CEI’s Chris Horner asks WUWT readers for some help in locating “Phil Jones’s Aspirations”
So, I’m leafing through another 1,500 pages of emails dumped on me by NASA in an apparent attempt to forestall litigation we informed them was coming this week after the clock tolls on their requirement to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information Act (it’s complicated, so here’s the gist of what two of the requests were about; the third one is about NASA using taxpayer resources to produce content for and manage the third-party “global warming” activist operation RealClimate, which you will read about soon).
Near the end of the first of three large folders of documents I see a particular email thread between James Hansen and Phil Jones.
In Jones’ final reply at the top of the thread, there is some mildly interesting discussion of e.g., China temperatures, and then, after a little nattering about how those ocean temperature observations seem too cool for their tastes and so clearly the observations are wrong, Jones writes to Hansen, “As I think you might has said earlier, we aren’t doing a great job in measuring surface T[emperatures] in a consistent manner”.
But, before this and in the same email, Jones admits to Hansen, “I hope the Met Office prediction for 2015 in last week’s Science are correct!” [hyperlink to Met Office press release added]
He is referring to the prediction by the Met Office, in Science magazine’s August 10, 2007 issue, of accelerating “global warming” leading to record temperatures, beginning 2009 or so. The article (by Doug Smith et al.) is behind a paywall, but it declared an understanding, courtesy of a new modeling technique, that we will see at least five years claiming “warmest ever” by the year 2015.
It is possible that someone in Jones’ position hopes for record temperatures simply because their enterprise thrives on the global warming panic. But I was reminded of an earlier email of Jones’s, which I thought had made the rounds pre-CRUGate, asserting in response to a challenge that, yes, he does wish/want/need disruptive anthropogenic climate change to be true/real (the precise word choice eludes me), because it will cause society to straighten up and fly right in terms of its policies and lifestyles.
I cannot locate this email, either by web-searching or on the various East Anglia email sites. So, I appeal to readers: who can recall and produce a copy of that earlier Jones email?
I ask because together they do rather support the argument that the global warming alarmists, even if donning the vestments of “science”, remain ideological advocates. They want their Man-as-agent-of-doom theory to be true, they need it to be true. Such evidence would certainly color their claims, and the exposed fudging, lying, withholding and the rest of the nasty little bag of tricks that collectively amount to pushing an agenda. With a line of reasoning that goes do what I want or people die! In the name of “science”.
The irony here is that the same issue of Science published a letter [subscription required] by Robert Gitzen of the University of Missouri, titled “The Dangers of Advocacy in Science”.
Regardless, any help in tracking down this earlier Phil Jones email is appreciated.
I’m no scientist, but will have a look for it.
Couldn’t he simply have hoped the Met office prediction was correct because he was working at the Met office, and didn’t want to have been at least partially responsible for an error?
…Just saying.
email 1120593115
I think this may be the Phil Jones email you are looking for:
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish”
This it?
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
at the end of the e-mail:
This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
1120593115.txt
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
An interesting tidbit from that same e-mail:
Jones:
The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
I remember one EMail where Jones was hoping for unprecedented warming “to prove the science”
I believe that THAT is a direct quote, or damned close anyway.
Thank you.
and this:
For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been sufficiently
robust and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael Mann, the lead author of the studies in question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and reported this very same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also contributing authors to the same chapter. Given the prominence these studies were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we seek to learn more about the facts and circumstances that led to acceptance and prominent use of this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about the data quality of key IPCC studies.
sorry, I didn’t attribute the last quote. The concerns about Mann et al come form Joe Barton, and his committee, not from Jones.
I don’t know if you’ll find the email, but if you are looking to find a conspiracy theory, you came to the right website.
Sorry about the bad paragraph breaks, taking too much time as it is when I ought to be finishing up dinner. Hope it helps.
http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/1120593115.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
:What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we’ve been told we can’t use
any article that hasn’t been submitted by May 31. This date isn’t binding, but
Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft – the one
everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn’t
going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to
have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide
what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won’t
be in this version. It shouldn’t matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep
later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add
in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the
Aug 12 draft. This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
You are looking for email 1120593115 Jones to Christy.
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Humbug
I never get tired of reading these e-mails:
From a few e-mails down, on July 15, from Tom Wigley:
Correlations with the climate model are not the same — but Briffa is again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
How about This and that – 1120593115.txt from Jones to Christy. Look for the word “selfish”.
Hi Anthony ,
Not the email you are looking for but this one is along similar lines.
Phil Jones writes to Tim Johns, Chris Folland, and Doug Smith, regarding temperature predictions:
January 5, 2009: email 1231190304
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met(eorological) Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like—“half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998”!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying “where’s the warming gone”? I know the warming is on the decades scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Here’s a link to the full e-mail.
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=544&s=tag124
It is email 1120593115.txt
Oddly enough, the eastanglia site truncates this email, and does not contain that text.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt
Boris (17:40:41) :
I go to exxonsecrets for my conspiracy theories, though that’s getting a little stale If you want fresh “oil money” conspiracies, RealClimate is pretty good.
Need help?
I’ll do 10 to 15
With WUWT readership, that’s them all read in short order
DaveE.
Boris: your
I don’t know if you’ll find the email, but if you are looking to find a conspiracy theory, you came to the right website.
I know what you mean. But the paranoia is not from where you are hinting at, is it?
From Mann:
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign.
that is definitely tin-foil hat material, isn’t it?
Don’t worry about that, the sun is going out 🙂
Just saw the SOHO image
Moderator:
This image was supposed to be embedded: http://imgur.com/5PGjL.jpg
Or maybe not; it looks like some sort of SOHO glitch.
The stench reaches all the way down here to the Republic of TX. On a cheerier note, be aware that the Catlin retar… um, I mean idiots, are at it again. Trekking for science… or sumthin’ like that.
This time, I gather, it’s to measure (invent, to be precise) a scare about acidifying of the arctic waters due to the unprecedented IN ALL OF HISTORY warming of the oceans. Drat that expanding ice cover this year….
Unfortunately I haven’t the leisure to poke through these files but I offer a word of advice to the army of Davids who will take this up: Pay attention to email thread fragments included in these. As far as possible keep a record of missing emails. It seems to me that the main reason for the delay to the last possible minute was to thoroughly purge these files of the most “problematic” stuff. There are sure to be some nuggets in the 15,000 pages, but I’ll bet the best is purged. It may even be deleted outright. However, if you folks can pin down a few dozen likely targets by sender or source, date and time, it should be possible to (a) reconstruct a chain of correspondence that is only partly purged; and (b) identify candidate mails for more specific FOIA requests that may be harder to refuse, such as (my fabrication) “Request release of email Jones to Hansen, Cc: Briffa, Schmidt et al, containing phrase ‘more stations to drop’, dated 15/07/06, 17:45:23” Let’s see them try to refuse that.
Oh, and reply to “Boris”, above: Nobody here is interested in making up a conspiracy theory. This business is about building a legal case to force these guys to be transparent about their motives and operations. We’re only interested in facts. If you’re looking for conspiracy theories, ad hominem and conviction by innuendo, look no further than RealClimate.
SUN GOES ON SPRING BREAK
This from Layman’s SunSpot site
‘…………..2010/03/08 10:14 Activity has been extremely weak with not a lot to report, which in itself is of supreme interest. Region 1 has to date only been up to speck level with a current reading over the whole region of 14. We are now into our 5th day of zero sunspots with no regions on the horizon to save us…..we could get a very active region tomorrow but the signs are not promising right now. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.3 and a low of 74.5 for yesterday, we are starting to get close to absolute minimum readings. The solar wind is also at rock bottom again……’
.
Boris (17:40:41) :
Yep, conspiracy theories abound, yours is one.
DavE
“Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign.”
WOW. Was going to provide some clever analysis. Decided to go with… WOW.
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences”
I read that about 12 times and I still have the same gut response. This sounds to me like a guy who got commited to his position way too early, has a nagging suspicion that he’s probably wrong but can’t quite admit it to himself, and is desperate that a miracle will happen and he will be saved… even if millions (billions?) of lives are in peril to do it. Selfish indeed.
