliosphere. So, the deflection of cosmic rays lags behind “today’s” solar flux. Thus, the clouds look more like a moving average of a month or two of the solar flux.
2) The impact of the clouds on climate is, at best, on the first derivative of temperature. So, absolute temperature (being driven by the integral of clouds) lags.
3) However, there’s a complicating factor that could lead to huge lags. Clouds also have a warming effect. It’s a clear, cloudless night that gets the coldest. The effect of clouds on the poles is to slow both the summer melt and the winter freeze. Notice the deviations from the mean here:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Check previous years by clicking on the year on the left. Notice how recent years show the temperature not falling as quickly in the fall and not rising as quickly in the spring. This would, eventually lead to more ice forming than melting — the exact pattern during this solar minimum (which began just a bit too late to help the 2007 ice).
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Notice 2008 & 2009 in April & May. That’s really slow melt, which could be caused by all the clouds blocking the sun.
This mechanism could lead to very long term cumulative effects — yielding delays much larger than a couple of years. Increased clouds due to reduced solar flux could lead to a long-term buildup of Arctic ice which would only significantly impact global climate after many years of accumulation. This could explain why the coldest part of the Maunder minimum was near the end.

Jim Arndt
December 30, 2009 10:35 am

The high peaks are during times, when the Sun approaches the solar-system barycenter. At these times, the
Sun moves in the contrary (retrograde or highly inclined) direction for a short while, and has got a negative
angular momentum (with respect to the invariant plane), so it should actually subtract in a vector sum of the
system, but here it is added in the scalar sum (there is no negative scalar (absolute value or vector length)
“Simon Filiatrault (07:00:09) : angular momentum)…
The first derivation of angular momentum sum (fig. 78) only little matches the sun-spot cycle, but the highpeak
arround 1990 could be correlated with a drop of solar-flare activity at the middle of preceeding Sunspot
cycle 22, both peaks arround 1800 and 1990 having a damping effect on the Solar activity, possibly due to
effects of exchange between Sun orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum.
The “wave” of approximate period of 854 years, which could also probably be anti-correlated with Sun spin”
I would really like to know what inside the sun could cause this. What I mean are there physics involved? If so what type of physics or even the physical mechanism that can explain this statement. Thanks.

rbateman
December 30, 2009 10:39 am

Congratulation to Mr. & Mrs. North & South Solar Hemispheres. You have now reached a level of activity where the highest point is equal to the lowest point reached in 1996 (SC22-23). Adjusting for sunpore counting inflation, of course.
So, to all those remaing wary of the Sun’s activity bustin’ loose, there is the SC5 fiasco where it started to rise in 1798/99, then fell flat on it’s collective face for the next year.
Then there’s the solar cycle that started to rise, then disappeared entirely into the depths of the Maunder Minimum.
Ah, trends, you can’t live with ’em, and you can’t live without ’em.

Pascvaks
December 30, 2009 10:44 am

Ref – wmsc (10:25:36) :
“Why should the AGW crowd want to maintain a status quo pegged at some predetermined preindustrial date?”
___________________
Once read: ‘Humans evolved during and are the product of the Ice Age.’ If the paleologists, climatologists, etc. are right then we sure need to get used to warmer temps, no ice, and higher sea levels. Ice Ages don’t last long during the solar system’s trek around the MilkyWay. It’s kinda: Short Winter, Long Summer, Short Winter, Long Summer, or so I seem to recall. No real Autumn or Spring to speak of (unless one counts the rise and decent periods). I guess the AGW crowd will want to spend a lot of money to even out the Sun’s orbit and make everything nice and cool.

George S.
December 30, 2009 10:45 am

@AdderW (08:31:14) :
“We urgently need a tax on sun spots now, to keep the numbers down.
Sun spot trading anyone?”
Drats! You beat me to it.

joe
December 30, 2009 10:46 am

“This is depressing. These sunspots are going to warm the earth giving fuel to the warmers.”
Even so, it will be weaker than late 20th century activity. The next minimum will likely be as big; as the one we just went through. Also consider; this lower solar activity is happening along with negative PDO. So the overall trend will be cooling of the climate, at least for 2-3 decades.
Remember, late 20th century warming coincided with higher solar activity and positive PDO. Now the opposite is unfolding.
Let’s not forget, back in 2007 NASA was expecting solar cycle 24 to be a gigantic one. That’s when Al Gore came out with his movie and the infrastructure was set up ready to introduce Carbon trading schemes, soon as cycle 24 was to get kicking. Oh the irony!

JonesII
December 30, 2009 10:50 am

Don’t forget the Watts Effect!, it’s coming!, This post will surely provoke at least 6 months of a quiet sun.

wws
December 30, 2009 11:04 am

Dr. Svalgaard, I believe you correctly called the low point of the minimum long before anyone else that I know of did. If I recall correctly, you made the determination based on your F10.7 chart. I remember at the time not being sure that the turn you were seeing wasn’t just a random variation, but your interpretation was correct.Congratulations!
(and of course those scientists such as Hathaway who predicted the minimum was here each month until they got lucky and it happened hardly deserve notice)

December 30, 2009 11:05 am

The very long solar cycle 23 which is ended/ending, will cause a very weak solar cycle 24. The dye is cast, we will have 20 years of colder temperatures, no matter what happens in the short term.
2007, 2008, and 2009 are three of the top 20 years with the most days without sunspots since 1849, and with 2008 and 2009 being in the top five. solar activity in 2009 was over 85% less than expected in terms of sunspot production.
David Archibald’s and Joe D’Aleo’s work is impressive.

Ed Murphy
December 30, 2009 11:07 am

No electric power, no email, no Internet 30 Dec 09 – Here’s a great graph showing two different solar cycle 24 predictions (guesstimates) from NASA, the latest of which shows a less active sun … and ultimately, no electric power, no email, and no Internet.
See
http://www.iceagenow.com/No_electric_power_no_email_no_Internet.htm
Is this possible? Should it be taken seriously?

December 30, 2009 11:09 am

Frederick Michael (10:31:31) :
This mechanism could lead to very long term cumulative effects — yielding delays much larger than a couple of years. Increased clouds due to reduced solar flux could lead to a long-term buildup of Arctic ice which would only significantly impact global climate after many years of accumulation. This could explain why the coldest part of the Maunder minimum was near the end.

I thought it was colder before the Maunder Minimum than during it.

December 30, 2009 11:17 am

Jim Arndt (10:35:37) :
I would really like to know what inside the sun could cause this. What I mean are there physics involved? If so what type of physics or even the physical mechanism that can explain this statement.
There is no known mechanism for this, and the various proposals [spin-orbit coupling, tides, electric, magnetic, aliens, …] have no physical basis. The paper is marred by calculating the meaningless scalar sum of angular momenta.

December 30, 2009 11:19 am

wws (11:04:54) :
Dr. Svalgaard, I believe you correctly called the low point of the minimum long before anyone else that I know of did.
The NASA-NOAA panel [of which I’m a member] also called December 2008 as the minimum.

kwik
December 30, 2009 11:33 am

So what you guys are saying is;
-Svensmark & Co are on an upswing.
-The AGW flock will run into hiding until spring.
Then they will return, trying to put tax on soot and
methane?
Kind of when the berlin wall fell, all the socialists went
into temporary hiding…
What do you think?

December 30, 2009 11:33 am

Leif Svalgaard (11:19:58) :
wws (11:04:54) :
Dr. Svalgaard, I believe you correctly called the low point of the minimum long before anyone else that I know of did.
The NASA-NOAA panel [of which I’m a member] also called December 2008 as the minimum.

wayne
December 30, 2009 11:52 am

Simon Filiatrault (07:00:09)
When looking at the path of the sun about the solar systems barycenter, I know you think the sun must be somehow be affected by this malformed Spiro graph path it takes over the centuries. However, don’t you realize the sun is merely following the geodesic gravitational gradient and “feels” basically nothing? The core path of the sun is around the Sun-Jupiter barycenter and the non-aligned accelerations from the other eight planets are incredibly tiny and tend to cancel out to boot. Why would you follow this path thinking the sun’s relation about the solar system’s barycenter would somehow affect sunspots?

Steve J
December 30, 2009 11:59 am

This may be the beginning of the end? Hope so!
Maybe this new CO2-AGW litigation will go to SCOTUS and we can then prove that AGW is a fallacy.
And the lawyers really are not so smart after all, heck the TEAM is not that smart if they need to fake everything as they have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612150621257422.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

JMANON
December 30, 2009 12:11 pm

Now I am really impressed.
This could all be a bit confusing but I’ll try and sort it all out.
Our staring point is:
Anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.
The IPCC claims a consensus and Al Gore says so and who am I to question them.
There is even an accepted and established mechanism for this, the “greenhouse effect”.
Now its no good people pointing out any correlations between sunspot activity and climate, aurora activity and Nile floods, solar flares etc without showing a causal relationship.
Until some mechanism is found that links them all together, we cannot draw any conclusions.
But I’m really impressed, the correlations are very strong and if we follow through with the data it suggests that the current cooling is only temporary.
So, to borrow from the declaration that followed the acceptance of the global chilling data, this cooling is actually masking the full effect of global warming.
But, since we know that CO2 causes global warming and since CO2 is man made, and hence since global warming is unequivocally caused by mankind, it necessarily follows that if there is a causal link between these various activities that it must be that they are all also caused by CO2 and hence man is responsible for destabilising solar activity and planetary motions.
No other conclusion is possible.
I mean, we may suppose that there is a link between planetary motions and sun spot activity (which ought to make choosing the start and end of sun spot cycles much easier since you would define them from the planetary resonances and not but some arbitrary “pick a day” method, and then we could re-compute all solar activity cycles based on historical resonance data rather than arbitrary cycle start and end points just to see what it throws out).
We may also suppose there is some mechanism that links the earth’s climate to solar activity and hence to planetary motions.
But, since we already know that climate change is caused by CO2 then the only possible conclusion is that CO2 must also cause solar activity changes and planetary resonances which means we should now invest heavily in finding out how CO2 causes the planets to move as they do and how they can affect solar activity. I’m pretty sure that if President Obama and Gordon Brown throw enough taxpayers money into research, the physicists will find that just such a mechanism exists.
But damn, that’s gonna cause a hell of an increase in taxes.
(to be honest, I suspect that about the one and only thing definitively caused by anthropogenic CO2 is taxation).

Jim Arndt
December 30, 2009 12:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard (11:17:29)
There is no known mechanism for this, and the various proposals [spin-orbit coupling, tides, electric, magnetic, aliens, …] have no physical basis. The paper is marred by calculating the meaningless scalar sum of angular momenta.”

Leif that is why I asked the question because I knew it could not be answered a meaningful way to explain it.
I look at it as there are 9 planets and one of them is bound to correlate to something. Add the moon and we have cheese (with wine). Has anyone asked if the planets are controlled by to sun? Maybe that’s why there is the glimmer of a correlation, just as accurate to say the sun controls the planets as to the planets control the sun. LOL

AdderW
December 30, 2009 12:45 pm

Only problem I have with “cosmic rays” is that it sounds so “tinfoil hattish”.
Cosmic particles sounds a bit better (still out there) and is a bit more accurate I think.

George S. (10:45:32) :
@AdderW (08:31:14) :
“We urgently need a tax on sun spots now, to keep the numbers down.
Sun spot trading anyone?”
Drats! You beat me to it.

Feels good that 🙂

December 30, 2009 12:46 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (11:17:29) :
Jim Arndt (10:35:37) : ‘I would really like to know what inside the sun could cause this. What I mean are there physics involved? If so what type of physics or even the physical mechanism that can explain this statement.’
“There is no known mechanism for this, and the various proposals [spin-orbit coupling, tides, electric, magnetic, aliens, …] have no physical basis. The paper is marred by calculating the meaningless scalar sum of angular momenta.”
Leif, your statement is false. See:
1. Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144 (2009):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
2. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856 (2006);
or Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11 (2006)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Ronaldo
December 30, 2009 12:51 pm

Michael Larkin (08:05:48)
Danimals
For a very good exposition of this topic, see the in-house lecture given by Jasper Kirby of CERN
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists

Invariant
December 30, 2009 12:52 pm

Congratulations Dr. Svalgaard! Your brave predictions¹ came through once more! Happy New Year to you and your family!
Kind Regards,
Invariant in Norway!
¹Climate models are not predictions according to IPCC – the reason is that if they were, AGW would have been falsified long ago. I cannot think of a better modern example of good science than the testable predictions of Dr. Svalgaard. IPCC is Cargo Cult Science in action…

Invariant
December 30, 2009 12:53 pm

Congratulations Dr. Svalgaard! Your brave predictions¹ came true once more! Happy New Year to you and your family!
Kind Regards,
Invariant in Norway!
¹Climate models are not predictions according to IPCC – the reason is that if they were, AGW would have been falsified long ago. I cannot think of a better modern example of good science than the testable predictions of Dr. Svalgaard. IPCC is Cargo Cult Science in action…

AdderW
December 30, 2009 12:53 pm

Jim Arndt (12:32:13) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:17:29)
There is no known mechanism for this, and the various proposals [spin-orbit coupling, tides, electric, magnetic, aliens, …] have no physical basis. The paper is marred by calculating the meaningless scalar sum of angular momenta.”
Leif that is why I asked the question because I knew it could not be answered a meaningful way to explain it.
I look at it as there are 9 planets and one of them is bound to correlate to something. Add the moon and we have cheese (with wine). Has anyone asked if the planets are controlled by to sun? Maybe that’s why there is the glimmer of a correlation, just as accurate to say the sun controls the planets as to the planets control the sun. LOL

Sounds a bit like Euler’s three-body problem

December 30, 2009 12:57 pm

Quote: Jim Arndt (12:32:13)
Leif Svalgaard (11:17:29)
‘There is no known mechanism for this, . . . .’
“Leif that is why I asked the question . . .”
If the standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled sun were correct, Leif would be correct in stating that ‘There is no known mechanism for this, . . . .’
Fortunately precise experimental measurements showed several years ago
“Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410569v1
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

tallbloke
December 30, 2009 12:59 pm

Simon Filiatrault (07:00:09) :
According to this research there seems to be a link between Angular momentum of the planets and Solar cycles… Thus the climate.
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
Angular momentum sum of 9 planets and the Sun Scalar Sum
Leif Svalgaard (07:59:22) :
computing the scalar sum is meaningless.

