Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 is now over a year old, so it is appropriate to see how it is ramping up.
Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century. It was almost as late as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.
[Note: Solar Cycle 22 and 23 are overlaid on solar cycle 3 and 4 above to show similarity]
Plotting up the last three solar cycles relative to the Dalton Minimum, another solar minimum is not precluded by the data to date.
With Solar Cycle 23 ending up at twelve and a half years long, applying Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover, New Hampshire results in a two degree centigrade decline in the annual average temperature at this location over the expected twelve years of Solar Cycle 24, from December 2009 to late 2021. Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.
Stephen Wilde (08:14:04) :
We each seem to mean something slightly different by the term ‘correlation’.
A classic study ~a hundred years ago by Yule showed that there is a very strong correlation [in your sense of the words – perhaps] between mortality and the number of couples married in Anglican Churches, truly suggestive of the danger of such folly. This correlation has since broken down, which some may see as further evidence of said danger.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:27:21) :
“If the data does not support the idea, it is not science to cling to it.”
When will you start, Leif? Would you like to address the data that Professor Stig Friberg and I summarized on the composition of the solar interior at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology, Big Bear Lake, California [European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348]?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1
Just start with the data in Figure 1 [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101] and work your way to the data in Figure 6 [Journal of Radio-analytical & Nuclear
Chemistry 252 (2002) 3-7].
Don’t overlook the data in Table 1 [Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on Origin of Elements in the Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000) 279-287].
Good luck, Leif.
You will learn a lot if you actually start to practice what you preach!
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
Good luck, Leif.
None of this is supportive of your claims.
To gain some credibility you can start with simply answering my questions.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:59:21) :
“To gain some credibility you can start with simply answering my questions.”
No, Leif, I will not waste my time spoon feeding your inflated ego!
You can read published, peer-reviewed papers like everyone else.
Or you can simply ignore the data and cling to your childish illusion of a Hydrogen-filled Sun!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
“If the data does not support the idea, it is not science to cling to it.”
In one of your ‘papers’ you list as a test of your claim:
“6. Look for excess heavy elements in the fast-moving solar wind, e.g., from the Sun’s poles.”
Measurements show the well-known effect that heavier elements [like Si and your favorite Fe] are depleted [i.e. no excess] in the fast solar wind from the poles:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA000358.pdf
So, you fail right there.
Oliver K. Manuel (09:38:20) :
No, Leif, I will not waste my time spoon feeding your inflated ego!
You waste already a lot of your [and everybody else’s time with your false claims].
We currently have a lot of weak-contrast sunspots (by direct observation).
So I am assuming that the L&P effect is still very much on track.
Stephen Wilde (08:14:04) :
Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
Stand firm. I’m following both of you thoughts and are rather impressed with your thoughts. Every path in physics which can be followed, dead-end or not, is proper. As a system analyst for most of my working life I have always learned more by the dead-ends and mistakes.
Both of you, wish I could write with your clarity!
Stephen, have you read Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper? Might you accept a deeper and between the lines view of his paper which directly addresses the “correlations” themselves batted about above and how the correlations are damaging climate physics itself?
Just ask.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (09:38:50):
“Measurements show the well-known effect that heavier elements [like Si and your favorite Fe] are depleted [i.e. no excess] in the fast solar wind from the poles: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA000358.pdf ”
1. Your strained sentence structure betrays your motives: “. . . heavier elements [like Si and your favorite Fe] are depleted [i.e. no excess] . . .”
2. I have known some of the authors of the nonsense paper that you cite for many years – a paper that ignores solar mass fractionation and falsely claims that empirical evidence of solar mass fractionation can be explained away by considering the first ionization potential (FIP).
3. The Wind spacecraft observed that successively heavier elements are enriched by factors of ~10, ~100, and ~1,000 respectively in solar energetic particles relative to those at the solar surface [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111–L114]
http://epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov/don/00HiZ.pdf
4. It has long been known that lightweight isotopes are less abundant in solar flares than in the solar wind [“The Origins of the Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations” (Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, 2000) 285-293]
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/iso_book.pdf
Long before Climate-gate, NASA was training and funding an army of “scientists” to distort and manipulate solar data, Leif, to try to protect the illusion that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
But the Standard Solar Model of a H-filled Sun is obsolete. Solar neutrinos from H-fusion do not magically oscillate away. And ultimately the truth will out.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
And Oliver, your theory seem to be the better path. The neutron-neutorn repulsion, brilliant. Will have to investigate the atomic weight sorting to better understand your theory. I will, in time. You have already given the links to the other papers above. I do think our sun is a variable star. I’m more concerned why across a half billion year T graph there are plus and minus four to five degree variances, the big drops.