Is it possible that some of the folks at the center of the controversies might benefit from the catharsis of an apology or two?
“If anything, I would like to see the [anthropomorphic global warming] climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Phil Jones is stating that he wants HIS alleged science to be proved right, he doesn’t seem to care about what is really going on in the Objective Reality of Nature. Is there a bucket I can puke into?
Not only is it selfish it’s a confession that he is a bad scientist with a serious bias. Combine it with his other statements about choosing him and his group being the ones to pick which scientific papers are the important ones and their shenanigans in controlling what scientific papers gets published and you’ll see his bias in action. It’s evidently a highly motivated bias that reveals his criminal intents.
Toss Phil Jones in jail.
“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” – Albert Einstein
john m –
why would the east anglia version be truncated like that? any ideas?
Hi,
this has nothing to do with the subject discussed here, but why does nobody comment te fact that the emissions scenarios (SRES) are based on totally unrealistic fossil fuel reserves ?
This fact is confirmed by the following e-mail
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=112&filename=926947295.txt
“I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. ”
etc etc…
For example the SRES scenarios are based on oil consumption between 11ZJ and 50ZJ (with median scenarios between 17ZJ and 30ZJ, source : SRES hydrocarbon use), when the utlimate ressources of oil are estimated to be 11ZJ (source : eia, aie, bp, …) ?
Cheers
Boris,
Keep pretending that skeptics are all conspiracy wackos. It has really helped you so far, no?
I mean, do anything it takes to avoid actually engaging on the topic. Denial is all that is left to the AGW hardcore, now.
Isn’t this going to call for wooden stakes and like, um, silver ammunition?
.
.
Boris, there would not be a conspiracy if Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Hansen, et. al. where actually honest scientists seeking the facts of the Objective Reality of Nature rather than following their “selfish” driven political agendas. Instead the evidence shows that they are merely alleged scientists who’ll push any rubbish as if it’s true. Rather than seeing that the evidence in the Natural world is falsifying their alleged AGW hypothesis they “hide the decline” and privately admit it’s failed while publicly putting on a false face.
The only reason it’s a conspiracy Boris is that THEY evidently conspired.
Phil Jones wants the world to end.
And he wants to [snip] us all before it happens.
This isn’t the quote you are looking for but there are many, many just like it long before Phil Jones was a blip on the world stage.
>>”No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” [Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998].
>>Canadian Environmental Minister
I know this is a science site and not a political one and with all due respect to Boris, this has always been a political fight and not a scientific one. Debunking the science is interesting and frankly relatively easy compared to the political side of the equation but this will never end until people realize this has never been about science. It’s about money and power.
Boris, someone once said that science was like a sharp tool that scientists play with and like children they sometimes cut themselves. That is just what the the team did while playing around. We now now this. You do too-you just can’t stand the knowledge of that.
Re, Boris (17:40:41),
Hey Boris, be specific… Conspiracies of what?
Know—-please correct
Boris, if you’re looking for conspirators, ask Wigley – it was he who on 25 June 05 used the term “co-conspirators” to describe the Hockey Team.
Jack has it right about Jones wanting the worl to end. I only hope that we can [snip] him before he [snips] us.
hunter (18:52:00) :
Denial is all that is left to the AGW hardcore, now>>
Not so. They’ve got spelling. I was going through a thread on Tamino’s site and there was a whole section calling down WUWT for being full of bad spellers. I mean like tiresome and repetitive and like it somehow proved something. I’m feeling real bad about this because me and spelling don’t get along so good, I had no idea that this was proof of flawed science. I’m really did believe that accurate data, documented procedures, clearly described theory, accurate measurements from relevant experiments and comparison of reults in order to draw realistic conclusions was more important than knowing how to spell anomaly. anomally. anomallie. Rats, whole comment is trash now. You would think after reading 12 comments or so making fun of it I would have remembered the correct spelling.
Repy: Funy ~ ctn
What respect is actually due Boris?
Mark
Sun gazing = watching grass grow. ‘Cept I like watching grass grow. Better than cutting it.
ClimateGate … the gift that keeps on giving.
johnnythelowery (18:11:23) :
SUN GOES ON SPRING BREAK
This from Layman’s SunSpot site […]
This is complete nonsense. The sun is ramping up towards [probably a weak] maximum, but up nevertheless.
Here are TSI, F10.7, and sunspot number
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and here is the solar wind magnetic field [blue] and speed [pink]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Now.png
On the way up there are variations mostly brought about by solar rotation as the peaks and valleys are about 27 days apart.
Anthony, this isn’t the email you were looking for, but by my reading is quite incriminating of Phil Jones:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-awful-email-from-phil-jones.html
In point #4 Phil Jones says his “biggest worry is China. CMA [The Chinese Meteorological Agency] don’t (sic) measure at airports, and they keep moving suburban locations a few more miles out as the cities expand…hope they will…send me their adjusted data (for site moves, but not urban influences). They are doing some reasonable work, but not seeing the big picture…”
As I understand this email, Phil Joneses biggest worry is that China doesn’t have upwardly biased temperature records like many other parts of the world because they don’t measure at airports and keep moving thermometers further out as the cities expand. What a terrible practice that is! And why isn’t Phil interested in the urban influences data? It must be that the Chinese are not seeing the big picture… And what big picture would that be that Phil didn’t want to put in writing in this email?
Someone please tell me I misunderstood and why. And please also explain #1 listed under “other issues” on why NCDC will be increasing global temps from about 2000 onwards. Hansen likes this and says in his reply at top that the NOAA SSTs [sea surface temperatures] seemed just a hair cool to him as well.
If you have Leif’s Sun graphs as a favorite under Bookmarks on your toolbar, it shows up with a smiley face icon. I like the blank Sun in-between lazy sunspot groups. It gives me a chance to soak in and understand what I am seeing. Like watching your lawn wake up from winter sleep. It appears we won’t be “waking up a sleeping giant” (WWII paraphrase from the Pacific Fleet Japanese Admiral), we will just be waking up a slumbering lawn.
Also discovered some interesting things about realclimate.org’s Gavin Schmidt in these emails:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/good-science-gets-its-revenge.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/gavin-schmidts-good-science-part-2.html
Hay! I rezent that remark! My spelling is ackurut to within pluss or minus .5330205e4odne3o4t5u digreze. Addmitudly, it gits better win I drink milk insted ov zinfindell.
I still reckon Jones et al actually believe in all this, that they are not cooking the books per se for a political agenda, so it’s a direct consequence of using the scientific method to deduce outcromes from an imaginative construct that seems to be physically reasonable. I suppose it’s how the social sciences think science is done.
davidmhoffer (19:23:03) : To paraphrase a wise man, “Discerning the placement of a comma, does not account for a scientific coma.”
I believe this was identified some time ago. The truncation appears whenever there is a non-ASCII character in the text. For example, the English pound sign. Whoever created the east anglia site used a script to load the database and that script didn’t process non-ASCII characters correctly.
Nothing sinister about it, though it would have been nice if it had been fixed by now. However, whoever did it did so as a free service, so we can’t complain. The benefits of what they’ve done certainly outweigh small errors such as this one.
The mail in question is in the climategate files.
If you search for it in the online version you wont find the text in question because those files are clipped.
It was a mail from Jones to John Christy.
Horner can just write me.. Also, We discussed this mail in depth on Lucia’s site
Chris, ask Charles for my email
Mr. Horner
Page 63 of our book.
Anthony,
This article came out in Feb. 16 of this year…I know it’s not about Jones but very similiar in its nature…Sir John Houghton made a quote:
“God tries to coax and woo, but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same.”
Yet, particularly noteworthy is this quotation:
“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Unquote!
The article is here at
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1965.post
Sorry, haven’t found what you want on Jones in the “pre-ClimateGate” emails yet!
Ronan (17:17:25) :
Couldn’t he simply have hoped the Met office prediction was correct because he was working at the Met office, and didn’t want to have been at least partially responsible for an error?
…Just saying.
