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.
“Most of those w/m^2 are from a presumed positve feedback. Most of that presumption comes from the team at the center of the climate-gate scandal and temperature series with gross under-estimation of urban heat island effect combined with what appears to be a deliberate elimination of stations that don’t have warm bias. After finding as much warm bias as they can to pad the numbers, they still have to continually ratchet down past recorded temperatures to maintain their needed w/m^2.”
I respectfully decline to participate in your hallucination.
James F. Evans (14:49:37) :
Never. It’s always been a naked assertion on your part.
So, please provide a link.
http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffjrk/vasyliunas.2.html.pdf
Vasyliunas has said it clearly enough [Parker too, as you know; even I have (just looking through my old lecture notes from when I taught plasma physics at Stanford)].
Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this
Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.
plasma with different charge potentials will insulate from each, rather than cancel out, by way of the double layer mechanism
The electric field across the double layer will cause the potential to be shorted out if the plasma is free to move. If you artificially maintain the potential by external means, the double layer will stay, but in space plasmas there is no experimenter maintaining the potential and the particles are indeed free to move.
So, no, the paper I provided is valid.
You do not understand that whenever you move plasma across a magnetic field you create an electric field. To maintain the field you either need an insulator between the two charge separations [in which case no current can flow] or a mechanical mechanism to keep the plasma moving across the magnetic field [which BTW it cannot do because it moves with the plasma]. We have had this discussion so many times in the past that it seems to be evidence of an unwillingness to learn on your part.
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.
I told you that his explanation is not valid because he does not specify the mechanism by which his postulated electric field is maintained.
It just doesn’t wash anymore.
You are so good at dredging the internet. So find me another paper by somebody else that validates Peratt’s approach. It would be a miracle that such an important issue has been completely ignored by astrophysicists in general, and you claimed there were some that agreed with Peratt. Find me some. There should be many. Google has 48,500 hits for ‘flat galaxy rotation curve’. Happy hunting.
Jack Bailey (16:33:24) :
I have been hard on Leif at times….because he corrected me for my BAD SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS…and he was right. […]
I have an Apple Orchard….we have had 140% crop damage over the last three years…
how can damage be more than 100%?
To Leif
Guess you have to be an apple grower……you would usually expect one year in five to have 10% to 15% damage……we have had a five year period where one years loss was 100% (2007), a second years loss was 40% (2009), and three previously normal years (2008, 2006, and 2005)…..that is a VERY large loss over five years….and what if we have damage in any of the upcoming two years (2010 or 2011)?
Jack Bailey
Jack Bailey (20:56:32) :
100% (2007), a second years loss was 40% (2009), and three previously normal years (2008, 2006, and 2005)
You cannot add percentages. You can only add actual losses [baskets, pounds, dollars, etc]. Let us assume that the number of dollars you would have realized without any losses were constant in each year, say $100. Then the first year you lost 100%, or $100, 5-year sum gained so far = $0. 2nd year you lost 40% or $40, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60. 3rd year you lost 0%, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60+$100. 4th year you lost 0%, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60+$100+$100. and 5th year you lost 0%, 5-year sum gained so far = $0+$60+$100+$100+$100 = $360. With no loss you would have gained $500, so your loss over 5 years was (500-360)/500*100=28%. Agree?
16 02 2010 vukcevic (14:07:55) : “Winters of the Dalton minimum period were not colder than those of the 1940-1970 period, while summers were cooler than in any period since 1700.This graph shows both summer and winter CET anomalies for 1700-2010
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
This is in a way consistent with large amount of micro-particles in the atmosphere from volcanic activity increasing cloud formation, condensation and rainfall giving cool summer and not so cold winters.”
Yes, notice the lack of VEI 5 eruptions up to 1931 and then poof look at all the 4-5 eruptions close together 1931 through 1933 and you’ve got the same thing happening again. This probably eventually flipped the OHC into the cool phase for 1940-1970.