I disagree with Leif, but since Anthony recently expressed his wish not to have these matters discussed on his blog, I’ve put up a post over at my place if anyone is interested in discussing this fascinating and important paper.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

DennisA
December 30, 2009 1:01 pm

wayne (09:30:54) : “The two major ways for the Earth to “hide” heat. On is to shove it deep in the oceans.”
Not according to Dr Robert Stevenson (deceased). He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987-1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. Writing in 2000 Dr Stevenson made this very unequivocal statement:
“Contrary to recent press reports (in 2000), that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.”
Dr Stevenson had reviewed the Levitus et al paper in 2000 and the full text of his article, complete with references, can be found here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
For 15 years, (in 2000) modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place.
Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.
The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.
Inland locations are less restrained by the oceans, so the surface air
experiences a wider temperature range than it does over the oceans. Land
cannot store heat for long, which is why hot days are quickly followed by cold nights in desert regions. For most of the Earth, however, the more dominant ocean temperatures fix the air temperature.
He concludes:
(1) For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven
decades, the Earth’s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no
net change;
(2) there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric
radiative forcing during that time, but there wasn’t. That must mean that a
suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the “greenhouse” impetus for
warming;implying, therefore,
(3) that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2;
indicating
(4) any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048°C/decade, that is, about 0.5°C this century, the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America, and China; suggesting
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100
meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of
0.5°C in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have
data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO,
decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
It is an example of an old fashioned “hands-on” scientist versus models. He also wrote this account of the early IPCC process,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/GobalWarmStevenson.pdf
A clearer full text version is here:
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/globwarm.htm#fig1

December 30, 2009 1:16 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (12:57:14) :
If the standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled sun were correct, Leif would be correct in stating that ‘There is no known mechanism for this, . . . .’
tallbloke (12:59:23) :
I disagree with Leif,
so tallbloke would have to subscribe to Oliver for their opinions to be consistent.
Olivers’s quote does not explain anything, one of them says nothing about this and the other one just says ‘there is nor doubt that …’
I think we have been down these roads before and they are all blind alleys.

December 30, 2009 1:27 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (12:57:14) :
If the standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled sun were correct, Leif would be correct in stating that ‘There is no known mechanism for this, . . . .’
In one of the ‘papers’, the following empirical formula is assumed to control the fractional abundance in the sun of elements with mass M relative to Hydrogen: f = (1/M)^4.56. Inserting M =1, 4, and 56, gives fractions for
Hydrogen f = 1
Helium f = 0.00179
Iron f = 0.0000000107 [I could have counted the number of zeroes wrongly, as there are so many]
These ideas are not even wrong.
REPLY: And here we are arguing the “iron sun” theory again. Everybody, please stop. – Anthony

wayne
December 30, 2009 1:44 pm

DennisA (13:01:16) :
Whoa. You took my statement to strong. I’m not say that it has happened at a certain time, especially currently. As you have shown there are studies addressing this, scientifically already researched. I was merely, using rough logic, saying that there are only two major places on Earth where huge amounts of heat can feasibly and quickly, over a year to a decades, be redistributed to and from. To a smaller degree the soil. Storage was perhaps the wrong word. We usually see fluxes in ocean oscillations and the growth and shrinkage of ice.
That’s all. Take that lightly please. Not meant as a statement for any particular period in the last 300 years. These fluxes do occur, like El Nino, and would warp the graph which I have explained how to make from annual Wolf sunspot number averages.

December 30, 2009 2:05 pm

I propose a tax on the Solar Magnetic Flux.
Then people can go around screaming: Flux Taxes!

Jimbo
December 30, 2009 2:23 pm

OT – but you need to know.
Antarctica related anger making stuff. All within the last 8 days!
Killing with kindess?
——-
“The British Antarctic Survey developed the 1.5g data logger built into a soft leg ring, after previous tags proved dangerous for the birds….Bands had been fitted to penguins’ flippers, but they affected flight and increased the chances of the birds dying, while metal or plastic rings fitted to their legs were causing cuts and sores. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/leicestershire/8434390.stm
——-
“Eco-tourists blamed for melting polar ice caps – Telegraph”
“Eco-tourists travelling to Antarctica are adding to global warming which is melting the polar ice caps, new research has found.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6865813/Eco-tourists-blamed-for-melting-polar-ice-caps.html

December 30, 2009 2:32 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (13:16:34) :
“so tallbloke would have to subscribe to Oliver for their opinions to be consistent.”
No Leif, tallbloke and I do not necessarily agree with each other. We not worship consensus science.
As Michael Craighton noted in his Michelin Lecture at Caltech on 17 January 2003:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

December 30, 2009 2:32 pm

Has anyone theorized about the effects of the cooling thermosphere and reduced ionization in the ionosphere on global climate?
It would seem that there would at least some effect of global electrical potential that could affect clouds of water vapor.

December 30, 2009 2:44 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (14:32:00) :
“The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
Makes you one of those, I take it 🙂
It is not about consensus, it is about making sense, and your stuff does not. You have not even once answered any of the specific questions I have asked you. Wondrous that Anthony puts up with this, but I guess that shows his great tolerance for fringe comments.

Michael
December 30, 2009 3:02 pm

If the sun had just restarted back up 2.5 years ago out of it’s minimum, the planet’s temperatures would have started going back up and we would have been screwed right now. The alarmists only needed the temps to stay flat to screw us, but the temps actually started going down. Now we are saved from more taxation and more control over our lives.

Brian Blagden
December 30, 2009 3:04 pm

From Jimbo (14:23:14) :
“The British Antarctic Survey developed the 1.5g data logger built into a soft leg ring, after previous tags proved dangerous for the birds….Bands had been fitted to penguins’ flippers, but they affected flight and increased the chances of the birds dying, while metal or plastic rings fitted to their legs were causing cuts and sores. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/leicestershire/8434390.stm
——-
Eh…! flying penguins! Wait…sorry…of course…that year on year increase in ice extent…how else were they expected to get from their breeding grounds to the open ocean…walk or something. Finally, a climate change induced evolutionary adaptation.

tallbloke
December 30, 2009 3:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:44:59) :
Chill dude, we mean no harm to your planet, and I have put up a post so we can discuss the matter off site in accordance with Anthony’s wishes. Come on over if you like, but no ad homs please, it’s a gentle blog for gentle people.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com

Frederick Michael
December 30, 2009 3:23 pm

Phil. (11:09:00) :
I thought it was colder before the Maunder Minimum than during it.

Hmmm. I stand corrected. (where did I get this idea anyway?)
The evidence is all over the map (literally). One plot show the lowest global temp right at the beginning of the Maunder Minimum. Nothing supports my previous statement that the lowest temp was at the end.
The solar activity graph near the bottom here is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

wakeupmaggy
December 30, 2009 3:28 pm

Jimbo (14:23:14) :
OT –
.Bands had been fitted to penguins’ flippers, but they affected flight and increased the chances of the birds dying
Duh, “flight” as in flying???? Did I miss something? HAHA, but maybe they meant escape from predators…

December 30, 2009 3:29 pm

tallbloke (15:21:29) :
Come on over if you like, but no ad homs please
I never post ad homs as you well know. But, I think the issue has been discussed at such length here already that there is no more meat on that horse. Perhaps Oliver can give you his imitation of a great scientist 🙂

Robuk
December 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:06:34) :
Robuk (09:50:31) :
You have to ask why they don`t run the old equipment alongside the modern, might it be they are trying to hide the decline.
But they do, and it does not make any difference.
Lief,
Just to be clear, can this referred to equipment (http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Telescope.png) see every speck that has been counted as a spot from 1995 to the present.

MattN
December 30, 2009 3:30 pm

So is #23 officially over? What was the length?

Zeke the Sneak
December 30, 2009 3:37 pm

Jim Cross (14:32:41) :
Has anyone theorized about the effects of the cooling thermosphere and reduced ionization in the ionosphere on global climate?
It would seem that there would at least some effect of global electrical potential that could affect clouds of water vapor.

The work of Dr. Brian A. Tinsley may be of interest to you:
“There are good correlations, on the day-to-day time scale, between the three solar wind – modulated inputs to Jz mentioned above and small changes in atmospheric temperature and dynamics. Dr. Tinsley has hypothesized that the atmospheric responses are due to changes in the electrical interactions between charged aerosol particles and droplets.”
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

Jimbo
December 30, 2009 3:38 pm

wakeupmaggy (15:28:38) :
Jimbo (14:23:14) :
OT –
.Bands had been fitted to penguins’ flippers, but they affected flight and increased the chances of the birds dying
“Duh, “flight” as in flying???? Did I miss something? HAHA, but maybe they meant escape from predators…”
————————————
Please note wakeupmaggy I quoted the BBC :o)

tallbloke
December 30, 2009 3:46 pm

Leif Svalgaard (15:29:50) :
Perhaps Oliver can give you his imitation of a great scientist
I never post ad homs as you well know.

Well if you accidentally post ad homs like that one on my blog, I’ll accidentally delete it for you. 🙂

Invariant
December 30, 2009 3:47 pm

With TSI constant equal 1366 ± 0.5 W/m² the last 300 years, I am not sure whether we can blame an increasing sun for the global warming since the little ice age. However, the good news is that a constant sun perfectly well can lead to global warming if the heat balance of our planet is not in equilibrium. We may argue that our planet never had any chance to reach equilibrium because of oscillations between:
1. day and night,
2. summer and winter,
3. ice ages and warmer periods.
Not to mention various volcanic activity and other unknown factors. The time required to heat or cool our oceans to balance the outgoing Stefan-Boltzmann radiation with the input from the sun may be substantial – maybe several hundred years. In this context the importance of the sunspots for our climate seems somewhat exaggerated – our climate can perfectly well oscillate alone, with our without them…

December 30, 2009 3:47 pm

I did not mean to start a debate with my post about the solar system mechanics and the sun (sun spots cycles). I simply mentioned it here to let people know that there maybe a link. Since the movement of our solar system around the galactic arms can affect long term climate cycles, I found the possible link between planetary cycles – sun spots cycles – and climate cycles, interesting.
I am no experts on those matters, but like many, I always have fun to make links.
I would have liked a bit more information from Leif Svalgaard why he thinks that link is “meaningless”. But I will still sleep fine if he does not.

Zeke the Sneak
December 30, 2009 3:51 pm

Exerpt: “Science, Politics and Global Warming” by Wallace Thornhill
‘The solar discharge has a very effective feedback system to maintain steady radiant output while the electrical power input varies. In fact, the solar radiant energy is termed a “solar constant,” which is critical to the AGW argument. However, no account is taken of the variable electrical power focused on the Sun but intercepted by the planets. The electrical connections have been traced from the Sun to the Earth’s magnetosphere; from the magnetosphere to the ionosphere; and from the ionosphere into weather systems. No one can claim to be “a climate expert” while ignorant of the electrical nature of the solar system. This common energy source explains the reports of simultaneous warming on other planets. The Sun’s galactic power source is the main driver of climatic variability. Human carbon emissions count for nothing in comparison.’
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

Jimbo
December 30, 2009 3:55 pm

In fact wakeupmaggy I’ll make you laugh some more. I used to work at the BBC over a decade ago and one of my managers in research proclaimed that dolphins were fish, while another researcher at my same level swore that spiders were insects. The honest truth. :o)
I have to admit I missed the penguin flight nonsense when quoting the BBC. That’s how good I was. :o(

December 30, 2009 3:55 pm

Robuk (15:29:51) :
Just to be clear, can this referred to equipment (http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Telescope.png) see every speck that has been counted as a spot from 1995 to the present.
Without actually having looked myself, I nevertheless think so [Frauenhofer’s refractors – although 200 years old – are still among the best]. Modern observers also use small telescopes [for obvious reasons]. The main difference with Wolf and modern counts is that Wolf deliberately did not count pores and specks. His assistant, Wolfer, disagreed and his opinion ‘won the day’ when Wolf died. To compensate for the overcount, Wolfer determined that modern counts should be reduced [by multiplying by 0.6] to match Wolf’s scale. For example, if there is exactly one spot visible, the Wolf number will be W = 10*1 + 1 = 11, which will be reported by SIDC as 11*0.6 = 7, but by SWPC [Boulder] as 11 [as they do not try to replicate Wolf’s series]. You can see the difference at the bottom of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png where the green curve is the SWPC number and the little black specks the SIDC numbers.
MattN (15:30:02) :
So is #23 officially over? What was the length?
The length is kind of meaningless as the cycle starts before the ‘minimum’ and ends after it. But if you ignore reason and just blindly want a number I would say 12 1/3 years.

EricH
December 30, 2009 3:58 pm

Is the sun spot count inclusive or exclusive of sales tax:-)

December 30, 2009 4:24 pm

Leif Svalgaard (11:33:45) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:19:58) :
wws (11:04:54) :
Dr. Svalgaard, I believe you correctly called the low point of the minimum long before anyone else that I know of did.
The NASA-NOAA panel [of which I’m a member] also called December 2008 as the minimum.

Actually Leif predicted the low point of the minimum to be Aug 2008….surprised he did not correct wws’s statement?
There is a long way to go before the SSN reaches 50, the SIDC report is the one to watch for at the end of the month and then the Layman’s Count soon after. The Layman’s count is the only count that compares apples with apples.
It is interesting that some are now conceding a grand minimum could be in the making. Also interesting that the Babcock believers have no answer for two low cycles that usually go together during grand minima…..the “crap shoot” logic obviously failing.

Jimbo
December 30, 2009 4:25 pm

Anthony should quickly put up a post titled:
“BBC says that penguins can fly! << Watts Up With That?"
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/leicestershire/8434390.stm
————–
Good night all and a happy new year. Good luck Anthony for 2010 and keep up the hard work; still a long way to go before the finishing post I suspect. :0)

wakeupmaggy
December 30, 2009 4:34 pm

Jimbo,
Sorry, I thought you saw it too, didn’t mean to skip the quotations and link to make you look as stupid as the BBC.
I tried really hard to imagine a penguin flying, before I posted something stupid, AND off topic, thinking surely there must be some species in the antecatarctical zonio of which I wasn’t aware, or that I’m senile.
Thanks for the humor:)
.”Bands had been fitted to penguins’ flippers, but they affected flight and increased the chances of the birds dying, while metal or plastic rings fitted to their legs were causing cuts and sores. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/leicestershire/8434390.stm

littlepeaks
December 30, 2009 4:38 pm

I think a good measure of when things get going in this sunspot cycle would be the appearance of M-Class or higher flares. I believe the highest X-Ray flares, so far, were only around C-5, or so.

JonesII
December 30, 2009 5:00 pm

Zeke the Sneak (15:51:36) : Hey Zeke, you are risking to being taken to the Inquisition. You know Inquisition means “questioning” but with much more effective methods….Or you´ll be condemned by a convenient “peer reviewing”, or anatemized by the Lord of Darkness himself!
The trouble with the theory you mention is that it is really a “key” to understand the universe and that is extremely blasphemous, it would debunk astrophysics like in a climate-gate process. Try to be respectful with the sacrosant and holy church of the settled and ex-chatedra science and its representatives on this world.