————-
True. People who forecast like to be right, and there is nothing wrong with that.
davidmhoffer (19:23:03) :
Whilst I am a closet spelling nazi – I do it only to correct people. Sometimes people do not speak english as a first language and appreciate corrections. Other times less so. Either way, I would not try and paint a spelling mistake as a marker of intelligence, or sneer at a group of people who make mistakes.
What you see is the sneering, seething side of snobbery and elitism. I’ve been more attuned to this lately, and I realise just how many people I know indulge themselves in this. It’s very popular amongst young people and especially so in academic circles. It’s the worst type of self-delusion there is – that somehow you are a better person because you worry about high scientific, economic and social theories all day, and look down in disgust at those who do not. Putting other people down doesn’t make someone a better person. It takes all types to make a world go round, and each person should be acknowledged for the contribution they make to their community. If everyone had a phd there would be nobody left to clean the floors and pick up the rubbish.
The type of groupthink and elitism going on at realclimate and climateprogress contains the seeds of these websites own downfall. Eventually they will become so exclusive and inward thinking they will become useful to nobody and traffic will fall dramatically – a textbook case of groupthink causing self destruction of the group.
Leif, the sun is presently blank, no sunspots:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
I’m guessing that, after readjusting its magnetic fields, the sun is headed back into a deep minimum.
Some theorize that this is a long-term effect of planetary gravitational forces, discussed in this CERN speech: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
We shall see…we might be grateful for all that extra Siberian methane after all!! Cheers…
I have read the article cited by Chris Horner and found it very infomative: that is, R. A. Gitzen, “The Dangers of Advocacy in Science,” Science, 317, 748 (2007).
In particular, its only one reference (R. Hilborn, Faith-based Fisheries, Fisheries 31, 554 (2006)) tells us about the dangerous condition of scientific papers on fishery.
This no doubt will remind you the miserable situation of IPCC. As a matter of fact, the climate science IPCC shows us now is no more than a “faith-based science.”
John M (17:58:19) : I go to exxonsecrets for my conspiracy theories, though that’s getting a little stale If you want fresh “oil money” conspiracies, RealClimate is pretty good.
The oil money business was also referenced recently by Judith Curry and — oh dear — she was serious. The entire premise is designed to appeal to those who are already predisposed to think that corporations are evil, or at least untrustworthy, which seems to underscore the left/right political dichotomy re the AGW issue (as a rule the right rejects AGW.) Even on the face of it, this type of accusation is utterly absurd.
I found this worrying.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19702
IPCC Science Designed For Propaganda
Bureaucratic Structure
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations. An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems he set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear. The first need was to direct and control the science. It was achieved at the 1985 meeting in Villach Austria chaired by Canadian bureaucrat Gordon McBean with Phil Jones and Tom Wigley from CRU in attendance. The second need was for maximizing the fear factor to force political action.
Notice the date and the names.
Boris (17:40:41) :
I don’t know if you’ll find the email, but if you are looking to find a conspiracy theory, you came to the right website.
There was a lapel button that was pretty popular during the ’60s that read, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”
Today’s version would read, “Just because you’re a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean that there aren’t any conspiracies.”
Pamela Gray (19:57:03) : “Hay! I rezent that remark! My spelling is ackurut to within pluss or minus .5330205e4odne3o4t5u digreze. Addmitudly, it gits better win I drink milk insted ov zinfindell.”
And we won’t even mention NyQuil!
Pamela Gray,
‘Hay! I rezent that remark! My spelling is ackurut to within pluss or minus .5330205e4odne3o4t5u digreze. Addmitudly, it gits better win I drink milk insted ov zinfindell.’
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that is significant.
It isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a conspiracy conjecture. But if we treated it as a hypothesis, where is the falsifying evidence?
A related sentiment was uttered by former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth:
“we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/10/climate-twilight-of-the-gods/
Chris Horner:
I have a post that I put up a few days ago which fits rather well with the questions that you are exploring here:
Phil Jones and the ‘expert judgement’ of the IPCC
It also refers to the significance of Jones’ 1120593115.txt email to Christy, but in this case in the context of predictions about extreme weather events in the AR4 WGI SPM.
I hope that the latest tranche of emails you have received from NASA will be available on the net soon.
davidmhoffer (19:23:03) :
hunter (18:52:00) :
Denial is all that is left to the AGW hardcore, now>>
Not so. They’ve got spelling. I was going through a thread on Tamino’s site and there was a whole section calling down WUWT for being full of bad spellers. I mean like tiresome and repetitive and like it somehow proved something. I’m feeling real bad about this because me and spelling don’t get along so good, I had no idea that this was proof of flawed science. I’m really did believe that accurate data, documented procedures, clearly described theory, accurate measurements from relevant experiments and comparison of reults in order to draw realistic conclusions was more important.
Do you mean like this.
Denny (20:40:04) :
Sir John Houghton made a quote:
“God tries to coax and woo, but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same.” … If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
As I understand it, this quote was not taken from the book as suggested and the author denies ever having said it.
Mike Haseler
You understand incorrectly. Read here.
jeez
“the third one is about NASA using taxpayer resources to produce content for and manage the third-party “global warming” activist operation RealClimate, which you will read about soon”
I am looking forward to this. It’s mildly personal, not scientific, but the snitty moderating and outright rudeness of the moderators annoy the hell out of me.
This is about the consideration of banning fishing (yes, Angling) in US waters and oceans….. note the players. From ESPN site:
‘……”When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored….’
Wow. Banning sport fishing?!
Leif: To be fair to the other site about the sunspots. I injected the title ‘Sun on Spring Break’. They merely reported the absence, though they expect something to happen today, of Sunspots for past 5 days. Not even a fleck.
———————————————————–
Leif Svalgaard (19:28:36) :
johnnythelowery (18:11:23) :
SUN GOES ON SPRING BREAK
This from Layman’s SunSpot site […]
This is complete nonsense. The sun is ramping up towards [probably a weak] maximum, but up nevertheless….[…]
———————————————————–
Leif, the sun is presently blank, no sunspots:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
I’m guessing that, after readjusting its magnetic fields, the sun is headed back into a deep minimum.
Some theorize that this is a long-term effect of planetary gravitational forces, discussed in this CERN speech: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
We shall see…we might be grateful for all that extra Siberian methane after all!! Cheers
————————————————————-
Alright. Really stupid question here: We are having some earthquakes and
the sun has ground to a halt producing sun spots. Related perhaps somehow in some way?
Richard111 (23:29:33) :
1984/5 The miners strike.
margaret thatcher (dennis in reality – his friends were all in nuclear based businesses) decided that unions were evil and the coalminers’ was the biggest, therefore worst and deserving of being broken first.
She is claimed to have said to john houghton, head of the Met office at the time, “Prove that coal changes the climate and there is money on the table”. The rest is history.
He later went on to say “If there was any danger of exaggeration we would play it down” with respect to accusations that the IPCC, on his watch, was alarmist and economical with the truth.
By the by – houghton’s wikipedia page is an object lesson for those who believe the entity to be unbiased. Compared, for example, with Richard Lindzen’s page it is transparently alarmist.
Wave hello to Hakin for me.
johnnythelowery (04:58:32) :
They merely reported the absence
They said more than that, viz.:
“Activity has been extremely weak with not a lot to report, which in itself is of supreme interest.”
That is the give-away. They are trying to imply that we are in a Grand Minimum, which we are not.
We are having some earthquakes and the sun has ground to a halt producing sun spots. Related perhaps somehow in some way?
Show me how. At the time of the Chilean quake, there were spots. And it is simply not true that we just had five days without a sunspot. Officially we had only one day, namely March 6th. This solar minimum there has been 775 days without spots, think of all the earthquakes that should have caused.
Leif: Thank you. Not proposing a link and not suggesting one.
A week in the life of Self Named Climate Scientists before Kyoto 1997
The following email shows how conspiratorial and unethical these people are, they even made up the number of scientists who supported the “cause”
Of course “no one is going to check”.
“The delegates who we want to influence”
From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme Rob.Swart
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to:
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany
Alright. Really stupid question here: We are having some earthquakes and
the sun has ground to a halt producing sun spots. Related perhaps somehow in some way?