Name – Location – Date – Volcano Explosivity Index
GRIGAN Mariana Islands 1917 Apr 9 4
TUNGURAHUA Ecuador 1918 Apr 5 4
KATLA Southern Iceland 1918 Oct 12 4+
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1919 May 19 4
MANAM Northeast of New Guinea 1919 Aug 11 4
RAIKOKE Kuril Islands 1924 Feb 15 4
IRIOMOTE-JIMA Ryukyu Islands (Japan) 1924 Oct 31 4?
AVACHINSKY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1926 Apr 5 4
KOMAGA-TAKE Hokkaido (Japan) 1929 Jun 17 4
KLIUCHEVSKOI Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1931 Mar 25 4
ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931 May 1 4
ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931 May 11 4?
FUEGO Guatemala 1932 Jan 21 4
AZUL, CERRO Central Chile 1932 Apr 10 5+
KHARIMKOTAN Kuril Islands 1933 Jan 8 5
SUOH Sumatra (Indonesia) 1933 Jul 10 4
KUCHINOERABU-JIMA Ryukyu Islands (Japan) 1933 Dec 24 4?
RABAUL New Britain 1937 May 29 4?
MICHOACAN-GUANAJUATO México 1943 Feb 20 4
AVACHINSKY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1945 Feb 25 4
SARYCHEV PEAK Kuril Islands 1946 Nov 9 4
HEKLA Southern Iceland 1947 Mar 29 4
AMBRYM Vanuatu 1951 4+
LAMINGTON New Guinea 1951 Jan 21 4
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1951 Aug 31 4
BAGANA Bougainville Island 1952 Feb 29 4
SPURR Southwestern Alaska 1953 Jul 9 4
CARRAN-LOS VENADOS Central Chile 1955 Jul 27 4
BEZYMIANNY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1956 Mar 30 5
AGUNG Lesser Sunda Islands (Indonesia) 1963 Mar 17 5
AGUNG Lesser Sunda Islands (Indonesia) 1963 May 16 4
SHIVELUCH Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1964 Nov 12 4+
TAAL Luzon (Philippines) 1965 Sep 28 4
KELUT Java (Indonesia) 1966 Apr 26 4
AWU Sangihe Islands (Indonesia) 1966 Aug 12 4
FERNANDINA Galápagos Islands 1968 Jun 11 4
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
Be cool to somehow have the volcano list added to sunspot cycles and temperatures on graph.
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.
.
This is not correct .
The interpretation of all 3 observations mentionned depends CRITICALLY on GR .
This is obvious for clusters and galaxy rotation curves .
As for the gravitational lensing of CMB (and its power spectrum) , as the name already suggests the interpretation uses GR too .
F.ex here : http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/557/2/L79/015391.web.pdf?request-id=bb52b403-e6fa-42fe-b058-f3e4c771c5c4 – already equation 2 uses a GR result .
So clearly any interpretation of these observations in terms of Dark Matter needs to suppose that the GR is EXACTLY correct at all scales .
What I have been saying in my posts is that this assumption is a matter of BELIEF .
A reasonable belief but a belief all the same .
Personnaly I share this belief too .
But I won’t try to sell it for an experimental or theoretical result because it is not the case .
It is still perfectly possible that the GR does NOT apply exactly at all scales .
After all it is rationnaly not less reasonable to suppose that the GR equations depend on scale than to suppose the existence of exotic non baryonic particles that have never been observed directly .
To avoid confusion : when I say “observed directly” , I mean the local measure of their mass , energy , momentum and spin .
It is possible that the LHC will see SUSY . It is also possible that a dark matter anihilation signal will be seen in the cosmic rays . Or not .
.
But untill then the existence of dark matter is just a believable working hypothesis .
Re: TomVonk (Feb 18 02:04),
Well Tom, though I agree with you that a different theory might come up that would explain the same data without GR, I would stop short of calling GR a belief.
