David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
E.M. Smith, my hunch is that wind power repair and re-conditioning companies are making enough to create jobs. I know. I know. It’s the kind of jobs that has one company creating a pile of dirt just to create a pile of dirt, so that another company gets to move it back where it came from. Wind power set ups are just like that. But someone is making money off it. I think that is what Obummer meant when he said that the guv’mnt can create jobs if they focus on renewables like wind. Which is true. There is a lot of wind coming out of the guv’mnt.
TomVonk (07:17:54) :
It is different from , f.ex an “observation” of a proton where you can measure its energy , spin , charge , momentum etc in a lab.
When you do this, you find that the observation depends on various laws of Nature holding, e.g. that Force = Mass x Accel, or Reaction = – Action, and so on. I can modify those laws to make any ‘observation’ go away, so there is no difference in principle. The real observation is the observed arcs resulting from the bending of light. This observation is real and cannot be made to go away. We can map the ‘bending’ and the result is real. We interpret the bending as due to mass, because that is consistent with the three other observations: internal velocity dispersion of clusters, flat rotation curves for spiral galaxies, and the ratio between the amplitudes of even and odd numbered bumps in the power spectrum of the CMB. None of these other ones rely on GR, so modifying GR to get rid of the mass from bending will not work for the other observations. Astronomers have long ago [ca. 1978] grudgingly accepted this, which is why Dark Matter is no longer in doubt. The science now is to map it and to find out what it is.
Dr. Svalgaard: “…Dark Matter is no longer in doubt.”
Many astrophysicists disagree with your opinion.
But typical for Dr. Svalgaard to make his personal opinion sound like it speaks for astropysicists in general.
How was the hypothesis of so-called “dark” matter thought up?
But for the failure of gravity to account for the rotational curves of galaxies, “dark” matter would have never been thought of.
So, the theory was falsified, but instead of discarding the theory, astronomers made up a fudge factor, literally a pixie dust (can’t be observed), that can be sprinkled liberally wherever needed to make the theory still hold true in the face of falsifying evidence.
In contrast, the plasma model does not need invocation of “dark” matter because the electromagnetic physical properties (electromagnetic attaraction is 39 orders of magnitude stronger that gravity) account for observation & measurement of galaxy behavior including flat rotational curves — the very observation that falsified the gravity model in the first place.
In other words, the plasma model describes & explains the observations & measurements, while the gravity model doesn’t.
Leif, please explain simply, as I know you can, why those two other phenomena are markers for mass, the profile of the background microwaves, the shape of the spirals. I’ve a small clue how velocity dispersion might.
=================================
Just waiting for ASTRO-GATE (as a part of the NASA Gate)…
Buy more popcorn!
All these Gates seem just the consequence of the system for getting grants. It is a matter of struggle for survival, that’s bad.
James F. Evans (09:17:17) :
In contrast, the plasma model does not need invocation of “dark” matter because the electromagnetic physical properties (electromagnetic attaraction is 39 orders of magnitude stronger that gravity) account for observation & measurement of galaxy behavior including flat rotational curves — the very observation that falsified the gravity model in the first place.
And a link to that, please
kim (09:20:41) :
markers for mass, the profile of the background microwaves, the shape of the spirals. I’ve a small clue how velocity dispersion might.
It is not the shape of the spiral galaxies as such, but the rotational profile that is involved. Let’s take that one first.
If, as observations show, most of the mass of a spiral galaxy is concentrated near its center, then the stars [and the dust] would orbit with speeds decreasing with distance [once you are a little away] from the center, just like our planets orbit with decreasing speed [Earth: 30 km/s, Pluto: 4.7 km/s]. Observations of Doppler signals from stars and from radio observations of gas far beyond the outer edge show that in contrast the rotational speed is constant. This would be predicted if the mass of the galaxy [including our own] was much larger than the visible matter indicates and was spread much more evenly in a spherical ‘halo’ around the galaxy. Note that this is a rather local effect and cannot be blamed on General Relativity being invalid on a scale of billions of light-years.