—-
First of all, there is no such thing as a stupid question if honestly asked.
I’m not aware of any linkage between solar activity and earthquakes, and suppose it is simply coincidence. Earthquakes are the release of pent-up energy from the collision of tectonic plates along fault lines.
Interesting is that the Chilean earthquake impacted the earth’s revolution on its axis slightly, shortening a day by about 1 millisecond! Maybe this is a new crisis for the AGW crowd to attach to?
Oops, earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun!
Wow, ask and ye shall receive.
This site rocks.
And rocks the boat.
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/25/stunning-admission-uk-scientists-admit-they-make-up-data-for-political-reasons-to-support-church-of-global-warming/ – not a quotation from Jones, different scientist.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (05:46:21) :
“I’m not aware of any linkage between solar activity and earthquakes, ”
If there is no connection why were posters on here predicting more earthquakes over the last month or so?
But the science is proven isnt it? However Mother Nature would appear to be a republican and right now I cant foresee a time when that situation is going to change, especially when there is more ice in the Arctic and as it happens the Antarctic and with snow in Spain today (in March) Mum seems to be intent on making her point “I’m in charge and dont you Phil Jones forget it” this is my toy and I will do with it as I choose.
The hinterland foot soldiers will continue to march because politicians see a way of raising more taxes, its the politicians that need to be confronted not the Phil Jones of the World that is just a diversion, you may have noted that not one single politician in the UK has said OK games up no more wind turbines and until they do then Phil Jones will remain at best a sacrificial lamb of no particular merit, most likely early retired and then they will reconvene and move on, it does appear the George Orwell really did know what he was about and that is worrying.
Its like the young complaining that the old are sucking money out of the economy but they dont appear to have connected with the fact that if there were no old people then 45000 doctors in the UK would be made immediately redundant and big Pharma would never make money again.
We are all sucking from the same straw and long before the warmist predictions could come true if true we will have sucked our last drop of oil so the problem if caused by us will dissipate overnight.
Those wanting to promote the warmist agenda may be good with massaging figures but cant see the wood for the trees, if we keep using energy at the current rate and Co2 is the problem then it can never be any more than alarmist rhetoric, it is no more than the scientific equivalent of a price fixing ring, if it wasnt the climate it would be cement ad how glamorous is that the climate wins every time bring back Enron and Bernie Madoff at least they were really serious about making money out of nothing.
David Wells
Why is it that as soon as a ‘Boris’ says something everyone goes ‘off topic’?
We must be “Bored”.
Now.. let’s get back to ‘social networking’ and the psychology of psyentists who claim proofs for the psyence of AGW.
I contend that Jones, Mann, Pachauri, et al, are merely modern day Don Quixotes, Men of La Mancha (Al Gore is their Sancho Panza). They are on a great quest, dreaming the Impossible Dream, fighting Wind Mills at every turn, and hopelessly in love with they mysterious and enticing Aldonza/Dulcinea.
It’s a ‘generational’ thing. Anyone under 40 probably has no idea about what I’m talking about. The old folks know all too well. Forgive them dear WUWT fans, they know not what they’s doing to us; they’re merely on a great great great quest. Yes, they should all be locked in a deep dark prison celler and left to their own devices. They are ‘too far gone’ to be allowed to wander harmlessly among normal prople.
But, they mean well;-)
How about what Michael Mann wrote to Phil Jones about giving data:
“I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”
source: http://www.tuxwerx.com/Climategate/mail/1076359809.txt
This is very damaging, especially the “we do so at our own peril”. They could be hiding something!
So, let’s assume that this “global warming” game is over. What else or what other idea would replace it?
A C Osborn (06:53:40) :
CRS, Dr.P.H. (05:46:21) :
“I’m not aware of any linkage between solar activity and earthquakes, ”
If there is no connection why were posters on here predicting more earthquakes over the last month or so?
—-
Don’t know, but there is no astrophysical explanation tying solar activity to earthquakes that I’ve ever heard of.
We are seeing the earth’s tectonic plates releasing stored-up energy. Heck, we even had an earthquake near my home in Aurora, Illinois USA a few weeks ago! It happens once in a while in this area.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see another Mt. Pinatubo-scale volcanic eruption occur in the next few years. THAT will slow down all this pesky global warming!
First of all, there is no such thing as a stupid question if honestly asked.
I’m not aware of any linkage between solar activity and earthquakes, and suppose it is simply coincidence. Earthquakes are the release of pent-up energy from the collision of tectonic plates along fault lines.
Interesting is that the Chilean earthquake impacted the earth’s revolution on its axis slightly, shortening a day by about 1 millisecond! Maybe this is a new crisis for the AGW crowd to attach to?
9032010
CRS, Dr.P.H. (05:47:13) :
Oops, earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun!
—————————
Thanks for your gentleness but my questions really do fall within the honest but stupid file. It’s just that the sun and the earth are two are liquids so wondered out loud. And when the sun is being affected by the the gravity of the planets….we’re not talking a ‘real time’ effect but one that builds up over time even Hundred or more years? I float no argument or thesis here but still, if you don’t mind me asking. Thx
I found yesterday the following new argument for scaring the people, while getting the so urgently needed funds to keep on with their current “life style”>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100307/sc_mcclatchy/3444187
CRS, Dr.P.H. (07:51:03) : Do you know what the Ap index is?, well, profound variations in the GMF have something to do with movements in the magma.
See:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
This proves that Prof. Jones doesn’t understand what science is. Replace “science” with “working hypothesis” and his sentiment makes sense.
I heard that the moon has a tidal effect on land, with ‘earth-tide’ heights of around 300mm. So can anyone say what the sun’s earth-tidal effect is?
Having used harmonic drives in servo designs, I can visualise how sun/moon earth- tides could cause a peristaltic rotation of the liquid core. So, has there been a hypothesis that the combination of moon and sun earth-tides are the cause of the inner rotation of the liquid core of the planet, which in turn generates the magnetic field?
(And with regard to earthquakes, these regular moon/sun earth-tides might be beneficially keeping the tectonic plates in motion, and so stopping them from sticking together for too long and thus causing really massive movements.)
CRS, Dr.P.H. (07:51:03) : Also, the recent Chilean 8.8 richter earthquake, pobably related to a 370% decrease in the local magnetic field:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC13.htm
It shows that even if advocacy is OK,
what they want is lifestyle change,
they’re not interested in preventing global warming.
Still, we already knew this, because geo-engineering is so frowned upon.
Basically they want people to be a bit less consumerist, a bit more soft and huggable — PLEASE GO JOIN AN ASCETIC RELIGION.
Global cooling could just as easily fit their need for a big frightening consequence to force people to be better. Religion used to do this with threats of imaginary damnation. Now we make it “scientific” because that’s what people are willing to believe blindly in the modern age.
Davidmhoffer….. “bad spelling”
Dont worry about bad spelling… Thomas Jefferson and all the founding fathers couldn’t spell either. As for scientists ( I am one), I don’t really trust the ones that can spell real good! It means they spent too much time in lit. class when they could have been in science class.
Step right up, Boys! The paymaster is through the next door! We’ll ALL be able to retire in luxury, somewhere on the Mexican coast and live like. . . well like oil barons!
I just don’t know where I am going to spend my gazillions.
You don’t think we’ll run into Phil Jones or Mann or Hansen at Gstaadt or Monte Carlo or Cortina, do you? God, I’d hate that. It would be so embarrassing. . .
supercritical (08:43:41) :
I heard that the moon has a tidal effect on land, with ‘earth-tide’ heights of around 300mm. So can anyone say what the sun’s earth-tidal effect is?
Having used harmonic drives in servo designs, I can visualise how sun/moon earth- tides could cause a peristaltic rotation of the liquid core.>>
Here’s a link that does a pretty good job of explaining how the earth\d magnetic field is mosty likely generated. The article is pretty old so research had been done since then, but the explanation is clear and the guy answers his email.
http://mb-soft.com/public/tecto2.html
You need Leif or someone to answer the earth tide on sun question, but I would think it small. Gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. So the moon raises a tide because the diameter of the earth is significant in comparison to the radius of the moon’s orbit and the result is water on the far side gets less force than water on the near side. Diameter of Sun (going from memory here) being about 1.5 million km and radius of earth orbit being 150 million km one would arrive at a small…but possibly interesting number.