Oliver K. Manuel (13:36:00) :
nonsense paper that you cite for many years – a paper that ignores solar mass fractionation and falsely claims that empirical evidence of solar mass fractionation can be explained away by considering the first ionization potential (FIP).
I give up. They report direct measurements
Quote: wayne (13:37:14) :
“And Oliver, your theory seem to be the better path. The neutron-neutorn repulsion, brilliant.”
Thanks, Wayne.
Students enrolled in Advanced Nuclear Chemistry (Chem. 471) in the spring semester of 2000 – Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke and Bing Zhang – contributed to the development of the “Cradle of the Nuclides” (below) that first revealed repulsive interactions between neutrons in the rest mass data of every nucleus with two or more neutrons.
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
Already we knew that iron (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Sun, and we knew that iron (Fe) – the ash of nuclear reactions – could not explain the solar neutrinos, solar-wind H, and solar energy that pours from the solar surface.
Each of these products is quantitatively explained by a series of nuclear reaction that are triggered by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core.
Again, thanks for your kindness.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (14:00:24) :
On a light note:
You know little of me of coarse. I’m a person who reads scientific papers as a hobby. Have read 10,000, well maybe not so high but 1000’s I’m sure, from Los Alamos, Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Harvard, CERN, Brookhaven, MaxPlanck, you name it. I stick mainly to astronomy, astrophysics, math, computer science areas. Oh, yeah, cosmology. Just listen to a four day lecture on dark matter and dark energy from CERN. Enlightening. I rarely accept things at face value, I’m a skeptic at heart. There is an old saying, I’m probably just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. That meaning I am spread across so many areas I tend to make mistakes in logic now and then, especially when jumping into an unfamiliar area of science. I blame it on my age and lack of books on the shelf and letters behind my name, and in reality because it is difficult to find if a paper has true merits or not on the web.
Your proposition of neutron-neutron repulsion came to mind last week when I had to help my granddaughter build a model atom. Copper I think we chose. Clothes hangers and marbles. But assembling the nucleus I thought of your paper. Do the neutron repulsions also have hand in proton-neutron configuration of the nucleus itself? Seems would have a play in radioactivity also. Have you carried the theory into those areas?
wayne
I’ll have a look at Miskolczi’s work but I’m trying to keep my climate description ‘pure’ by working from first principles and real world observations.
Working out a scenario that fits known physics and accounts for as many diverse observations as possible seems to me to be the way to go.
In a complex system, correlations and a lack of correlations are both equally potentially misleading as to the primary underlying processes.
Stephen Wilde (15:16:35) :
That is exactly why I thought you should read it. Not to accept it. Just to take his thoughts in the paper and apply them directly to some of your thoughts being explained above. Complex, yes, very in fact! My view may be a little deeper than that. The core question tied to his paper is something like “does a thermodynamic system, of any scale, when the input and output are out of balance, in reality re-balance at a maximum rate and therefore in minimum time”. Now that smells like proper physics. Apply that to your view of currents. (and keep in mind the emissivity and conductivity of the components of a planet’s complex climate system)
Stephen Wilde (15:16:35) :
Could also add “at a maximum rate and therefore in minimum time, all other local physical effect preserved and respected of coarse by proper physics laws”.
Another key question is “can a thermodynamic system, of any scale and complexity, ever increase in total energy and therefore temperature if input does not increase.” I can see output decreasing therefore slowing cooling, but can it actually increase and gain thermal heat? Especially in the case of a hot rock in a void near absolute zero as the planets.
Quote: wayne (15:14:41) :
“On a light note:
Your proposition of neutron-neutron repulsion came to mind last week when I had to help my granddaughter build a model atom. Copper I think we chose. Clothes hangers and marbles. But assembling the nucleus I thought of your paper. Do the neutron repulsions also have hand in proton-neutron configuration of the nucleus itself? Seems would have a play in radioactivity also. Have you carried the theory into those areas?”