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 30, 2009 5:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:44:59) : Wondrous that Anthony puts up with this, but I guess that shows his great tolerance for fringe comments.
Sometimes grabbing a salty sour pickle makes you appreciate that Merlot and Brie so much more 😉
But seriously, I do think that ‘fringe discussions’ are interesting precisely because they add some unexpected spice to the pot luck. Yes, sometimes the unexpected Jalapeno can be a bit vexing, but at other times one may be looking for something to shake up their comfortable predictable day…

December 30, 2009 5:43 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:44:59) : Wondrous that Anthony puts up with this, but I guess that shows his great tolerance for fringe comments.
This is reminiscent of the CRU emails, trying to oppress opposing views so that only yours is left.
REPLY: Oh that does it. Here’s your posts all over this thread and many others and you say this? I suggest you apologize before you post another single comment. You have your own blog, and as I’ve indicated, you should discuss these topics there. – Anthony

Mark
December 30, 2009 5:51 pm

Not to worry!!! Apparently Al Gore will be visiting the Sun this weekend so we won’t be seeing any more sun spots for a while!!

Pascvaks
December 30, 2009 5:57 pm

Ref – E.M.Smith (17:07:56) :
“Sometimes grabbing a salty sour pickle makes you appreciate that Merlot and Brie so much more ;-)… Yes, sometimes the unexpected Jalapeno can be a bit vexing, but at other times one may be looking for something to shake up their comfortable predictable day…”
___________
Me thinks thee thinks too much of thyself and not enough of those in the room with ye

December 30, 2009 6:00 pm

Zeke
I’ve read some of Tinsley’s papers recently so I am still educating myself about the topic.
It seems like the main focus of this research is in using the global atmospheric energy as a sort of global thermometer with the energy driving it being generated primarily by the heating in the lower atmosphere. However, I am talking more about a top down approach where reduced energy in the upper atmosphere affects clouds, water vapor, and eventually temperature in the lower.
Of course, all of that may already be in the research but I seldom see it talked about on the climate blogs I follow. It may be there but, as I said, I am just starting to looking at it myself.

TitiXXXX
December 30, 2009 6:20 pm

for those interested in the sun stuff and with much much more knowledge than me, NASA propose an innocentive challenge to forecast Solar Particle Event
” NASA Challenge: Data-Driven Forecasting of Solar Events
Challenge Reward: $30,000 USD Challenge Type: RTP INNOCENTIVE 9059496
Forecasting solar activity is important for future manned and unmanned exploration of the solar system. The Seeker wishes to develop the ability to forecast the occurrence of a Solar Particle Event (SPE) within a select window in time. Methods must make use of current real-time space weather measurements and/or archived space weather data. ”
http://gw.innocentive.com/ar/disciplineSearch?challenge-order-by=desc&challenge-sort-by=postedDate&viewMode=abstract&challenge-search-text=9059496

December 30, 2009 6:24 pm

Anthony,
I have nothing to apologize for. You have stated that certain area’s of science are off limits here and Leif is encouraging you to keep it that way. The same thing happened over at solarcycle24.
It is your prerogative to not include certain area’s of science but I find that non scientific. I have kept my views subdued according to your wishes but find it difficult when one scientist tries to silence opposing views. Havent you noticed the Leif clashes violently with every other scientist that has made an appearance here?
The big picture needs to be looked at in my opinion.
REPLY: Well then I guess it is goodbye. You have your own blog where you can discuss the issues that interest you to your heart’s content, and since you refuse to abide by my wishes here in my “home on the internet”, or even to apologize for failing to do so, I’m going to show this unruly guest the door. The decision is mine, Leif is not involved in my making this decision. I’m simply tired of asking again and again to limit these discussions. I’ve asked nicely, and have been ignored, then see others insulted with an accusation that you refuse to apologize for. Had your chance, goodbye. – Anthony

David Alan
December 30, 2009 6:58 pm

/hyperbole on
The recent burst of sunspots shall soon subside. Come mid-January we should see four or five months of near non-activity, followed by a gradual upwelling of activity for a year, culminating in sunspot numbers averaging around 40 come June of 2011 and maintaining a sunspot number between 40 and 50 for 18 months or so, only to dip slightly near or below 10 during the spring of 2013.
What does this mean for us here on Earth ? Absolutely nothing. What we should consider is what are we going to do come 2016 through 2035.
The threat of global cooling will greatly effect us more than anything the alarmists of AGW could ever imagine.
I felt it was a bit necessary to go over the top to help remind many of you wishing to bicker about subjectivity that there is larger more pressing matters than your opinions on your understanding of science and our need to set aside differences of opinion and collaborate together to predict with certainty the future of our planet and the responsibility we have to prepare for 50 or so years of declining temperatures.
There are scientists among us now that should disregard the pseudo-scientists baits and traps and start laying out guidelines for us to follow if we are to overcome what our sun is challenging us with.
Time to educate is over and the time to lead is now.
/hyperbole off

December 30, 2009 7:01 pm

Well then I guess it is goodbye
Looks like I was right when I coined the phrase “AnthonyGate” your censorship is no different to what we see at Realclimate.
History will judge you. Another sad day for science, it would have been smarter to take up my suggestion months ago of a special one off ongoing thread where these issues could be dealt with…without interfering with the rest of your blog. Open science would have been the benefactor.
Having said that I have always appreciated the marvelous work you have done with the fight against AGW…its a pity you dont you see my quest in the same light.
REPLY: All you had to do was apologize. You missed the important cue of knowing when not to pushback.
Actually my actions are a lot different than that of RealClimate, they’ll simply delete your comments (yours are still intact here) whereas I’ve asked nicely, many times, that I don’t wish to discuss these topics. And, they have been discussed here again and again. In fact, WUWT has 1470 comments with your name attached to it. See a screencap of the search result:
Geoff's comment count
Quite a volume of “censorship” eh?
I’ve said to you repeatedly that I don’t want to discuss these issues on my blog. You have your own websites, discuss them there in open science or under any other structure you wish, but I don’t want the discussions here. The fact that you continually push the topic despite my wishes, and then resort to accusative ad homs when for the umteenth time I say “please stop”, says much. I’m simply tired of it.
If history judges me badly so be it. Feel free to add “Barycentric denier” to the list of ugly labels people apply to me.
For any readers that wish to discuss Barycentrism, iron sun theory, and the electric universe please go to Geoff’s websites:
http://landscheidt.wordpress.com
http://landscheidt.info
The way I see it, if these theories have merit, you should be able to gather a following there, but I’m done with the thread hijacking and traffic freeloading here. Time to spread your wings and fly on your own. I wish good luck to you.
– Anthony

Zeke the Sneak
December 30, 2009 7:02 pm

JonesII (17:00:10) :
Zeke the Sneak (15:51:36) : Hey Zeke, you are risking to being taken to the Inquisition.

Nah – “Science, Politics and Global Warming” makes its own case so aptly you can just post it and take the rest of the night off! 🙂
I thought others might enjoy an engaging discussion about Copenhagen, science, the media, the leaked emails, weather on other planets, and earth in its space environment and how that potentially drives climate.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

AnonyMoose
December 30, 2009 7:21 pm

If this linear trend continues, by June 2020 the Sun will be entire covered with sunspots.

danimals
December 30, 2009 7:25 pm

Ronaldo (12:51:09),
Thanks for the link!
THis whole thread has been interesting, though it will take some time to digest.

danimals
December 30, 2009 7:33 pm

Michael Larkin (08:05:48),
Sorry – I actually meant to thank you instead at (08:30:28). Thanks for taking the time Michael, I appreciate it!

December 30, 2009 8:05 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:27:25) :
“In one of the ‘papers’, the following empirical formula is assumed to control the fractional abundance in the sun of elements with mass M relative to Hydrogen:
f = (1/M)^4.56
Inserting M =1, 4, and 56, gives fractions for
Hydrogen f = 1
Helium f = 0.00179
Iron f = 0.0000000107
[I could have counted the number of zeroes wrongly, as there are so many]”
Leif, the formula [ f = (1/M)^4.56 ] is defined by measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind.
You confused fractional abundance with mass fractionation effects.
You can see the mass fractionation effects here:
Surface: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
Interior: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

December 30, 2009 9:03 pm

tallbloke (15:46:44) :
Well if you accidentally post ad homs like that one on my blog, I’ll accidentally delete it for you. 🙂
You should pay attention to smileys [and not remove them when you quote something in your zeal to something look bad].
Invariant (15:47:05) :
With TSI constant equal 1366 ± 0.5 W/m² the last 300 years, I am not sure whether we can blame an increasing sun for the global warming since the little ice age.
Jack Eddy is often mentioned as the scientist that suggested that solar activity was a major driver of climate [Maunder Minimum vs. today]. I just received Jack’s book [ISBN 978-0-16-08808-8; The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space, NASA 2009, which he finished just before hos death] from his widow Barbara. On the last full page he writes: “Thus solar forcing of surface temperature is for now relegated to a secondary, second-order effect in terms of its impact on present trends in surface temperature. Any claim that the accelerated global heating of the past 60 years can be attributed to a changing Sun – thus conveniently absolving ourselves of any guilt in the matter – is clearly wishful thinking”. This matches what he said in his after-dinner talk at the 2003 SORCE meeting.
Simon Filiatrault (15:47:22) :
I would have liked a bit more information from Leif Svalgaard why he thinks that link is “meaningless”. But I will still sleep fine if he does not.
A significant part of the link deals with the ‘scalar sum’ of angular momenta. Since AM is a vector the scalar sum is meaningless.
Zeke the Sneak (15:51:36) :
The Sun’s galactic power source is the main driver of climatic variability.
is complete New-Age nonsense.
Geoff Sharp (16:24:21) :
Also interesting that the Babcock believers have no answer for two low cycles that usually go together during grand minima…..the “crap shoot” logic obviously failing.
It is a standard feature of B&L that ‘on average’ the polar fields should be a reflection of the cycle that makes them, so a small cycle means weak polar fields and hence a weak next cycle. Because there is enough randomness in the system, this rule is eventually broken and a large polar field results, leading to several large cycles, until a weak polar field again by accident arises, etc.
It is OK to criticize B&L, but you need to grasp what the theory says and predicts before shooting your mouth off.
E.M.Smith (17:07:56) :
But seriously, I do think that ‘fringe discussions’ are interesting precisely because they add some unexpected spice to the pot luck.
That would be so if they made at least a modicum of sense. otherwise they are time wasters.
Anthony Watts (19:05:03) :
Leif can you tell me when this plot was last updated?
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
No time stamp so I have to ask.

The plot is always up to date [so has no stamp], but is subject to data gaps when Livingston does not have telescope time. The abscissa is time. The last observation was on December 16th, 2009. Next will be around January 24th, 2010. We will have to do with a statistical sampling like this until the ‘powers that be’ are comvinced that Bill should have some priority. You might try to address his boss: Mike Giampapa at mgiampapa@noao.edu to plead.
Oliver K. Manuel (20:05:03) :
Leif, the formula [ f = (1/M)^4.56 ] is defined by measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind.
You confused fractional abundance with mass fractionation effects.

In your paper you say that the formula gives the fractional abundance within the Sun.
You can [Anthony allowing] state HERE how the Hydrogen abundance deep in the Sun is calculated from your formula.

Jim Arndt
December 30, 2009 9:42 pm

I could be completely wrong but if the core of a star has too much of the heavy elements (iron) the star becomes unstable and novas or super novas. This is what happens when star get old.

Richard
December 30, 2009 9:53 pm

A “new” NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe.
It was new in 2001.
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,” Shindell said. “The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases,” he added.
Indeed. There was no Maunder Minimum in 2001, quite the opposite. But the sun may indeed have had an impact by making things warmer, and greenhouse gasses could possibly be just the secondary factor.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html

December 30, 2009 9:58 pm

Richard (21:53:39) :
A “new” NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe.
The Rindell model run used the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI-reconstruction and is thus invalid anyway.

December 30, 2009 9:59 pm

Jim Arndt (21:42:25) :
I could be completely wrong but if the core of a star has too much of the heavy elements (iron) the star becomes unstable and novas or super novas. This is what happens when star get old.
But only in stars much more massive than the Sun.

December 30, 2009 10:51 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :
quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (20:05:03) :
‘Leif, the formula [ f = (1/M)^4.56 ] is defined by measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind.
You confused fractional abundance with mass fractionation effects.’
“In your paper you say that the formula gives the fractional abundance within the Sun.
You can [Anthony allowing] state HERE how the Hydrogen abundance deep in the Sun is calculated from your formula.”
Leif, element abundances in the Sun correlate with nuclear stability [See “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy” Paper #1041, 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001].
These four graphs based on experimental measurements communicate the idea better than words:
1. Solar surface: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
2. Mass Fractionation: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig2.htm
3. Solar Interior (Based on fractionated isotopes in the solar wind)
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
4. Solar interior (Based on fractionated s-products in the photosphere)
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig4.htm
Best wishes to all for the New Year!
Oliver K. Manuel

anna v
December 30, 2009 11:01 pm

E.M.Smith (17:07:56) :
“Leif Svalgaard (14:44:59) : Wondrous that Anthony puts up with this, but I guess that shows his great tolerance for fringe comments.”
……….
Yes, sometimes the unexpected Jalapeno can be a bit vexing, but at other times one may be looking for something to shake up their comfortable predictable day…

Notice the difference. The salad maker knows that the jalapeno is there and it is a jalapeno, not avocado.
I also am intrigued by out of the box thinking theories, and agree they are fun. They should be though, in a scientific discussion, adhering to the very basic tenets of known physics: energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation. Once they have been demonstrated to violate these basic requirements, and barycentrinc theories of climate and sun control do that, we are talking of science fiction, and this is not the point of this blog.
I would also once again want to make the general comment that in addition to the “correlation is not causation” comment there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable (at least with computer models : ) ). All clocks will show correlations in periodic functions, by construction. The moon is a clock, the earth is a clock, the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations. When one gets the chaotic periodic behavior of sunspots, or PDO or etc. and finds correlations with one clock, there will be correlations with all clocks.
One has to find the physical forces entering to determine what is causative and what is simple correlation because of this inherent property of gravitational systems to be clocks.
And maybe the periodicities seen are chaotic, as Tsonis et al have shown for climate a while ago anyway, and no new physical forces are needed to explain them and it is just coincidence that some peaks and troughs are timed by the giant planetary clocks .