Now the harder one: The early universe was radiation dominated and matter didn’t matter [ 🙂 ]. As the universe expanded and cooled, the density of matter becomes more important, eventually dominating over radiation after a few hundred thousand years. At that stage, perturbations and fluctuations can begin to grow under the influence of gravity and on scales determined by the relative density of baryons [stuff we can see], oscillations in the baryon-photon soup can [and will] develop. When, at a redshift of about 1100 [when the universe has cooled enough, to under 2967K], the electrons and protons combine to form neutral hydrogen [i.e. no longer a plasma], the CMB photons are free to roam through the universe. These photons preserve a record of the baryon-photon oscillations. The relative heights of the odd and even peaks depend on the baryon density in a rather complicated way. You can see more at http://www.physics.oregonstate.edu/~stetza/COURSES/ph407h/CMB.pdf
The baryon density matches what we see, so the remaining mass up to a quarter of the total mass-energy [dark matter], cannot consist of baryons.
kim (09:20:41) :
markers for mass, the profile of the background microwaves,
Kim, here is another good article at an appropriate level:
http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
Leif Svalgaard,
“The baryon density matches what we see, so the remaining mass up to a quarter of the total mass-energy [dark matter], cannot consist of baryons.”
Silly question perhaps, but could this “dark” matter be dark simply because it’s non luminous – ie gas clouds? Why the need to hypothesise WIMPS and other such wierdness?
Although I personally hope (not knowing any better) that fringe theories like EU are true, and think that fringe theorists should be encouraged, I also believe that Leif is too valuable to irritate, and so the topic should be off-limits, like evolution, chemtrails, etc.
In the sidebar, click on Categories, then Sea Level.
Vincent (10:55:44) :
Silly question perhaps, but could this “dark” matter be dark simply because it’s non luminous – ie gas clouds? Why the need to hypothesise WIMPS and other such wierdness?
All matter we can see are made up of baryons [protons, neutrons, etc] and leptons [electrons, neutrinos, etc]. This includes all of YOU. Gas clouds are also baryons, except when composed of ‘weird’ matter. It was once thought that neutrinos with mass [they are leptons, not baryons] might be a candidate for dark matter, but that does not seem to work: neutrinos are ‘fermions’ and obey the Fermi Exclusion Principle where [roughly] two fermions cannot occupy the same space. The size of that ‘space’ is a function of the mass, and at the mass neutrinos were needed to have to make up the dark matter, there would not be enough space in the universe to contain the neutrinos.
Roger Knights (11:28:03) :
Although I personally hope (not knowing any better) that fringe theories like EU are true, and think that fringe theorists should be encouraged, I also believe that Leif is too valuable to irritate, and so the topic should be off-limits, like evolution, chemtrails, etc.
I disagree [as I’m not irritated – in fact, at time amused]. What should be off-limits are personal attacks of the caliber of Evans’ and Oliver’s. I’m always [perhaps, too] willing to explain where the errors and weaknesses are in fringe theories. I would be nice, now and then, to have that sink in, but it is like telling your daughters “don’t go with the bad boys”.
Ooh, excellent explanations and references, Leif. I warm my wandering feet and brain at your fireside.
========================
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:23) requested: “And a link to that, please.”
Advances In Numerical modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas
Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
Anthony L. Peratt
United States Department of Energy, Washington DC, U.S.A.; and Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf
Published 1998, peer-reviewed journal, Astrophysic and Space Science
Anthony L. Peratt’s professional biography:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
Page 65, Section 3.3 Rotational Velecities
From Section 3.3 Rotational Velocities
“The flat rotation curves of galaxies has been cited as the strongest physical evidence for the existence of dark matter. In this scenario a massive halo of dark matter has been evoked to produce the flat rotation curves. However, the rotation curves are not really flat; they show appreciable structure representative of an instability mechanism within the arms. This instabiltiy precludes the existence of any external halo of matter around galaxies that, while making the rotation curves flat, would also dampen any instability growth.”
Dr. Peratt goes on to provide the electromagnetic physical explanation for why the observed “flat” rotation curves are consistent with electromagnetic force laws at large scale.
So, “In other words, the plasma model describes & explains the observations & measurements, while the gravity model doesn’t.”
Dr. Svalgaard thank you for your reply. I think I should take my toe out of the water, I’m just a layman with an interest. But going along with Vincent’s question
can dark matter be just non luminous. For example Failed stars, brown dwarf stars, debris from billions of years of star formation and black holes?