Henry Galt (05:14:15)
I can sympathise with Margaret Thatcher’s actions for the time.
I very much doubt she foresaw the present situation.
My earlier post was to show that Phil Jones of CRU was very much
at the heart of things back then. The report linked below will
show Phil Jones could have had high level access to important
people in China through his contact with Maurice Strong.
Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future!
By Henry Lamb
January, 1997
….
Shortly after his selection as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan told the Lehrer News Hour that Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, co-chairs of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, would be among those asked to help him reform the sprawling, world-wide U.N. bureaucracy. His first choice, however, announced in the Washington Post on January 17, 1997, was none other than Maurice Strong, also a member of the Commission on Global Governance.
My emphasis. I am curious about the Commission on Global Governance.
Oh, as Hakin is just across the harbour from me, I waved. 🙂
supercritical (08:43:41) :
I heard that the moon has a tidal effect on land, with ‘earth-tide’ heights of around 300mm. So can anyone say what the sun’s earth-tidal effect is?
About a third of the Moon’s, so 100 mm.
davidmhoffer,
“Gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.”
True, but the strength of tidal gravity is slightly more complicated. Tidal gravitational force is proportional to MR/d^3 where M is the mass of the source of the tidal force, R is the size of the body being influenced and d is the separation between the 2 bodies. As the d between the earth and moon is about 360 times less than that between earth and the sun, the sun’s tidal force has a smaller effect even though the sun’s mass is 3 * 10^9 times that of the moon.
supercritical (08:43:41) :
I heard that the moon has a tidal effect on land, with ‘earth-tide’ heights of around 300mm. So can anyone say what the sun’s earth-tidal effect is?
It is just a little bit less. You can calculate the difference for your area by looking up the tidal range for the largest high tide (when sun and moon pull together) compared with the lowest high-tide (when the sun and moon pull at right-angles).
That effect is what makes the spring and neap tides.
pat (18:47:25) :” john m –
why would the east anglia version be truncated like that? any ideas?”
I noticed a different email on the east anglia emails website [sorry, did not note which email] where the juiciest bits were edited out . From that point, I used my own copy of FOI2009.zip.
‘Syzygy’ is the term for the lining up of the sun, the moon and the earth, which means that the gravitation ‘pull’ of both the sun and the moon are ‘in phase’.
The greatest storm on the North Jersey Coast that I have ever witnessed occurred in December of 1992, at a moment of syzygy. The fabled (well, among a certain set of men) Ocean Grove fishing pier was brought down, the Borough of Sea Bright, set precariously between the bay and the sea was evacuated, and winds were clocked in gusts to Cat 2 hurricane force.
I was on the last train to make it over the bridge from Perth to South Amboy. Waves from Raritan were lapping the roadbed. Pleasure boats from Morgan marina were marooned on the Garden State Parkway.
Syzygy surely contributed to the effects of the storm surge.
Needless to say, this weather weenie was in ecstacy!
CRS, Dr.P.H. (21:25:49) :
Some theorize that this is a long-term effect of planetary gravitational forces, discussed in this CERN speech:
This is an interesting topic. And I wish it would be discussed at this blog more. But apparently there is a certain person who posts and comments here that doesn’t like this topic. So Anthony Watts has said it shouldn’t be discussd here.
I think Lucy Skywalker discusses it at her blog.
There still appears to be no search engine that is capable of searching the leaked emails perfectly. The Neutralpedia search is best except for special characters.
The search functions in http://www.eastangliaemails.com and http://www.climate-gate.org do not find exact phrases that are split between two lines. For example search for the phrase “role in Australias continuing drought” that is contained in email 1120593115.txt and it will not be found at those two sites but is found OK at Neutralpedia here:
http://neutralpedia.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=role+in+Australias+continuing+drought&fulltext=Search
However, special characters are not handled very well.
The phrase “very very naïve” is found OK at.climate-gate.org but is not found at Neutralpedia because of the special character in “naïve”. It’s not found at eastangliaemails either because the rest of the email is trucated from the point of the special character “ï” ( hope it’s visible here!).
I went looking and found one that did both of those searches successfully.
It may be worth a look:
o3find – Full Text Search Utility for StarOffice and OpenOffice.org
I installed from the link that read:
Download o3find WinGUI (Self-installer, 144 KB)
I just tried several searches, and it seemed to work fine.
Good luck.
Feet2theFire (16:47:16)
Your search utilty presumably searches files that are already on your computer, which is fine for those of us who have the leaked emails already. The search sites I mentioned have their own copy of the emails.
I can use the Windows Find option to search my copy of the emails for any single word (or phrase within a single line). To search all of the emails takes around one second. Just the thing for searching for all the rude words you can think of!
Of course a fully-featured search would be better.
@ jaymam (18:21:47) –
Actually, Windows Search does not do a good job searching the email on my PC. The .txt files are broken up (at least in my unzipped files) with pieces of lines and 3 to 5 extraneous spaces, which screw up my searches. It does not find many text strings.
This O3Find tool seems to have that beat.
As to it only looking on my PC, sorry, that is what I thought you were doing. The files only take up 198 Mb on my hard drive (it is compressed), so I assumed you had them. My bad.
Well, I can say that if you download them, this text search tool is better than Windows Search (so far).
Feet2theFire (18:40:58)
Well of course I have downloaded the emails. May I suggest that anybody who has not done that and read many of them is unqualified to discuss Climategate at all anywhere.
I am agreeing with you that for searching your own machine almost anything is better than the Windows Find (as it’s called with my version of Windows). For single words it’s OK and very quick.
The original request and other posters have referred to web-based searches e.g. “I cannot locate this email, either by web-searching or on the various East Anglia email sites.”
Jaymam –
I can’t disagree with you about non-downloaders not being qualified to comment anywhere, any time.
So, is that what this post is about? I had assumed Chris Horner had them, and that threw me off, evidently. Why is he, who has posting rights here, not searching his own downloaded emails? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer…)
Yes, it is Windows Find. Actually these emails are the first files I’ve knowingly failed to find text in files, using Find.
The O3Find seems a good one, and is freeware. It seems a bit slow, but that isn’t bad, if it is good. I’ll use it a while.
Thanks for the feedback.
Regarding the Solar/Earthquake connection question. There is a site, Jupitersdance, which proposes such a thing …
‘…..Research shows that large earthquakes occur at low sunspot frequencies. A sample of global earthquakes greater than Magnitude 6 for the period 1973-2005 (USGS) compared to smoothed monthly sunspot figures (SIDC) show that 71% of earthquake energy is released and 59% of earthquake events occur at lower than average sunspot activity….’
hmmmmmmmmmmm. I’ll wait for comments….if any one comes back to this thread.
Leif Svalgaard,
Someone has raised the specter of planetary gravitational interaction with solar activity again, and I’ve been waiting for that opportunity to discuss General Relativity effects again, a time when you were present.
I got the impression that GR quadrature and spin coupling effects weren’t registering because you will still looking for a “torque arm”. Torques are expected in GR. I thought this paper might show what standard accepted fare they are and how they are calculated:
“Gravity Gradient Gyroscope Drifts in the NASA Relativity Mission/Gravity Probe B Experiment” Kasdin and Gauthier
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/papers/KasdinJ_1996_58.pdf
There are gravitational torques even in Newtonian gravity that are responsible for tidal locking of bodies. All the quadrature and spin coupling papers indicate that GR adds something when extended bodies are involved. I want to share an insight for another source of GR related torque. One big change in GR over Newtonian gravitation is that gravity travels at the speed of light (or slower do we really know?). One implication of this for say Jupiter interacting with an extended body like the Sun which is over 4.5 light-seconds in diameter is that the gravitational acceleration vectors for different parts of the Sun will be “seeing” Jupiter at different points in time and thus different positions in its orbit. These may seem small, but they are torques. With frame dragging and other effects GR is more complicated than this, but recall that previously we had discussed how GR quadrature effects, like tides, were proportional to the inverse of the distance cubed.