December 30, 2009 11:11 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (22:51:07) :
These four graphs based on experimental measurements communicate the idea better than words
No, they do not. They say nothing about the solar interior. This is now the tenth time I ask you to explain this. The nuclear stability is relevant for the processes that take place in a supernova, but does not establish what the Sun consists of. The sequence of events is that Hydrogen burning is followed by Helium burning, Carbon burning, Oxygen burning, etc. up to Iron, there the regular process stops. Other processes creates the other heavy elements, but Hydrogen, Helium, and Deuterium are primordial.

December 30, 2009 11:16 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (22:51:07) :
These four graphs based on experimental measurements communicate the idea better than words
As the Figures show, they apply [if we assume for a moment that they make sense] to amu greater than 3 and therefore not to Hydrogen. Explain HERE why Hydrogen [and Deuterium] become deficient.

Clive E Burkland
December 30, 2009 11:17 pm

Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :
“It is a standard feature of B&L that ‘on average’ the polar fields should be a reflection of the cycle that makes them, so a small cycle means weak polar fields and hence a weak next cycle. Because there is enough randomness in the system, this rule is eventually broken and a large polar field results, leading to several large cycles, until a weak polar field again by accident arises, etc.”
This logic falls apart when looking at SC20 and the high cycles that surround it.
I still think this area of science is in its infancy.

December 30, 2009 11:28 pm

Clive E Burkland (23:17:36) :
This logic falls apart when looking at SC20 and the high cycles that surround it.
No, there is nothing in the logic that says that there must be several low or several high cycles in a row. It could equally well happen that there is only one. The point is that the creation of the polar fields is essentially a stochastic process and any number of successive cycles could be small [but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses.
To give you a feeling for the process, note that the polar fields correspond t6o the magnetic flux of only a few [on the order of three] active regions. With such a small number, it could equally well be two or four.
You can see this process in action here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/smag.jpg
Note the blue and red ‘tongues’ of magnetic flux that make it to the poles.

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 3:37 am

anna v (23:01:11) :
I also am intrigued by out of the box thinking theories, and agree they are fun. They should be though, in a scientific discussion, adhering to the very basic tenets of known physics: energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation. Once they have been demonstrated to violate these basic requirements, and barycentrinc theories of climate and sun control do that, we are talking of science fiction

There is an ongoing effort to scour the available data for confirmation of the underlying mechanisms for which there are viable hypotheses, as yet untested. Without trying to imply I’m in his league, I understand how Henrik Svensmark feels waiting for CERN to conduct the cloud experiment.
there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable …the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations.
No they don’t. The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses. This is known physics. The current best guess is that the solar system has settled down to a beat wherein the planetary motions are chaotic, but mostly within bounds which greatly reduce (but do not eliminate) the chance of a collision between major bodies. If you are going to extrapolate in order to attempt a disproof of something (as if that were possible!), you should at least make sure you have your premises correct.
Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :
tallbloke (15:46:44) :
Well if you accidentally post ad homs like that one on my blog, I’ll accidentally delete it for you. 🙂
You should pay attention to smileys [and not remove them when you quote something in your zeal to something look bad].

I bear you no ill will and have no need or desire to make anyone look bad.
The other comments you have made about Oliver Manuel on this blog would have made your comment look bad even if the smiley had gold teeth in and wore a party hat. The hands you are in are your very own.
Now, let’s talk sunspots and future solar activity.
The prediction I made using readily available data seems to be panning out quite well so far. This is one of the tests of real science, can a theory make successful predictions?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ap-prediction.gif
Too early to tell for my models, but at least they are not already falsified. If they stay on course, maybe then people will get more interested in our ideas about what modulates solar surface activity.
Thanks Anthony for your forbearance, and adherence to the right of free speech and the right to reply. I will continue do my best to keep replies on this topic to a minimum.

December 31, 2009 5:23 am

but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses
I know you know better. But for those who don’t.
In the very unlikely event that you toss 345 heads in a row what are the odds that your next coin flip will be heads? 1/2. What you can say is that your NEXT 345 tosses are very likely to average very close to 1/2 heads.
In systems which tend to return to a value, ten heads in a row may well increase your chances that the eleventh will be tails. But then the tosses are not independent.

December 31, 2009 5:35 am

I would have liked a bit more information from Leif Svalgaard why he thinks that link is “meaningless”. But I will still sleep fine if he does not.
==
A significant part of the link deals with the ’scalar sum’ of angular momenta. Since AM is a vector the scalar sum is meaningless.

Think of it this way. Pick a spot in the center of the USA. Kansas City will do fine. Go 100 miles due north and then 100 miles due south (vectors). The question is: what is more important? Is the distance traveled (200 miles) more important than where you wind up (back where you started)?
I’m with Lief. Why is the distance traveled important? What does it tell you?

John Whitman
December 31, 2009 5:44 am

Anthony,
I love these solar posts. To me it is like being back in undergraduate physics classes (40 yrs ago).
Keep them coming.
And Prof Svalgaard, please keep coming back and keep actively participating.
John

gary gulrud
December 31, 2009 5:45 am

“If the past two years have taught us anything, however, it is that the sun can be tricky and unpredictable.”
Indeed.

anna v
December 31, 2009 6:34 am

tallbloke (03:37:12) :
anna v (23:01:11) :
“there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable …the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations.”
No they don’t. The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses. This is known physics. The current best guess is that the solar system has settled down to a beat wherein the planetary motions are chaotic, but mostly within bounds which greatly reduce (but do not eliminate) the chance of a collision between major bodies. If you are going to extrapolate in order to attempt a disproof of something (as if that were possible!), you should at least make sure you have your premises correct.

I would appreciate a link to this claim.
It is true that the solar system is a many body problem even though the equations controlling it are known, but chaotic? The equations have been programmed both in analogue ( planetaria) and in computers so I think the claim far fetched but am open to convincing.
Nevertheless each individual planet is a clock and certainly their combined motion will be a clock too. Clock: a method of counting time.

Carla
December 31, 2009 7:02 am

Clive E Burkland (23:17:36) :
I still think this area of science is in its infancy.
~
More like the young adult period. Plenty of solar information, just missing the ‘combination’ link.
Wishing us all a safe and good New Year.
Thanks to Anthony for his hard work and dedication to this blog.
Not planning on a big hoopla this evening, just me and a nephew or two enjoying a few libations. But you never know. The roof has been raised many times before on this old basement bar room. So…I am going to plead the 5th now, just in case my foot lands in my mouth.

December 31, 2009 7:34 am

M. Simon (05:23:31) :
“but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses”
I know you know better. But for those who don’t.

Yeah, I put this clumsily. What I meant was that the a priori chances of getting a string of heads go down. e.g. the chances that I’ll get five in a row are smaller than getting four, etc.
tallbloke (03:37:12) :
The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses.
The ultimate course doesn’t matter. On time scales that we are talking about [even millions of years], the planets are good clocks.
Now, let’s talk sunspots and future solar activity.
The prediction I made using readily available data seems to be panning out quite well so far. This is one of the tests of real science, can a theory make successful predictions?

Not really. It must also make sense. There is tribe in darkest Africa that have a theory that beating tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. So far their theory has never failed. Or, take another example: on page 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf there are 75 predictions. One of those will be right on the money. This does not mean that that method is necessarily any better than neighboring methods. Only if your successful prediction is discordant with all other predictions does its success support your theory.

Invariant
December 31, 2009 7:52 am

Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) : Any claim that the accelerated global heating of the past 60 years can be attributed to a changing Sun
Did he write anything about the reasons for global warming between 1700 and 1950?

No other comment
December 31, 2009 8:16 am

Invariant (07:52:05) :
“Did he write anything about the reasons for global warming between 1700 and 1950?”
Jack Eddy’s temp.chart
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif

December 31, 2009 8:18 am

Invariant (07:52:05) :
Did he write anything about the reasons for global warming between 1700 and 1950?
His book is about the Sun and its influence and he is – understandably – vague on what else might have caused this. AGW is a possibility that he does not discount. He was chair of a NASA task force studying this a few years back, and his book basically reflects the view of that study: http://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/TRT_SunClimate.pdf

Basil
Editor
December 31, 2009 8:18 am

M. Simon (05:23:31) :
but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses
I know you know better. But for those who don’t.

It is unlike Leif to make a simple mistake like this, so I anticipate an explanation.
It may go like this. With each coin toss, the probability of heads and tails is 1/2. But what is the probability of three heads in a row, versus, say two in a row? The probabilities are combinatorial, so that the probability of three heads in a row is 1/2×1/2×1/2, or 1 in 8, where is the probability of two heads in a row is 1/2×1/2, or 1 in 4.

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 8:19 am

anna v (06:34:01) :
I would appreciate a link to this claim.
It is true that the solar system is a many body problem even though the equations controlling it are known, but chaotic? The equations have been programmed both in analogue ( planetaria) and in computers so I think the claim far fetched but am open to convincing.

Nevertheless each individual planet is a clock and certainly their combined motion will be a clock too. Clock: a method of counting time.

You don’t need to go any further than the most accurate ephemeris available on the net at JPL. They calculate their data from equations which they then modify with various ‘epicycles’ which are it total pretty thorough, but don’t reduce to some nice Newtonian complete formula for a neat clockwork cosmos.
As for each individual planet being a clock, the quasi-chaotic variations in length of day measurements should tell you that these ‘clocks’ are affected by the ‘many body problem’ in several ways. It is the correlation I discovered between changes in Earth’s length of day and the changes in the z-axis solar equatorial – solar system barycentre relative distance caused mainly by the motion of the gas giant planets which has spurred my research, because those motions also correlate with solar surface behaviour. I appreciate that correlation is not causation, but the probabilities that these things are coincidence is vanishingly small, so they hint that there is an underlying principle.
So you can think of the solar system as a clock if you like, but I contend that it’s a far more complex and inter-related clock than you suppose.
One thing I want to leave you with is this; you said that all things to be considered a valid part of scientific debate have to fit in with Newtonian conceptions such as angular momentum, energy, mass etc. But at the end of the C17th Newtonian physics was at a loss to determine the orbit of planetoid Ceres accurately.
The problem was solved by Gauss, and he didn’t use any of the ‘fundamental quantities of physics’ to do it. He used Keplerian concepts of proportion, resonance, and harmonious motion. I highly recommend this article to you:
http://wlym.com/~animations/ceres/index.html – click on ‘the Kepler problem’, have a read, then come and discuss it if you like. You are welcome.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
– Shakespeare-

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 8:20 am

Please could a mod fix my italic tags and delete this. – Thanks.
REPLY: Fixed – Anthony

December 31, 2009 8:27 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:18:03) :
his book basically reflects the view of that study
I forgot to mention one thing that has changed [also in Eddy’s mind], namely the large variation of TSI shown by the red curve in Figure 3. Modern reconstructions of TSI do not show this large change: the reconstructions seem to converge on the blue curve which shows negligible long-term trend.

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 8:35 am

Thanks Anthony.
I was quoting Anna as far as “Clock: a method of counting time.”
But not to worry.
REPLY: Fixed again – there wasn’t enough context in your initial request for me to know what you expected quoted. the closing tag was after Shakespeare so it seemed the logical choice. -A

December 31, 2009 8:37 am

tallbloke (08:19:20) :
I appreciate that correlation is not causation, but the probabilities that these things are coincidence is vanishingly small, so they hint that there is an underlying principle.
You confuse a priori and a posteriori probability. The chance that I will get a given hand in Bridge is extremely small – 1 in 635013559600 – [a priori], but once I have gotten a hand [a posteriori] the probability is one. In other words, if you spot a correlation [having looked around a lot – some people call that ‘research’] you are closer to the a posteriori case. If you make a prediction [without knowing in advance what the data looks like] and it is borne out you have an a priori case.

December 31, 2009 8:37 am

1. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (23:11:52) :
“Other processes creates the other heavy elements, but Hydrogen, Helium, and Deuterium are primordial.”
No. Deuterium (H-2) is made primarily by spallation reactions in the outer part of a star. Deuterium, Li, Be and B are produced by a process that B2FH called the x-process.
Deuterium (H-2), Li, Be and B have very low nuclear stability, i.e., their nucleons are very loosely bound. Inside a star, they would be quickly consumed by fusion. Readers be aware that Deuterium (H-2) and Li are therefore used in the production of thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs).
Fowler, Greenstein and Hoyle were keenly aware of the low nuclear stability of these nuclei when they suggested local synthesis of D, Li, Be and B in 1961 [“Deuteronomy. Synthesis of deuterons and light nuclei during the early history of the Solar System”, American Journal of Physics 29 (1961) 393-403].
Later Dr. D. D. Sabu and I proposed that other elements were also made by local element synthesis [“Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements”, Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci. 9 (1975) 104-122; “Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-209].
2. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (23:16:40) :
“As the Figures show, they apply [if we assume for a moment that they make sense] to amu greater than 3 and therefore not to Hydrogen. Explain HERE why Hydrogen [and Deuterium] become deficient.”
You are right. We did not report mass fractionation across H-1 (1 amu) and H-2 (2 amu) because spallation and/or fusion reactions readily increase and/or decrease the abundance of H-2 (Deuterium) in the solar wind. We could not separate out and identify mass fractionation changes in the D/H ratio.
Hydrogen (the lightest of all elements, H-1) did not become deficient inside the Sun. It is continuously being produced there by neutron-decay near the solar core. Upward migration of H+ ions, carried by deep-seated magnetic fields, is the flow that maintains mass separation in the Sun. When these deep-seated fields reach the solar surface, they carry H+ away in the solar wind. Each year the solar wind carries away 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen with isotopes of other elements carefully sorted by mass and selectively enriched in the lightweight ones.
Geiss thought that fusion reactions that in the Sun converted H-2 into He-3 [“Primordial abundance of hydrogen and helium isotopes”, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements (eds., Prantos, N., Vangioni-Flam, E. and Cassè, M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993) pp. 89-106]. His proposal would explain excess He-3 without solar mass fractionation.
Isotope data on H and He from the 1996 Galileo Probe into the atmosphere of Jupiter do not support Geiss’ idea that excess He-3 was produced in the sun by deuterium burning [“Abundances of Hydrogen and Helium Isotopes in Jupiter”, in The Origins of the Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations (O. K. Manuel, editor, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, 2000) 589-643].
Solar mass fractionation has been quantitatively identified:
a.) Across isotopes in the solar wind over the range of 3-136 amu.
b.) Across s-products in the photosphere for 27-207 amu.
Is there reason to doubt that elements like Hydrogen (1-2 amu) and Uranium (235-238 amu) are immune to solar mass fractionation?
With kind regards and best wishes for 2010!
Oliver K. Manuel

Robert of Ottawa
December 31, 2009 8:44 am

Looking at Stereo, it appears that there will probably be a few blank days after 1039 disappears around the Western limb in a few days.