Take plane geometry. It starts with two axioms, if I remember right, and all the rest hangs up from them. An axiom is an assumption, does not have to be believed in, it has to be assumed, and then the rest fall into place as proofs of theorems and consistent solutions.
If you take different axioms, you end up with different geometries, again hanging down from them are the theorems and the problem solutions.
Why pick that set of axioms? Plane geometry is good in a flat earth, as people thought for centuries and is even now good for two dimensional and euclidean problems.
Spherical geometry is good on a sphere, as we have found when circumnavigating the earth and contemplating the heavenly sphere.
Good in the sense of minimum and elegant solutions.
In the same way we have found general relativity is an axiomatic set of equations to work well with the data of the cosmos we have up to now, if we assume dark matter.
I am prejudiced about dark matter, as it comes out of most of current particle theories, and even hope to see string theories in the game. I have seen theoretical physics going from Reggi poles, through the eightfold way ,the parton model, the standard model of su3xsu2xu1, and expect to see these last embedded in a more global theory that will include a quantized gravity, before senility sets in :).
If you have followed the progress of gauge theories, it seems inevitable that gravity will also be quantized and if it is with strings, there will be lots of dark matter. Maybe LHC will come up with mini black holes to clinch string theories. Already they are seeing a larger than expected number of hadrons, and it is one of the signatures, since they will decay thermodynamically.
What should be clear though is that for theories to be alternate axiomatics to GR they should have the same stature, i.e. be able to explain the same data and in addition be more elegant and predictive. Hand waving and partial solutions wont do it.
Don’t forget that if you plot the solar system in a geocentric coordinate system the epicycles will come out beautifully. The heliocentric wins not because it is “true”, since all coordinate systems are true, but because it is more elegant and predictive. The competing proposal for GR should clarify and integrate existing data and not fragment it into various hypothetical disparate propositions, as is the case with “theories” appearing on these boards.
Leif,
Yes, that is one way to put it….the point is….that these were major losses for the given time period and very unusual. I live in a major apple growing area.
Jack Bailey
TomVonk (02:04:34) :
The interpretation of all 3 observations mentionned depends CRITICALLY on GR .
This is obvious for clusters and galaxy rotation curves .
No, they depend on Newtonian Gravity being correct. The difference between NG and GR sets in for high gravitational accelerations. Now, it is possible to modify NG to posit a deviation at extremely LOW acceleration, the MOND-hypothesis to explain the rotational profiles. This would be very difficult to test experimentally, because we are close to a star [our Sun]. By combining the accelerations from the Sun, the Earth, and the center of the Milky Way, it turns out that at two points on the Earth [~80 N and S, 56 W] within a volume of 0.1 cubic meter for about 1 second each equinox that the combined acceleration is small enough to allow direct measurements of the proposed deviation. Nobody has done this difficult experiment.
Of course, if GR is correct, NG would also be correct at low acceleration. All experiments show that GR come through with flying colors, e.g. this recent one http://www.physorg.com/news185632345.html
As to belief and proof: everything is belief at one level. One could posit that the world came into existence last Tuesday with everything in it just set up to look like it is billions of years old, starlight already on its way, etc. We believe this is not the case, but that is just a belief [and not falsifiable to boot]. But it is a very STRONG belief so we elevate GR to be ‘truth’ [as we see it – as Richard Nixon would have said] and refute the notion that it is ‘just’ a belief as forcefully as Johnson: http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Jack Bailey (05:45:32) :
that these were major losses for the given time period and very unusual. I live in a major apple growing area.
Every growing thing has a line that marks the boundary of where it can grow. If you are close to that boundary you’ll be hit with occasional losses. We usually [sometimes with hardship] accept this as long as in the long-run we come out ahead. That said, the movement of those boundaries are, of course, strong climate indicators.
Wondering aloud after looking again at the conclusions image from the original article above.
1500 BC to 2000 AD appears to be a zone indicating the solar systems approach to a cloud, cloud interaction which precedes the turbulent zone which gave us that 60 plus years of higher solar activity. If what preceded the turbulent region is any indication of what is on the other side it might could stay cooler for an extended period of time.
Ah this WUWT thread is awry …. so the spiderwoman sings. Rolling Stones, off the “Stripped” cd, Let it Bleed, and Spider and the Fly.
Carla (07:15:06) :
Wondering aloud after looking again at the conclusions image from the original article above.
That is just the solar physics version of the Hockey Stick, and is not representative of real solar activity. A somewhat better reconstruction [although still with problems – the sharp deep dips might be dubious] can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
“Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters
during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years
5300, 3400, 1100, and +1500 A.D.
The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer minima. We predict that the next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years.”
I’d like to reference something in the original post:
“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”
Even his co-authors are not on board with this prediction. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does, for the moment, seem to be one guy.
Leif Svalgaard (07:53:18) :
Carla (07:15:06) :
Wondering aloud after looking again at the conclusions image from the original article above.
That is just the solar physics version of the Hockey Stick, and is not representative of real solar activity. A somewhat better reconstruction [although still with problems – the sharp deep dips might be dubious] can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
~
Thanks Leif
I don’t expect the distribution of filamentary (turbulent) regions to be even.
If peaks in the graph are indicators of more highly charged regions (and they must be huge) then consequently more enegetic solar cycles..
In the slide with the graph, I don’t see the MWP. Looks like the sun was not active at that time.
Interesting links, but I’m not sure what to make of the fact that the recent solar activity obviously peaked in the early 1980s (from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots); and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm plots are really not that impressive – what’s going on in 1800, 1830, 1840s,1900, 1960s, and other times – all seem poorly correlated temp vs. SS #.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Cosmic Microwave Background as a theoretical basis for the so-called “big bang” has been falsified many times and many ways.
But “modern” astronomy refuses to face up to the falsifications that have been demonstrated. Demonstration of “dark” matter by way of CMB is taking one a priori assumption and using it to demonstrate another assumption, the existence of “dark” matter.
This approach is not empirical science nor does it follow the scientific method. Rather, it is the stacking of theoretical assumptions — it’s a perfect example of why “modern” astronomy is in crisis.
In that sense, “modern” astronomy and AGW “science” have much in common.
And, since Dr. Svalgaard states AGW science is “voodoo” science, he should also state that “modern” astronomy is also “voodoo” science.
Of course, Dr. Svalgaard won’t do that because he has no objectivity when it comes to his own field’s shortcomings, in fact Dr. Svalgaard promotes this flawed outlook.
The Vasyliunas paper is not empirical science, but is explicitly a “thought experiment”.
From the paper: “The question in the title of this Letter can thus be answered by means of two thought experiments: at the initial instant assume, in one case an electric field but no plasma bulk flow, in the other a flow but no electric field, and use the equations to determine the subsequent evolution of field and flow in both cases (needless to say, the exact equations must be used and not the MHD approximation).”
Please, if all Dr. Svalgaard can offer is “thought experiments” for his assertion that electric fields and, therefore, electric currents are insignificant, then he has no empirical evidence.
Don’t readers of this website demand empirical observation & measurement for AGW — if so, that should be the same standard for astronomy, too.
Evans (14:49:37) wrote: “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.”
“So, please provide a link.”
So, when challenged to provide a link, Dr. Svalgaard dredges up a “thought experiment” paper devoid of ANY observable & measurable scientific evidence — in other words, Dr. Svalgaard fails to provide any empirical science — which is all too typical of today’s astronomy.
Also, MHD is an approximation. but cutting edge plasma physics acknowledges the MHD approximation is inadequate to explain real world space plasmas.
Perhaps, Dr. Svalgaard needs to present a scientific paper that relies on EMPIRICAL observations & measurements for his assertions, or in the absence of such, should discontinue making unsupported assertions.
Evans (14:49:37) wrote: “Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
False.
“[Synchrotron radiation] occur[s] when you force a relativistic particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
How do you “force” an electron to achieve a velocity near the speed of light?
Answer: Accelerate the electron by channelling the electron through a powerful electric field.
An electric field causes the acceleration of the electron, the magnetic field causes the electron to spiral within the magnetic field.
That’s why synchrotron radiation is evidence of electric fields in space plasma.
Too bad Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t know that — or does he?
To emphasize: The magnetic field causes the relativistic electron to spiral within the magnetic field, but it is an electric field that first causes the electron to accelerate to near speed of light velocity.
Dr. Svalgaard requested: ” So find me another paper [discussing electric fields in space plasma] by somebody else that validates Peratt’s approach.”
Title: Filamentary Structures in Planetary Nebula
Authors: Hanna Dahlgren , Per Carlqvist and Gösta F. Gahm
Peer-reviewed journal: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/848216831k7p4887
Partial abstract: “We propose that the structures are confined by magnetic fields, and derive magnetic field strengths of about 10−8 T, in line with earlier estimates. We also estimate the magnitude of the electric currents that we expect are generated in these dynamic systems.”
Another paper:
Title: Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions as a key to the plasma Universe.
Authors: Fälthammar, C.-G.; Brenning, N.
Perr-reviewed journal: IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 2 – 9
Publication Date: 02/1995
Abstract:
“Almost all known matter in the Universe is in a state, the plasma state, that is rare on Earth, and whose physical properties are still incompletely understood. Its complexity is such that a reliable understanding must build on empirical knowledge. While laboratory experiments are still an important source of such knowledge, the Earth’s magnetosphere-ionosphere system, made accessible by space technology, vastly widens the parameter ranges in which plasma phenomena can be studied. This system contains all three main categories of plasma present in the Universe. Furthermore, the interaction between the magnetosphere and the ionosphere excites a wealth of plasma physical phenomena of fundamental importance. These include, among others, formation of magnetic-field aligned electric fields, acceleration of charged particles, release of magnetically stored energy, formation of filamentary and cellular structures, as well as unexpected chemical separation processes. What has been learned, and what still remains to be learned, from study of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system should therefore provide a much improved basis for understanding of our Universe.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ITPS…23….2F
Of course, Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry also subscribed to this view.
Dr. Svalgaard’s approach is lacking empirical substance and rigor.
And, Dr. Svalgaard’s approach and opinion is emblematic of the crisis of “modern” astronomy, today:
Theoretical instead of empirical — just like AGW proponents.
Hold Dr. Svalgaard and his associates to the same standards you hold AGW proponents.
James F. Evans (11:59:40) :
And, Dr. Svalgaard’s approach and opinion is emblematic of the crisis of “modern” astronomy, today:
I think your ramblings speak for themselves. I pity you your impoverished view of this marvelous universe we live in and the enormous strides we have made the past 20 years.
James F. Evans (11:59:40) This is why Astronomy literally means: “The naming of stars”. Here, inevitably, there is a confrontation between two opposite views of the universe: One of an accountant the second one of a philosopher (ethym: Lover of knowledge).
Correction: Hannes Alfven won the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics not chemistry, my apology.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Hardly “ramblings”.
But when somebody drops down to personal characterizations you know they have lost the argument.
The person who has an “improverished” world-view is one who dismisses empirical observation & measurement and insists in pre-space age theoretical assumptions when the “past 20 years” has seen the plasma model of astrophysical relationships confirmed by in situ satellite and remote full electromagnetic wave spectrum (telescope) observations & measurements, again, and, again.
James F. Evans (13:12:34) :
you know they have lost the argument.
No argument, just a [failed] attempt of education.
No, just a failed attempt at general dismissals.
re: “NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
I really like this graph. Is there an updated version of it somewhere?
James F. Evans (13:31:48) :
No, just a failed attempt at general dismissals.
That too. Pseudo-scientific nonsense has to be dismissed whenever it rears its head. But dismissal without subsequent education is barren, hence my attempts to teach you about our modern view of astronomy, the sun, and the universe.