Links to our previous discussions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/04/nasa-goddard-study-suggests-solar-variation-plays-a-role-in-our-current-climate/#comment-141628
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/solar-cycle-24-lack-of-sunspots-caused-by-sluggish-solar-jet-stream-returning-soon/#comment-146221
On an orthogonal note, when looking at the papers which cited J. Shirley’s spin orbit coupling paper (Newtonian only), I found this paper, which argues that an iron or neutron supernova core is inside the Sun and gravitational changes in its position may be responsible for solar cycles and climate change:
“Fingerprints of a Local Supernova” Oliver Manuel and Hilton Ratcliffe
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0684.pdf
I had never heard this theory before. They tie a lot of mainly nuclear facts together. Has this theory gained any acceptance?
regards
africangenesis (09:11:23) :
These may seem small, but they are torques. With frame dragging and other effects GR is more complicated than this, but recall that previously we had discussed how GR quadrature effects, like tides, were proportional to the inverse of the distance cubed.
The third power is what kills all these theories. The tidal torques are definitively there [nobody doubts that] but are just too small to have any effect [incl. GR]
“Fingerprints of a Local Supernova” Oliver Manuel
I had never heard this theory before. They tie a lot of mainly nuclear facts together. Has this theory gained any acceptance?
No, for many reasons. The predicted neutrino flux is wrong [we have compelling observations now of what the real flux is], the internal structure is wrong [we have compelling helioseismological data for that], the luminosity of the Sun depends on the opacity of the matter in the interior and that is compatible with the ‘hydrogen ball’, if the sun had condensed on a supernova remnant then one would assume that all stars would and that would require many more supernovae than the observed rate justifies and also raises the question of how the star that went supernova formed [on another supernova? leading to infinite regression], etc, etc.
Now, Oliver and company maintain that NASA and every other agency and all astronomers are involved in a giant conspiracy to keep the truth [Oliver’s ideas] from coming out. The truth is, of course, that nobody cares about his theory and therefore has no reason for covering anything up.
africangenesis (09:11:23) :
“Fingerprints of a Local Supernova”
Purveyors of pseudo-science always sprinkle in some half-truths that mask the nonsense a bit. And there is little doubt that a ‘nearby’ supernova was involved in the formation of the solar system. Supernova expel material at great speed which tends to compact the interstellar medium. Such compaction serves as genesis for gravitational collapse: gravity tends to concentrate an excess of mass even more and the blob attracts more stuff, etc. Aluminium 26 [half-life ~1 million years] is produced in supernova explosions and decay to Magnesium 26 which is found in meteorites, so that is another clue that a supernova was involved, but a supernova that exploded many light-years away. So, there probably WAS a ‘local’ supernova, but not THAT local that is was co-located with the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (10:11:46) ,
I don’t think the torques from GR can be dismissed so easily. With GR there is a “lever arm” with extended bodies, spin and quadrature. Shirley’s assumption that “free fall” meant that torque wasn’t possible was Newtonian, in this case wrong, not just lacking in precision. There are multiple examples in physics of phase locking between oscillators achieved with interactions orders of magnitude smaller than thought possibly relevant. Phase locking and pumping of a characteristic oscillation of the solar dynamo if naturally close to Jupiter’s orbital period can’t be dismissed without performing the calculations and solar dynamo models probably aren’t accurate enough yet. I suspect a phase locking hypothesis can be tested with a Newtonian gravity modified by propagation at the speed of light rather than a full GR.
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses. I don’t think we need to settle on coincidence as an explanation yet.
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
I don’t think the torques from GR can be dismissed so easily. With GR there is a “lever arm” with extended bodies, spin and quadrature.
The Sun is rotating [some 175 times in a ‘Jupiter Year] so the torque is very evenly distributed. A parcel in the Sun feels Jupiter’s gravity twice every 13 days, as the Bay of Fundy feels that of the Moon every 12.4 hours. The Sun is in free fall in both Newtonian and General Relativity. The issues are the ‘tidal effects’ and they are minuscule in both Newtonian and General Relativity, because GR is very close to NR at the distance of Jupiter. People have looked into that. If you think otherwise, spare me doing it and enlighten us about the magnitude.
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses
The biggest problem [apart from the smallness of the forces] with the non-magnetic mechanisms is that they fail to account for a first-order effect, namely the change of magnetic polarity between cycles. This was the main reason astronomers dumped the planetary explanation [which held sway for about 70 years, 1855-1925] as soon as the Hale polarity laws were discovered. Here is a good historical exposition: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
””””’Leif Svalgaard (18:51:09) :
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses
The biggest problem [apart from the smallness of the forces] with the non-magnetic mechanisms is that they fail to account for a first-order effect, namely the change of magnetic polarity between cycles. This was the main reason astronomers dumped the planetary explanation [which held sway for about 70 years, 1855-1925] as soon as the Hale polarity laws were discovered. Here is a good historical exposition: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf ””””’
Leif,
Scanned through the ‘Rise-and-Fall’.
Leif,
Let’s try this again : ), I was attacked by keyboard gremlins.
””””’Leif Svalgaard (18:51:09) :
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses
The biggest problem [apart from the smallness of the forces] with the non-magnetic mechanisms is that they fail to account for a first-order effect, namely the change of magnetic polarity between cycles. This was the main reason astronomers dumped the planetary explanation [which held sway for about 70 years, 1855-1925] as soon as the Hale polarity laws were discovered. Here is a good historical exposition: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf ””””’
Leif,
Scanned through the ‘Rise-and-Fall’.
I am starting to have an historical understanding of theories of planetary influence on the sun. The theories had major play time in the 1800s, before Hale & company work on solar magnetism made the planetary theory no longer feasible.
I can imagine, even today, that not all the planetary theorists have given up on explaining the sun’s behavior.
Could the current solar system barycentric theorists (that occasionally comment here on WUWT) be an historical continuation with a modern variation of the 19th century planetary theorists? That is, instead of saying the planets cause sunspot cycles as they did in the 19th century, the planetary theorists are perhaps now maintaining in the 21st century that planets cause the magnetic cycle/variation which in turn causes the sunspot cycle.
It is conceivable to me that until the sun is totally understood, there will be the possibility of the planetary theorists being able to hold open the door to the possibility of participating in the discussion of the sun.
The history of science is as interesting as the history of philosophy and cannot be entirely independent of it. I can see that understanding scientific history, gives some perspective of where people are coming from. Perhaps it explains the barycentrists is some aspects. They could harbor the of another Rise.
Anthony, sorry to bring up the “b” word, but I just did it in context of the 18th century planetary theorists on sunspot cycle.
John
John Whitman (23:15:01) :
Scanned through the ‘Rise-and-Fall’.
And? It makes good reading too 🙂
Thanks Leif, thanks Africangenesis. Interesting stuff. Oliver got booted off WUWT permanently(so far) so you won’t be hearing any rebuts from him here.
Is Oliver alone in his theory?
Where are we on this issue with the Sun/earthquake?
Question for Leif: Any reservations about the LHC and the energy with which they will create ‘conditions close to the Bigbang’. Thx Johnnny
johnnythelowery (06:44:58) :
Is Oliver alone in his theory?
No, there are lots of nuts on the internet that find his stuff interesting. No scientist I know gives it any credence.
Where are we on this issue with the Sun/earthquake?
Nowhere.
Question for Leif: Any reservations about the LHC and the energy with which they will create ‘conditions close to the Bigbang’.
No, while the LHC will create the most energetic collisions ever seen on Earth, cosmic rays at these and even higher energies have been bombarding our and other planets for billions of years without mishap.
John Whitman (23:57:55) :
Could the current solar system barycentric theorists (that occasionally comment here on WUWT) be an historical continuation with a modern variation of the 19th century planetary theorists?