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 8:55 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:34:53) :
tallbloke (03:37:12) :
The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses.
The ultimate course doesn’t matter. On time scales that we are talking about [even millions of years], the planets are good clocks.

Hi Leif. I agree that from a utilitarian or operational POV they are good clocks. My point is that you can’t extrapolate from that to a conceptually ideal Newtonian cosmos. The difference may seem like hair splitting, but it is important when we are talking about 0.01% variations having measurable effects, or potential feedback mechanisms which derive sufficient energies from relatively tiny differences etc. Lets jut remember that all this discussion is about a 0.3% variation in planetary surface temperature over 300 years.
0.1% per century.

anna v
December 31, 2009 8:56 am

tallbloke (08:19:20) :
If you do not know in your scientific bones that energy, momentum,angular momentum conservation are very very basic outcomes in the langrangian formalisms of any physical theory, I give up.

December 31, 2009 8:58 am

Oliver K. Manuel (08:37:40) :
“Other processes creates the other heavy elements, but Hydrogen, Helium, and Deuterium are primordial.”
No. Deuterium (H-2) is made primarily by spallation reactions in the outer part of a star.

Deuterium is destroyed in convective stars like the Sun. The Deuterium in interstellar space is primordial. The precise prediction of its abundance is one of the triumphs of the Big Bang theory.
Is there reason to doubt that elements like Hydrogen (1-2 amu) […] are immune to solar mass fractionation?
Yes, many [e.g. that OBSERVATIONS show that most of the baryonic matter of the Universe is H]. But that is not the issue. The question should be: “Is there reason to believe that elements like Hydrogen …”. So far, your ‘explanation’ seems to be that you don’t see any reason to doubt what you claim.

Robert of Ottawa
December 31, 2009 9:03 am

Interesting NASA paper there, Leif; thanks.
Here’s a brief note about atmospheric tides. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-moon-have-a-tida

December 31, 2009 9:04 am

tallbloke (08:55:36) :
My point is that you can’t extrapolate from that to a conceptually ideal Newtonian cosmos.
Nobody is doing that. The actual cosmos we have is a good clock on time scales that matter. No need to set up the strawman of ‘ideal Newtonian’
Let’s just remember that all this discussion is about a 0.3% variation in planetary surface temperature over 300 years.
No, it is about solar variability, unless you believe that the planets regulate our temperature [‘Jupiter shine’], which you may actually do. Newtonian physics describe planetary orbits to a much, much higher precision than 0.3%.

Invariant
December 31, 2009 9:10 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:18:03) : His book is about the Sun and its influence and he is – understandably – vague on what else might have caused this. AGW is a possibility that he does not discount. He was chair of a NASA task force studying this a few years back, and his book basically reflects the view of that study: http://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/TRT_SunClimate.pdf
Thanks Dr. Svalgaard.
Now it is time for the New Year Turkey dinner with my parents, wife and two sons (2 and 6 yr). In my mind I cannot see why the natural global heating from 1700 to 1950 should not continue after 1950…
Happy New Year to all of you!
Invariant

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 9:21 am

anna v (08:56:52) :
tallbloke (08:19:20) :
If you do not know in your scientific bones that energy, momentum,angular momentum conservation are very very basic outcomes in the langrangian formalisms of any physical theory, I give up.

Read the Gauss article I linked for you.
Newtonian mechanics is something I understand well, being an engineer. But what I also know, as a graduate philosopher of science, is that conceptual tools can restrict the ‘thinking out of the box’ we find fun and occasionally enlightening.
Pry bars are useful tools, but they can also be used turn a window of opportunity into a prison. Once Gauss had finished using Kepler’s outmoded concepts to get closer to determining the orbit of Ceres than Newtonian mechanics had been able to, he could then use Newtonian mechanics to confirm the validity of his formula. And vise versa I would add.
SO instead of insisting that we limit ourselves to one particular box of tools at the outset, lets allow some freedom to experiment with other conceptual devices, and then see if the result turns out to be consistent with more ‘accepted practices’ anyway.
Happy New Year to you.

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 9:38 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:04:41) :
tallbloke (08:55:36) :
Let’s just remember that all this discussion is about a 0.3% variation in planetary surface temperature over 300 years.
No, it is about solar variability, unless you believe that the planets regulate our temperature [‘Jupiter shine’], which you may actually do.

What I believe is that the solar system is a system in the full sense of the word, not simply a chain of causes and effects radiating from the centre of the sun outwards.
Newtonian physics describe planetary orbits to a much, much higher precision than 0.3%.
Thank you, I know that. I’m just trying to give some context and proportion to the scale of changes under discussion. And I wasn’t just referring to this thread when I said “remember all this discussion…”, but to the climate debate in general. I’ll leave it there for now and give others some airspace.
Happy New Year to you Leif.

December 31, 2009 9:48 am

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:58:00) :
quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (08:37:40) :
a.) ‘Deuterium (H-2) is made primarily by spallation reactions in the outer part of a star.’
“Deuterium is destroyed in convective stars like the Sun. The Deuterium in interstellar space is primordial. The precise prediction of its abundance is one of the triumphs of the Big Bang theory.”
The Big Bang is desperately in need of triumphs, but Deuterium is not one of them.
b.) ‘Is there reason to doubt that elements like Hydrogen (1-2 amu) and Uranium (235-238 amu) are immune to solar mass fractionation?’
“Yes, many [e.g. that OBSERVATIONS show that most of the baryonic matter of the Universe is H].”
Yes, interstellar space has a weak gravitational field and is filled with H and some D that is carried away with the H by stellar winds of stars.
Perhaps a return to basics will help you understand the difference between the composition of material in weak and strong gravitational fields. Look at the RED DOTS representing the two basic constituents of all nuclei in the Cradle of the Nuclides:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
The neutron with Z/A = 0, and
The hydrogen atom with Z/A =1.
The neutron spontaneously decays to a hydrogen atom in the Earth’s weak gravitational field. This natural process (half-life ~ 10 minutes) is accompanied by a hugh volume expansion:
Charge separation:
Neutron ==> Hydrogen
V(final) /V(initial) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000
The opposite reaction occurs naturally with a hugh volume contraction in the strong gravitational field at the center of stars and galaxies.
Charge collapse:
Hydrogen ==> Neutron
V(final) /V(initial) ~ 0.000,000,000,000,001
The visible universe is filled with Hydrogen, but compact, energetic cores of stars and galaxies are mostly Neutrons because
V( H) ≈ 1,000,000,000,000,000 x V(N)
Again, best wishes for 2010!
Oliver K. Manuel

December 31, 2009 9:53 am

tallbloke (09:21:21) :
Read the Gauss article I linked for you.
That article is quasi-philosophical nonsense in the full sense of that word. Gauss was simply solving a mathematical problem: how to determine an elliptic orbit from three observations. BTW, Gauss used simple high-school algebra and trigonometry, and no philosophical nonsense.

December 31, 2009 9:56 am

tallbloke (09:38:22) :
>i>”Newtonian physics describe planetary orbits to a much, much higher precision than 0.3%.”
Thank you, I know that.
You give a convincing imitation of someone who does not 🙂

anna v
December 31, 2009 10:08 am

Happy New Year to all and cold enough to throw a sokein the cart of fools’ wheels of AGW, but not too cold for the rest of us 🙂
http://arthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/search_engine_optimization
“The Haywain” by Hieronymus Bosch is overcrowded with objects and figures surrounding a cart laden disproportionately high with hay and with a bush somehow growing from the top. In front of the bush, three people are making music. Standing beside them are an angel and a devil.
To the left, behind the wagon, ride an emperor, a king, and a pope, incongruously providing an escort for a wagonload of dried grass. To the right, the wagon is being pulled by an assortment of strange demonic creatures from the underworld. One of these creatures is a combination of a man and a fish; another is part bird, and a third is a hooded man with branches growing out of his back. Nearby, people can be seen streaming out of a wooden doorway in a mound of earth. The haywain itself is accompanied by men and woman trying to grab handfuls of hay; they fight and fall beneath the wheels.
The cart moves inexorably forward. The foreground of the painting is chaotic, while a clear and beautiful landscape can be seen in the distance. The haywain and its crowd of followers seem to be heading away from pristine innocence toward a place of punishment. The crowd is moving toward their ultimate destination: the day of reckoning.
Artist Hieronymus Bosch (1450-1516) is well known for paintings that mock equally the hypocrisy of the clergy, the extravagance of nobility, and the immorality of everyday people. His use of Christian symbolism and his extraordinary level of detail come from the traditions of manuscript illustrations of the Middle Ages. In this example, the hay wagon is his symbol for human greed, and his painting depicts the unworthiness of humans and their approaching doom.

Carla
December 31, 2009 10:11 am

Just read a post that made me think about the “descreening” of an astrosphere.
Not that I think that this is possible in this new “dark age.”
Not that I think that this is possible in this new “dark age.”
But was wondering (again) about the different possibilities, levels or effects of descreening when I came across this article.
M Star Astrosphere Size Fluctuations and
Habitable Planet Descreening∗
Smith & Scalo
Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712
June 9, 2009
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.1274v1.pdf
Leif, got this article under your belt?

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 10:20 am

REPLY: Fixed again – there wasn’t enough context in your initial request for me to know what you expected quoted. the closing tag was after Shakespeare so it seemed the logical choice. -A
You sir, are a gentleman. Happy New Year to you and the team.
Leaving the last word to Shakespeare is always a good logical choice:
“O, how this spring of love resembleth
The uncertain glory of an April day;
Which now shows all the beauty of the sun,
And by and by a cloud takes all away.”
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (I, iii, 84-87)

anna v
December 31, 2009 10:22 am

Happy New Year to all and cold enough to throw a spoke in the cart-of-fools’ wheels of AGW, but not too cold for the rest of us 🙂
http://arthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/search_engine_optimization
“The Haywain” by Hieronymus Bosch is overcrowded with objects and figures surrounding a cart laden disproportionately high with hay and with a bush somehow growing from the top. In front of the bush, three people are making music. Standing beside them are an angel and a devil.
To the left, behind the wagon, ride an emperor, a king, and a pope, incongruously providing an escort for a wagonload of dried grass. To the right, the wagon is being pulled by an assortment of strange demonic creatures from the underworld. One of these creatures is a combination of a man and a fish; another is part bird, and a third is a hooded man with branches growing out of his back. Nearby, people can be seen streaming out of a wooden doorway in a mound of earth. The haywain itself is accompanied by men and woman trying to grab handfuls of hay; they fight and fall beneath the wheels.
The cart moves inexorably forward. The foreground of the painting is chaotic, while a clear and beautiful landscape can be seen in the distance. The haywain and its crowd of followers seem to be heading away from pristine innocence toward a place of punishment. The crowd is moving toward their ultimate destination: the day of reckoning.
Artist Hieronymus Bosch (1450-1516) is well known for paintings that mock equally the hypocrisy of the clergy, the extravagance of nobility, and the immorality of everyday people. His use of Christian symbolism and his extraordinary level of detail come from the traditions of manuscript illustrations of the Middle Ages. In this example, the hay wagon is his symbol for human greed, and his painting depicts the unworthiness of humans and their approaching doom.

December 31, 2009 11:14 am

Carla (10:11:09) :
Leif, got this article under your belt?
Basically states the obvious: that smaller stars are even better protected than the Sun by their stellar winds.

tallbloke
December 31, 2009 11:33 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:53:50) :
Gauss used simple high-school algebra and trigonometry, and no philosophical nonsense.

No Newtonian nonsense either. 😉
Leif Svalgaard (09:56:54) :
tallbloke (09:38:22) :
>i>”Newtonian physics describe planetary orbits to a much, much higher precision than 0.3%.”
Thank you, I know that.
You give a convincing imitation of someone who does not 🙂

Nice smiley Leif.
My good lady is taking me gently by the ear to remove me from your very-eccentric nonsense.
TTFN HNY

Robuk
December 31, 2009 1:10 pm

sunspots are not the cause of the solar cycle but rather one measure of its strength
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.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/solarminimum.jsp

Sask Resident
December 31, 2009 3:01 pm

Using the cause and effect argument, have you tried to compare your solar fluctuations with long-term indicators of fluctuations like lake levels, flood frequencies, changes in glacier size, etc.? Closed basin lakes would be best (depend on long term changes in precipitation/evaporation) such as Great Salt Lake or Lake Baikal. (Aral Sea is a different reason). Lakes with smaller outlets like Lake Superior and Lake Victoria, especially since they have a 100 years of lake level records compared to piecemeal glacial size measurements for a 100 to 300 years.

December 31, 2009 8:06 pm

While waiting for Leif, please allow me to correct a typographical error in
Quote: Oliver K. Manuel (08:37:40) :
“Is there reason to doubt that elements like Hydrogen (1-2 amu) and Uranium (235-238 amu) are immune to solar mass fractionation?”
Should be “Is there reason to believe that elements like Hydrogen (1-2 amu) and Uranium (235-238 amu) are immune to solar mass fractionation?”
Happy New Year!
Oliver K. Manuel

December 31, 2009 8:14 pm

Quote: Sask Resident (15:01:36) :
“Using the cause and effect argument, have you tried to compare your solar fluctuations with long-term indicators of fluctuations like lake levels, flood frequencies, changes in glacier size, etc.? . . . ”
See: W. J. R Alexander, F. Bailey, D. B. Bredenkamp, A. vander Merwe, and N. Willemse, “Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource
development,” J. South African Institut. Civil Engineering 49 (2007) 32-44.

tallbloke
January 1, 2010 6:46 am

Oliver K. Manuel (20:06:27) :
Hi Oliver, and Happy New year to you.
Do we know the mass of the gas giant planets well enough to be able to calculate the total mass of the sun from the size of the wobble it counteracts their mass with as they orbit? I know this technique is used by astronomers to estimate the size and orbital periodicity of extrasolar planets orbiting other stars.
Would that provide independent confirmation or disproof of your theories of a superdense solar core?
Thanks

January 1, 2010 12:37 pm

Robuk (13:10:20) :
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.
She says this because she does not know history. Such high-speed streams at minimum happen regularly. This minimum is not special in that regard. Our understanding is not changing, although she personally may have to learn something.

January 1, 2010 1:30 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (20:06:27) :
While waiting for Leif
I’m overwhelmed by the clarity of the arguments by one of the greatest scientists of our time fighting consensus and sense, so I give up.

January 1, 2010 1:36 pm

Quote: tallbloke (06:46:21) :
“Hi Oliver, and Happy New year to you.
Do we know the mass of the gas giant planets well enough to be able to calculate the total mass of the sun from the size of the wobble it counteracts their mass with as they orbit? . . . Would that provide independent confirmation or disproof of your theories of a superdense solar core?
Thanks”
No, the total mass of the Sun is not the issue. The distribution of mass inside the Sun is.
Those who understand (neutron-repulsion, neutron-emission and neutron-decay to produce the Hydrogen that the Sun continuously discards) know that the minimum mass of a neutron star is 1 amu, not 1.3 solar mass!
There is other strong circumstantial evidence for a dense solar core among the many “mysteries” for the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun:
Solar cycles of deep-seated magnetic fields protrude through the solar surface in a pattern that follows shifts in solar angular momentum.
That observation provides circumstantial evidence for a compact, energetic and highly magnetic solar core!
Do you or others have any questions about my comment to Leif: “The visible universe is filled with Hydrogen, but compact, energetic cores of stars and galaxies are mostly Neutrons because
V( H) ≈ 1,000,000,000,000,000 x V(N)”?
Apparently unaware of huge volume differences between H and N, scientists mistakenly assumed that H must be the most abundant species in the cosmos because it occupies the most space!
Again, thanks for the question, tallbloke.
Best wishes you and yours for 2010!
Oliver K. Manuel

Glenn
January 1, 2010 2:06 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:30:45) :
“Oliver K. Manuel (20:06:27) :
While waiting for Leif
I’m overwhelmed by the clarity of the arguments by one of the greatest scientists of our time fighting consensus and sense, so I give up.”
Really, really, really bad manners, Leif.

January 1, 2010 2:09 pm

Qupte: Leif Svalgaard (13:30:45) :
“I’m overwhelmed by the clarity of the arguments by one of the greatest scientists of our time fighting consensus and sense, so I give up.”
I am certainly not a great scientist but I was trained by one of the very best:
In 1960 I was an unusually naive 23 year-old graduate student at the University of Arkansas when I became part of a research project to decipher the origin of the solar system, directed by a very sophisticated and talented nuclear geochemist that the US military had relocated from the University of Tokyo after WWII – Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda.
Although Kuroda’s skills as a nuclear geochemist had been used by the Japanese government during Second World War, Kuroda himself was very humanistic and idealistic – teaching by example to always follow the basic principles of science.
His autobiography describes Kuroda’s work at the University of Tokyo:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiography.pdf
This obituary is a short summary of his life:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/KurodaWriteupMeteoritic.pdf

tallbloke
January 1, 2010 3:09 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (13:36:54) :
There is other strong circumstantial evidence for a dense solar core among the many “mysteries” for the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun:
Solar cycles of deep-seated magnetic fields protrude through the solar surface in a pattern that follows shifts in solar angular momentum.

We’re not encouraged to discuss that here, but if you’d like to put up a guest post on my blog about this aspect of your theory please visit my site and submit a post.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com
I don’t know enough about nuclear physics to comment on the rest unfortunately.
Cheers

Clive E Burkland
January 1, 2010 5:14 pm

Glenn (14:06:39) :
“Really, really, really bad manners, Leif.”
This has been noted before and is unfortunate. Resorting to Ad Hominem seems to be acceptable policy when confronted with an opposing view.

January 1, 2010 8:29 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (13:30:45) :
“I’m overwhelmed by the clarity of the arguments by one of the greatest scientists of our time fighting consensus and sense, so I give up.”
Again, I am not a great scientist but I also had the good fortune to do postdoctoral research under the late Professor John H. Reynolds in the Physics Department at UC-Berkeley and to do part of my graduate research work there.
John was a member of the Geophysics Division of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11172&page=248

January 2, 2010 12:12 am

Clive E Burkland (17:14:32) :
Glenn (14:06:39) :
“Really, really, really bad manners, Leif.”
This has been noted before and is unfortunate. Resorting to Ad Hominem seems to be acceptable policy when confronted with an opposing view.

No need to be so hard on Glenn.

tallbloke
January 2, 2010 3:50 am

No need to be hard on anyone.
It’s New Year, turn over a new Leaf. 😉

Tenuc
January 2, 2010 4:30 am

It’s a shame that solar related threads almost always end up in acrimony.
Ad hominem arguments (against the person) are usually one of the last resorts of someone trying to defend an untenable belief, and have no place in a scientific debate.
These sort of tactics are being used by the IPCC Climategate cabal and add no value to our understanding. This is a sure sign that the CAGW hypothesis has hit the rocks and it is time for new ideas to be considered even if they rock the boat of main-stream scientific thinking.
Any theory which fails to accurately predict future events or requires liberal doses of ‘pixie-dust’ to account for new observations is in need of a re-think, no matter how useful that theory has been to the progress of science in the past.

Carla
January 2, 2010 9:23 am

Tenuc (04:30:31) :
Any theory which fails to accurately predict future events or requires liberal doses of ‘pixie-dust’ to account for new observations is in need of a re-think, no matter how useful that theory has been to the progress of science in the past.
~
Yes, I think so toooooo.
WAPL 105.7 All request New Year weekend.

January 2, 2010 10:13 am

Quote: “Although Kuroda’s skills as a nuclear geochemist had been used by the Japanese government during Second World War . . .”
I have more respect for scientists who use their skill for the government that pays their salary than I do for NAS members who ignored experimental data for the past 35 years and pretended that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen and that injections from a nearby supernova explain short-lived radionuclides and linked chemical and isotopic variations in the material that formed the solar system.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 2, 2010 11:31 am

Tenuc (04:30:31) :
“Any theory which fails to accurately predict future events or….”
It is can not be called theory, and it could not have been theory anyway, it was just a hypothesis that has failed…
Happy 20-10 to all.

JT
January 2, 2010 2:31 pm

OT, but there is an interesting detail in the LASCO 3 image on the SOHO web site. Look at the image at this link.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/c3/512/
Is that a comet in the middle of the lower left quadrant of the image?
JT

Robuk
January 2, 2010 2:40 pm

1994,
John Butler and his colleagues at Armagh Observatory report that data gathered there as far back as 1795 show that the average air temperature varies with the length of the sunspot cycle. The Armagh astronomers found that the highest temperatures correspond to years in which the cycle has a shorter-than-normal duration.
Our data support the contention that solar variability has been the principle cause of temperature changes over the past 2 centuries,” says Butler.
Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” The Sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. But according to the scientific consensus, the Sun has had only a minor recent effect on climate change.
What this means is that the climate scientists are fully aware of the almost perfect correlation with sunspot numbers and the earths temperature but have NO idea how this link works. The link is obvious and undisputable and unlike co2 and temperture it can only be one way round.

January 2, 2010 3:52 pm

JT (14:31:02) :
Is that a comet in the middle of the lower left quadrant of the image?
Very likely, as SOHO has ‘discovered’ nearly two thousand of them:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2008_06_23/

January 2, 2010 4:00 pm

Robuk (14:40:59) :
John Butler and his colleagues at Armagh Observatory report that data gathered there as far back as 1795 show that the average air temperature varies with the length of the sunspot cycle.
People keep saying this, but there is little support for this. If you simply take the trouble to look for yourself [e.g. here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf ] you see either no correlation or a very weak opposite correlation].

January 2, 2010 4:09 pm

Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.”
And if you took the trouble to check on Pesnell [takes five minutes] you’ll find that the statement is false.

Tenuc
January 3, 2010 1:07 am

Robuk (14:40:59) :
“…John Butler and his colleagues at Armagh Observatory report that data gathered there as far back as 1795 show that the average air temperature varies with the length of the sunspot cycle. The Armagh astronomers found that the highest temperatures correspond to years in which the cycle has a shorter-than-normal duration.
Our data support the contention that solar variability has been the principle cause of temperature changes over the past 2 centuries,” says Butler.”
“Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” The Sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. But according to the scientific consensus, the Sun has had only a minor recent effect on climate change.
What this means is that the climate scientists are fully aware of the almost perfect correlation with sunspot numbers and the earths temperature but have NO idea how this link works. The link is obvious and undisputable and unlike co2 and temperture it can only be one way round.”

Reply: It seems it isn’t just Butler & Pesnell who think there is a link. Here’s a couple of quotes from ‘The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?’ from the Independent:-
Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. “…And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
David Hathaway – NASA solar scientist, “…This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century, but this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.
Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.”
Link to full article here:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html

tallbloke
January 3, 2010 2:50 am

Leif Svalgaard (16:00:00) :
Robuk (14:40:59) :
John Butler and his colleagues at Armagh Observatory report that data gathered there as far back as 1795 show that the average air temperature varies with the length of the sunspot cycle.
People keep saying this, but there is little support for this. If you simply take the trouble to look for yourself [e.g. here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf ] you see either no correlation or a very weak opposite correlation].

According to your graphs, the correlation looks quite good up until around the time tom Wigley took over at CRU and Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
Did the Sun and Earth start doing something different or the individuals who control the temperature records?

tallbloke
January 3, 2010 3:27 am

“In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
Anyone know where I can find data on the longer term motion of the solar magnetic axis?
Leif?

January 3, 2010 4:36 am

Quote: Robuk (14:40:59) :
“What this means is that the climate scientists are fully aware of the almost perfect correlation with sunspot numbers and the earths temperature but have NO idea how this link works.”
You are exactly right!
The standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun cannot explain the observations.
NASA and the Geophysics Division of NAS are not about to admit now that they have manipulated “space age” data since the Apollo Mission returned samples from the Moon in 1969 to hide evidence of an error in the ssm of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
C-SPAN News captured an embarrassing moment for NASA when its Administrator was finally forced to release data in 1998 from the 1996 Galilleo Mission to Jupiter.
That data confirmed severe mass separation in the Sun [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, paper 5011: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Carla
January 3, 2010 6:01 am

tallbloke (02:50:58) :
According to your graphs, the correlation looks quite good up until around the time tom Wigley took over at CRU and Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
Did the Sun and Earth start doing something different or the individuals who control the temperature records?
tallbloke (03:27:10) :
“In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
Anyone know where I can find data on the longer term motion of the solar magnetic axis?
Leif?
~~~~
Two very good questions tallbloke.
Leif?
~~~~

January 3, 2010 6:49 am

tallbloke (02:50:58) :
According to your graphs, the correlation looks quite good up until around the time tom Wigley took over at CRU and Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
The blue curves are the cycle lengths [there are two of them – one from min to min and one fro max to max] and the pink curves are corresponding cycle average temperatures. There is no correlation.
tallbloke (03:27:10) :
“In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
Anyone know where I can find data on the longer term motion of the solar magnetic axis?

The Sun’s magnetic axis is not tilted at all. The regular equator and the magnetic equator [and thus the axes] coincide strongly in Hale’s polarity laws: the polarity of sunspot pairs reverse upon crossing the equator. And the polar caps are at the poles. Some people have the [wrong] idea that the polar field reversal is due to the general field ‘turning’ or ‘flipping’ over by the polar magnetic fields ‘rotating’ in latitude. This is is an appealing picture [first suggested by Ester Antonucci], but is not what is observed. The polar fields reverse in place by growing weaker, then stronger with the opposite sign.

Carla
January 3, 2010 8:32 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:49:11) :
~
Thank you, for the response Leif.
All of this, yust keep driving me nuts..
Ah, so where does Mr. Marc Hairston of the University of Texas,
get his information from, that allows him to be so confident, as to
release it to the press?

January 3, 2010 8:46 am

Oliver K. Manuel (04:36:30) :
The standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun cannot explain the observations.
As always, one stands aghast, awestruck, when the greatest scientist of our time gushes like this. If only the 99.99% of astrophysicists that have been corrupted would see the light, all our troubles would be over.

January 3, 2010 9:08 am

Carla (08:32:58) :
Ah, so where does Mr. Marc Hairston of the University of Texas,
get his information from, that allows him to be so confident, as to
release it to the press?

Ah, press releases are now gospel truths 🙂

January 3, 2010 10:17 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:08:07) :
Carla (08:32:58) :
Ah, so where does Mr. Marc Hairston of the University of Texas,
get his information from, that allows him to be so confident, as to
release it to the press?

On a more serious note: the so-called [misunderstood] ’tilt’ of the ‘magnetic axis’ often comes from the calculated value of the maximum inclination of the Heliospheric Current Sheet. I’ll make an appeal to authority here: I was one of the builders of the Wilcox Solar Observatory. I [and Tom Duvall] were the first to accurately measure the Polar Fields. I wrote the program they use to calculate the shape of the field. So, I know whereof I speak.
Here is a graph of the ’tilt’ [but remember the ’tilt’ is an artifact of the formalism]: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif The full and dotted curves show two different ways of doing the calculation. The bottom line is that at each solar minimum the tilt reverts to about the same low value. There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.

January 3, 2010 11:05 am

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:46:35) :
“As always, one stands aghast, awestruck, when the greatest scientist of our time gushes like this. If only the 99.99% of astrophysicists that have been corrupted would see the light, all our troubles would be over.”
May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.
It must have been an exhausting experience, trying to manipulate and/or hide all experimental data that would refute the SSM of a Hydrogen-filled Sun – like the xenon data from the $1,000,000,000 Galileo Mission to Jupiter!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
You are not completely at fault for insisting that solar heat must come from H-fusion Nuclear physicists share some of the blame for failing to recognize repulsive interactions between neutrons in nuclear rest mass data.
Best wishes for relief in 2010!
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

Carla
January 3, 2010 11:10 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:17:52) :
The bottom line is that at each solar minimum the tilt reverts to about the same low value. There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.
~
Very nice explaination Leif, thank you.
“There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.”
Except, it shows a prolonged minimum. Must be that calm in your eye again.

January 3, 2010 11:12 am

Oliver K. Manuel (11:05:41) :
May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.
As I have admiringly emphasized several times now [even attracting comments from the bad-manner police]: If everybody would just listen to the greatest scientist of our time the science would finally be settled.

January 3, 2010 11:18 am

Carla (11:10:50) :
“There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.”
Except, it shows a prolonged minimum. Must be that calm in your eye again.

One, evidently, has to be overly precise: ‘the ’tilt’ achieved at this minimum is not different from previous minima in this particular graph’. The whole issue was about the ’tilt’ of the magnetic axis, remember.

January 3, 2010 11:22 am

Oliver K. Manuel (11:05:41) :
May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.
Perhaps it would be more fitting to call this ‘Neutrongate’ or even ‘Universegate’ because of its sweeping implications for all of science. Anthony should be given immortal credit for giving this flickering flame a secure home here at WUWT. Future generations would certainly appreciate the intellectual courage it takes to spout things like this.

January 3, 2010 12:00 pm

Carla (11:10:50) :
“There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.”
Except, it shows a prolonged minimum. Must be that calm in your eye again.

If you take the trouble to look you’ll see that was prolonged is not the minimum but the middle part of the cycle from 2001 to 2007. You can also see that there is no prolonged minimum here: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
which compares the F10.7 microwave flux during the minimum between cycles 18 and 19 [read] with the current minimum [blue].
Yogi Berra once said: “one can observe a lot by just looking’. Heed those wise words…

Carla
January 3, 2010 12:27 pm

Leif Svalgaard (12:00:33) :
If you take the trouble to look you’ll see that was prolonged is not the minimum but the middle part of the cycle from 2001 to 2007.
~
Yeppers Leif, hit the submit comment, put computor to sleep, leave house and shoot, realized I had phrased that incorrectly. ok

January 3, 2010 1:29 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (11:22:51) :
quotes Oliver K. Manuel (11:05:41) : ‘May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.’
“Perhaps it would be more fitting to call this ‘Neutrongate’ or . . . ”
No, Galileo-gate.
The -gate suffix is reserved for those who manipulate or hide data, especially data purchased by the public. Nuclear physicists simply overlooked evidence of repulsive interactions between neutrons.
So did I for seventeen years (1983-2000) after I knew that H-fusion could not be the main source of solar luminosity:
Measurements first showed that the Sun is mostly iron in 1983 [1]: http://tinyurl.com/224kz4
Students helped plot nuclear rest mass data in a way that revealed repulsive interactions between neutrons in 2000 [2]: http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
The 1983 paper predicted that the $1,000,000,000 Galileo Mission would observe excess Xe-136 in Jupiter. That was observed, but the data were hidden until I requested it from the NASA Administrator when he was on C-SPAN News [3]: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
[1] “Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222.
[2] “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy”, 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conf., Paper 1041 (2001) LPI Contribution 1080, ISSN No. 0161-5297.
[3] “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, paper 5011
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 3, 2010 3:22 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (13:29:09) :
No, Galileo-gate.
Ot OliverGate.
It is not for me to dispute the findings of the greatest scientist of our time. Suffice it to say that I’m so far in the dark and so incapable of grokking the profound statements spouted by said genius that you are wasting your valuable time trying to educate me on something I do not have the capacity of understanding. Perhaps you can establish a following among the other pseudo-scientist [much smarter than I] that frequent this site.

tallbloke
January 3, 2010 5:39 pm

How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver? That might be more edifying than lambasting the other contributors to this site.

January 3, 2010 6:35 pm

tallbloke (17:39:54) :
How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver? That might be more edifying than lambasting the other contributors to this site.
I cannot address the links as they make no sense. And I’m certainly not lambasting anybody. On the contrary, I’m crediting them with a cleverness and smartness that are beyond me.

January 3, 2010 7:16 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (15:22:07) :
“It is not for me to dispute the findings of the greatest scientist of our time. Suffice it to say that I’m so far in the dark and so incapable of grokking the profound statements spouted by said genius that you are wasting your valuable time trying to educate me on something I do not have the capacity of understanding. Perhaps you can establish a following among the other pseudo-scientist [much smarter than I] that frequent this site.”
Leif, personal attacks will not save you now nor relieve your pain.
NAS, NASA, and influential friends in climatology, astro- and solar physics cannot even protect themselves from the seriousness of these revelations:
a.) Fudging climate data that was financed with public funds.
b.) Spending $1,000,000,000 of tax funds on the Mission to Jupiter.
c.) Hiding results that show the SSM of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is wrong.
d.) Being on C-SPAN News when finally ordering the data released.
At best these events only confirm the absurdity of telling lies.
More serious charges are possible. Governments provide funds for science as a means of protecting our national security – e.g.:
Funding for nuclear sciences during WWII, and
Funding for space sciences during the Cold War.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 3, 2010 7:24 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:35:01) :
tallbloke (17:39:54) :
How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver?
“I cannot address the links as they make no sense.”

for example, the first link was purporting to prove that H is not abundant in the Sun. The only place I see any hint of discussion of this is this passage “Fractionation that enriches lighter nuclei at the solar surface can accommodate these conclusions and the occurrence of high abundances of H, He …”
This is no demonstration at all. If the Sun was 91% H to begin with [as all other stars are, being formed from interstellar gas of that composition], you could still have fractionation of all the rest without impacting the 91%. Typical of pseudo-science is the piling on of irrelevant [but true] details, such as the composition of the noble gases above He.
I have asked Oliver many times to explain how this works [getting rid off the H], but I cannot penetrate the purported logic behind his ‘explanations’. They make no sense. It is, of course, possible that I’m just too dumb to understand this explanation given by the greatest scientist of our time; nay, perhaps the greatest of all times.
As Oliver points out [quoting Crichton] the greatest scientists went up against consensus. This is an example of the Holberg logic “A stone cannot fly; you cannot fly; ergo: you are a stone”, or “the greatest scientists fight consensus; Oliver fights consensus; ergo: Oliver is one of the greatest scientists”. As oliver goes against all the astrophysics that thousands of people have worked hard on piecing together, then thousands of astrophysicists are dead-wrong. If true, that would indeed make Oliver the greatest of all times.
Against such greatness I stand in awe and I said, give up trying to understand what is clearly beyond me.
Perhaps you could understand it and try to explain it to me and the folks?

January 3, 2010 7:34 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (19:16:57) :
Leif, personal attacks will not save you now nor relieve your pain.
How can proclaiming you to be the greatest scientist of all times ever be construed to be an attack?
I could be wrong, of course, that that would be a failing of me to jump to conclusions.

January 3, 2010 7:49 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (19:16:57) :
Leif, personal attacks will not save you now…
NAS, NASA, and influential friends in climatology, astro- and solar physics cannot even protect themselves from the seriousness of these revelations:
More serious charges are possible.

Speaking of attacks, I would take the above [since much of my work has been funded by NASA, etc, and I’m on a NASA panel] as a serious attack on me. On the other hand, I’m not paranoid and shall here just gloss over such accusational excesses.

January 3, 2010 8:35 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (19:24:31) :
“Perhaps you could understand it and try to explain it to me and the folks?”
I understand. My conclusions will naturally seem alien and outlandish to those who have not followed my 50-year path of continuous changes in direction (zig-zags) with each surprising discovery since 1960:
a.) Iron meteorites are as old as “primitive” meteorites.
b.) Decay products of I-129 and Pu-244 are still not homogenized inside the Earth – after 4-5 billion years of geochemical processing.
c.) Meteorites formed before the products of r-, p- and s-nucleosynthesis reactions (B2FH, 1957) mixed.
d.) Lightweight isotopes of elements are enriched in the solar wind.
e.) Some mysterious mass fractionation process produced values of
(Ne-20/Ne-22) = 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . , 11, 12, 13, 14 in meteorites
f.) Diamonds (carbon) in carbonaceous meteorites contain “strange” xenon, enriched in r- and p-products of nucleosynthesis, and all of the He and Ne.
g.) Other parts of carbonaceous meteorites contain “normal” xenon, but no He or Ne.
h.) Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of elements are enriched in solar flares.
i.) The Sun consists mostly of iron (Fe), but solar luminosity was a mystery until neutron repulsion was discovered because Fe is the stable end product of nuclear reactions.
Since you are a solar scientist, please review the experimental data and conclusions in the paper, “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios,”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1
Presented at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helio-seismology and published by the European Space Agency (ESA SP-517, editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348, ISBN: 92-9092-827-1
I will be happy to respond to questions.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 3, 2010 8:49 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (20:35:34) :
i.) The Sun consists mostly of iron (Fe), but solar luminosity was a mystery until neutron repulsion was discovered because Fe is the stable end product of nuclear reactions.
I will be happy to respond to questions.

So far you have not responded satisfactorily to a single question.
All of your points have nothing to do with the Hydrogen content of the Universe and the Sun. and solar luminosity is not a mystery [after about 1938] and is fully understood and confirmed by neutrino measurements. [I do not need a diatribe on neutrinos now]. The main issue is that you NOWHERE show that the Sun is not 91% Hydrogen. You CLAIM it all over the place. but that does not work for me.
If you ever saw the movie “Jesus Christ, Superstar”, you will understand why I say with Herod: “Prove to me that you’re no fool: walk across my swimming pool”.
I.e. explain, so I and Herod can understand it why the Sun is not mostly Hydrogen as all other main sequence stars.

January 3, 2010 9:05 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (19:49:25) :
“Speaking of attacks, I would take the above [since much of my work has been funded by NASA, etc, and I’m on a NASA panel] as a serious attack on me.”
Thanks, Leif, for the information.
Please convey to NASA officials the seriousness of the present situation.
If you have access to the Obama’s Science Advisor or the Secretary of DOE, you might also advise them to stop ignoring published (peer-reviewed) reports that neutron repulsion:
a.) Is a greater source of nuclear energy than fission or fusion, and
b.) Powers the Sun and produces solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind hydrogen in the proportions observed.
These public officials have the funds and a responsibility to either confirm or deny the above findings.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 3, 2010 9:53 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (21:05:02) :
These public officials have the funds and a responsibility to either confirm or deny the above findings.
The acceptance of these claims are not up to these officials, but to thousands of hard-working scientists [the majority not even American] who have long ago rendered their verdict on this.
“Speaking of attacks, I would take the above [since much of my work has been funded by NASA, etc, and I’m on a NASA panel] as a serious attack on me.”
Thanks, Leif, for the information.

And is this flippant remark how you shrug off the serious attack on me?
Now, “walk across my swimming pool”.

January 3, 2010 9:57 pm

Leif,
1. You see only the surface of stars, yet
2. Proudly display the certainty of one who is convinced that the interior of apples must be red because the surfaces are red!
3. You know the Sun throws away 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen each year, yet
4. Pretend that this “smoke” from the solar furnace is its “fuel.”
5. You address none of the experimental data, yet
6. Claim “they nothing to do with the Hydrogen content of the Universe and the Sun.”
7. You confuse Hydrogen volume in the Universe with Hydrogen abundance, ignoring
8. My earlier note: The visible universe is filled with Hydrogen (H) , but compact, energetic cores of stars and galaxies are mostly Neutrons (N) because
V( H) ≈ 1,000,000,000,000,000 x V(N) = 10^15 x V(N)
Unless you are simply trying to obfuscate Watts Up With That, Leif, please address the experimental data in the paper, “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios,”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 3, 2010 10:14 pm

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (21:53:31) :
quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (21:05:02) : ‘These public officials have the funds and a responsibility to either confirm or deny the above findings.’
“The acceptance of these claims are not up to these officials, but to thousands of hard-working scientists [the majority not even American] who have long ago rendered their verdict on this.”
“Speaking of attacks, I would take the above [since much of my work has been funded by NASA, etc, and I’m on a NASA panel] as a serious attack on me.”
‘Thanks, Leif, for the information.’
“And is this flippant remark how you shrug off the serious attack on me?”
Now, “walk across my swimming pool”.
Again, Leif, thanks. Your comments are indeed revealing.
Normally, I would quickly sink but thanks to “global warming”, I may be able to walk across a swimming pool. It is now 12 F or -11C here.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 3, 2010 10:50 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (21:57:16) :
Again, Leif, thanks. Your comments are indeed revealing.
And, again, I yield to the superior logic of the greatest scientist of all times, being completely stumped by the impenetrable arguments that seem to have fooled even their author.

January 3, 2010 11:16 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (21:57:16) :
please address the experimental data in the paper, “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios,”
I can accept all the experimental data as presented. I have no problem with any of them. Only with the extrapolation you make into non-measured areas. So, now it is your turn. “Walk across my swimming pool”.

January 3, 2010 11:25 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (21:57:16) :
8. My earlier note: The visible universe is filled with Hydrogen (H) ,
So a star that is forming now out of the interstellar medium would consist of hydrogen, right?

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 12:11 am

Leif Svalgaard (19:24:31) :
Leif Svalgaard (18:35:01) :
tallbloke (17:39:54) :
How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver?
“I cannot address the links as they make no sense.”
for example, the first link was purporting to prove that H is not abundant in the Sun. The only place I see any hint of discussion of this is this passage “Fractionation that enriches lighter nuclei at the solar surface can accommodate these conclusions and the occurrence of high abundances of H, He …”
This is no demonstration at all. If the Sun was 91% H to begin with [as all other stars are, being formed from interstellar gas of that composition], you could still have fractionation of all the rest without impacting the 91%.

OK, how about addressing this statement. What other interpretations are possible?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
High energy events, such as flares, disrupt intrasolar
diffusion [6]. Hence, solar energetic particles
are less enriched in light isotopes than are elements
in the quiet solar wind [6]. Since the average weight
of particles in the sun is closer to 56 than to 1 amu,
the average temperature must be higher to explain
the Sun’s overall density. Thus, fusion reactions may
not be limited to the Sun’s inner core. The inverse
correlation between the solar neutrino flux and sun
spot number [7] suggests that solar flares also disrupt
nuclear fusion reactions outside the Sun’s core.

January 4, 2010 12:36 am

tallbloke (00:11:46) :
OK, how about addressing this statement. What other interpretations are possible?
“Since the average weight of particles in the sun is closer to 56 than to 1 amu, […] Thus, fusion reactions may not be limited to the Sun’s inner core.”
It has the unsubstantiated claim that the average ‘molecular weight’ is 56 amu rather than 1 amu [measurements of the sound speed in the interior suggests otherwise]. And so what if fusion might occur in small amounts elsewhere [e.g. in strong solar flares]? How does that show that there is no Hydrogen in the interior? this is the typical mixture of fact and fiction that characterizes pseudo-science. But, perhaps the greatest scientist of all times has a good explanation. I just haven’t seen it, or saw it and didn’t know what it was.

January 4, 2010 12:37 am

Leif Svalgaard (00:36:01) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
tallbloke (00:11:46) :
OK, how about addressing this statement. What other interpretations are possible?
“Since the average weight of particles in the sun is closer to 56 than to 1 amu, […] Thus, fusion reactions may not be limited to the Sun’s inner core.”

It has the unsubstantiated claim that the average ‘molecular weight’ is 56 amu rather than 1 amu [measurements of the sound speed in the interior suggests otherwise]. And so what if fusion might occur in small amounts elsewhere [e.g. in strong solar flares]? How does that show that there is no Hydrogen in the interior? this is the typical mixture of fact and fiction that characterizes pseudo-science. But, perhaps the greatest scientist of all times has a good explanation. I just haven’t seen it, or saw it and didn’t know what it was.
If you have managed to make sense of it, then I would like to be educated.

David Alan
January 4, 2010 2:25 am

@Leif Svalgaard (00:37:00):
“If you have managed to make sense of it, then I would like to be educated.”
Hey Leif, when it comes to facts, you’re like a rock. Only a hammer and chisel can break your conviction. Go figure, your name is Leif but the character of a rock.
I LIKE IT !