Yes is the answer to your questions, except the last one.
I am an experimentalist, not a theorist.
a.) Empirically the N-P interaction is strongly attractive .
b.) N-N and P-P interactions are equal and repulsive, except for an additional repulsive force between + charges on each P.
N-emission occurs spontaneously up to A ~ 150 amu. Then spontaneous fission starts to occur.
I suspect that attractive N-P interactions form the nuclear core for A ~150 amu and neutrons are concentrated in the nuclear core. Hence spontaneous fission.
Please read: “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy” [Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98] to see how nuclear rest mass depends on the number of N-P, N-N and P-P interactions.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Stephen Wilde: Replied to Wayne, “I’ll have a look at Miskolczi’s work but I’m trying to keep my climate description ‘pure’ by working from first principles and real world observations.”
But if your real world observations do not rely on data, are they really real world observations?
Oliver K. Manuel (17:28:09) :
Your right. I was an astronomy lab assistant (for fun, an elective) and I kept the astronomy book, copyright 1969. The elements in meteorites is correct but no mention of the core of the sun, I mean not at all. Never even noticed that. In grade school we leaning the reason why we had drills under out desks, I just blindly assumed the sun was hydrogen thermonuclear based. I now get your point clearly.
Here is but a wild guess, the evenness of atomic numbers, that’s the maximum possible binding energy per nuclide. And does it have a geometry base, as one neutron with twelve more packed around, hex.. can’t find the proper term, for iron’s nucleus core. Answer in some other post if you detect me there. We are a little, no way, OT.
Quote: wayne (19:31:02) :
“Here is but a wild guess, the evenness of atomic numbers, that’s the maximum possible binding energy per nuclide.”
Elements with even atomic numbers have greater nuclear stability and generally more isotopes than elements with odd atomic numbers.
The history of this 1917 discovery by Harkins [ Journal American Chemical Socociety 39 (1917) 856-879] is discussed in the paper, “Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete.”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410569v1
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
PS – Hydrogen has an odd atomic number, #1.
Stephen Wilde: Let me try to summarize our discussion on this thread, and draw a conclusion for myself. Back on Feb 2, you wrote in your 03:40:14 comment, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”
I linked a graph of global SST anomalies versus sunspot number and asked you to illustrate the effect. Link to graph:
http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png
We exchanged arguments. Then in your Feb 8 (10:00:40) comment, you link the following heliogenic web page:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/
And you conclude with, “Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely?”
Let’s put aside the summary for a moment. Perhaps you should have noted in your initial comment (and should note in future comments) that you were (are) discussing variability on a multi-century timescale. Your failure to make that distinction in your comments leads your readers to assume any time period, which can cause them to misunderstand and misinterpret your research. But since you later contradict yourself, I do not find that I “dismiss broader perspectives unwisely.”
Now let’s look at the closing sentence of the abstract of the paper referred to in the heliogenic link you provided. The second to last sentence of the abstract of the Sachs et al (2009) paper “Southward movement of the Pacific intertropical convergence zone AD 1400–1850” reads, “A colder Northern Hemisphere at that time, POSSIBLY RESULTING FROM LOWER SOLAR IRRADIANCE, may have driven the intertropical convergence zone south.” [Caps are mine for emphasis.] So the authors don’t conclude that there is a correlation between Northern Hemisphere temperature and lower solar irradiance, just that there is a possibility.
Back to the summary: In that same Feb 8 comment you wrote, “The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.”
Leif took exception to that comment, pointing out the Oort Grand Minimum occurred during the MWP, and your reply included, “The Oort minimum is just a period when the solar cycle was out of phase with the oceanic cycles. Part of my submission is that the solar and oceanic cycles may well change their periodicities independently so the Oort minimum during a warm period would just be an example of that.” You continued with, “Perhaps one of the reasons that we are not getting a coherent climate overview is the failure to appreciate that in such a complex system there are countercyclical events that do not disprove the underlying relationships.”
Your statement, “The Oort minimum is just a period when the solar cycle was out of phase with the oceanic cycles”, suggesting that ocean cycles can and do have a dominant impact on global temperatures, and your statement, “solar and oceanic cycles may well change their periodicities independently”, contradict your previous contentions. How could “…the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…” if the cycles are independent? And if the solar cycles can be out of phase with ocean cycles, you cannot conclude, “cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time”.