This link is to an excellent talk on solar minima, sunspots & climate by Dr. Kirkby, presented to CERN.
The presentation title is “Cosmic rays and climate – Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability.” Fascinating stuff!
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
James F. Evans (12:34:17) :
Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
The simulation is invalid because of the invalid assumption of large-scale electric fields across a galaxy [remember: highly conducting plasmas cannot sustain electric fields – as we have discussed so often]. Simple as that. Now find me another one.
Iain.H (12:39:44) :
can dark matter be just non luminous. For example Failed stars, brown dwarf stars, debris from billions of years of star formation and black holes?
Same answer as to Vincent. The debris would also be baryonic. And the CMB data shows that the baryonic density is too low. Look at page 3 of http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf where it explains:
“The relative heights of the acoustic peaks yield precision of the baryon density and of the density of the cold dark matter. Higher baryon density enhances the odd-numbered acoustic peaks relative to the even-numbered ones, while lower dark-matter density enhances all of the peaks”. We can thus determine both densities.
Iain.H (12:39:44) :
Perhaps, you should consider that so-called “dark” matter doesn’t exist at all.
See Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s peer-reviewed paper above.
Dr S brought up galaxy cluster Abell 2218. Why are astronomers saying that a very distant objects are being “lensed” by enormous amounts of dark matter in the first place?
It is because of the discordant redshifts:
img Abell 2218:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~rse/firstlight/a2218_arcs.gif
Things that are supposed to be far away according to their redshifts are found together with much nearer galaxies. The Abell 2218 I linked to does not even show some objects with much higher redshifts, including one z=5.58.
It happens like this all over the Universe. One simple example is Arp 220. The picture speaks for itself:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origins_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters/illustrations/figure_7.jpg
If forces act on our sun and solar system, and cause a reduction in sunspots, don’t the same forces cause an increase in volcanic SO2 at the same time!… and can SO2 changes be plotted along side sunspot records to compare….based upon eruption volumes? Thanks!
Leif Svalgaard (13:20:06) :
Evans (12:34:17) : “Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale”
Dr. Svalgaard (13:20:06) responded: “The simulation is invalid because of the invalid assumption of large-scale electric fields across a galaxy [remember: highly conducting plasmas cannot sustain electric fields – as we have discussed so often]. Simple as that. Now find me another one.”
“[remember: highly conducting plasmas cannot sustain electric fields – as we have discussed so often]”
You have made that assertion a number of times (its your standard refrain), but you have never been able to support your assertion with any observable & measurable scientific evidence.
Never. It’s always been a naked assertion on your part.
So, please provide a link.
In fact, the observable & measurable scientific evidence is just the opposite:
Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma.
Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this, as Dr. Peratt discussed in the above linked paper. Perhaps, you should read the entire paper and then ask meaningful follow up questions, instead of offering empty, knee-jerk reactions.
As Langmuir noted in his pioneering and foundational work, seperate bodies of plasma with different charge potentials will insulate from each, rather than cancel out, by way of the double layer mechanism.
As stated, sustained electric fields have been observed & measured right here in the solar system:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews105.html
“Magnetic reconnection [actually Electric Double Layer] is commonly invoked to explain a variety of space, solar, astrophysical and laboratory plasma phenomena. It has long been debated whether reconnection is fundamentally patchy in space and time or if, instead, it can occur in a quasi-stationary manner over an extended region in space. Direct evidence that reconnection commonly occurs in the solar wind is found in ACE observations of jetting Alfvnic plasma flows confined to magnetic field reversal regions.”
See Wikipedia entry for double layer (plasma):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
And, the “magnetic reconnection” versus Electric Double Layer debate we have had, now, several times, and each time I provided documentation (peer-reviewed published scientific papers) to support the assessment that so-called “magnetic reconnection” is a fallacy, an artifact of pre-space age (1946) speculation unsupported by present in situ observation & measurement and the proper and scientifically supported process is an Electric Double Layer.
And, per the linked ACE press release, Electric Double Layers have been observed & measured to stand for an extended time in a stationary manner in one location of space.