At least the 19th century scientists knew their physics. The modern variants do not. And the sticking point is still the same: no explanation for the polarity change. To save the ‘theory’, some modern versions argue that the usual dynamo creates the magnetic/sunspot cycle and the planets just modulate the amplitude of that, violating Occam’s razor of not introducing extraneous theories where fewer will do. Sometimes a correlation can be so good and so strong that it is compelling enough to override ‘scientific’ objections [e.g. that the Sun is responsible for geomagnetic activity], but the problem here is that the correlations are not good [in spite of unsupported claims to the contrary]. There are enough posts on this already so it is doubtful that new light can be shed on this.
Thanks Leif, thanks Africangenesis. Interesting stuff. [snip]
Where are we on this issue with the Sun/earthquake?
Question for Leif: Any reservations about the LHC and the energy with which they will create ‘conditions close to the Bigbang’.
I looked at the results P.A. Semi documented in “Orbital resonance and Solar cycles” and he didn’t find any missing angular momentum either. So I thought I would compare the angular momentum of Jupiter with a calculation based on 2% of the Sun’s mass at a radius of 2 light-seconds and a change in velocity of 5 meters per second. The ratio to Jupiter’s angular momentum was 6.2E-06.
The question becomes how accurately do we know the masses, distances and velocities in the Solar system? Do we have measurements covering the extremes so we can rule out a change in angular momentum might have been transferred to the Sun? Could a mass smaller than 2% of the Sun be significant, if the dynamic processes concentrated any transferred angular momentum in say the jet streams? If we have accuracies in the range of E-06 and aren’t missing angular momentum things aren’t looking good for these theories, but they can’t be ruled out yet. If we are already at E-09 or E-08 in the observations for calculating angular momentum then the theories aren’t tenable.
It is hard to hypothesis an internal mechanism for longer term periodic solar variation, there must be external drivers, mustn’t there?
africangenesis (10:51:30) :
The question becomes how accurately do we know the masses, distances and velocities in the Solar system?
We know these things extremely well as we need them for [and get them from] spacecraft moving around in the solar system. For example the average distance to the Sun [more accurately the Astronomical Unit] is 149,597,870.691 km and is increasing 0.00001 km per year [the Sun is losing mass].
It is hard to hypothesis an internal mechanism for longer term periodic solar variation, there must be external drivers, mustn’t there?
No, lots a stars pulsate and change their brightness and activity level by large amounts, e.g. the Cepheids. I steal a bit from a website on those:
“The accepted explanation for the pulsation of Cepheids is called the Eddington valve,[10] or κ-mechanism, where the Greek letter κ (kappa) denotes gas opacity.
Helium is the gas thought to be most active in the process. Doubly-ionized helium (helium whose atoms are missing two electrons) is more opaque than singly-ionized helium. The more helium is heated, the more ionized it becomes.
At the dimmest part of a Cepheid’s cycle, the ionized gas in the outer layers of the star is opaque, and so is heated by the star’s radiation, and due to the increased temperature, begins to expand. As it expands, it cools, and so becomes less ionized and therefore more transparent, allowing the radiation to escape. Then the expansion stops, and reverses due to the star’s gravitational attraction. The process then repeats.”
university social networking (09:58:41) :
See reply up thread at
Leif Svalgaard (07:08:40) :
to johnnythelowery (06:44:58) :
Leif. You have to be gentle with us in the gallery and you have. You have to imagine what it’s like for us without the horsepower to understand the arguments. I rely on you to tell it how it is and then Oliver says it’s different. Up until about a week ago, I was unaware of that there were physicists that doubted the SSM. Which is similar to my AGW experience. When I read in a British paper the firestorm over a program on CH4 there called ‘the great global warming swindle’…i was unaware there was any dissenting issue against AGW by anyone competent. Watching that program on Youtube here in the US was like someone opened the curtains on a sunny morning. AGW has erroded this avg joe’s confidence in ‘concensus’ when applied to things Science. Not that I believe every idea is valid. There is still some Dr. in Calif. who thinks that HIV is not caused by Aids. so, the ‘Concensus’ has a role. The AGW’s overweening authority (and the Catholic Church) has taught me not to go with the concensus for going with the concensus sake. I’m very thankfull someone of your quality
even answers my questions. I suppose I’m saying to be kind to the Oliver’s of the world which is not the same as the AGW proponents which is a scam. I don’t think doubts of the SSM is driven by scam leanings -power, cash, relevancy, fame.
Anyway….back to the Solar issue (there is a novel coming out called ‘Solar’ BTW
by a Brit author)
Does this article from sciencedaily say anything to this discussion.
‘……Thanks to a serendipitous discovery by Tel Aviv University’s Prof. Colin Price, head of TAU’s Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science, and his graduate student Yuval Reuveni, science now has a more definitive and reliable tool for measuring the Sun’s rotation when Sunspots aren’t visible — and even when they are. The research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research — Space Physics, could have important implications for understanding the interactions between the Sun and Earth. Best of all, it’s based on observations of common, garden-variety lightning strikes here on Earth.
Waxing and waning, every 27 days
Using Very Low Frequency (VLF) wire antennas that resemble clotheslines, Prof. Price and his team monitored distant lightning strikes from a field station in Israel’s Negev Desert. Observing lightning signals from Africa, they noticed a strange phenomenon in the lightning strike data — a phenomenon that slowly appeared and disappeared every 27 days, the length of a single full rotation of the Sun.
“Even though Africa is thousands of miles from Israel, lightning signals there bounce off Earth’s ionosphere — the envelope surrounding Earth — as they move from Africa to Israel,” Prof. Price explains. “We noticed that this bouncing was modulated by the Sun, changing throughout its 27-day cycle. The variability of the lightning activity occurring in sync with the Sun’s rotation suggested that the Sun somehow regulates the lightning pattern.”
He describes it as akin to hearing music or voices from across a lake: depending on the humidity, temperature and wind, sometimes they’re crystal clear and sometimes they’re inaudible. He discovered a similar anomaly in the lightning data due to the changes in Earth’s ionosphere — signals waxed and waned on a 27-day cycle. Prof. Price was able to show that this variability in the data was not due to changes in the lightning activity itself, but to changes in Earth’s ionosphere, suspiciously in tandem with the Sun’s rotation.
Taking the pulse of the Sun
The discovery describes a phenomenon not clearly understood by scientists. Prof. Price, an acclaimed climate change scientist, believes it may help scientists formulate new questions about the Sun’s effect on our climate. “This is such a basic parameter and not much is known about it,” says Prof. Price. “We know that Earth rotates once every 24 hours, and the moon once every 27.3 days. But we haven’t been able to precisely measure the rotation rate of the Sun, which is a ball of gas rather than a solid object; 27 days is only an approximation. Our findings provide a more accurate way of knowing the real rotation rate, and how it changes over time………..”
Thanks…. Johhnnnnny
johnnythelowery (13:57:01) :
Does this have any bearing on this issue. I’m sure you read it but if not…..
‘Thanks to a serendipitous discovery by Tel Aviv University’s Prof. Colin Price, head of TAU’s Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science, and his graduate student Yuval Reuveni, science now has a more definitive and reliable tool for measuring the Sun’s rotation when Sunspots aren’t visible
We have been able to do that with precision for a hundred years. Here is a paper I co-wrote 30 years ago on our measurements at Stanford: http://www.leif.org/research/Rotation%20of%20the%20Sun.pdf
Leif: Lastly, why is this so and does this interfere with your inquiries into the Solar/Earth/planetx effects such as whether there is a connection between the sun, a planet, and earthquakes ?
‘……….”That’s partly because physicists can handle two-body problems quite well and many-body problems fairly well, but when there are just a few objects, like the three bodies in these Efimov trimers, there are just too many variables.” As Hulet points out, there is still no general mathematical solution for the most classic of all “three-body” problems — the sun-Earth-moon problem. “You can do a numerical calculation, of course,” he said. “You can calculate to arbitrary precision what the sun, Earth and moon are doing relative to one another at any given time, but you cannot write out a formula for that on paper. There is no general solution for that or any other three-body problem……….”