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 6:13 am

Leif Svalgaard (00:37:00) :
If you have managed to make sense of it, then I would like to be educated.

The paper presented at the SOHO/GONG conference in 2002 by Oliver seems to be a good place to start. What are your main objections to what he and other scientists have found and described here?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410717.pdf

January 4, 2010 6:23 am

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (22:50:30) :
“And, again, I yield to the superior logic of the greatest scientist of all times, . . .”
I am neither:
(a.) a fool, nor
(b.) unusually talented.
Such simplistic binary thinking is not productive. As I pointed out earlier [Oliver K. Manuel (20:35:34)]
“My conclusions will naturally seem alien and outlandish to those who have not followed my 50-year path of continuous changes in direction (zig-zags) with each surprising discovery since 1960”
I will try to explain this journey in an autobiography, in progress:
“MY JOURNEY TO THE CORE OF THE SUN: A Summary of 50 Joyful Years of Continuous Discovery”
I do not envy those who sat on the sidelines.
Again, Leif, please review the experimental data and conclusions in the paper, “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios,”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1
That was was reviewed by other solar scientists after presentation at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helio-seismology and published by the European Space Agency (ESA SP-517, editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348, ISBN: 92-9092-827-1
With kind regards,
OLlver K. Manuel

January 4, 2010 6:31 am

Oliver K. Manuel (06:23:18) :
I will try to explain this journey in an autobiography, in progress
I’m not interested in your journey, but in the Sun.
Again, Leif, please review the experimental data and conclusions in the paper,
Again, I have already done that:
“I can accept all the experimental data as presented. I have no problem with any of them. Only with the extrapolation you make into non-measured areas. So, now it is your turn.”

January 4, 2010 6:37 am

tallbloke (06:13:36) :
What are your main objections to what he and other scientists have found and described here?
That the internal abundance of Hydrogen and Helium do not follow from the data presented. As the interstellar material consists of 91% H, stars forming out of that will too, regardless of how much the tiny amounts of Fe, Xe, etc are fractionated.

January 4, 2010 6:41 am

tallbloke (06:13:36) :
What are your main objections to what he and other scientists have found and described here?
It should not be hard for the authors to reproduce HERE the statement that shows that the Sun is not a ‘ball of Hydrogen’, so I expect that to happen [and have asked for it many times]. So far, Oliver [and you] have adroitly avoided that and instead asked me to ferret that out. I’m sorry, but it ain’t there, that I can see, so help me out.

January 4, 2010 9:02 am

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (23:25:16) :
“So a star that is forming now out of the interstellar medium would consist of hydrogen, right?”
No, Leif, stars do not form “out of the interstellar medium.”
That is just another one of NASA’s unfounded myths:
Oscillating solar neutrinos.
The SSM of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, etc.
Helioseismology determination of chemical composition.
Please study the paper, “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios:”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1
To understand the Sun will require 50 years of catching up on experimental data that was ignored by NASA and its army of consensus scientists.
Best wishes to all for 2010,
Oliver K. Manuel

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 9:11 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:41:29) :
So far, Oliver [and you] have adroitly avoided

Leif, please. I haven’t entered much into the nuclear physics discussion as it’s not my main area of interest or expertise. I have not tried to avoid anything. I’m just trying to get a handle on the strengths and weaknesses of competing theories.
As I understand it, there are some quite big issues with the gas cloud theory of star formation around gravitational collapse, angular momentum exchange, and turbulence. Oliver’s idea that lot’s of hydrogen andother light elements gather round a supernova remnant seems a good way to avoid these difficulties.
So given the difficulties mainstream star formation theory has, I think it’s well worth giving alternative ideas a fair hearing. Especially when they deal with several other difficulties and explain real observations as well. Now, like you, I’d like to hear more from Oliver about how it all fits together, but unlike you, I’m not going to demand his theory is capable of disproving something which has never been proved in the first place and is inadequately theorised anyway.

January 4, 2010 9:16 am

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (06:37:11) :
“As the interstellar material consists of 91% H, stars forming out of that will too, regardless of how much the tiny amounts of Fe, Xe, etc are fractionated.”
Stars do not form out of the interstellar medium, Leif.
That is a NASA myth that was directly falsified several years ago by space age measurements on the only star close enough for detailed study.
Abundance measurement of:
a.) Isotopes in the solar wind
b.) S-products in the photosphere
c.) Elements in solar flares
d.) Isotopes in solar flares
All show that the Sun is a plasma diffuser that selectively moves lightweight elements like H and He to its surface.
To protect the myth of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, NASA even violated public trust and hid experimental data from the Galileo Mission to Jupiter.
That’s no way to do science, Leif!
By their own actions, NASA has admitted that it knows the SSM of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is wrong.
Best wishes,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 4, 2010 9:31 am

tallbloke (09:11:13) :
As I understand it, there are some quite big issues with the gas cloud theory of star formation around gravitational collapse, angular momentum exchange, and turbulence.
I don’t know where you have those ideas from. The theory of star formation is on very firm footing. Sure, people are debating the details; that is BTW only possible once you have a firm theory to begin with.
Now, like you, I’d like to hear more from Oliver about how it all fits together
And that is where he fails us.

January 4, 2010 9:41 am

Quote: David Alan (02:25:32) :
“Hey Leif, when it comes to facts, you’re like a rock. Only a hammer and chisel can break your conviction. Go figure, your name is Leif but the character of a rock.”
Leif is not dense, he is very clever.
As noted earlier, here could be serious consequences for acts – like manipulating and/or hiding data obtained with public funds.
That’s my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel

January 4, 2010 9:41 am

tallbloke (09:11:13) :
As I understand it, there are some quite big issues with the gas cloud theory of star formation around gravitational collapse, angular momentum exchange, and turbulence.
A primer on star formation:
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~wiita/a1020starformation8a.ppt

January 4, 2010 9:46 am

tallbloke (09:11:13) :
but unlike you, I’m not going to demand his theory is capable of disproving something which has never been proved in the first place
I’m not demanding anything of the kind. Only two things:
1) that the theory is explained [strike one, it is not]
2) that it makes sense [strike two, so far as we know from what meager info he has provided – one would expect more from the self-proclaimed greatest scientist alive]

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 10:00 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:46:04) :
2) that it makes sense [strike two, so far as we know from what meager info he has provided – one would expect more from the self-proclaimed greatest scientist alive]

No Leif, You proclaimed him the greatest scientist alive, He says:
I am neither:
(a.) a fool, nor
(b.) unusually talented.
Such simplistic binary thinking is not productive.

And I agree with him on this. What’s with the all or nothing, right or wrong, black or white, rhetoric? These are all tentative theories, including the mainstream ones on star formation. Get real.
At least Oliver is offering real data, empiical observations, and links to peer reviewed papers.

January 4, 2010 10:19 am

tallbloke (10:00:36) :
No Leif, You proclaimed him the greatest scientist alive
He says “I do not envy those who sat on the sidelines”
He employs the Holberg proof: ‘Greatest scientists against consensus; Oliver against consensus; Ergo …”
And if he is correct [which he presumably does not dispute] would make him the greatest of all time [proving thousands of astrophysicists wrong]. I’m just giving him the benefit [and the obligations that go with that] of possibility of being correct.
At least Oliver is offering real data, empirical observations, and links to peer reviewed papers.
Data that are not relevant for the issue. The paper in question is a review [and brings nothing new] at a conference and if peer-reviewed at all [I would like to see the reviewer’s report] only cursorily as peer-reviews are not supposed to also review papers cited and reviewed by the author.
You also avoided the issue [in spite of your protestations] namely to show where in the paper it was demonstrated that the Sun is not mainly Hydrogen as all other main sequence stars. you had two choices:
1) show where it shows so
2) agree with me that it does not show so or that you couldn’t see it either.

January 4, 2010 10:23 am

Oliver K. Manuel (09:16:40) :
Stars do not form out of the interstellar medium, Leif.
I guess here is where we must part.

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 11:02 am

I’d be interested to know whether Oliver thinks other stars, perhaps especially or only those with planetary systems around them, are also formed from supernova remnants.
Oliver?

January 4, 2010 11:06 am

tallbloke (11:02:49) :
I’d be interested to know whether Oliver thinks other stars, perhaps especially or only those with planetary systems around them, are also formed from supernova remnants.
And where the supernova came from?

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 11:07 am

I’d also like to know why Leif thinks self swirling clouds of hydrogen don’t have a problem transferring angular momentum to the spin of the proto-stars they allegedly form, but also thinks it’s impossible for the planets to transfer angular momentum to the spin of the sun.
Hmm? 🙂

January 4, 2010 11:37 am

tallbloke (11:07:40) :
I’d also like to know why Leif thinks self swirling clouds of hydrogen don’t have a problem transferring angular momentum to the spin of the proto-stars they allegedly form, but also thinks it’s impossible for the planets to transfer angular momentum to the spin of the sun.
1) the proto-star form from the cloud so has the angular momentum already
2) the proto-star has a stellar wind a hundred times stronger than the present Sun
3) frozen-in strong magnetic field lines provide the couple between star and planetary disk and AM is transferred FROM the star to the proto-planets, in the process slowing the star’s rotation to a crawl
4) as the system settles down, the wind abates and the transfer of AM FROM the star TO the planets effectively stops as the couple is essentially gone
5) without a couple there is no transfer of AM. At present the couples provided by the wind and tides are to weak to have any effect.

JonesII
January 4, 2010 11:50 am

The flintstones universe!

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 11:59 am

shwarzenegger
I’ll be back.
/shwarzenegger
🙂

January 4, 2010 12:19 pm

Quote: tallbloke (11:02:49) :
“I’d be interested to know whether Oliver thinks other stars, perhaps especially or only those with planetary systems around them, are also formed from supernova remnants.
Oliver?”
Thanks, tallbloke.
REPLY: I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. I report what I observe.
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].
Likely in this manner: http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
In 1983 Nature even acknowledged the demise (death, end) of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System [3].
2. Astronomers assure us that the Sun is a very ordinary star.
3. When stars explode, a neutron star and lots of iron are commonly seen, not Hydrogen like the stellar surface.
My conclusions:
a.) There is a neutron star at the core of the Sun.
b.) There is probably a neutron star at the core of each star.
c.) With greater certainty a neutron star is expected at the core of any star that is orbited by rocky, iron-rich planets.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
[1] “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-209 http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
[2] “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277 (1979) 615-620
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html
[3] “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System”, Nature 303 (1983) 286

REPLY:
and the thread hijack continues…….A

January 4, 2010 12:24 pm

JonesII (11:50:19) :
The flintstones universe!
Where even the Sun is made of stone

January 4, 2010 12:34 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (12:19:42) :
REPLY: I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. I report what I observe.
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].

And where did that star come from?

January 4, 2010 12:44 pm

Quote:
“REPLY: and the thread hijack continues…….A”
I apologize, Anthony. There will be no more posts here from me.
I deeply appreciate your efforts to bring the spotlight of public attention on Chimategate.
Thanks for your patience,
Oliver K. Manuel

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 12:56 pm

Oliver:
Anthony is indicating he doesn’t want a discussion about your observations on the origin of the solar system here. It’s a fascinating subject, and I’ll set up a post with some of your material so we can continue this on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/oliver-manuel-on-the-solar-system/
Anthony and Leif, thanks as always for your patience.

January 4, 2010 12:57 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (12:19:42) :
REPLY: I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. I report what I observe.
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].

You did certainly not observe that event.

January 4, 2010 1:28 pm

Oliver K. Manuel (12:19:42) :
In 1983 Nature even acknowledged the demise (death, end) of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System [3]
The dogma was [back then] that ‘strange’ isotopic abundances were due to fractionation [as you seem to claim]. The consensus that seemed to emerge from that meeting was that a nearby supernova probably was responsible for the abundances. This is now the new [well-supported] dogma that supernovae may help trigger star formation by compressing the interstellar medium. It seems that you have misunderstood [or over-interpreted] what Swart was trying to say. Here is the Swart paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swart-1983.pdf
Your ‘demise-death-end’ bit is overblown. Swart calls it a ‘mild controversy that has simmered’. Time to be more honest, now.

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 1:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard (12:34:21) :
And where did that star come from?

Stargate.

January 4, 2010 1:56 pm

tallbloke (13:32:16) :
“And where did that star come from?”
Stargate.

It’s supernovae all the way down for Oliver’s thesis to make even a modicum of sense.

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 2:06 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:56:05) :
tallbloke (13:32:16) :
“And where did that star come from?”
Stargate.
It’s supernovae all the way down for Oliver’s thesis to make even a modicum of sense.

I think Oliver’s distinction between stars with orbiting planets and others may be a clue.
Bye for now.

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 3:17 pm

Oliver writes:
Thanks, tallbloke, for continuing the discussion here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/oliver-manuel-on-the-solar-system/
I hope Leif will join us.
Can we let folks know that this a continuation of a discussion that was started on Watts Up With That:

Let the turtle piling commence!

Carla
January 4, 2010 7:12 pm

anna v (10:08:40) :
Happy New Year to all and cold enough to throw a sokein the cart of fools’ wheels of AGW, but not too cold for the rest of us 🙂
Welcome to 20-10 Anna v. Perhaps a tribute for the “working man,” should be the best way to welcome in the NEW YEAR!
My little selection is called, “The Man With Hoe,” by Edwin Markam.
“As I looked at Millet’s “The Man With the Hoe,” I realized that I was looking on no mere man of the field: but was looking on a plundered peasant, typifiying the millions left over as the debris from the thousand wars of the masters and from their long industrial ooppressions, extending over the ages. This Hoe-man might be a stooped consumptive toiler in a New York City sweat-shop: a man with a pick, spending nearly all his days underground in a West Virginia coal mine: a man with a labor-broken body carrying a hod in a London street: a boatman with strained arms and aching back rowing for hours against the heavy currrent of the Volga.” E.M.
Painting by Millet
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~wyllys/LHommeALaHoue20081226small2.jpg
Poem by Edwin Markam
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~wyllys/manwhoe.html
Ooops forgot to do this the other day.
Carry on guys.

tallbloke
January 4, 2010 11:17 pm

I like that painting. The man is breaking new ground, evidenced by the stones on the surface. He rests with his hands braced on top of the mattock haft. In the background and oxen team plough previously broken soil, and another man burns the straw from the previous crop on his land.
To me, it represents the self willed continuity and necessity of honest labour for the common man.

JT
January 5, 2010 5:12 am

Another OT but releated to the sun
Here is an amazing video of a comet being vaporized by the sun.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1240591/Comet-eaten-orbits-close-sun.html
Scroll down in the article to get to the video.
JT