So, no, the paper I provided is valid.
And, of course, your unsupported dismissal completely ignores the physical explanation offered by Dr. Peratt for why so-called “dark matter” can’t be used to explain the “flat” rotational curves of spiral galaxies.
If you can’t discuss and “grasp the nettle” of the specifics in the paper, let me suggest it is because you can’t refute the specifics, so, instead, you attempt to rely on content-empty general dismissals.
It just doesn’t wash anymore.
James F. Evans (13:30:03) :
Perhaps, you should consider that so-called “dark” matter doesn’t exist at all.
See Dr. Anthony L. Peratt’s peer-reviewed paper above.
Peratt’s paper does not show anything. It presupposes ‘galactic currents’. If these existed they might flatten the rotation curves [but not explain the clusters nor the lensing], but since there are no large-scale sustained electric fields in plasmas, the paper is on its phase not valid as showing that these non-existing currents have any effect.
Find another reference.
The article http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf concludes that today “is a marvelous moment in the investigation of the cosmos”. The Electric Universe is an impoverished, outmoded, and untenable piece of pseudo-science.
James F. Evans (13:30:03) :
Perhaps, you should consider that so-called “dark” matter doesn’t exist at all.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself a bit with modern astrophysics. The following [unfortunately somewhat technical] paper summarizes the precision measurements of several cosmological parameters [with error bars]. See table 7 on page 54 of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0803/0803.0732v2.pdf
In particular, the baryon density [in units of the critical density] is 0.0441, the dark matter density is 0.214 and the dark energy density is 0.742. You can multiply by 100 to get percentages.
These results comes from analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background and are independent of rotation curves, cluster velocity dispersion, and General Relativity [although these other effects fully supports the CMB data]. They involve only simple freshman-level physics.
Brendan H (10:20:31) :
Actually, whenever something where I have some knowledge is covered in the MSM, they always get it wrong. So wrong, that one might easily suspect some intentional "gatekeeping" is at work.
No, you cannot and should not believe everything you see online, but neither should you believe everything you read in your paper or hear over the radio or television.
Everything you hear or read should face “the Missouri test”: don’t just tell me something; show me how you came to that conclusion, and why you chose that conclusion over its reasonable alternatives.
Look fellows, we have just spent twenty years trying to prove that AGW was the biggest hoax (voodoo Leif calls it) since PT Barnham. They failed to prove their science. The proving of the science is the MOST important fact!!!!! We are all very suspicious that cooling (of some level) is coming….I believe it is coming!…and I am preparing for it…I am a farmer (with a 40 year background in science and meteorology)….but that DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!! I know part of science is observation but wishing and hoping does not prove the data. We must not be characterized as being like the AGW’s. I have been hard on Leif at times….because he corrected me for my BAD SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS…and he was right. Opinions don’t prove anything….correct science does. We must be correct and we must LEARN what is really going on. We have got to get it right….so this can be explained.
I will say this….if we are heading into a Dalton-like minimum, what may make it GRAND is the fact that the the PDO (Pacific decadel oscillation) and the AO (Atlantic decadel oscillation) are headed into their cold phases….the Pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean are turning colder for twenty to thirty years…this is a regular event….if it overlays a deep solar minimum…it makes it worse!….colder….it makes it hard to grow food!!!!!!!!!!
I have an Apple Orchard….we have had 140% crop damage over the last three years….and in the surrounding six states (I live in TN)….the normal is 10-15 % every five years. The first event was in 2007…..it was 16 degrees F. for four nights in mid- April….that hasn’t happened before in meteo. records (back to 1890)….last year we were 40% down because the Sun didn’t shine for almost the entire month of April (during bloom)…..and fruit won’t set on the tree without sunlight…….but I know……”I’ve never seen it so cloudy before for so long”….isn’t very scientific……but you can’t eat ‘cloudy’…..We’ve got to figure this out!….and we’ve got to quit arguing! We have had some unusual crop losses and I fear this may get worse. The Little Ice Age was dotted with cold, cloudy, rainy weather….and crop loss….and with 8 billion people on the planet…..we can’t stand ANY crop losses.
That’s subjective….but rooted in truth.
Thanks
Jack Bailey