All of this confirms that your generalized statements, such as “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”, are not correct on yearly, decadal, multidecadal, or multi-century timescales.
Regards
Bob Tisdale (02:59:41)
1) All my work refers to all timescales and adequately distinguishes between the effects observed on each timescale. You chose to focus on the shortest timescales where chaotic variability and overlapping cycles tend to obscure the longer term correlations.
2) I do not correlate lower solar irradiance with lower temperatures. I correlate lower temperatures with lower rates of energy release from the oceans and, counterintuitively a MORE active sun which appears to increase the rate of energy loss to space. However the oceanic effect is far more powerful and more than offsets the solar effects except on longer timescales.
3) The solar and oceanic cycles do appear to vary independently and gradually move in and out of phase over millennia. Whilst they are in phase there is one set of climate consequences. When they are out of phase there is a different set of climate consequences. At present they are largely in phase with a few short term exceptions arising from time to time.
4) The 20th Century warmth coincided with a more active sun AND faster energy release from the oceans. The LIA coolness coincided with a less active sun AND ITCZ near the equator which suggests slower energy release from the oceans. The MWP coincided with a more active sun and I suggest faster energy release from the oceans. The Oort minimum would actually have enhanced the warming effect because lower solar activity appears to reduce the rate of energy loss to space. So at least since the MWP there has been a correlated cooling and warming process with all three components mostly in phase. Solar variability has only been out of phase for short periods and so has not significantly altered the primarily ocean driven tropospheric temperature changes.
You really have not absorbed the overall cohesion of what I have been saying and your post is selective and misleading.
I think we should end it there unless you can point to real world climate consequences such as would falsify my suggestions along the lines of the examples I gave to Leif.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “3) The solar and oceanic cycles do appear to vary independently and gradually move in and out of phase over millennia.”
This directly contradicts the original comment you made that started this discussion. Also, the data reveals that the “solar and oceanic cycles vary independently and gradually move in and out of phase over” decades. There’s no need to discuss it on a longer time span.
You wrote, “4) The 20th Century warmth coincided with a more active sun AND faster energy release from the oceans.”
I find it remarkable that you can state this when the likes of Kevin Trenberth using satellite data cannot identify where the heat is going from year to year. You, on the other hand, can somehow magically conclude this over spans of decades, centuries, and millennia, without the ability to document if there have been variations in volcanic aerosols, aerosols associated with Saharan dust, low or high cloud cover, ocean cycles, ocean climate shifts, etc., or to determine the effects of these variations. To me, as I’ve stated on numerous occasions, without data to support your statements, they are nothing but conjecture.
You wrote, “You really have not absorbed the overall cohesion of what I have been saying and your post is selective and misleading.”
Really? Your statement that I have not absorbed your claims is unfounded and arrogant. I’ve absorbed all that needs to be absorbed, Stephen. My 02:59:41 comment is a fair (to both sides) summary of the original topic. You, however, continue to introduce new discussions to obscure the errors in your original and follow-up comments.
You concluded with, “I think we should end it there unless you can point to real world climate consequences such as would falsify my suggestions along the lines of the examples I gave to Leif.”
Since you provided no scientific data to support your conjecture, and since your arguments contradict themselves, there is no way or need to falsify them.
Stephen Wilde (10:09:59) :
Bob Tisdale (15:18:10) :
Stephen, having read back through you and Bob’s conversation, I realize you might not yet ready to consider other deep paper’s concepts at this time. I see the point you made, on concentration on your hypothesis. Wish had not I injected that comment to you. And if you later want the ideas, don’t read the paper itself first but read Dr. Zagoni’s summary of his paper, it’s easier to grasp. I don’t know if his theory is correct but it contains some interesting concepts on energy flows and balances in relation to the minimum time principle applied to a planet.
Seems Bob has spent much time listing the points he saw where some of your conjectures were questionable, and he commented back in detail. In this respect I see most of Bob’s points. You should go back and clarify you ideas a bit, put limits and be clearer of the local environment when you try to justify the exceptions. You cannot have it one way here and the other way there without detailed explanation as to when and why, backed by graphs or data. Being new to blogs I find it easy to contradict myself when commenting, while just trying to be brief.