Anthony: Any way you could delete ‘johnnythelowery (13:57:01) :’ posting from me. I got my laptop out of synch with it showing up at WUWT i thought it didn’t take or I didn’t send it. Cheers! Have another weekend off!
johnnythelowery (13:23:10) :
Leif. You have to be gentle with us in the gallery and you have. You have to imagine what it’s like for us without the horsepower to understand the arguments
Gentleness is my middle name 🙂
On the other hand I do not suffer fools gladly, and when people don’t want to learn I turn a bit crass.
I spend a lot of time explaining in terms as simple as I can make them how things work. On some things I qualify as a real expert. On other things I rely on my very reliable bullshit detector. On some things I don’t comment because I don’t know much about them, but I may try to get people to explain. If they can’t, the detector kicks in.
So, if you have questions, I’ll do my utmost to answer them as fully as I can. This kind of ‘outreach’ is an important part of modern science. You will find many eminent scientists that make a real effort of this [you will also find people that peddle junk-science, sadly more of the latter than of the former].
johnnythelowery (14:10:00) :
“You can calculate to arbitrary precision what the sun, Earth and moon are doing relative to one another at any given time, but you cannot write out a formula for that on paper. There is no general solution for that or any other three-body problem……….”
We don’t need a ‘general solution’ for this. Our numerical calculations are precise enough and with modern computers not a real problem anymore.
leif: I take it that the rotation of the sun in it’s ‘gas ball’ constitution would be the same even if it was a (theoretically) ‘iron sun’.
See that in your findings. Is the idea that the sun is causing lightning in Africa instep with the rotation of the sun interesting?
johnnythelowery (14:38:58) :
leif: I take it that the rotation of the sun in it’s ‘gas ball’ constitution would be the same even if it was a (theoretically) ‘iron sun’.
The iron sun is nonsense. The rotation would not be the same. The iron sun would rotate as a solid body if it were rigid. But, better get away from that avenue, it leads nowhere,
See that in your findings. Is the idea that the sun is causing lightning in Africa instep with the rotation of the sun interesting?
The Sun has a great influence on the ionosphere 100-300 km up and as the sun rotates and turns more or less active sides towards us, this influence will vary. The ionosphere is electrically connected [weakly] to the electric field near the surface and thus is connected with thunderstorm activity, so no surprise [has been known for a long time]. Trying to use lightning to measure the sun’s rotation is sort of round-about, when you can just look at the sun.
Solar Commenters,
I find these solar comment streams to be the most enjoyable.
It is pleasant to see that they are likely to pop up in the most unlikely of threads.
Thanks Anthony and moderator team. This is literally the stuff of the (intellectual) universe.
John
Leif: Thanks ever so. I’m humbled. I still don’t understand why
“You can calculate to arbitrary precision what the sun, Earth and moon are doing relative to one another at any given time, but you cannot write out a formula for that on paper. There is no general solution for that or any other three-body problem……….”
Okay on the ‘not a problem’ and that we can ‘run a calculation’ but……but……why is there ‘no general solution’ . What does that mean in this context? What is it about a three body ‘formula’. For all we can do with math… it seems like it would be a trivial mathematical problem?
John whitman:
I hope you are not taking the pee. I have 100,000 questions but why would anyone answer me? But the internet & blogs, with gracious people on here, is a dream come true. I could do a Ph.d dissertation and get it back stamped “Bolox” before bedtime!! By Lief no less!!! so getting feedback so quick…it’s a new day!! It’s fantastic. It’s a new world. But this solar thing is center stage for me at the mo’ as the AGW is in the bag more or less. I know very little about either. But the Solar thing, with the LHC, the Superstring Vs. E8, Higgs or not, the SSM vs. ?, the Sun doing it’s minimum/maximum, Earthquakes cracking off, SDO, SOHO….. has suddenly gone very sexy!
Leif:
…………..johnnythelowery (14:38:58) :
leif: I take it that the rotation of the sun in it’s ‘gas ball’ constitution would be the same even if it was a (theoretically) ‘iron sun’?
———————————————
The iron sun is nonsense. The rotation would not be the same. The iron sun would rotate as a solid body if it were rigid. But, better get away from that avenue, it leads nowhere
—————————————
As the rotation issue shows, the theory of the Iron sun is false just by the rotation issue alone. It’s pretty low hanging fruit this rotation comparison so I struggle to understand how some one as competent(to understand the situation) as Oliver, would continue in his idea? I absolutely don’t want you to go off on Oliver but i’m trying to gauge what the deal is. Why physics is like this? and how much is physics like the AGW?
Leif: ….there is one other force you have left out of your considerations, and as I am wholy unqualified to even be talking about anything really here on WUWT I can float this puppy without the slightest endeared feelings for it, and that is entanglement? over what distances can particles(?) be entangled? What is the medium facilitating entanglement? Could a portion of the matter in the earth be entangled with portions of other bodies….and hence be entwined in a unseeable web. Complete bolox I know….but…… Thx Johnnny
johnnythelowery (20:43:07) :
why is there ‘no general solution’ . What does that mean in this context? What is it about a three body ‘formula’. For all we can do with math… it seems like it would be a trivial mathematical problem?
We know precisely how to calculate all of this to as many decimals you would like, so the problem is solved: to get from A to B we divide the distance [or the time] into small pieces and calculate piece for piece how to move.. A ‘general’ solution [or as it is often called a ‘closed’ solution] works differently, you do not need to go in little steps, you just plug in the end point and the formula tells you how to get there [or how long it would take or something similar]. So, the difference is that a general solution gets you there without having the calculate the intermediate steps. In practice it doesn’t matter because our computers are so fast.
Why physics is like this? and how much is physics like the AGW?
Oliver’s problem is a different one: he thinks there is a worldwide conspiracy trying to keep ‘his’ truth from becoming known. Once your are on that path, science takes a backseat to the anger over the conspiracy and the ‘filth’ as he calls it, and that clouds his thinking. Example: he predicts a certain neutrino flux. We ‘observe’ something quite different which invalidates his theory. I put ‘observe’ in quotes because Oliver believes that the data has been cooked to hide the truth, and that the observations are bogus. So much for that.
Now, physics is extremely ‘hard-nosed’, and physicists want things shown before they believe anything. We are quite willing to entertain ‘far-out’ and ‘weird’ ideas as long as there is a chance that they can be shown to ‘work’ [and that is the operative word – not if ideas are true, but if they work], and to drop them quickly when they don’t work. It is only by thinking out of the box that progress is made, but it is only progress if it still embraces what used to work or works better, so thinking out of the box is normally still rooted in what is possible and what does not contradict observations.
johnnythelowery (20:57:59) :
But the Solar thing […] has suddenly gone very sexy!
A friend of mine claimed it is better than sex. But, hey when you are 87…
johnnythelowery (21:27:45) :
there is one other force you have left out of your considerations, […] and that is entanglement?
Entanglement os not a force. And there is no distance limit to entanglement, but entanglement is very easily disturbed, especially in our chaotic universe, so is extremely unstable.
As I said physicists are VERY skeptical and they always demand: “show me”, and nobody has ever shown any significant effects of entanglement on a macroscopic scale.
johnnythelowery (20:57:59) : to John whitman:
””””””I hope you are not taking the pee. I have 100,000 questions but why would anyone answer me? But the internet & blogs, with gracious people on here, is a dream come true. I could do a Ph.d dissertation and get it back stamped “Bolox” before bedtime!! By Lief no less!!! ””””’
Johnnythelowery,
These comment streams on solar are precious. But, I am not downplaying the great earthly realm stuff with Anthony, Spencer, Christy, Willis, Lansner, Goddard, Horner, “chiefio“, Pielke(s), M & M, etc, etc
I try to express my appreciation often and in simple ways.
John
Leif: Much thanks for answering my (idle) musings. This stuff is definately sexy! And, to placate my wife if were to wonder onto this thread: Physics is a she darling! Much Thx………………….. JOhnnny
John Whitman: No problem. I didn’t think you were.
[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg[/img]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs7t475ZVXQ]
Anu (16:50:14),
You’re coming around. Here’s a small debate between Christy and Schmidt: